Flat Earth

[notbatman]

@odolvlobo,

   When the globe claims we're riding a 1,000 MPH (rim speed) flywheel that has a diameter of 8,000 miles, I call that weak because I know that the shear forces involved would cause an instant explosion to happen.

When the globe claims a pressure gradient (air) exists next to a vacuum without a container, I call that weak because I know it's a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

When the globe claims we're travelling at 66,600 MPH while spinning 1,000 MPH, I call that weak because I've been on a mad carnival ride before. I know a precision gyroscope proven to react to a 15 deg/hr rotation does not react to the globe's claim that we're spinning.

[...]

... the fact that the earth is observably and measurably flat for as far as a modern super-zoom camera can see.

That is open to debate because the same camera seems to show examples of flat earth (objects seen above the horizon) and spherical earth (objects obscured by the horizon).

What's the debate? There's water in the air and it causes a refractive effect (there's a multitude of effects) called looming where objects in the far distance are magnified. The magnified objects are cropped at bottom by the horizon vanishing line.

In fact I've discussed looming, other refractive effects & optical compression with you before so I'm really just left with the impression that you're intellectually dishonest. The fact you pressed me for censored/memory holed images & diagrams makes it seem like you glow in the dark.

[BADecker]

What's the debate? There isn't any debate. There isn't anything flat. Look it up. "Flat" is relative. The earth isn't flat, just like it isn't a perfect globe. But it certainly isn't flat with all its mountains and valleys. Even in a flat area, the mountains and valleys are there, although they might be microscopic. "Flat Earth" is a figment of notflatman's imagination.

[odolvlobo]

  When the globe claims we're riding a 1,000 MPH (rim speed) flywheel that has a diameter of 8,000 miles, I call that weak because I know that the sheer forces involved would cause an instant explosion to happen.

That's because you don't have a good sense of the physics involved. The centripetal force is F = mv²/ r. Plug in the numbers and you will see that it is much lower than the force of buoyancy and that is why we don't go flying off into space.

When the globe claims a pressure gradient (air) exists next to a vacuum without a container, I call that weak because I know it's a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

That's because you are overlooking the effect of buoyancy on the air. Air falls to the earth in a vacuum just as other objects fall to the earth in a vacuum.

When the globe claims we're travelling at 66,600 MPH while spinning 1,000 MPH, I call that weak because I've been on a mad carnival ride before.

Again, that's because you don't have a good sense of the physics involved. Haven't you traveled anywhere? Whether you are in a car going 50 mph, on a train going 100 mph, in a plane going 700 mph, or hurtling through space at 66000 mph, it is like you are standing still because everything around you is doing the same thing. It is called an "inertial frame of reference". And again, while "spinning at 1,000 MPH" might seem like a lot, if you do the math you will see that it is not. Spinning 1000 mph on the earth is as much of a carnival ride as a bug running around a basketball.

... the fact that the earth is observably and measurably flat for as far as a modern super-zoom camera can see.

That is open to debate because the same camera seems to show examples of flat earth (objects seen above the horizon) and spherical earth (objects obscured by the horizon).

What's the debate? There's water in the air and it causes a refractive effect (there's a multitude of effects) called looming where objects in the far distance are magnified. The magnified objects are cropped at bottom by the horizon vanishing line.

In fact I've discussed looming, other refractive effects & optical compression with you before so I'm really just left with the impression that you're intellectually dishonest. The fact you pressed me for censored/memory holed images & diagrams makes it seem like you glow in the dark.

The debate is over why the camera seems to produce contradictory observations. Both sides have explanations, but neither seems to be sufficient to convince the other side.

[notbatman]

^^^

"PREDICTION OF SHEAR STRESSES AND CRITICAL SPEED OF COMPOSITE FLYWHEEL BY VARYING DIFFERENT HUB ANGLES USING FEM"

   -- https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8abd/d7699572ad442e89a2f684339c59afca9416.pdf

**cough**

An air pressure gradient in a vacuum without a container? You're fucking high bruh!

Spinning up a ~1,000 MPH then winding down a ~1,000 MPH while travelling ~66,6000 MPH in an elliptical orbit that also speeds up and slows down is fucking insane. Travelling a 100 MPH in a straight line at a constant speed is NOT analogous to the mad spinning ride that is the globe, you're delusional!

Yeah the debate is over, there is no geometric horizon because there is no globe. The horizon is apparent, it's based on the eye and aperture size. This is why we see so far and the globe theory fails.

[BADecker]

^^^ He reminds us of another one. Spinning 1000 MPH. So, I have asked him to get a basket ball, and place it on a table. Then, place his hand on the ball, and walk around the table once in a 24-hr period, thereby making one full turn of the ball, just like the earth turns one full turn in 24 hours. Wow! Really spinning so fast. LOL!

[notbatman]

^^^ The rim speed of a globe at the equator is ~1,000 MPH.

You want to make a point using a reduced rim speed (by scaling down the radius a ridiculous amount), however the angular speed no matter the radius is 15 deg/hr, a gyroscope that is proven to react to 15 deg/hr doesn't register any globe rotation. So fuck off with your spinning globe, it's a falsifiable pseudoscientific theory.

The guy walking around said basketball while holding said gyroscope, he observs the gyroscope maintain its position in space over the 24/hr period. So all-in-all you're just a dick talking balls!

[odolvlobo]

"PREDICTION OF SHEAR STRESSES AND CRITICAL SPEED OF COMPOSITE FLYWHEEL BY VARYING DIFFERENT HUB ANGLES USING FEM"
   -- https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8abd/d7699572ad442e89a2f684339c59afca9416.pdf

If you read that paper, you would see this:

The purpose of this study is to predict  critical  speed  and  natural  frequency  with  different  material on multi rim fly  wheel at constant angular velocity of 35900 RPM.

The angular velocity of a globe Earth would only be 0.0007 RPM. They are hardly comparable.

An air pressure gradient in a vacuum without a container? You're fucking high bruh!

As you noted, we observe that the air pressure decreases as the height increases. Isn't there some height at which the pressure is near 0? Wouldn't that be a vacuum? As you can see, whether the Earth is enclosed in a dome or not, their is a vacuum above the atmosphere. So then, what is the relevance of the container in that regard?

Spinning up a ~1,000 MPH then winding down a ~1,000 MPH while travelling ~66,6000 MPH in an elliptical orbit that also speeds up and slows down is fucking insane. Travelling a 100 MPH in a straight line at a constant speed is NOT analogous to the mad spinning ride that is the globe, you're delusional!

A bug running around on a basketball at 2.5 inches per second is subjected to the same force as someone on the Earth spinning at 1000 MPH. It's just math and physics. You say it would be a "mad spinning ride", but I have shown you that it wouldn't be.

[Cryptotourist]

@odolvlobo, you're hurting Batty - he's actually trying to think for the first time in his life (not).
There is no reasoning to be found with a flat-person.

[BADecker]

^^^ The rim speed of a globe at the equator is ~1,000 MPH.

You want to make a point using a reduced rim speed (by scaling down the radius a ridiculous amount), however the angular speed no matter the radius is 15 deg/hr, a gyroscope that is proven to react to 15 deg/hr doesn't register any globe rotation. So fuck off with your spinning globe, it's a falsifiable pseudoscientific theory.

The guy walking around said basketball while holding said gyroscope, he observs the gyroscope maintain its position in space over the 24/hr period. So all-in-all you're just a dick talking balls!

The rim speed of a merry-go-round at the park is such and such. You can feel the centrifugal force on the m-g-r, because the rim (equator) speed of it is far greater compared with its size, than the "rim" speed of the earth is when compared to the size of the earth.

All you are doing is keeping your blinders on. The binding forces between the molecules (in addition to the other forces involved throughout the materials that make up everything on the planet), are so exceedingly much stronger than the force of "drop" or "increase" of the 15°/hr planet-size, that planet materials barely feel it. But animals sense all kinds of things that people don't sense... including the tiny drop/increase at times.

Consider. What is the rate of spin on the merry-go-round? How long does it take for it to turn 15°? Fifteen degrees on a spinning m-g-r might take less than a 10th of a second. That's why you feel it. The slow speed of the spin of the earth degrees-wise is why you don't feel it.

Here's an example of the kind of thing you are trying to say. You are only using part of the calc necessary to get a correct perspective.

A 98lb kid went to a grocery store. To get there he had to cross a footbridge that could only hold 100lbs.

At the store the kid purchased 3 grapefruits, each weighing 1lb. When he wanted to go back across the footbridge with the grapefruits, he realized he would be 1lb overweight, because his weight (98lbs) plus the weight of the 3 grapefruits (1lb x 3 = 3lbs) would be 101lbs, a pound more than the bridge could hold.

He got all 3 of the grapefruits across the bridge at the same time... without going overweight on the bridge. How did he do it?

He juggled them across, so that 1 of the grapefruits was in the air all the time.

Why don't you wake up to life a little, and realize that you can't use such silly, limited thinking as you have, to determine the shape of the earth?! However, thank you for giving me the opportunity to show you where you are wrong... and in ways that other people can easily understand, even if they can't grasp the numbers and the calc.

[notbatman]

This clown world, it spins your mind.

@odolvlobo,

   Didn't you just claim that gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces?

The forces being of course #1 the strong nuclear force, #2 the electromagnetic force, #3 the weak nuclear force, and #4 gravity.

1. If you put an open 1L beaker of air at standard temperature and pressure in a vacuum chamber, how much air will gravity hold in the beaker?

2. What fundamental force is pushing the air from the beaker into the vacuum, is it stronger than gravity?

3. How does the second law of thermodynamics relate to pressurized air flowing into the vacuum from the open 1L beaker?

4. What is the "Bucket Argument"?

Don't fail me bruh!

[odolvlobo]

  Didn't you just claim that gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces?

The forces being of course #1 the strong nuclear force, #2 the electromagnetic force, #3 the weak nuclear force, and #4 gravity.

No, I didn't, but I have no problem accepting it as a convenient generalization, so let's move on.

1. If you put an open 1L beaker of air at standard temperature and pressure in a vacuum chamber, how much air will gravity hold in the beaker?

It depends on the volume of the vacuum chamber, but even if the volume of the chamber is infinite, the answer is not 0 because of gravity/buoyancy.

2. What fundamental force is pushing the air from the beaker into the vacuum, is it stronger than gravity?

None. I assume that we are assuming there are no forces other than gravity/buoyancy acting on the air molecules. The molecules leave the beaker because of Newton's first law of motion: an object remains in motion or at rest unless acted on by a force.

3. How does the second law of thermodynamics relate to pressurized air flowing into the vacuum from the open 1L beaker of pressurized air?

Entropy increases as the air escapes the beaker.

4. What is the "Bucket Argument"?

A spinning bucket of water demonstrates that true rotational motion cannot be defined relatively. Please note that it was devised by the person that formulated the Law of Universal Gravitation, which you don't accept.

Don't fail me bruh!

I hope I passed your quiz. What's your point?

[BADecker]

  Didn't you just claim that gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces?

The forces being of course #1 the strong nuclear force, #2 the electromagnetic force, #3 the weak nuclear force, and #4 gravity.

No, I didn't, but I have no problem accepting it, so let's move on.

1. If you put an open 1L beaker of air at standard temperature and pressure in a vacuum chamber, how much air will gravity hold in the beaker?

It depends on the volume of the vacuum chamber, but even if the volume of the chamber is infinite, the answer is not 0 because of gravity/buoyancy.

2. What fundamental force is pushing the air from the beaker into the vacuum, is it stronger than gravity?

None. I assume that we are assuming there are no forces other than gravity/buoyancy acting on the air molecules. The molecules leave the beaker because of Newton's first law of motion: an object remains in motion or at rest unless acted on by a force.

3. How does the second law of thermodynamics relate to pressurized air flowing into the vacuum from the open 1L beaker of pressurized air?

Entropy increases as the air escapes the beaker.

4. What is the "Bucket Argument"?

A spinning bucket of water demonstrates that true rotational motion cannot be defined relatively. Please note that it was devised by the person that formulated the Law of Universal Gravitation, which you don't accept.

Don't fail me bruh!

I hope I passed your quiz. What's your point?

1. In a standard sized beaker, the amount might be too small to measure. However, globe Earth shows a 20-mile thick atmosphere from the vacuum to sea level. This atmosphere is held in place by gravity, and the pressure of the higher layers of air acting on the lower layers of air.

2. Heat. If approximately all the heat were taken out of the air in the beaker, the air would liquefy or freeze, and settle to the bottom of the beaker because of gravity.

3. Yes, entropy. In practice, entropy causes diffusion and dissipation of whatever it affects.

4. Bucket = centrifuge.

[Chlotide]

https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/1222019236471525379?s=19

[notbatman]

[...]

1. If you put an open 1L beaker of air at standard temperature and pressure in a vacuum chamber, how much air will gravity hold in the beaker?

It depends on the volume of the vacuum chamber, but even if the volume of the chamber is infinite, the answer is not 0 because of gravity/buoyancy.

2. What fundamental force is pushing the air from the beaker into the vacuum, is it stronger than gravity?

None. I assume that we are assuming there are no forces other than gravity/buoyancy acting on the air molecules. The molecules leave the beaker because of Newton's first law of motion: an object remains in motion or at rest unless acted on by a force.

3. How does the second law of thermodynamics relate to pressurized air flowing into the vacuum from the open 1L beaker of pressurized air?

Entropy increases as the air escapes the beaker.

4. What is the "Bucket Argument"?

A spinning bucket of water demonstrates that true rotational motion cannot be defined relatively. Please note that it was devised by the person that formulated the Law of Universal Gravitation, which you don't accept.
[...]

#1

"...if the volume of the chamber is infinite..."

Okay, lets say its got a really good pump and any escaped gas gets evacuated.

"...the answer is not 0 because of gravity/buoyancy."

Your explanation "because of gravity" is incorrect;

   The average speed of an air molecule at room temperature is ~1,000 MPH. There's a less than 1% chance (based on the volume of the chamber) that a single molecule of gas remains in the beaker and, that's due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle not because some weak force has somehow stopped a 1,000 MPH air molecule and is holding it in there.

Buoyancy doesn't come into play as the air molecules aren't displacing any other gas molecules.


#2

"None..."

Incorrect, the electromagnetic force moves the air molecules.

#3

"Entropy increases..."

Incorrect, there's a pump connected to the chamber removing any gas; it's not an isolated system. The air molecules are following the path of least resistance.

#4

"...rotational motion cannot be defined relatively..."

Correct!

[odolvlobo]

#1
"...if the volume of the chamber is infinite..."
Okay, lets say its got a really good pump and any escaped gas gets evacuated.

You didn't mention that, and it changes some of my answers.

"...the answer is not 0 because of gravity/buoyancy."
Your explanation "because of gravity" is incorrect;
   The average speed of an air molecule at room temperature is ~1,000 MPH. There's a less than 1% chance (based on the volume of the chamber) that a single molecule of gas remains in the beaker and, that's due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle not because some weak force has somehow stopped a 1,000 MPH air molecule and is holding it in there.

While no particular molecules will stay in the beaker, there will be on average more molecules in the beaker than above the beaker because of gravity/buoyancy. But since you are actively removing all of the air, that is only temporary. Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? That is not even relevant.

"...the answer is not 0 because of gravity/buoyancy."
...
Buoyancy doesn't come into play as the air molecules aren't displacing any other gas molecules.

Previously, the reason you gave for why things fall in a vacuum is because they displace the ether. Buoyancy therefore does come into play because the air displaces the ether.

#2
"None..."
Incorrect, the electromagnetic force moves the air molecules.

I don't know what you mean. Each molecule moves until it collides with something, and then it bounces off. No force is necessary to keep it moving -- Newton's 1st law.

#3
"Entropy increases..."
Incorrect, there's a pump connected to the chamber removing any gas; it's not an isolated system. The air molecules are following the path of least resistance.

Well, you didn't say anything about a pump. Regardless, entropy is still increasing as the pump expends energy as heat while removing the air.

[notbatman]

^^^ An infinite vacuum obviously isn't possible so we're simulating it by leaving the pump running. You said that "if" it was infinite, I'm just stating an experimental setup that allows for it within a finite container.

Your claim that the few remaining air molecules left in the chamber will be closer to the bottom on average needs some kind of citation. The pseudo-force we're calling gravity is too weak to have any measurable effect on the molecules position in the chamber. Any theories you have on quantum gravity will be great for a chuckle...

The determining factor for any molecule's position is in fact the uncertainty principle; a probability density amplitude function.

Since we're pretending gravity is a force I've avoided referencing the aether, if you want concede that the static aether is real then this whole discussion is moot. The 1887 M&M experiment proves the earth is motionless and falsifies the Copernican model; no outer space and no pressurized gas next to a vacuum without a container.

Newton falsified relativity with the "bucket argument" long before Einstein's 1905 theory was propped up. The only reason for relativity is an attempt to bail-out the Copernican model after the M&M experiment. Dufour & Prunier officially falsified relativity in 1939 at the university of Paris with their Sagnac effect experiment.

Finally in regards to the force acting on the air molecules, we're not dealing with a solitary particle in an unbounded space. They push on each other and the wall of the chamber and the force pushing is electromagnetism; the molecules are 99.999% "empty space", only fields of force exist and interact.

[BADecker]

^^^ An infinite vacuum obviously isn't possible so we're simulating it by leaving the pump running. You said that "if" it was infinite, I'm just stating an experimental setup that allows for it within a finite container.

Your claim that the few remaining air molecules left in the chamber will be closer to the bottom on average needs some kind of citation. The pseudo-force we're calling gravity is too weak to have any measurable effect on the molecules position in the chamber. Any theories you have on quantum gravity will be great for a chuckle...

The determining factor for any molecule's position is in fact the uncertainty principle; a probability density amplitude function.

All that the uncertainty principle really says is that people are too weak in their ability to determine something. The expression of the uncertainty principle is wrapped in all kinds of language to make people not look as weak as they are.

Cause and effect, working according to the laws of physics, determine the position of any molecule in a partial vacuum.

Gravity is too weak to have a measurable effect, for two reasons:
1. We don't have the ability to measure such weak effect;
2. Forces other than, and stronger than, gravity work on molecules, as well, like heat.

Since we're pretending gravity is a force I've avoided referencing the aether, if you want concede that the static aether is real then this whole discussion is moot. The 1887 M&M experiment proves the earth is motionless and falsifies the Copernican model; no outer space and no pressurized gas next to a vacuum without a container.

Gravity is the container regarding the earth. The small size of a beaker is the only thing that keeps us from measuring the small amount of vacuum change therein. A 50-mile high tube would produce the same effect as the earth's gravitation field. Rarification of the air with altitude shows us this.

Newton falsified relativity with the "bucket argument" long before Einstein's 1905 theory was propped up. The only reason for relativity is an attempt to bail-out the Copernican model after the M&M experiment. Dufour & Prunier officially falsified relativity in 1939 at the university of Paris with their Sagnac effect experiment.

Other experimentation, including direct observation, show that these experiments lack the necessary requirements to prove what is factual.

Finally in regards to the force acting on the air molecules, we're not dealing with a solitary particle in an unbounded space. They push on each other and the wall of the chamber and the force pushing is electromagnetism; the molecules are 99.999% "empty space", only fields of force exist and interact.

Exactly! Since we can barely measure these fields and the REAL effects they have on matter, it isn't possible for us to determine from the measurements much of anything regarding the air molecules in question.

Also, your limited understanding of what the aether really is and how it works, proves that you lack enough info to prove FE by any of what you said, even if FE were the fact.

[notbatman]

Newton (assuming he's not a fictional character) is currently the smartest person to ever live IMO, his gravitational theory is a gullibility test in regards to the readers understanding of his three laws vs. the church and their heavenly spheres of bullshit.

[JRoa]

I been inactive for months and the debate is still continue, we have different point of views after all and I respected it. I'm not favor with those people says that the earth is flat, there are now a lot of evidences that our planet is not flat. I want to read more about this thread in order to find out how that the flat earth society come out in that kind of idea that they keep believing.

[tmfp]