Flat Earthers logic... Actually saw this, today. 🙄 - The Great Awakening

Flat Earthers logic... Actually saw this, today. 🙄 (media.greatawakening.win)

posted 4 years ago by catsfive 4 years ago by catsfive +29 / -0

74 comments download

74 comments share download save hide report block hide replies

You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.

Comments (74)

sorted by:

▲ 1 ▼

– jack445566778899 1 point 4 years ago +1 / -0

yes its spinning that fast

I think they were talking about the “spinning” around the sun, not axially.

Axially, at the maximum (equator), the rotation speed is believed closer to 1000mph.

The centripetal force is nothing compared to the force pulling us to the earth

Well, not nothing but small!

Also there is no force “pulling” us to the earth at all. The force pushes us to the earth, and it is called weight!

permalink parent save report block reply

▲ 2 ▼

– NOT_ADMIN 2 points 4 years ago +2 / -0

Which is very slow for its size. Imagine spinning a basketball once rotation every 24 hours.
the centripetal force of the earth spinning is almost nothing compared to its mass.
Imagine moving a basketball around a pole but it takes 1 year to go around.
Don't forget we move around the galaxies center as well. and the galaxy moves too! good thing that speeds alone doesn't determine if things stick.

permalink parent save report block reply

▲ 1 ▼

– jack445566778899 1 point 4 years ago +1 / -0

Which is very slow for its size

Not really. 66k is pretty darn fast, though I can appreciate that on a large enough circle (the presumed orbit around the sun over the course of a year) that may not cause an extreme acceleration (though still a measurable one, which strangely cannot be and is not measured...)

the centripetal force of the earth spinning is almost nothing compared to its mass.

There isn’t any “mass” outside of equation. That’s why scales measure weight instead! There is no “mass” to measure (nor gravitation which also cannot be measured). It is NOT coincidence that when you combine the mathematical contrivances of mass and gravitation, they return to the real (and measured) weight they began (and were measured) as!

Don't forget we move around the galaxies center as well.

I don’t! I’m saying that we don’t do those things, and that is literally “astronomical fiction”. If we did, we could measure such motion (through interferometry for one)! Because we can’t (and haven’t), it is most reasonable and scientific (emperical) to conclude that there is no such motion. That is what michelson-morely actually established :(. Astronomy is barely science at all - it’s merely a pastime for rich dilettantes. That’s why it has produced virtually nothing of scientific value in millennia!

permalink parent save report block reply

▲ 2 ▼

– NOT_ADMIN 2 points 4 years ago +2 / -0

Not really. 66k is pretty darn fast, though I can appreciate that on a large enough circle (the presumed orbit around the sun over the course of a year) that may not cause an extreme acceleration (though still a measurable one, which strangely cannot be and is not measured...)

I don't think it would cause acceleration since we are not going faster are we?

There isn’t any “mass” outside of equation. That’s why scales measure weight instead! There is no “mass” to measure (nor gravitation which also cannot be measured). It is NOT a coincidence that when you combine the mathematical contrivances of mass and gravitation, they return to the real (and measured) weight they began (and were measured) as!

Mass is pretty simple, how heavy is something relative to its size. In science its synonymous with density.
Mass and weight seem the same but they are not. Mass is a measure of the density of an object, while weight is a measure of the effect of gravity on that mass. For example, even on the earth since the mass of the earth is not uniform, I can have an object that weighs one weight and move it to another area of the earth and it will weigh another weight. The density or mass did not change, but its weight has.

I don’t! I’m saying that we don’t do those things, and that is literally “astronomical fiction”. If we did, we could measure such motion (through interferometry for one)! Because we can’t (and haven’t), it is most reasonable and scientific (emperical) to conclude that there is no such motion. That is what michelson-morely actually established :(. Astronomy is barely science at all - it’s merely a pastime for rich dilettantes. That’s why it has produced virtually nothing of scientific value in millennia!

1725 when James Bradley discovered stellar aberration. This is (apparent) yearly change in positions of all stars in the sky due to Earth's own motion. Aberration arises due to adding up of the speed of light coming from the star and Earth's own speed. This is a very complex phenomenon and its description requires some math.
Another, much simpler, consequence of Earth's motion is stellar parallax wich was first found in 1838. If Earth changes its position relative to the stars, then the stars should appear to change position in the course of the year. Not just positions like circling the earth. But thier positions are relative to each other!
A third discovery demonstrating Earth's motion was that of Doppler effect.

These are all motions relative to other objects in space.
According to the theory of relativity, we can always move to a reference frame in which the Earth is not moving--i.e., its "inertial" reference frame. So it is technically possible to define a reference frame in which the Earth does not move, while the Sun, planets, and stars orbit around the Earth, but making this reference frame consistent with our observations of Doppler shift and parallaxes would be very complicated. It is much simpler to explain our observations in a reference frame where the Earth does move, and Occam's razor directs us, to use the simplest explanation whenever possible.

permalink parent save report block reply

▲ 1 ▼

– jack445566778899 1 point 4 years ago +1 / -0

I don't think it would cause acceleration since we are not going faster are we?

It seems that way, but actually it requires it! Velocity is a vector (i.e. includes direction). Whenever you change direction (or speed, of course!) you require (and experience) acceleration!

Mass is pretty simple, how heavy is something relative to its size

I am well aware. I just said it wasn’t real, and did not exist outside of equation.

In science its synonymous with density.

It is synonymous with inertia (which does exist, because weight exists), but I think I get/agree with your meaning.

I can have an object that weighs one weight and move it to another area of the earth and it will weigh another weight.

Minusculely, yes that is true. It just isn’t for the reasons we were taught. The primary cause for the difference in weight (and fall/rise time, as in many “gravimeters”) is buoyancy/the media it displaces. Of course, temperature, electrical charge, and many other things play a small role in such things as well.

Weight is not imbued by magical fields that defy description, measurement, manipulation, and discovery (from invocation, not creation/invention, of the stupid idea by newton to now). Weight is merely an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter. Mass and gravitation do not, in any way, exist outside of equation. Weight is all there is, and all there has ever been!

This is (apparent) yearly change in positions of all stars in the sky due to Earth's own motion.

I like assumption and speculation too, but I don’t call it science! I call it guessing!

But thier positions are relative to each other!

Again, I like guessing!

Doppler effect.

That’s real!

These are all motions relative to other objects in space.

So we are taught, and required to repeat in order to matriculate. However, it ain't necessarily so! What if I told you that “space” does not exist in any way, and if it did it would violate many of the scientific laws that we have established (unchallenged, mind you) for centuries? What if I told you the entire stupid idea was made up by the coimbra jesuits and then run with by newton due to his understanding of the permanence of the celestial cycles?

So it is technically possible to define a reference frame in which the Earth does not move, while the Sun, planets, and stars orbit around the Earth, but making this reference frame consistent with our observations of Doppler shift and parallaxes would be very complicated

I think it is reasonable to do so, despite complicated mathematics - however it is unnecessary. The lights in the sky do as they do, the rest is mythology/religion/pseudoscience masquerading as science :( There are good reasons I make such apparently “flippant” statements, and good criteria available to discern between science and pseudoscience masquerading as it.

and Occam's razor directs us, to use the simplest explanation whenever possible.

Ugh, more monks :(

Lol, all kidding aside - I like occam’s razor but the posits you are playing apologist for are fantastically complicated (which you are well aware of). You currently believe that the mythology you were taught is the simplest explanation available, but it is my view that you are in error. Besides, occam’s razor has to do with scientific theories. We are merely discussing speculations/guesses - not science nor scientific theories!

permalink parent save report block reply

... continue reading thread?