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!
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.
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!
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!
I think you are missing one important factor. Gravity. We are held to the earth by gravity and we are spinning along with it at a constant speed. If the speed became inconsistent we would feel it.
Can you prove the earth is still?
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.
Boyancy can only exist with gravity if there is a specified direction giving it the Archimedes principle. In space boyancy pushes on all sides. So what would explain why we are only getting an obvious downward force?
Gravity only exists with mass.
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!
Weight can only exist when there are two or more masses that exist and act upon each-other. Your theory that there is no gravity and its held up by buoyancy doesn't hold water (get it, cause buoyancy) It doesn't explain a single direction of force. Buoyancy would push on all sides without gravity. You can even demonstrate this while on earth.
I like assumption and speculation too, but I don’t call it science! I call it guessing!
you can literally take photos and match them, its not guessing you are using observation and collecting data.
Again, I like guessing!
Not a guess its observation.
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?
When a new theory comes along and beats another theory it tends to become unchallenged until a new theory comes along that is more accurate to explain the observable universe. Flat earth has come and gone. It was once a theory but now we have theories that are better.
We have observation, we can go to space and see the earth is round. If you think we cant, you can take a high altitude weather balloon with a camera and see the same thing.
Explain and prove that it breaks modern scientific laws.
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.
Your definition of science is extremely narrow and strange. It appears that you only accept observation if it is with a human eye and not a mechanical or digital one.
You don't accept observational science using a laser and distance to prove curvature
You don't accept a laser gyroscope to prove rotation.
you seem to only accept things that point one directions and ignore anything that points another.
You expect me to prove the curvature without using anything that proves the curvature. Like, going to space.
You state essentially that anything that cannot be directly observed by a person standing on the earth is not science in yet you are claiming the earth is flat but have not seen it in its entirety yourself. The most scientific approach using your sets of criteria is to say its no know the shape of the earth, not that its flat.
we have vehicles that can fly. We also have vehicles that can go into low orbit. We also have vehicles that can go into low orbit and are commercial. I'm sure you are going to excludes any of these things that can go into space right?
What exactly do you think happens when we get high enough to see the entire earth?
I think you are missing one important factor. Gravity.
Not in regards to the specific statement you were responding to. Orbit always decays because constant speed in anything but a completely frictionless and unidirectional path requires acceleration. Acceleration costs energy. The same is true “attached” to a (uniformly) rotating world.
Can you prove the earth is still?
Arguably, yes (proof is very subjective outside of mathematics :()
In science we can only prove through observation (bearing natural law; the what) and experiment (bearing theory; the why/how)
I already mentioned the michelson morely observation, which establishes that the world is not whizzing anywhere like a space potato. The michelson gale pearson in conjunction with “airy’s failure” does away with the fantasy/conceit of axial rotation. The sky rotates above us! We are stationary.
So what would explain why we are only getting an obvious downward force?
Sadly, most things that we observe don’t have explanations, and worse than that - the explanations that we teach are historically always incorrect :( You learn to live with it.
The downward force is caused by the interplay between the weight of the object and the media it displaces. When it is greater, it has a “downward force” (gravity). When it is lesser, it has an “upward force” (levity). When it is equal it floats (neutrality).
This is all experimentally verifiable as well. The cause of gravity, levity, and neutrality is weight!
When things are entrained during freefall the rules “appear” to be suspended, but only because they are entrained. Archimedes principle involves volumetric density and the entire object (let’s say an airplane cabin, for instance) is still subject to it, although the entrained items within are temporarily not.
Gravity only exists with mass.
In a way you are right! However I think it is important to use the word gravitation.
Gravitation only exists with mass... However, they are both entirely fictional and do not in any way exist outside of equation. This is why they cannot be adequately defined, measured, or manipulated! It is not coincidence that when combined they return to the actual and measured weight they began as.
It doesn't explain a single direction of force.
There isn’t a single direction of force! It is all to do with the interplay of the weight of the object, and that of the media it displaces!
As for the reason why objects have weight - we may never have an adequate (or correct) answer :(
You can even demonstrate this while on earth.
That’s where all science is done! Buoyancy is never absent, it merely appears to be while the object and media are entrained during freefall. The “buoyancy” you are referring to is merely isostatic/isobaric pressure - it’s always there but is not distributed on the object the same way typically.
its not guessing - you are using observation and collecting data.
Not a guess its observation.
I agree that observation and data collecting are not guessing! That is how we establish natural law in science; which is to say “what is”. When you imagine an explanation for that natural law and don’t/can’t experimentally validate it - that’s called guessing!
When a new theory comes along ...
Sadly it takes more than merely “coming along” or better describing reality. The old generation (and their miseducation/bias) also needs to die off, traditionally :(
Flat earth has come and gone
No, it hasn’t! We were just mistaught that it has. Since ancient greece virtually every educated person on earth has been taught that the world is spherical.
Besides, scientific theories are bore of experiment. The shape of the world (or any physical object) is not a scientific theory, nor could it ever be! It’s simply not what scientific theories are for!
We have observation, we can go to space and see the earth is round.
Can we? Can you visit a place that doesn’t exist? Is merely “looking at something” how we conduct empirical science? Do you think that avoiding abject appeal to authority is important for a diligent student or is it fine to simply believe instead of know?
you can take a high altitude weather balloon with a camera and see the same thing.
Yes we can, and many have! The results are in, but they aren’t what you think/expect!
Sadly we were both mistaught that the horizon ought to curve at some altitude. Even if the earth were spherical, it wouldn’t do so. Some students, more fortunate than us, today are not taught this nonsense anymore.
Explain and prove that it breaks modern scientific laws.
Sure! It’s pretty simple. The natural behavior of gas (gas law) was established on earth’s surface where gravitation is presumed (but never measured, because it simply doesn’t exist to measure) strongest. Two gas laws are violated by the mere concept of space (and many more besides, but let’s start with them).
Gas always expands to fill a container as homogeneously as possible.
Gas pressure is derived from the container walls.
Simply the consistent existence of (relatively) static isobaric/isostatic air pressure necessarily contradicts the existence of an “infinite sky vacuum” above our heads. The very concept of a “gas giant” in such a vacuum is both laughable and entirely unscientific in light of the laws above. Again, these laws were established here on earths surface where gravitation is believed to be strongest. They are laws because, under natural circumstances, they have no available contradicting observation - unless you know of one?!
Your definition of science is extremely narrow and strange.
That’s true! However, it is correct and a working definition! (As opposed to one which does not work, and is not correct)
It appears that you only accept observation if it is with a human eye and not a mechanical or digital one.
Actually, just the opposite! Empiricism requires measurement, not merely looking!
You don't accept observational science using a laser and distance to prove curvature
Of course not! But that is because I understand what light is, and because I understand how refraction works! You could never “prove” nor measure curvature in such a manner! This is a longer conversation, as many of our previous question/answers are as well.
You don't accept a laser gyroscope to prove rotation.
Quite the contrary! It does measure rotation! Just not of the earth!
You expect me to prove the curvature
Absolutely not! We’re just having a conversation! Also, proof isn’t really something anyone can give anyone else (outside of mathematics) - it is far too subjective. We must obtain proof for ourselves, as well as define the criteria for what could/would/should serve as such proof in our view!
yet you are claiming the earth is flat
Nope!
is to say its no know the shape of the earth, not that its flat.
I assume there are some typos here, but if I am interpreting you correctly - you’re right, and I do exactly that! I can say with certainty that the earth is not spherical the way we are taught, however I do not know its true entire shape!
we have vehicles that can fly.
True.
We also have vehicles that can go into low orbit.
Not if I am correct, and orbit is entirely fictional - no!
I'm sure you are going to excludes any of these things that can go into space right?
Personally, as an independent researcher and student, I “exclude” (discard/put aside, more like) things I cannot validate/verify for myself. When it comes to studying/ascertaining the shape of the world, I generally prefer to stay more “down to earth”. The shape of the earth is down here! We don’t need to go into the sky or “space” to measure it... In fact, that just makes it harder to directly measure!
What exactly do you think happens when we get high enough to see the entire earth?
I’m not convinced that we can reach such a height, ever have in the past, or even have the “optical capacity” to see the entire thing even if we could reach such a vantage point. However, assuming we can - I am not really sure... Extrapolating from the highest vantage available to us, I would speculate that the world appears as a generally flat plane beneath us, and the horizon surrounding us remains linear and appears slightly lower as we rise. Basically, I expect it to look very similarly to the vantage available from, say, a weather balloon - because nature is fractal.
However, there are some who posit that the earth (as many currently posit/believe about the universe) is not finite. Of course in such a case, you could never get high enough to see the whole thing even if it were optically feasible.
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...)
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!
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!
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!
I am well aware. I just said it wasn’t real, and did not exist outside of equation.
It is synonymous with inertia (which does exist, because weight exists), but I think I get/agree with your meaning.
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!
I like assumption and speculation too, but I don’t call it science! I call it guessing!
Again, I like guessing!
That’s real!
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?
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.
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!
Not in regards to the specific statement you were responding to. Orbit always decays because constant speed in anything but a completely frictionless and unidirectional path requires acceleration. Acceleration costs energy. The same is true “attached” to a (uniformly) rotating world.
Arguably, yes (proof is very subjective outside of mathematics :()
In science we can only prove through observation (bearing natural law; the what) and experiment (bearing theory; the why/how)
I already mentioned the michelson morely observation, which establishes that the world is not whizzing anywhere like a space potato. The michelson gale pearson in conjunction with “airy’s failure” does away with the fantasy/conceit of axial rotation. The sky rotates above us! We are stationary.
Sadly, most things that we observe don’t have explanations, and worse than that - the explanations that we teach are historically always incorrect :( You learn to live with it.
The downward force is caused by the interplay between the weight of the object and the media it displaces. When it is greater, it has a “downward force” (gravity). When it is lesser, it has an “upward force” (levity). When it is equal it floats (neutrality).
This is all experimentally verifiable as well. The cause of gravity, levity, and neutrality is weight!
When things are entrained during freefall the rules “appear” to be suspended, but only because they are entrained. Archimedes principle involves volumetric density and the entire object (let’s say an airplane cabin, for instance) is still subject to it, although the entrained items within are temporarily not.
In a way you are right! However I think it is important to use the word gravitation.
Gravitation only exists with mass... However, they are both entirely fictional and do not in any way exist outside of equation. This is why they cannot be adequately defined, measured, or manipulated! It is not coincidence that when combined they return to the actual and measured weight they began as.
There isn’t a single direction of force! It is all to do with the interplay of the weight of the object, and that of the media it displaces!
As for the reason why objects have weight - we may never have an adequate (or correct) answer :(
That’s where all science is done! Buoyancy is never absent, it merely appears to be while the object and media are entrained during freefall. The “buoyancy” you are referring to is merely isostatic/isobaric pressure - it’s always there but is not distributed on the object the same way typically.
I agree that observation and data collecting are not guessing! That is how we establish natural law in science; which is to say “what is”. When you imagine an explanation for that natural law and don’t/can’t experimentally validate it - that’s called guessing!
Sadly it takes more than merely “coming along” or better describing reality. The old generation (and their miseducation/bias) also needs to die off, traditionally :(
No, it hasn’t! We were just mistaught that it has. Since ancient greece virtually every educated person on earth has been taught that the world is spherical.
Besides, scientific theories are bore of experiment. The shape of the world (or any physical object) is not a scientific theory, nor could it ever be! It’s simply not what scientific theories are for!
Can we? Can you visit a place that doesn’t exist? Is merely “looking at something” how we conduct empirical science? Do you think that avoiding abject appeal to authority is important for a diligent student or is it fine to simply believe instead of know?
Yes we can, and many have! The results are in, but they aren’t what you think/expect!
Sadly we were both mistaught that the horizon ought to curve at some altitude. Even if the earth were spherical, it wouldn’t do so. Some students, more fortunate than us, today are not taught this nonsense anymore.
Sure! It’s pretty simple. The natural behavior of gas (gas law) was established on earth’s surface where gravitation is presumed (but never measured, because it simply doesn’t exist to measure) strongest. Two gas laws are violated by the mere concept of space (and many more besides, but let’s start with them).
Simply the consistent existence of (relatively) static isobaric/isostatic air pressure necessarily contradicts the existence of an “infinite sky vacuum” above our heads. The very concept of a “gas giant” in such a vacuum is both laughable and entirely unscientific in light of the laws above. Again, these laws were established here on earths surface where gravitation is believed to be strongest. They are laws because, under natural circumstances, they have no available contradicting observation - unless you know of one?!
That’s true! However, it is correct and a working definition! (As opposed to one which does not work, and is not correct)
Actually, just the opposite! Empiricism requires measurement, not merely looking!
Of course not! But that is because I understand what light is, and because I understand how refraction works! You could never “prove” nor measure curvature in such a manner! This is a longer conversation, as many of our previous question/answers are as well.
Quite the contrary! It does measure rotation! Just not of the earth!
Absolutely not! We’re just having a conversation! Also, proof isn’t really something anyone can give anyone else (outside of mathematics) - it is far too subjective. We must obtain proof for ourselves, as well as define the criteria for what could/would/should serve as such proof in our view!
Nope!
I assume there are some typos here, but if I am interpreting you correctly - you’re right, and I do exactly that! I can say with certainty that the earth is not spherical the way we are taught, however I do not know its true entire shape!
True.
Not if I am correct, and orbit is entirely fictional - no!
Personally, as an independent researcher and student, I “exclude” (discard/put aside, more like) things I cannot validate/verify for myself. When it comes to studying/ascertaining the shape of the world, I generally prefer to stay more “down to earth”. The shape of the earth is down here! We don’t need to go into the sky or “space” to measure it... In fact, that just makes it harder to directly measure!
I’m not convinced that we can reach such a height, ever have in the past, or even have the “optical capacity” to see the entire thing even if we could reach such a vantage point. However, assuming we can - I am not really sure... Extrapolating from the highest vantage available to us, I would speculate that the world appears as a generally flat plane beneath us, and the horizon surrounding us remains linear and appears slightly lower as we rise. Basically, I expect it to look very similarly to the vantage available from, say, a weather balloon - because nature is fractal.
However, there are some who posit that the earth (as many currently posit/believe about the universe) is not finite. Of course in such a case, you could never get high enough to see the whole thing even if it were optically feasible.