Ball Earth conundrums

[Moses_Young]

Foolish response.

What exactly do you think storms are, if not "objects to be acted on by forces"?

Here's a definition of object from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition. I don't consider a storm to be a material thing. Do you?

noun

1. Something perceptible by one or more of the senses, especially by vision or touch; a material thing.
2. A focus of attention, feeling, thought, or action.
   "a product that was so bad it became an object of derision."
3. A limiting factor that must be considered.
   "Since money is no object, let's eat at that fancy place."

What do you think causes storms to spin, gen that your "path of the sun" explanation fails miserably?

Just because it doesn't support your ball-Earth theory doesn't mean it fails miserably. I have answered this question above, so I'm not going to repeat myself.

 

[Dino246]

Here's a definition of object from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition. I don't consider a storm to be a material thing. Do you?

noun

1. Something perceptible by one or more of the senses, especially by vision or touch; a material thing.
2. A focus of attention, feeling, thought, or action.
   "a product that was so bad it became an object of derision."
3. A limiting factor that must be considered.
   "Since money is no object, let's eat at that fancy place."

Outside of a politician's speech, that's probably the most egregious example I've come across of defining your terms to suit your agenda. Try starting with "storm" instead of "object".

Just because it doesn't support your ball-Earth theory doesn't mean it fails miserably. I have answered this question above, so I'm not going to repeat myself.

Fine. The explanation you provided previously is laughably inadequate, so yes, it fails miserably.

 

[Lynx]

These threads keep making me think of Sherlock Holmes, how he was completely unaware of celestial mechanics until Watson told him.

"Now that I do know it I shall do my best to forget it."

"But the Solar System!"

"What the deuce is it to me? You say that we go round the sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or to my work."

Today I will go to w*rk at a place I do not want to be, surrounded by others who also do not want to be there, for the sake of making money. Then I will come home and spend the time until tomorrow morning playing a video game, taking care of Grandma, sleeping and eating. Then I'll do the same thing again.

Whether the earth is flat, round or on the back of a giant turtle doesn't affect any of my life one bit. I'm no airline pilot.

 

[Moses_Young]

These threads keep making me think of Sherlock Holmes, how he was completely unaware of celestial mechanics until Watson told him.

"Now that I do know it I shall do my best to forget it."

"But the Solar System!"

"What the deuce is it to me? You say that we go round the sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or to my work."

Today I will go to w*rk at a place I do not want to be, surrounded by others who also do not want to be there, for the sake of making money. Then I will come home and spend the time until tomorrow morning playing a video game, taking care of Grandma, sleeping and eating. Then I'll do the same thing again.

Whether the earth is flat, round or on the back of a giant turtle doesn't affect any of my life one bit. I'm no airline pilot.

Perhaps Sherlock Holmes only said that because he himself knew the Earth was stationary, but also knew that Watson would never be able to figure it out?

 

[Moses_Young]

Outside of a politician's speech, that's probably the most egregious example I've come across of defining your terms to suit your agenda. Try starting with "storm" instead of "object".

Definitions are important. If you can't understand that, you can't understand science.

Fine. The explanation you provided previously is laughably inadequate, so yes, it fails miserably.

Just because you mock doesn't mean the explanation is deficient.

 

[Dino246]

Definitions are important. If you can't understand that, you can't understand science.

Definitions of the correct key terms are important. Irrelevant definitions do nothing.

Just because you mock doesn't mean the explanation is deficient.

True. It isn't my mockery that makes your explanation deficient; it was laughably deficient before I even read it.

 

[Sculpt]

You said you'd checkout the video of the variables-controlled experiment of the spinning water Coriolis Effect (it's only 6mins).

Yes, I did, and thanks for reposting. Hopefully I will get some time to review this week.

Yo yo, Brother Mo! So this is a very carefully designed experiment, the kind you said you want to see. I'm looking forward to your prayerful and contemplative assessment of the experiment and results, and appreciative too. @Moses_Young

 

[TheLearner]

Yo yo, Brother Mo! So this is a very carefully designed experiment, the kind you said you want to see. I'm looking forward to your prayerful and contemplative assessment of the experiment and results, and appreciative too. @Moses_Young

https://www.google.com/search?q=son...EY0QOYAwCSBwcwLjguNC0xoAfTkQE&sclient=gws-wiz

 

[Gideon300]

Perhaps Sherlock Holmes only said that because he himself knew the Earth was stationary, but also knew that Watson would never be able to figure it out?

You do know that Holmes and Watson are fictitious characters created by a spiritualist?

 

[Moses_Young]

You do know that Holmes and Watson are fictitious characters created by a spiritualist?

So you are implying that just because Sherlock Holmes is a work of fiction he didn't realise the Earth is stationary? There are children's cartoons which have figured this out!

You don't think the dude who coined the phrase "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" could apply such thinking to geodesy?

 

[Moses_Young]

Yo yo, Brother Mo! So this is a very carefully designed experiment, the kind you said you want to see. I'm looking forward to your prayerful and contemplative assessment of the experiment and results, and appreciative too.

In my opinion, it's the same kind of science as used to justify Foucalt pendulums. Just bunk. The dudes at least admitted the effect is negligible, which is true. Emptying water is going to have to spin one way or another. A slight tweak to the experimental apparatus will achieve whichever direction is preferred. The result has nothing to do with proving heliocentric theory. If anything, it probably disproves heliocentricity, because spinning water would probably be readily observed as is predicted by heliocentric theory.

 

[GaryA]

People-at-large are prone to miss the obvious:

1) Based on the description given about all of the forces applied to the apparatus by the spin of the earth - merely left alone, the water should spin.

2) The movement of the water is caused by the conditions where the water exits.

 

[Gideon300]

So you are implying that just because Sherlock Holmes is a work of fiction he didn't realise the Earth is stationary? There are children's cartoons which have figured this out!

You don't think the dude who coined the phrase "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" could apply such thinking to geodesy?

Sherlock Holmes is fiction and so is FE. In a fictional world, indeed the earth could be flat. The real world is a globe. Why do you imagine that it is impossible for the earth to be a globe? That the earth is spherical is elementary.

 

[Gideon300]

People-at-large are prone to miss the obvious:

1) Based on the description given about all of the forces applied to the apparatus by the spin of the earth - merely left alone, the water should spin.

2) The movement of the water is caused by the conditions where the water exits.

The mass of the water prevents it spinning, any more than you would spin if you stood still for a while. Gravity keeps everything in place. As the water drains, it has much less mass at the exit point. So the rotation of the earth is sufficient to cause the water to rotate as it exits.

Your explanation does not account for the different direction of rotation of the draining water. So your second point is correct. The exit point in one experiment is in the northern hemisphere and the second exit point is in the southern hemisphere.

The same principle applies to cyclones. Storm cells rotate in the opposite directions northern to southern hemisphere.

 

[GaryA]

A slight tweak to the experimental apparatus will achieve whichever direction is preferred.

People-at-large are prone to miss the obvious:

1) Based on the description given about all of the forces applied to the apparatus by the spin of the earth - merely left alone, the water should spin.

2) The movement of the water is caused by the conditions where the water exits.

Your explanation does not account for the different direction of rotation of the draining water.

Moses already addressed that.

So your second point is correct. The exit point in one experiment is in the northern hemisphere and the second exit point is in the southern hemisphere.

I was referring to the "localized" point where the water leaves the tank.

 

[Gideon300]

In my opinion, it's the same kind of science as used to justify Foucalt pendulums. Just bunk. The dudes at least admitted the effect is negligible, which is true. Emptying water is going to have to spin one way or another. A slight tweak to the experimental apparatus will achieve whichever direction is preferred. The result has nothing to do with proving heliocentric theory. If anything, it probably disproves heliocentricity, because spinning water would probably be readily observed as is predicted by heliocentric theory.

More baseless speculation. When will you present some facts? The effect is very small, but it does happen. Those two are not the first to conduct the experiment.

 

[Sculpt]

In my opinion, it's the same kind of science as used to justify Foucalt pendulums. Just bunk. The dudes at least admitted the effect is negligible, which is true. Emptying water is going to have to spin one way or another. A slight tweak to the experimental apparatus will achieve whichever direction is preferred. The result has nothing to do with proving heliocentric theory. If anything, it probably disproves heliocentricity, because spinning water would probably be readily observed as is predicted by heliocentric theory.

Well, the important thing is that we do not speak/push falsehood with the name of Christ/Christianity. I'm sure you agree the order must be 1. Christ, 2. no falsehood, 3. my desire that FE/SE be true and/or my desire to spread FE/SE.

The experiment is what you asked for, but I think you'd admit, you didn't want it. Why are bringing heliocentrism into this? I didn't associate the two. This is a proof of the Coriolis effect, and another SE proof. The sun can revolve around the earth and the Coriolis effect would remain the same.

I can tell you've just looked for things that support FE, cause that's what you want. That's not seeking the reality of this issue, is it? If want to discover if SE or FE is the reality, you need to look into the preponderance of evidence for both (& view/do experiment when applicable), not just for one. The first step is understanding the concept and seeing what proofs there are, yes?

The Coriolis effect is what happens due to the earth spinning on its axis; and every degree/latitude higher/lower than the equator moves less distance per rotation. Degrees-wise, the equator is zero, the poles 90/-90.

This is the best 2:40min vid I've seen that displays the physical mechanisms of why storms spin counterclockwise in Northern Hemisphere and clockwise in Southern.

The Coriolis Effect Explained - YouTube

This (real life, nonanimated) vid demonstrates the Coriolis effect with a spinning plate and marble. The marble will travel straight across the plate when not spinning, but angles when plate is spinning. Proof of concept. 0-2:32min covers it. There are many more examples on youtube.

2022 Trust 30 SLT0314222AH YouTube

This (real life, nonanimated) vid is great too. If two people are on a long plank and throw a ball directly at each other the ball will reach the other person. But when they're spun, it will not due to the Coriolis effect. There are many more examples on youtube.

Coriolis Effect (youtube.com)

In regard to the spherical earth spinning, with ballistics the Coriolis effect can be more easily observed/measured when measuring a sufficient distance. It can be predicted, calculated and confirmed with hands-on experimentation. Obviously, the results are directly dependent to where you are on the earth and what direction you are shooting. In the below vid a long-distance rifle shooter demonstrates the Coriolis effect by first shooting due east and then due west. You can do this experiment yourself.

Demonstrating how Coriolis effects bullet drop at 1000 yards (youtube.com)

Let's move to evidence of both curvature and Coriolis effect in calculation charts in both naval ordnance and artillery manuals. This only came into effect when distances increased beyond visual range. (Below that I will post a couple vids that reference, corroborate and discuss manuals and use.)

Halfway down the web page we see the scanned pages referencing the tables with "rotation of the earth" (Link) from "NAVAL ORDNANCE AND GUNNERY, VOLUME 2, FIRE CONTROL" manual. Web site Coriolis ref page (Link).

Finally, these two vids below reference, corroborate, discuss manuals for Coriolis and curvature. Naval ships 1st vid. Land artillery included in 2nd vid.

How Naval Artillery corrected for Earth Curvature to win at war. (youtube.com)
Coriolis Part 2: Bringing Out the Big Guns to Kill Flat Earth! (youtube.com)

 

[Sculpt]

People-at-large are prone to miss the obvious:

1) Based on the description given about all of the forces applied to the apparatus by the spin of the earth - merely left alone, the water should spin.

2) The movement of the water is caused by the conditions where the water exits.

Of course, the exit spout can be addressed. Did you think it couldn't? Below I posted a vid where the experimenter will use the same bucket in multiple locations. This will make the water exit controlled (non-variable). You'll see multiple trials demonstrating the north hemisphere drained counterclockwise and the south hemisphere drained clockwise with 100% consistency with the one and only experimental bucket.

You can easily duplicate this experiment. Whichever hemisphere you're in, you will/won't see consistent spin corresponding to Coriolis effect rule. You can add to the conclusion by saving the bucket and using it in opposite hemisphere, or mail it to a buddy to complete trials. You know, if truth matters to you.

The Coriolis Effect and Draining Water: Tested with one container on 3 continents. (youtube.com)

Obviously, beloved Gary, I encourage you to review my prior post where I present the mechanisms of the Coriolis effect and proofs of it as it directly relates to earth spinning and earth curvature -- the second half regarding ballistic demonstration, existing manuals; and last vid includes first-hand account/testimony on location in naval ship gunnery room.

The Coriolis effect is just one of several proofs I've presented to you in this thread (moon face turn, airplane trip calculations Sydney/Santiago, lunar eclipse, Artic/Antartica comparison (thanks to your vid), Ring Laser Gyroscope Experiment, and night/day observations. Have you compared the preponderance of evidence for both, or is this a faith/dogma and 'proofs be damned' issue for you?

 

[posthuman]

 

[MerSee]

View attachment 261251