No because the apple has already been accelerated to the velocity of the earth. For example, consider this sane thought except a passenger in a moving vehicle- the apple will not fly backwards if dropped.
A vehicle is an enclosed environment not subject to velocity while travelling inside the vehicle. Unless of course you’re in a convertible, like the earth with no roof or windows. Earth being a convertible, there is no way it is moving. You cant have a gas barrier around your convertible that keeps the environment out.
Point me to the specific part of your link that explains how earths atmosphere is maintained against the vacuum of space without a hard barrier to separate
It’s called gravity genius. And that link is about the atmosphere being dragged by the earths rotation (no-slip boundary layer fluid dynamics), nothing to do with the force of gravity overcoming the other forces acting on particles of gas which make up the atmosphere (thus “holding in” the atmosphere without some kind of firmament or whatever it is you’re suggesting here). Two different concepts.
Until you have a better one, with math backing it up, this isn’t a productive digression. I personally think the reality is something far more interesting and complicated than simple “gravity”, but, beyond a few interesting ideas (Holographic Universe being one of them, Electric Universe being another), we don’t have anything approaching an “answer” yet.
Windy mentioned convertible
Here’s his exact quote:
“ Earth being a convertible, there is no way it is moving.” Where the “it” being discussed is the atmosphere. My link does explain why the atmosphere (especially at the surface and the next few hundred feet) is moving (rotating) at roughly the same speed as the surface of the earth itself. This is known as the “no-slip boundary layer”, an indisputable fact of the physical world.
The other question:
Wondering how earths atmosphere doesn’t escape into the void of space
Has an entirely different answer, relating to entirely different forces than the first question. It can be boiled down simply however, because all that is relavent to this answer is the net forces present on the particles of gas in the atmosphere, and when the math is done, gravity dominates, and holds in our atmosphere (almost all of it - you might be aware that things like pure helium gas will have a balance of forces which yields a net force that overcomes gravity and escapes the atmosphere into space)
At over 1000 miles an hour? Strange, working against the centrifugal forces of a fidget spinner can create quite a force against your fingers, but we can spin about the surface of the earth at super sonic speeds without feeling any motion?
Here is a link to prolapsed anus. I don't recommend it be viewed by any human at all. Let me know if you like it. I'm sure you will.
Now for your information, I said nothing of the sorts as that article implies. So, are you that ten year old girl? Because if so, you are one retarded child.
I’m sure digging that image out of your archives was the highlight of your day, but let’s just review what you said and what little Sallly Fruitcake said:
You:
but we can spin about the surface of the earth at super sonic speeds without feeling any motion?
Her:
How fast would Earth need to spin for humans to be thrown into space?
I’m sure digging that image out of your archives was the highlight of your day, but let’s just review what you said and what little Sallly Fruitcake said:
Look, I just found that link while looking over your profile. It was difficult, but it was something I tolerated doing for the community.
Seems to be the same core question, no?
The feeling of centrifugal forces enacted upon the human body, in comparison to a fidget spinner, has nothing to do with being hurled from the Earth like a cartoon character in your picture shows. In the future, please focus on the Question asked, and not the one you made up in your own head.
So, I guess you are that retarded child? Please don't bother replying to that last Question, as I do not wish to see your I.Q scores, or your macaroni art.
You asked why we don’t feel the centrifugal force from being on the surface of a rotating earth. She asked how fast that rotation would need to be for the centrifugal force to overcome gravity. I’m sorry you were dropped on your head as a kid, I hear there’s some great programs out there for people like you.
Those are 2 different Questions. You can observe the feeling of the rotation of a fidget spinner pulling against your hand as you attempt to move it about at less than 1 mile an hour, and 50 grams. But you can not feel centrifugal force pulling against your body as you move about the surface while spinning at 133% the speed of sound.
I am asking you to compare the feeling of centrifugal forces that you have observers in your life, to the absolute absence of the same forces in relation to speeds that should cause whiplash.
You on the other hand, are CHOOSING to compare my Question to a Question posed in an unrelated article. Nobody asked you to do that. Stop doing that you freak! Stop obsessing over that ten year old girl's Question!
I asked about the self imposed feeling of centrifugal forces upon ones fingers in comparison to the human body. This is a subjective experiment that should cause people to Question the narrative, as everyone knows what a fidget spinner is, and their unique properties. He replied with some nonsense about being hurled from the earth.
As for the link I provided, feel free to click it. I guarantee it to be 100% safe for work. I simply linked to his profile. As he is the anus.
An apple randomly falling due to the stem snapping shouldn't have any force in the x axis, only y due to (g) acceleration at 9.81 m/s^2. (the cause of this can be debated elsewhere, but it does reliably occur.)
No offense, but this is incorrect. If you believe the earth is rotating, then everything on the earth is rotating with it, including the trees, and thus the apples on the tree. The apples still have an “X component” (aka horizontal motion).
Imagine you dropped an apple in a moving train.... does it fall straight down to your feet, or does it fall “behind” you as the train drives forward?
No need to refer to an apple falling from a tree because globers will tell you the apple and tree are spinning with the earth and so when it drops it is already moving with the spin of the earth
What you could point out are helicopters, airplanes, hot air balloons, birds and insects
These things remain airborne, change their directions, and have no issue combating the supposed 1600 km/h spin (near the equator)
Retards will tell you the earth is pulling all of those things including our atmosphere along in perfect harmony, ignoring the fact that the earth would only be spinning in the same direction always. Think about how that would relate to these airborne objects going any direction they choose
Momentum and inertia don’t explain this
I’m a helicopter. I fly somewhere, anywhere, doesn’t matter. Before I land, I hover for a bit
I’m a helicopter. I fly somewhere, anywhere, doesn’t matter. Before I land, I hover for a bit
Why isn’t the earth spinning below me?
By the time you take off you are already moving in the direction of the spin you fucking retard.
By your logic, if you are driving on a train that goes 200km/h and let something fall out of your hand, that object should shoot away at 200km/h in the direction opposite of the direction of the train.
Well, comparing the train to the aircraft is the big difference as the train is still physically attached to the spinning object
When the helicopter or hot air balloon or bird takes off from the ground, they are no longer attached to the spinning object and so whatever lateral momentum they had from the spin of that object will rapidly diminish as time elapses
Similar example is people use the “throw a baseball up in the air standing on the back of a moving pick up truck”
The baseball will initially move laterally at the same speed as the truck but immediately and quickly slowing down as the atmosphere resists the lateral movement
Comparing this to an aircraft that flies in any direction it pleases with no consequential effect from the supposed spin of the earth
Have you ever questioned the Coriolis effect? They tell us the snipers bullet must account for the spin of the earth but why doesn’t this apply to any other airborne object
Surely if the tiny bullet travelling as fast as a speeding bullet has to account for the spin then everything else would, too?
Bullets can’t course-correct mid-flight by burning fuel dude. That’s what most of your “problems” reduce to: burning fuel to overcome naturally present forces
When the helicopter or hot air balloon or bird takes off from the ground, they are no longer attached to the spinning object and so whatever lateral momentum they had from the spin of that object will rapidly diminish as time elapses
The falling object is not attached to the train so why does it not move at the same speed in the opposite direction?
Launch a mini drone in a train and let it hover. By your logic, it should move in the opposite direction of the moving train. Why doesn't it?
are you trying to tell me that if i launch a drone in the air to hover above while im in a moving vehicle, you think it'll stay directly overhead without any movement required on the drones part?
Choice implies being subjected to objectifying balance...choice exists at the center of balance; balance (momentum) exists at the center of motion.
This is how life can have free will of choice over movement (up/down; left/right; forward/back); while being moved from inception towards death aka one direction.
a) question direction (dying) causing reaction (living); then generator (dying) causing reactors (living)?
b) while being alive; one cannot perceive ones inception and death; because one exist in-between aka as reacting choice within enacting momentum.
My own observations: With a mid level telescope. I can clearly see a spherical moon, a spherical Jupiter, a spherical Saturn. While not science, I would at least hypothesize our planet would follow the clear pattern of celestial bodies I can clearly observe.
Flat earth is the original hypothesis of the earth until it was discovered to be spherical. Only after much push back from the church and “science” community. Was it accepted to be spherical.
Lastly, “flat” is a rather vague observation. It appears the word is used to mean “Not Spherical”. Flat is not a shape. Flat is also relative. If not a sphere what shape is it?
You dumb. The apple falls straight down with relative to the observer. In this case the observer and the apple are already moving with the same velocity and direction as the earth.
In a different frame of reference like a spaceship fixed in space relative to the galactic center, you would see the apple falling with the strong parabola you describe. Both frames of reference describe the same action from two viewpoints.
Einstein had an interesting spin on gravity Mass warps space. Everything is traveling in a relative straight path. But the path is warped by objects of great mass.
He proved it in an experiment with Sir Arthur Edington in may 1919 during a solar eclipse.
No because the apple has already been accelerated to the velocity of the earth. For example, consider this sane thought except a passenger in a moving vehicle- the apple will not fly backwards if dropped.
A vehicle is an enclosed environment not subject to velocity while travelling inside the vehicle. Unless of course you’re in a convertible, like the earth with no roof or windows. Earth being a convertible, there is no way it is moving. You cant have a gas barrier around your convertible that keeps the environment out.
That’s incorrect:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_layer
Specifically in the context of:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundary_layer
Are you a shill?
Point me to the specific part of your link that explains how earths atmosphere is maintained against the vacuum of space without a hard barrier to separate
It’s called gravity genius. And that link is about the atmosphere being dragged by the earths rotation (no-slip boundary layer fluid dynamics), nothing to do with the force of gravity overcoming the other forces acting on particles of gas which make up the atmosphere (thus “holding in” the atmosphere without some kind of firmament or whatever it is you’re suggesting here). Two different concepts.
Gravity is another unproven theory
Windy mentioned convertible
As in, the atmosphere of the cabin of the convertible car (earths atmosphere) has nothing separating it from the rest of the air (space)
This link explains why that is possible?
Wondering how earths atmosphere doesn’t escape into the void of space
Until you have a better one, with math backing it up, this isn’t a productive digression. I personally think the reality is something far more interesting and complicated than simple “gravity”, but, beyond a few interesting ideas (Holographic Universe being one of them, Electric Universe being another), we don’t have anything approaching an “answer” yet.
Here’s his exact quote:
“ Earth being a convertible, there is no way it is moving.” Where the “it” being discussed is the atmosphere. My link does explain why the atmosphere (especially at the surface and the next few hundred feet) is moving (rotating) at roughly the same speed as the surface of the earth itself. This is known as the “no-slip boundary layer”, an indisputable fact of the physical world.
The other question:
Has an entirely different answer, relating to entirely different forces than the first question. It can be boiled down simply however, because all that is relavent to this answer is the net forces present on the particles of gas in the atmosphere, and when the math is done, gravity dominates, and holds in our atmosphere (almost all of it - you might be aware that things like pure helium gas will have a balance of forces which yields a net force that overcomes gravity and escapes the atmosphere into space)
The good thing about this thought experiment is that it's easy enough to try IRL
At over 1000 miles an hour? Strange, working against the centrifugal forces of a fidget spinner can create quite a force against your fingers, but we can spin about the surface of the earth at super sonic speeds without feeling any motion?
Here’s an article that answers your question, and it was written for a 10 year old girl:
https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/how-fast-would-earth-need-to-spin-for-humans-to-be-thrown-into-space/
Here is a link to prolapsed anus. I don't recommend it be viewed by any human at all. Let me know if you like it. I'm sure you will.
Now for your information, I said nothing of the sorts as that article implies. So, are you that ten year old girl? Because if so, you are one retarded child.
I’m sure digging that image out of your archives was the highlight of your day, but let’s just review what you said and what little Sallly Fruitcake said:
You:
Her:
Seems to be the same core question, no?
Look, I just found that link while looking over your profile. It was difficult, but it was something I tolerated doing for the community.
The feeling of centrifugal forces enacted upon the human body, in comparison to a fidget spinner, has nothing to do with being hurled from the Earth like a cartoon character in your picture shows. In the future, please focus on the Question asked, and not the one you made up in your own head.
So, I guess you are that retarded child? Please don't bother replying to that last Question, as I do not wish to see your I.Q scores, or your macaroni art.
You asked why we don’t feel the centrifugal force from being on the surface of a rotating earth. She asked how fast that rotation would need to be for the centrifugal force to overcome gravity. I’m sorry you were dropped on your head as a kid, I hear there’s some great programs out there for people like you.
Those are 2 different Questions. You can observe the feeling of the rotation of a fidget spinner pulling against your hand as you attempt to move it about at less than 1 mile an hour, and 50 grams. But you can not feel centrifugal force pulling against your body as you move about the surface while spinning at 133% the speed of sound.
I am asking you to compare the feeling of centrifugal forces that you have observers in your life, to the absolute absence of the same forces in relation to speeds that should cause whiplash.
You on the other hand, are CHOOSING to compare my Question to a Question posed in an unrelated article. Nobody asked you to do that. Stop doing that you freak! Stop obsessing over that ten year old girl's Question!
Part of me wants to click just to confirm it’s a prolapsed anus but my preference to avoid the image is overpowering my curiosity
Without fail, literally every single time, the globers include ad hominem attacks with their responses
Every single time
I asked about the self imposed feeling of centrifugal forces upon ones fingers in comparison to the human body. This is a subjective experiment that should cause people to Question the narrative, as everyone knows what a fidget spinner is, and their unique properties. He replied with some nonsense about being hurled from the earth.
As for the link I provided, feel free to click it. I guarantee it to be 100% safe for work. I simply linked to his profile. As he is the anus.
/thread
Planar and motionless!
No offense, but this is incorrect. If you believe the earth is rotating, then everything on the earth is rotating with it, including the trees, and thus the apples on the tree. The apples still have an “X component” (aka horizontal motion).
Imagine you dropped an apple in a moving train.... does it fall straight down to your feet, or does it fall “behind” you as the train drives forward?
Exact same scenario here
No need to refer to an apple falling from a tree because globers will tell you the apple and tree are spinning with the earth and so when it drops it is already moving with the spin of the earth
What you could point out are helicopters, airplanes, hot air balloons, birds and insects
These things remain airborne, change their directions, and have no issue combating the supposed 1600 km/h spin (near the equator)
Retards will tell you the earth is pulling all of those things including our atmosphere along in perfect harmony, ignoring the fact that the earth would only be spinning in the same direction always. Think about how that would relate to these airborne objects going any direction they choose
Momentum and inertia don’t explain this
I’m a helicopter. I fly somewhere, anywhere, doesn’t matter. Before I land, I hover for a bit
Why isn’t the earth spinning below me?
No glober can answer this
Okay. The helicopter airplane idea expressed here is the first flat earth thought that has intrigued me. Very interesting.
And yes, you are right with the apple. That was my first response.
Holy cow. My mind is blown right now and I will have to think about this more.
By the time you take off you are already moving in the direction of the spin you fucking retard.
By your logic, if you are driving on a train that goes 200km/h and let something fall out of your hand, that object should shoot away at 200km/h in the direction opposite of the direction of the train.
How do you explain that it does not?
I didn’t specify which direction I’m travelling
You’re just retarded, handshake
Why? Explain.
Your train example is impressively retarded
Why? Explain.
Well, comparing the train to the aircraft is the big difference as the train is still physically attached to the spinning object
When the helicopter or hot air balloon or bird takes off from the ground, they are no longer attached to the spinning object and so whatever lateral momentum they had from the spin of that object will rapidly diminish as time elapses
Similar example is people use the “throw a baseball up in the air standing on the back of a moving pick up truck”
The baseball will initially move laterally at the same speed as the truck but immediately and quickly slowing down as the atmosphere resists the lateral movement
Comparing this to an aircraft that flies in any direction it pleases with no consequential effect from the supposed spin of the earth
Have you ever questioned the Coriolis effect? They tell us the snipers bullet must account for the spin of the earth but why doesn’t this apply to any other airborne object
Surely if the tiny bullet travelling as fast as a speeding bullet has to account for the spin then everything else would, too?
Bullets can’t course-correct mid-flight by burning fuel dude. That’s what most of your “problems” reduce to: burning fuel to overcome naturally present forces
how much fuel does a hot air balloon need to burn to counteract a 1600km/h spin?
or a bird
or an insect
The falling object is not attached to the train so why does it not move at the same speed in the opposite direction?
Launch a mini drone in a train and let it hover. By your logic, it should move in the opposite direction of the moving train. Why doesn't it?
are you trying to tell me that if i launch a drone in the air to hover above while im in a moving vehicle, you think it'll stay directly overhead without any movement required on the drones part?
Choice implies being subjected to objectifying balance...choice exists at the center of balance; balance (momentum) exists at the center of motion.
This is how life can have free will of choice over movement (up/down; left/right; forward/back); while being moved from inception towards death aka one direction.
a) question direction (dying) causing reaction (living); then generator (dying) causing reactors (living)?
b) while being alive; one cannot perceive ones inception and death; because one exist in-between aka as reacting choice within enacting momentum.
Askrd an artist to draw a landscape or cityscape according to the official horizon lines of tilt and curve.. Things should tilt backwards away from you beyond the horizon line. https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=30&h0=10&unit=imperial
Her head spinned.
Not possible. Hardest assignment she'd ever had. She said.
My own observations: With a mid level telescope. I can clearly see a spherical moon, a spherical Jupiter, a spherical Saturn. While not science, I would at least hypothesize our planet would follow the clear pattern of celestial bodies I can clearly observe. Flat earth is the original hypothesis of the earth until it was discovered to be spherical. Only after much push back from the church and “science” community. Was it accepted to be spherical. Lastly, “flat” is a rather vague observation. It appears the word is used to mean “Not Spherical”. Flat is not a shape. Flat is also relative. If not a sphere what shape is it?
You dumb. The apple falls straight down with relative to the observer. In this case the observer and the apple are already moving with the same velocity and direction as the earth.
In a different frame of reference like a spaceship fixed in space relative to the galactic center, you would see the apple falling with the strong parabola you describe. Both frames of reference describe the same action from two viewpoints.
Einstein had an interesting spin on gravity Mass warps space. Everything is traveling in a relative straight path. But the path is warped by objects of great mass.