LOL. I don't know if this is a joke, but I can assure you that mine was definitely a joke. I have got to be the biggest "globetard" here. I have this pathological masochistic tendency of patiently explaining the real physics behind the supposed FE proofs. I rarely get anywhere.
As far as toroidal planets go, I have never really studied them but as far as I understand some very smart people have and it is theoretically possible for a rocky toroidal planetary mass to exist under a balance of self gravitation and rotation. That said, the possibility that earth is toroidal is pretty much 0, just like the possibility that earth is flat or a "pond" on an "ice ball" of significantly larger radius than the conventional earth radius is also 0.
Now, to continue the joke a bit, and "answer" some of your questions, the "many earths as 'ponds' on a giant ice ball" theory actually provides a path for a possible explanation for the 24 hour sun observed in The Final Experiment. In effect, the 24 hour sun at "north pole" is our sun while it is in its northern / inner rotation period. The 24 hour sun in the south pole is the combined effect of our sun while it is in its southern / outer rotation and the suns from nearby "ponds" also at this part of their cycle.
Wow, I may have provided the answer to The Final Experiment.
This one should be called The Great Compromise.
Density doesn't take any mental gymnastics
How do the sun and moon stay in the air under the THEORY of density and buoyancy? Are they lighter than the air? Where does all the energy of the sun come from if it is lighter than air and smaller than the earth (FE maintains the sun is smaller than the earth)?
No one mentioned a train but a plane...
Same question in a plane. Does it take longer to walk one way in the aisle of the plane rather than the other? How about flying an RC helicopter on a plane? How about "hovering" an RC helicopter on a plane? Would such a "hovering" RC helicopter slam into the back of the plane at 500 miles per hour, maybe killing a flight attendant? If not, why is the "spinning ball" different than the plane (or train or ferry or bus).
It makes zero sense that both travel times are the same
There is no quantity of times you can say this that makes it be true. Eric Dubay and Dave Weiss can make those videos if they want. It's a free world out there. But no one smart is tricked by them.
that is supposedly spinning. 66,000 mph to boot lol
Much like the OP here, this is not correct. The equator spins around 1000 mph and it is a function of latitude (this isn't "magic changing spin," just look at a spinning ball, the speed is different across it). The 66,000 mph is the average orbital speed around the sun.
To say the plane is locked to the earth's spin is absolute nonsense in my mind.
This is the first accurate thing you have said. You are rejecting the theory, which is an opinion that you are expressing. You are welcome to reject the theory. But nevertheless, this is what conventional physics says, so this is its explanation for why the travel times are equal.
The earth isn't... eyes can see and more.
All opinions you are more than entitled to.
Tons of evidence and experiments support this.
No.
Again...
An opinion you are entitled to. Those liars do also say that the sky is blue, though. I guess you should start saying it is green. Have a great Memorial Day.
Anything heavier than air will sink and lighter than air will rise such as a helium balloon or smoke.
Why? What causes that? The flat earth model implicitly assumes a preferred, "natural" direction of falling / down. Things fall in this direction, "down," because that is just the way that it is. Different densities then lead to the "sorting out" that we see, as the denser object is more likely to go down, and this phenomenon they call "buoyancy."
No magical gravity that works on some things but not others
Yes, because you have instead a "magical" principle of "density and buoyancy," whereas conventional physics has "gravity." The only argument is that FE says their model is universal and gravity is not. This is pretty much the opposite as the truth. As I have repeatedly said, in conventional Newtonian (and relativistic) physics, gravity is universal. It does not "work on some things but not others" it is literally the most universal of the four forces. In conventional physics, "buoyancy" is a phenomenon that appears in certain circumstances due to gravity, density, and fluid mechanics. Also, the "end result" of buoyancy is not in fact universal, and there are demonstrations in which it is violated, sometimes in an unstable fashion and sometimes in a stable fashion.
and remember its still considered the THEORY of gravity.
The plane traveling against the spin... Does this not make logical sense?
It obviously makes sense to the FE crowd because they cite this over and over again. To me, this is so obvious that it led me to assume that FEers were all trolling, but I have decided that this is not true. I guess all I can say is this. If you are on a train car and pacing up and down the aisle of the car, does it take you longer to go from the back of the car to the front than from the front to the back? By the FE argument, it must take longer to walk forward in the car "against its motion" and it must be faster to walk to the back "traveling with the motion."
Of course, I have to assume you know that the answer is "no" because you have been on a train or subway or ferry and walked on it in both directions. So you are well aware that you are walking relative to the floor of the vessel and it takes you equal time to go in both directions. And before you say "yes, but we are talking about flying," I would ask the same question about flying an RC helicopter or drone up and down the train / ferry. As long as you are inside, the air is moving with you, no matter how fast you are going, and so the RC copter flies the same time in both directions (if you were outside and there was relative wind, again, this is not true).
This is why I keep telling you that it is actually conventional physics that is more universal and consistent. FE has to pretend that for some reason, traveling on "the spinning ball" is different than walking up and down a subway car. It isn't.
It sounds like you are asking if a helicopter can remain in a single place in the earth's orbit and have the earth return to it a year later. I'm not sure if this question is serious, but clearly the answer is no. The helicopter flies in the earth's atmosphere. If it remained in a single place in the earth orbit for a year, it would be in empty space until the earth returned. Doing this would involve, from the perspective of someone on earth, the helicopter flying up into space and then remaining in a single spot there despite the force of the sun's gravity. Helicopters only fly up to a mile or two, and they certainly cannot hover in a vacuum (although not too much is needed to counteract the sun).
Generally, the flat earth arguments are along the lines of the helicopter being expected to remain at one place relative to the earth center with the earth rotating underneath it. The long thread above is me trying to convince one of them that this is not in fact an argument that the globe is invalid, no matter what Eric Dubey and Dave Weiss say. A hovering helicopter hovers above the ground, and since the ground is moving as a part of earth rotation, so is the hovering helicopter (at the same speed), as is the air (up to the difference caused by wind).
From a broader perspective, even remaining in one place in the earth orbit is still "moving" since the whole solar system orbits the galactic center. So saying "I want to stay still relative to the earth orbit and see it return next year" is still arbitrary, as you are following the solar orbit around the galaxy. And the galactic center of mass moves relative to others as well.
Incidentally, this "motion upon motion" is always cited by flat earthers as completely preposterous and not explainable by conventional science. This is all false, the principles are all very simple.
OK, that's fine. I tried to give a relatively complete answer and maybe that was a mistake. The TLDR is that the rotation affects everything the same way, the helicopter, the jet, the balloon, the mosquito, everything. The effect is generally very small and completely dominated by other disturbances, most notably the wind. This is to say a balloon does not "float straight up" but is subject to the earth rotation as well, you just aren't able to see it.
The flat earth material always appeals to "buoyancy" and "density" but it never rigorously defines how these things behave so I'm not sure what to say. In conventional physics, they both have precise definitions, along with of course gravity. In fact, buoyancy is defined in terms of gravity and density (in a fluid medium).
Maybe my explanation was confusing, but there is no issue with the plane flight times being the same. The plane is flying some speed (e.g. 500 mph) in the air. The air is (very roughly) moving with the earth. Therefore the flight times east and west are the same (this is no longer true when there is significant winds).
I was thinking about this today, and even if one were to build such a perfect machine and run it on a windless day, when the copter started to drift westwards it would then be in a relative wind and so come to a stop eventually unless a horizontal thrust was applied.
As to your copter in Florida, these "hovering arguments" are always relying on a naive picture. Aircraft are built for the air, so their performance is relative to what the air is doing. In the globe model, the earth has a 4000 mile radius and rotates once every 24 hours. This does imply, as anti globes always dismiss as ridiculous, that at the equator the earth is moving a bit more than 1000 mph. In Florida, it would be more like 850 mph or so because it is at about 30 degrees of latitude. When the helicopter is on the ground, it is moving the same speed. Also, all the air is moving on average that speed, and what we call "wind" is really any difference between the air speed and the ground speed.
So the globe model would be that when the helicopter takes off into "hover," it is moving eastward at the local ambient ~850 mph and it lifts into air also moving on average that speed except for whatever breeze there might be. If the helicopter actually were to hover so that it would be stationary according to a non rotating earth, this would involve flying west through the air at over 800 miles per hour, which is clearly impossible.
Why would the spin... as you state?
In the thought experiment I said before, the rising object at tropical and lower mid latitudes would be pushed west for the same reason that someone who tries to walk from the interior to the perimeter of a running merry-go-round is "pushed backwards." In order to rotate once per 24 hours when you are a mile up in the sky, you need to be moving a little faster. If you do not push yourself faster, it will appear on the ground like you were "pushed backwards" which on earth is west.
A helium balloon isn't affected by its spin...it just floots up
As I said, at the equator, where the up/down-east/west Coriolis is maximum, it would be about a quarter mph for rising a mile. First of all, at a mile up you would not be able to resolve this drift in the balloon, especially when it is masked by random winds. On top of that, even if we could stop all wind and measure the balloon precisely with a telescope, the effect would die out quickly, because once the balloon is "pushed west" (to the person on the ground it appears this way), then the balloon is in a relative wind. We said there is no wind in this experiment, so if the balloon is moving west it experiences drag and so "slows down" (this "slowing down" as it appears to the person on the ground is really a "speeding up" eastward).
planes traveling east to west and vice versa should have way different times
Again, this is the naive view. The plane is a machine that flies in the air. The globe model is a rotating earth with an atmosphere that is on average rotating with it, and "wind" is a difference between air speed and ground speed. You may find it counterintuitive, you may choose to reject it, that's fine. But standard Newtonian mechanics says that if the ground is moving from Los Angeles to Atlanta at about 850 mph, then the air above it more or less is too. A plane on the runway waiting to take off is moving that same speed. When it does take off, it does so into this "moving air" and that is what it flies in. So if there is no wind, the flight time is about the same in both directions. If there is significant wind, then one way is a bit faster than the other (the one with a "tail wind.")
What I am saying is conventional physics would say "goes straight up in the air 90° straight up" and "Hovers for hours, no adjustments no controls just stay hovering without any lateral movement" are contradictory to each other. Maybe this is obvious to me because I am an engineer. In the real world, the only way something would remain in the same place like that is because it is being controlled, either by a human or a computer. The major disturbances preventing this are the wind and mechanical imbalance in the helicopter, and buried under these is the effect of the earth's rotation.
But what if we make a perfect helicopter that can push straight up in perfect balance with no sideways thrust and run it on a day with absolutely no wind?
In this theoretical situation, then the prediction would be that that such a helicopter would drift slowly due to the earth's rotation. If such a perfect helicopter and windless atmosphere existed, and the copter were flown to a mile of altitude near the equator, then while up there we would expect it to drift westward a bit more than a quarter mile per hour due to to the earth's rotation.
This experiment is pretty much impossible to do though. Any hovering helicopter is being controlled by a pilot or a computerized flight control system.
OK. I guess I just have a hard time understanding how people have a hard time understanding this. I used to think that flat earth was all fake and there weren't actually people who believed it. I have come around to the idea that some people really do believe it in good faith, and those people are generally allies on most issues.
I don't really have a problem with it. I just find it bizarre I guess. As far as hovering goes, what someone does when they hover a helicopter is they hold it steady over a spot on the earth. That is what the word "hover" means in English. The way the pilot knows he is hovering is by watching the earth and adjusting the craft to stay over the same spot. So, by definition, the craft is staying over the same spot. The pilot is just adjusting the controls to ensure that this happens based on what he sees the craft doing relative to the ground.
This is why I said "if you fly 500 miles per hour north for an hour, you land 500 miles north of where you started." It is literally the same thing as hovering being remaining over one spot. You are just stating what the pilot is doing using English words.
Hands down still the best account here lmao. I'm not sure if you are being completely serious or this is an elaborate troll, but either way I approve.
That is what I was assuming you meant. I figured that this was some Eric Duvey "200 proofs" sort of argument. That is why I posted that something that is "hovering" will remain over the same spot on the ground simply by the definition of the word "hover," and since it remains over the same spot on the ground, when it descends it lands on the same spot it raised off of initially. There is nothing mysterious about this happening.
I gotta say, I really try to remain open to the flat earth and other "globe rejecting" people. I'm not "triggered" by flat earth, as the meme goes. I try to hear them out and watch their documentaries or whatever to see if anyone has a good argument for their position. I always see things like this, and as respectfully as possible, this is why so many people do not take flat earth people seriously.
There is a difference between thinking the globe model is wrong and saying you have found a situation where the globe model makes an incorrect prediction. If you think "the spinning ball" is false then that is fine, people are entitled to their opinions and beliefs. But saying you found someplace where it makes an incorrect prediction is not an opinion, it is a factual claim. In all honesty, do you really believe that helicopter hovering is mechanically inconsistent with and cannot be explained by the globe model? I mean, is that honestly your understanding of the so called "spinning ball"?
Are you posting your own book that you are selling for a few hundred dollars?
The book says it is TOP SECRET but there is all the public data you could ever want about this topic.
As a rough "audit of this audit," a single mile thick shell of the earth out here at the surface* is 201 million cubic miles. A cubic mile is 147 billion cubic feet. So the shell of earth is about 29.5 "thousand million billion" ("billion billion" or "quintillion" if I counted correctly) cubic feet. A cubic foot is about 28.3 liters, so that means our shell of the earth is about 834 "billion billion" (i.e. "quintillion") liters. If your bathtub is is 300 liters, then this is almost 3 billion-billion bathtubs.
I am not sure of the percentage that is oil, but if only 1 millionth of the earth's crust is oil, then our 50 million bathtubs per day from one millionth of that volume is about 3 million / (50/day) ~= 60,000 days ~= 160 years. Of course, we pump oil from more than one mile of the earth's crust. Prior to modern methods, there were predictions (i.e. in the 1970s) that we would run out of oil by the year 2000. Nowadays they estimate a century or two of oil?
These numbers are wags for an order of magnitude check. If you want real numbers, you can research oil reserves on EIA or any other source if you don't believe the US government.
* Not sure if this will discredit me because you reject the globe model.
Very interesting video and wow, what a shame Disney sucks so much these days. I was not aware of all this and now am a bit interested in the properties of the pentagram and of the other regular "-grams." It would be cool to find some collection of Pythagorean mathematics. The most common item (honestly the only one I see) discussed today is* the irrationality of non integer square roots. Supposedly, according to the legend, the Pythagoreans considered this to be a very dangerous piece of math and kept it a secret.
*No, it is not the Pythagorean theorem because despite the name, no one talks about whatever Pythagoras' proof of it was.
Yeah, of course. Lemaître was basically the first proposer of a theory along the lines of what is now called "The Big Bang," although he apparently (according to Wikipedia) used the phrase "primordial atom." Something like the Hubble Law (which is officially called the Hubble-Lemaître Law) and its implications on the distant past / universe origins has nothing to do with the orbital motion of the earth around the sun. The solar system model predates The Big Bang, Lemaître, Einstein, and Relativity by centuries.
And yes, he was a Jesuit priest. If you reject The Big Bang because the original theory is from a Jesuit then I guess that is your right. I personally do not have strong feelings about it, as it seems difficult to me to look at the present view of outer space and project that backwards to when the universe was supposedly smaller than an atom. I don't mind that people do that, I guess, it is just not something I care too much about.
I personally always thought it amusing that modern "anti bible thumper trust the science" people, who have replaced The Book of Genesis with The Big Bang, seemed totally unaware that it was a Catholic priest who came up with this theory. When one considers that it seems to harmonize science with religion, it is a bit interesting.
He is not George Floyd for white people. He either acted in self defense or he did not. If he attacked the person / shot him unprovoked, then that is a crime. If the person attacked him, as virtually everyone honest is saying that the video shows, then he acted in self defense.
Whether Chud's material is good / intelligent / helpful or not, and even whether he is a part of a wider deep state conspiracy to "divide and conquer" is totally irrelevant. If he was attacked merely for his words and shot the man in self defense, then everyone of conscience should support him.
Incidentally, while I don't know much about Chud's personal traits and whether he is "George Floyd for white people," it is definitely looking like we have another "George Floyd" (as in, for black people), in the supposed "victim" that Chud shot. If you want to see the criminal history, particularly the violent criminal history, of the attacker, I'm sure you can find it on the tubes at this point.
The "Jesuits" do not say that the earth is "spinning 66k mph." "Modern" astronomy (where "modern" means the past 400 years or so so is a bit of a stretch of the term) says that the earth and everything on it, including you, is moving about 66k mph in orbit around the sun. Not feeling that motion does not require the sled launching system demonstrated here. Anytime you sit in any vehicle moving at a significant speed, that vehicle is moving at a speed which would kill you if it were to hit you, and yet you feel stationary in your seat because you are moving the same speed as the vehicle. Do you feel like you are moving >500 mph when you are on a jet plane?
Incidentally this "modern Jesuit" astronomy states that the spin of the earth causes 1k mph motion at the equator, but the speed caused by this spin is latitude dependent and is 0 at the north and south poles. To see why this is the case, just get any ball and spin it.
LOL. The video basically demonstrates that relative velocity works exactly as "globetards" say it does. Note that while on the truck, definitely do not hang your arm or leg over the side and hit a sign passing by, as it will be moving 80 km/hr. Also note that while getting launched down the bed of the truck, definitely do not hang and arm or leg over the side and hit anything attached to the truck, as it will be moving 80 km/hr.
But, if you do the experiment correctly, you land on the street as planned. Also, just to be a stickler, the video is entitled "He Trusted Physics..." but this is not quite right. Only some fool would not trust "physics" when it is a concept as simple as relative velocity. What this guy actually trusted, and this is much less certain and scarier, is engineering. If the sled launching system had a 10% error, the guy would have had to land at 8 km/hr, which is 5 mi/hr. Every additional 10% on the error would be another 5 mi/hr when hitting the pavement.
Yeah. If anything rises "perfectly straight up in the sky" and "hovers" (assuming by "hover" we mean "fly without moving" as is the common usage of the word), then whenever it lands, no matter how much later in the future, it will be at the same spot it took off at. I'm not sure what the point of the comment is, these are just the definitions of words.
Also, if you take off and fly straight north at 500 miles per hour for one hour and then land, you will be 500 miles north of your starting point (assuming you started more than 500 miles away from the north pole). Also just definitions.
LMAO do normie conservative Brits still say "but muh Poland"? Are they aware that at the end of the war, Poland did not exist as a nation, and would not for another 45 years or so? Do they have any explanation for why they needed to fight an enormous bloody war for over half a decade that bankrupted and destroyed their empire just to replace the German occupier of Poland with a Russian occupier of Poland?
Thank god all those men fought and died to protect the right of the British nation to not speak German.
I was thinking the same thing.
Black man attacks white man over "racism." White man shoots black man in self defense. White man arrested for shooting.
Brown man stabs white man over "racism." White man arrested for racism before dying of the wounds.
Remember, with every double standard, there is a single standard.
There is no country more guilty than the UK and they are getting precisely what they deserve. Those buck toothed dumb asses are the principal reason we had WWII and more than anyone are at fault for our predicament. Hitler all but got down on his knees and publicly begged them to come to a diplomatic arrangement with him.
Obviously, I am willing to put everything aside in the interest of solving our problems. But at some point in the future, the Brits are going to have to apologize to all of Western Civilization for electing that lazy fat retarded shabbos goy Churchill and dragging all of us into what should have been a regional war between Germany and the USSR. They honestly should atone by removing every statue of Churchill in the country and replacing them with statues of Hitler. It would be a start at least.
These posts are still the best part of this place.
What a wonderful video from a time so very long ago. Can you believe that this is what it used to be like here?
I will object to his use of the word "elastic" though. The glass generally breaks when used as a hammer because it is brittle, and the water prevents this (if the experiment is set up correctly) because it is (nearly) incompressible. It is not really meaningful to say that water is or is not elastic, because it is a fluid and elasticity is a property of solids (yes I know, compressible fluids are in some imprecise sense "elastic").
Rubber bands are elastic within the (wait for it) "elastic range," and metal and (definitely) glass are not elastic outside of the elastic range. However, it is a common surprising fact pointed out in any textbook with a title like "Strength and Elasticity" that rubber is surprisingly incompressible in comparison to its stiffness.
The surprising result with the bubbles can be read about here. For a more intuitive picture, imagine a small bubble sliced in half (so we are looking at a hemisphere). The inner pressure pushes in one direction (say up) with total force pi*(p_i)*(r_i)^2. The outer (ambient) pressure pushes the other way (i.e. down) with total force pi*(p_o)*(r_o)^2. If you drew your picture carefully, you will see that surface tension pulls in the same direction as the outside pressure, with total force 2pi*(r_av)*(s), s the surface tension per unit length.
If you assume that the thickness of the bubble is negligible compared to its radius, you will get that the pressure inside the bubble is 4*s / r_av larger than the ambient pressure. This means that small bubbles have a higher internal pressure than large ones, so that the bubbles do not equalize, as the host guessed, but the small bubble vacates into the large one.
Obviously, the demonstration of the principle of the submarine is presuming gravity is pulling everything downward, because the good professor is a "globetard" like all smart people are, lol.
I thought Toys 'R Us was hunted to extinction by poachers.