Ask a physicist anything. (4)

[Nabobalis]

Post #153
Barbour and Bertotti proved that a large hollow sphere (representing the distant star fields) rotating around a small solid sphere inside (modeling the Earth) produced exactly the same pattern of Coriolis and centrifugal forces that are claimed as proof of Earth's spinning in space.

So you are suggesting that the entire universe is all on a hollow sphere? So everything in the universe is the same distance from the earth?

Not only that, that book is not proof of anything without references to back up the statements.

 

[mzungu]

Post #153

You claim that the whole universe rotates around a fixed earth. This means that you have just PWND yourself! A fixed object cannot exhibit the Coriolis effect; The universe (including the pink unicorns) can rotate all it wants; And this cannot change the fact that the earth does indeed rotate about its axis and this in turn allows for the Coriolis effect to manifest itself on all projectiles and moving molecules etc.

You have been PAWND and unless you can bring forth valid arguments and empirical evidences proving that a static earth exhibits the Coriolis effect; Then you are bound by the rules of mature conduct to accept defeat.

Woof

 

[Dr.Strangelove]

So you are suggesting that the entire universe is all on a hollow sphere? So everything in the universe is the same distance from the earth?

Not only that, that book is not proof of anything without references to back up the statements.

Indeed I'm suggesting that the universe is spherical in nature and the edge is the same distance from the Earth in 360 degrees. The whole thing rotates around the celestial North and south poles. The north of which is polaris, which never moves in our sky.

 

[Dr.Strangelove]

You claim that the whole universe rotates around a fixed earth. This means that you have just PWND yourself! A fixed object cannot exhibit the Coriolis effect; The universe (including the pink unicorns) can rotate all it wants; And this cannot change the fact that the earth does indeed rotate about its axis and this in turn allows for the Coriolis effect to manifest itself on all projectiles and moving molecules etc.

You have been PAWND and unless you can bring forth valid arguments and empirical evidences proving that a static earth exhibits the Coriolis effect; Then you are bound by the rules of mature conduct to accept defeat.

Woof

So, just to be clear....you are flat out denying that the Barbour & Bertotti experiment exists?

 

[Deleteriousnonsense]

Apparently this fellow has never experienced night and day. Must be because Mom's basement is dark 24/7.

 

[mzungu]

So, just to be clear....you are flat out denying that the Barbour & Bertotti experiment exists?

You have yet to prove that the Coriolis effect can manifest itself on a stationary object.

I vote: PWND!

 

[Dr.Strangelove]

Apparently this fellow has never experienced night and day. Must be because Mom's basement is dark 24/7.

I see the sunrise and the sunset everyday.

No reason to believe this is not the motion of the sun, as we observe, and is instead the axial rotation of the Earth.

You can go ahead and believe your God given senses. Both physical and common. Isn't it liberating! **sigh**

Question for a physicist:

If I get in a helicopter on the equator and fly directly up and hover for one hour, why is it that when I land I'm not 1000 miles away from where I took off.......if the Earth is alledgedly spinning at 1000 miles per hour?

 

[Dr.Strangelove]

You have yet to prove that the Coriolis effect can manifest itself on a stationary object.

I vote: PWND!

Barbour & Bertotti proved it. You can perform the same experiment yourself if you wish and get the same results.

I repeat, do you deny their experiment exists?

 

[mzungu]

I see the sunrise and the sunset everyday.

No reason to believe this is not the motion of the sun, as we observe, and is instead the axial rotation of the Earth.

You can go ahead and believe your God given senses. Both physical and common. Isn't it liberating! **sigh**

Question for a physicist:

If I get in a helicopter on the equator and fly directly up and hover for one hour, why is it that when I land I'm not 1000 miles away from where I took off.......if the Earth is alledgedly spinning at 1000 miles per hour?

Here this is a good answer by a fellow named Asker!:

Because you are travelling with the earth at take off, the airplanes velocity relative to space, is equal to that of earth (plus/minus it's velocity relative to the earth). If you throw a tennis ball inside of a bus, to the guy sitting in the eat next to you, and the bus doesn't change speed / direction while the ball is in flight, it will travel directly to that person. You do not need to take into account that the bus is travelling 60 km/h when you start your throw and aim it way in front of your buddy. This is because the ball is already moving that same 60 km/h foreward at the moment you release it towards your friend.

Planes work the same way, (when you negate some of the mechanics of the jet stream and such), they are already moving at the velocity of the earths rotation when they take of at "said speed." That "said speed" is relative to the earth, not relative to space. If we calculated speeds relative to space, even motionless objects on the equator would be "moving" 1000km/h, and that's not even accounting the earth's orbit, just its rotation.

 

[mzungu]

Barbour & Bertotti proved it. You can perform the same experiment yourself if you wish and get the same results.

I repeat, do you deny their experiment exists?

The existence of an experiment does not mean that the outcome of the experiment is sound. You are talking about thought experiment and I am talking empirical evidence.

You may as well say: "I can prove Elvis lives on the moon because I have this thought experiment that if I can envision Elvis on a lunar landscape then he (Elvis) must be on the moon" ?????

Prove to me the Coriolis effect on a stationary object and then we can talk!

 

[Dr.Strangelove]

Here this is a good answer by a fellow named Asker!:

If we calculated speeds relative to space, even motionless objects on the equator would be "moving" 1000km/h, and that's not even accounting the earth's orbit, just its rotation.

Are you saying that this claim applies to a helicopter flying above the surface?

 

[Dr.Strangelove]

The existence of an experiment does not mean that the outcome of the experiment is sound. You are talking about thought experiment and I am talking empirical evidence.

I dont know what you're talking about. It's a physical experiment. Show us how it is unsound.

Prove to me the Coriolis effect on a stationary object and then we can talk!

If you don't accept Barbour & Bertotti's actual, real, physical experiment then it looks like we won't be talking anymore.

 

[mzungu]

I dont know what you're talking about. It's a physical experiment. Show us how it is unsound.



If you don't accept Barbour & Bertotti's actual, real, physical experiment then it looks like we won't be talking anymore.

You still have not shown to me any evidence that the Coriolis effect can happen on a static object.

 

[mzungu]

Are you saying that this claim applies to a helicopter flying above the surface?

Have you ever travelled by plane? If you have you would know that even though a jet airliner travels at approx 800kph you could hover a toy rc helicopter in the cabin and it will remain on the spot even though the plane is travelling at 700 feet per second!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I trimmed a lot of your post down, as it's just inane babble.

Exactly so they're not evidence that the Earth moves either

Once again you spectacularly miss the point: they don't use heliocentricity, so even you can be sure of their results. Thus, we know the distance to the stars. Thus, we can experimentally test stellar parallax and see if the results it gives us are the same as the results we got when we used every other test.

Lo and behold, they do.

If thats based on heliocentric parallax then I'm confident that those figures are approx. 23,250 times larger than they should be.

First, heliocentric parallax wouldn't work on Pluto (something you'd know if you actually understood how parallax works, but nevermind).
Second, I'd like to see how you got that factor of 23,250.

The force has been tested under labaratory conditions. It's real. The universe rotates at it's fixed celestial pole. The north star. So obviously the force varies depending on you're latitude on Earth.

First, the North star moves like every other star.
Second, you've simply asserted that the force varies depending on latitude. Why, though? And why does the universe exert the Coriolis force?

How do they disprove a stationary Earth. Do they involve a) Theoretical stellar parallax or b) some other kind of theory?

Let me guess, you reject General Relativity too, right?

You're saying we move the Earth when we dig up a peice of it???

Bingo. The effect is minute, but it's there. The Earth is moving because we can physically move it, just as we can spin a football: we apply a torque, and it spins. The Earth is very large, so we can't spin it very much, but it does have an effect.

Of course it's a theory. You say it's scientific fact?

I say it is both. However, Creationists are fond of saying it's just a theory, as if its status as a theory somehow detracts from its veracity. Which is something you continue to do. So, tell me, what's your opinion on the theory of common descent?

We don't use GR to create orbits. We throw an object out there and a force holds it in position and allows it to orbit the Earth. We also can send a satellite into a high Earth orbit and keep it there absolutely stationary relative to a stationary Earth. Gravity or Electromagnetism?

Gravity. We use GR to predict how the object will behave - and, lo and behold, objects obey GR. NASA involves a bit more than throwing an object out there; the calculations required to get something in orbit are a bit beyond your comprehension, I'd wager.

Uhm.....what force or theory are you reffering to here? Is it theoretical?

Gravity. Honestly, how many times do I have to say this?

Careful theorizing of evidence reveals more complex things going on.

Again, you still seem to think 'theory' is a dirty word.

No you attribute it's spin to a theory.

Indeed: a well-evidenced theory accepted by the entire scientific community.

Is a centrifugal, coreolis force the same as a gravitational force?

They are fictitious forces that arise from looking at something in a non-inertial frame. Someone on a rotating ball will see things freefall as if there's a lateral force applied to them - but there's no such force, as it's just the rotation of the ball.

Stationary with respect to what?
...
You stating that Earth accelerates does NOT make it so.
...
Did you want to debate their experiment or do you just wanna say their wrong?
...
Using theoretics per chance? The B&B experiment stands.

Hardly. Newton disproved it using cold, hard, mathematics - the kind that doesn't vary from place to place. If an object is inside a hollow shell of matter, then said object will not experience any gravitational force from said shell. This is a proven fact.

This is pretty moot as the B&B experiment covers coreolis force in the geocentric universe...........but interesting to discuss none the less.

B&B did not do what you think they did. A spinning universe surrounding the Earth would not have a gravitational force on the Earth - or, indeed, any sort of force. Newton proved that in the most general case, and thus it holds here.

 

[Dr.Strangelove]

You still have not shown to me any evidence that the Coriolis effect can happen on a static object.

**Yawn**

Have you ever travelled by plane? If you have you would know that even though a jet airliner travels at approx 800kph you could hover a toy rc helicopter in the cabin and it will remain on the spot even though the plane is travelling at 700 feet per second

How does that relate to my question?

Your talking about momentum.

I'm asking why the Earth doesn't turn under a hovering helicopter.

Question to a physicist:

Is the atmosphere rotating in perfect synchronicity with the Earth?

 

[SithDoughnut]

Is the atmosphere rotating in perfect synchronicity with the Earth?

I'm not a physicist, but the answer to this is no. The atmosphere is not perfectly still, it's still moving with the Earth, but not necessarily at the same speed. Hence why the wind generally goes in certain directions but not others, due to the Coriolis effect (again).

Of course, someone better educated may correct me on this, but this is what I understand.

 

[Dr.Strangelove]

Once again you spectacularly miss the point: they don't use heliocentricity, so even you can be sure of their results. Thus, we know the distance to the stars. Thus, we can experimentally test stellar parallax and see if the results it gives us are the same as the results we got when we used every other test.

Great let's see how we measure star distances without using heliocentricity or theorization.

First, heliocentric parallax wouldn't work on Pluto (something you'd know if you actually understood how parallax works, but nevermind).
Second, I'd like to see how you got that factor of 23,250.

How do you measure Pluto's distance then?

The theoretical baseline used in stellar parallax is 186,000,000 miles.

The true baseline is a maximum of 8,000 miles. (Diameter of Earth)

8,000 X 23,250 = 186,000,000

Therefore the factor of error is 23,250 to one.

First, the North star moves like every other star.

Your right. Polaris rotates around the celestial north pole by about 0.75 of a degree. A tiny amount. It basically marks the celestial north pole.

Second, you've simply asserted that the force varies depending on latitude. Why, though? And why does the universe exert the Coriolis force?

Because experiments show that it would. Maybe you can explain the Barbour and Bertotti experiment? That will give you the answers.

Let me guess, you reject General Relativity too, right?

If it involves theoretical science, yes I reject it as truth.

Bingo. The effect is minute, but it's there. The Earth is moving because we can physically move it, just as we can spin a football: we apply a torque, and it spins. The Earth is very large, so we can't spin it very much, but it does have an effect.

Can you link me to some papers that explain this?

I say it is both. However, Creationists are fond of saying it's just a theory, as if its status as a theory somehow detracts from its veracity. Which is something you continue to do. So, tell me, what's your opinion on the theory of common descent?

It's a theory. I reject it.

Gravity. We use GR to predict how the object will behave - and, lo and behold, objects obey GR. NASA involves a bit more than throwing an object out there; the calculations required to get something in orbit are a bit beyond your comprehension, I'd wager.

Yes those calculations are well beyond my comprehension. All I know is that they are geocentric in nature. (well, helio and geo calculations are the same with regard to NASA so...... )

Gravity. Honestly, how many times do I have to say this?

Gravity doesnt describe orbits.

Again, you still seem to think 'theory' is a dirty word.

Eyup.

Indeed: a well-evidenced theory accepted by the entire scientific community.

But a theory none the less. Aetheism is also a theory adopted by the masses. But I know darn well it's wrong.

They are fictitious forces that arise from looking at something in a non-inertial frame. Someone on a rotating ball will see things freefall as if there's a lateral force applied to them - but there's no such force, as it's just the rotation of the ball.

Ok well in my universe you can believe your eyes and the forces are real.

Hardly. Newton disproved it using cold, hard, mathematics - the kind that doesn't vary from place to place. If an object is inside a hollow shell of matter, then said object will not experience any gravitational force from said shell. This is a proven fact.

B&B did not do what you think they did. A spinning universe surrounding the Earth would not have a gravitational force on the Earth - or, indeed, any sort of force. Newton proved that in the most general case, and thus it holds here.[/

All that maths is alien to me. Can you tell me if his calculations assumed that the inside of the shell was a perfect vacuum, or if it was made up of....'stuff'?

 

[Dr.Strangelove]

Question for a physicist:

Do you believe that the World Trade Centre twin towers AND WTC 7 collapsed due to fire, when no such phenomenon as ever been observed before regarding steel framed structures before OR since 9-11 without the use of strategically placed controlled demolition charges?

 

[dawiyd]

Question for a physicist:

Do you believe that the World Trade Centre twin towers AND WTC 7 collapsed due to fire, when no such phenomenon as ever been observed before regarding steel framed structures before OR since 9-11 without the use of strategically placed controlled demolition charges?

What, are yo telling me steel hasn't been observed loosing it's strength in fire.

And secondly, there has't been an event like 9-11 before or aft.