Flat earth any one?
There have been a number of posts for and against a flat earth. Here are my two cents.
Do flat-earth'ers recon the earth rotates?
If so how is Coriolis force explained?
And it’s easy to see for yourself… pull out a plug in the northern hemisphere and the water will most often drain out in a counter-clockwise direction, then go to the Southern hemisphere and it does the same in a clockwise direction.
That is also why cyclones rotate clockwise in the southern hemisphere and counter-clockwise in the northern hemisphere.
This phenomenon occurs as the outside of a sphere, rotating on its axis, has different surface speeds.
Air or water moving perpendicular to the rotation is either left behind or sped up by these different surface speeds (depending on whether north or south of the equator) and this sets up the rotational motion.
You need to do more experiments with the drain swirl coriolis thing. I'm pretty sure that's an urban legend.
Its best denonstrated with deep still water not disturbed in any way
If you want to try the experiment at home use a full bathtub and pull the plug slowly so as not to cause a disturbance, the thin whirlpool that forms after a short while will conform to the Coriolis direction most of the time. the deviations will be from disturbances.
Its my understanding that the demographics of people who believe in flat earth are also most likely believe in creationism, chemtrails and watch Info Wars. Fine, people want to live in ignorance its their choice.
:-)
So, if someone has a different opinion than you it must be due to ignorance?
No possibility a person can examine evidence on both sides of an argument and reach a different conclusion than you?
Well, good luck with that. I'm sure it will serve you well in the future developing personal relationships with anyone interesting...
No I didn't say 'if someone has a different opinion than you it must be due to ignorance'. The point is that Flat Earth and Creationism are not real, that is not my opinion its a point of fact not debate.
Actually, you can't prove either so I think you have a false definition of fact. I think the earth is round, but I can't prove it. Maybe NASA can, but they haven't.
As for creationism, there's no way you can prove it false. Even atheists who travel the world debating theists, like Christopher Hitchens admit that.
I still think your thinker isn't working correctly.
No you are simply incorrect, the fossil record disproves creationism just for a start, and we don't need to wait for NASA to prove that the flat earth is nonsense. I really don't need to prove either of these things as they are already proven in many spheres and by many people. http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae535.cfm
Once again, you're not thinking logically. The fossil record in no way disproves creation. Even if the commonly accepted theory of the fossil record is granted, all that proves is that the Earth is old, not that it couldn't have been created. In order to prove there wasn't a creator, you need to explain why there is matter at all, in light of the second law of thermodynamics which implies that everything is falling apart. That leads to the implication that everything had a beginning state.
How do you explain that without a creator? You can't just say something is a fact without evidence or reason.
Your standard of proof seems to be that if you read something in a scientific magazine it has been proven true. That's not science, that's scientism, i.e. faith in science. Not the same at all.
For instance, there is no way to verify the fossil record was actually laid down gradually over millions of years. The radiometric dating used on any leftover organic materials always assume constant solar radiation, which we now know for sure is incorrect. Also, there isn't a good explanation for the Cambrian explosion that I have ever heard, except explanations that use processes never before witnessed by scientific observation.
If I am incorrect, show me where. Specifically about creation. I'm not a flat earther so I'm uninterested in the topic, besides to point out that you are using a faulty concept of "proof."
Sorry, it is not a fact that water spirals opposite in each hemisphere. It has much more to do with how the drain is built.
The Coriolis effect theory has a lot of holes in it. It explains one set of circumstances, but doesn't explain others. There are many facts that contradict it. Like, if the Coriolis effect actually existed, we would have an easy to build perpetual motion machine.
There are many flat earth theories that explain cyclone behavior better.
And there are many other world shape theories, that would also explain it.
So, I do not agree with your premise, and I do not agree with your conclusion.
If we built a machine powered by the Coriolis effect, it wouldn't be a perpetual motion machine. It would be powered by the Earth's rotation, which means it would be draining the Earth's angular kinetic energy. It would be like saying that a sailing ship is a perpetual motion machine. Sure, we don't have to burn fuel to make it move, but it's getting its energy somewhere (from the wind in this case, which means in part that it's getting its energy from the Coriolis effect).
Your argument:
Premise 1: perpetual motion machine is impossible.
Premise 2: if Coriolis exists, then perpetual motion machine would be possible.
Ergo, Coriolis effect does not exist.
I disagree with your Premise 2, so I disagree with your conclusion.
I disagree with your premise 1. (and premise 2 is improperly formed)
If the Coriolis effect existed, it would be easy to build a device to pull energy from it. Since there is no such device working (and it has been tried), the Coriolis effect theory is incomplete, or is wrong.
Yes, it may not be a permanent perpetual motion machine (millions of years) but it would continue to run for the rest of our lives, easily.
I'll write up my thoughts on this at some point. This clearly deserves some more thinking. The answer that first springs to my mind: the reason the Coriolis effect isn't useful for power generation is that the forces are too small on useful scales, but I shouldn't make any bold claims about this until I have some calculations to back this up. If we could build a 1000-km-wide rotor, I suspect the Coriolis "forces" on it would be enormous. The same forces are minuscule on a 100-foot-wide rotor, and are easily overcome by friction and drag. I suspect.
But if you'd like to know more about the math behind the Coriolis effect, follow me and eventually you'll see my analysis pop up.
I would love to see any conclusions that come up. Any speculations too.
The coriolis effect may exist for storm sized things, and the bathroom sink thing is just an urban myth. And if so, then it would be hard to make something to measure it. It could also exist for the same strange reasons Jupiter has a red spot.
If the coriolis effect does work at a bathroom sink scale, then we should easily be able to measure the forces involved. And thus, one of my reasons for not believing in the theory.
The Coriolis Effect/Force is not a real force. It simply arises from having a coordinate frame that rotates. For the rotating frame of the earth, the effects are small, and only apparent over long distances (e.g. the Paris Gun and ballistic trajectories, the diameters of hurricanes, etc.). They can become more readily apparent if we obtain another coordinate frame that rotates on a small scale, such as a tilt-a-whirl, as demonstrated in this video: (vimeo . com/110882577).
Since the Coriolis effect isn't a real force, and is simply an effect of a rotating coordinate frame, no energy can be extracted from it.
I used to be in the Army, field artillery to be specific, and we had to use different calculations for different locations on the earth in order to impact targets effectively. The ballistic equations used to calculate projectile flight path included corrections for the Coriolis effect and the corrections had to be different for each place on Earth you were firing from.
I have done this hundreds of times with great success, so I'm pretty convinced to Coriolis effect is legitimate. This, for me, is one of the biggest hurdles in buying into the whole flat earth conspiracy.
Also, what's powering Google earth, cell phones, and all other GPS devices. I've personally used a GPS device with great success on two continents which doesn't seem possible without satellites orbiting the ball earth in low orbit.
Should check your hand-basin waste hole , see how the water swirl.
I thought this debate ended hundreds of years ago...
only the intellectuals EVER thought that the earth was flat.
regular people who worked out doors knew better.
That's not something you hear every day. Can you elaborate on that?
consider...a sailor.
If they climb up on a mast they can see further...past the horizon.
Oh wait...what IS a horizon...what would cause that phenomena whereyou could climb up high and see higher...if the earth was Flat, like a pool table...your line of sight would be parallel to the surface...not tangent to it.
Consider a shepard...watching his flocks at night. Lookup in the sky and see the starts....rotating? Rotating around the pole start...polaris. How to keep up with ONE star out of so many? How can you keep track of them and know where they go in one night? (ahem) Constellations? The big bear (urasa major) and the little bear (ursa minor)...spin around the pole star.
Now why would they do that if the earth was FLAT?
Common examples...normal people knew this.
It took a real intellectual to discard common sense and knowledge to come up with something else.
Not much has changed huh?
I think a few more people need to get on a plane at 38k feet, cross the Pacific or Atlantic (or both in their lifetime) and simply look out the window. No conspiracy theory. For those of us who have circumnavigated the globe, this is a sad discussion. Not showcasing our finest hour.
I'll state my position for what it's worth. I am pretty convinced the earth is flat after studying the evidence. Forget conspiracy, look at the science. People believe fish oil is healthy but one day science will change their minds. Check out Prof. Brian Peskin if you don't know what I'm talking about.
What?
You can get something for Nothing ! I feed my 2 Bull terriers in the Backyard, ( North)and My Daughters 2 Rottweilers in the Front.( South) I feed them out of 25kg bags, I also pick up the Dog Poo in a scoop and put it back into empty Food bags. Question is :- How come I end up with more than the bag originally held in food? Is the Shape of the Earth effecting this? Also if North and South were ever to meet, the Dog Food bills would drastically decrease!
This post has been linked to from another place on Steem.
Learn more about and upvote to support linkback bot v0.5. Flag this comment if you don't want the bot to continue posting linkbacks for your posts.
Built by @ontofractal
Hi @gavvet
You cause a storm clockwise or anti clockwise, I wonder? LOL
Image Credit
Does not look flat to me.