"Spinning Earth" theorists, nutters or onto something?

[RizzoTheRat]

MiseryStreak said:

Correct. You can get into Oxford/Cambridge now. The air carries on moving to the front of the braking lorry, therefore the helium balloon, of lower relative density and momentum, moves towards the rear.

Not if it's free floating, as that would mean it's the same density as the air.

[qube_TA]

It would be interesting if they fixed the problem and stopped it spinning.

Anything not nailed down is going to have a real bad time.

[aw51 121565]

Iklwa said:

... how can gravity exactly counteract the spinning forces that are so huge?

...

It doesn't ...

Gravity is much stronger than the 'spinning forces' - look at how people at the North and South Poles (where there is no 'spinning force') just collapse in on themselves and die (whereas people at the equator manage just fine - and those of us at points inbetween struggle more the further away from the equator we get).

One needs to read A Level Physics (though it's probably 'degree' level nowadays ) - specifically the stuff about escape velocities - to realise the velocities (and massive amaounts of energy involved) that bodies need to just "spin off into space" ! There is no cover-up .


Posted by a poster at approx 54 degrees North of the equator who has no issues resulting from this (or any other) latitude at all .

[cookmysock]

I think the OP is the same guy on that Mustang thread who flushed his engine with the garden hose?

A point of order is this fascinating debate - the earth is flat.

Carry on.

[jmorgan]

qube_TA said:

It would be interesting if they fixed the problem and stopped it spinning.

Anything not nailed down is going to have a real bad time.

Be a different problem directly at the poles, will they spin like a mad top and drill through the earth?

[MOTORVATOR]

aw51 121565 said:

It doesn't ...

Gravity is much stronger than the 'spinning forces' - look at how people at the North and South Poles (where there is no 'spinning force') just collapse in on themselves and die (whereas people at the equator manage just fine - and those of us at points inbetween struggle more the further away from the equator we get).

One needs to read A Level Physics (though it's probably 'degree' level nowadays ) - specifically the stuff about escape velocities - to realise the velocities (and massive amaounts of energy involved) that bodies need to just "spin off into space" ! There is no cover-up .


Posted by a poster at approx 54 degrees North of the equator who has no issues resulting from this (or any other) latitude at all .

I don't think you've thought this through. How do you account for the fact that the average african is 12'2" tall whilst the average eskimo is only 2'4"?

[T0nup]

Enough of the spinning already... I wanna go back to when the eareth was flat.

[Eric Mc]

MOTORVATOR said:

I don't think you've thought this through. How do you account for the fact that the average african is 12'2" tall whilst the average eskimo is only 2'4"?

Where do the pygmies fit into this scenario?

[Tony2or4]

Eric Mc said:

RizzoTheRat said:

I beg to differ, if the spinning earth folk are right then someone standing on the equator goes from travelling at 1000mph in one direction to 1000mph the other direction in the space of 12 hours

I hope you are pretending to be stupid.

What Eric is getting at is that, whilst it's true that you do experience that change in velocity, the time period over which it occurs is so long as to make it unnoticeable.

To take a slightly simpler but related scenario: say you were travelling in a straight line at 1000mph, then you slowed down to a stop at a steady rate over a period of 6 hours, then immediately started accelerating back in the opposite direction, taking a further 6 hours to get to 1000mph, then the deceleration/acceleration required to achieve that would be a mere 0.02 m/s^2, ie one 5-hundredth of a 'g' - too small to be detected.

If you do a direct comparison between the initial and final velocities, you can obviously see there's a big difference - but it's the actual transition from one to the other that you can't detect.

As an analogy, look at a photograph of yourself when you were 20 years old, then look at a current photo: gawd, what a difference (assuming you're an old fart like me) - but you never felt the change in your appearance happening.

Edited by Tony2or4 on Saturday 19th April 15:16

[98elise]

Tony2or4 said:

Eric Mc said:

RizzoTheRat said:

I beg to differ, if the spinning earth folk are right then someone standing on the equator goes from travelling at 1000mph in one direction to 1000mph the other direction in the space of 12 hours

I hope you are pretending to be stupid.

What Eric is getting at is that, whilst it's true that you do experience that change in velocity, the time period over which it occurs is so long as to make it unnoticeable.

To take a slightly simpler but related scenario: say you were travelling in a straight line at 1000mph, then you slowed down to a stop at a steady rate over a period of 6 hours, then immediately started accelerating back in the opposite direction, taking a further 6 hours to get to 1000mph, then the deceleration/acceleration required to achieve that would be a mere 0.02 m/s^2, ie one 5-hundredth of a 'g' - too small to be detected.

If you do a direct comparison between the initial and final velocities, you can obviously see there's a big difference - but it's the actual transition from one to the other that you can't detect.

As an analogy, look at a photograph of yourself when you were 20 years old, then look at a current photo: gawd, what a difference (assuming you're an old fart like me) - but you never felt the change in your appearance happening.

Edited by Tony2or4 on Saturday 19th April 15:16

Anyone thats been in an airliner will have been travelling at 500-600 mph, and thats achieved in a matter of minutes rather than hours. Even then the acceleration is not that great, and once at cruising speed you can't feel anything other than changes in direction (again acceleration).

[Iklwa]

I thought of something else, balance. Not our balance, but the balance of this giant ball spinning round and round.

So you have millions of tons of water on one side, land weighing less on the other, perhaps a heavy mountain range perched in another, yet when you spin the ball at over a thousand kilometres per hour, it somehow doesn't start getting a massive wobble on, even though it spins around an axis?

So using the wheel example again, you take a wheel with different weight spread around it, spin it at high speed, and you'd expect it to wobble and eventually tear itself off the axle, yet we spin perfectly smoothly despite there being no actual weight balance at all?

Yeah right.

[steviegunn]

Iklwa said:

I thought of something else, balance. Not our balance, but the balance of this giant ball spinning round and round.

So you have millions of tons of water on one side, land weighing less on the other, perhaps a heavy mountain range perched in another, yet when you spin the ball at over a thousand kilometres per hour, it somehow doesn't start getting a massive wobble on, even though it spins around an axis?

So using the wheel example again, you take a wheel with different weight spread around it, spin it at high speed, and you'd expect it to wobble and eventually tear itself off the axle, yet we spin perfectly smoothly despite there being no actual weight balance at all?

Yeah right.

Massive heavy inners that weigh way, way more than the crust and oceans (less than 3% of weight or mass), thus making any sloshing oceans negligible, it would be like losing a small wheel weight, certainly not an axle breaker.

[98elise]

Iklwa said:

I thought of something else, balance. Not our balance, but the balance of this giant ball spinning round and round.

So you have millions of tons of water on one side, land weighing less on the other, perhaps a heavy mountain range perched in another, yet when you spin the ball at over a thousand kilometres per hour, it somehow doesn't start getting a massive wobble on, even though it spins around an axis?

So using the wheel example again, you take a wheel with different weight spread around it, spin it at high speed, and you'd expect it to wobble and eventually tear itself off the axle, yet we spin perfectly smoothly despite there being no actual weight balance at all?

Yeah right.

In relative terms the earths surface is a smooth as a bowling ball.

[AA999]

Iklwa said:

Yeah right.

Exactly

Edited by AA999 on Thursday 1st May 20:19

[jmorgan]

Iklwa said:

I

Yeah right.

Do your noodle in thinking about molten cores spinning as well then.

[Daniel1]

98elise said:

Iklwa said:

I thought of something else, balance. Not our balance, but the balance of this giant ball spinning round and round.

So you have millions of tons of water on one side, land weighing less on the other, perhaps a heavy mountain range perched in another, yet when you spin the ball at over a thousand kilometres per hour, it somehow doesn't start getting a massive wobble on, even though it spins around an axis?

So using the wheel example again, you take a wheel with different weight spread around it, spin it at high speed, and you'd expect it to wobble and eventually tear itself off the axle, yet we spin perfectly smoothly despite there being no actual weight balance at all?

Yeah right.

In relative terms the earths surface is a smooth as a bowling ball.

Technically bowling balls have various surfaces (via sanding and polishing) to allow them to hook left and right, more or less, based on bowling style and amount of oil on the lane

And most have chunks taken out of them via the pin setting and ball return machinery.

A billiard ball would be a better example.

[Chim]

Iklwa said:

I thought of something else, balance. Not our balance, but the balance of this giant ball spinning round and round.

So you have millions of tons of water on one side, land weighing less on the other, perhaps a heavy mountain range perched in another, yet when you spin the ball at over a thousand kilometres per hour, it somehow doesn't start getting a massive wobble on, even though it spins around an axis?

So using the wheel example again, you take a wheel with different weight spread around it, spin it at high speed, and you'd expect it to wobble and eventually tear itself off the axle, yet we spin perfectly smoothly despite there being no actual weight balance at all?

Yeah right.

Are you really really this stupid

[aw51 121565]

They walk among us and breathe our air .

Mind you, as a climate change denier I am sure numerous people would say the same about me !

Who can tell?

Blimey...

[Monkeylegend]

Iklwa said:

I thought of something else, balance. Not our balance, but the balance of this giant ball spinning round and round.

So you have millions of tons of water on one side, land weighing less on the other, perhaps a heavy mountain range perched in another, yet when you spin the ball at over a thousand kilometres per hour, it somehow doesn't start getting a massive wobble on, even though it spins around an axis?

So using the wheel example again, you take a wheel with different weight spread around it, spin it at high speed, and you'd expect it to wobble and eventually tear itself off the axle, yet we spin perfectly smoothly despite there being no actual weight balance at all?

Yeah right.

Would somebody think of the children, I mean moon.

Sorry don't want to confuse you anymore than you already are.

[SpeckledJim]

aw51 121565 said:

They walk among us and breathe our air .

Mind you, as a climate change denier I am sure numerous people would say the same about me !

Who can tell?

Blimey...

Very magnanimously, I don't mind them walking around, nor breathing the air.

But his vote cancels out mine. That is a bit irksome.