Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't)
Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.
Atmosphere is moving very fast in one direction. Really? Think : It would be hard to go against rotation of the Earth. Whether is walking or flying. Isn't it simple? Explain my helicopter example and planes going any direction with the same speed. I don't think that geocentric model is fully true, so you can endlessly discus the stars and probably none of you will be right. As one wise man said : I was studying many years, but much longer took me to get this bullshit out of my mind. Manipulation of the crowds didn't start with the Copernicus. I'm sure it was well developed in ancient times and ruling group never shares information with public unless they have to.
Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.
I'm still not in a position to fully support a GC or HC or any other model of the universe, but I'm pretty sure that no model can fully grasp "reality". A model is a model. It serves as a means to an end, that is to make predictions, and if the model successfully does, it's not a bad model. But still it may not represent reality. The fact alone that we're able to construct multiple models of or universe which are more or less consistent is miraculous enough, once you think about it.
OK, back on the topic of the balloon or the helicopter in the HC model with a rotating earth. It seems there's one thing which is overlooked by the GC supporters in this case and that is the initial speed of the object. If the earth rotates, the object rotates with it.
For the sake of simplicity, let's first reduce the problem to a rotating earth-like planet with NO atmosphere and some sort of anti-gravity craft or a module with some sort of propulsion (thrusters), which slowly takes off from the surface, hovers at some feet altitude and lands one hour later. Will the planet rotate under the craft and the object will land far away from it's initial position? No! Simply because it started off "rotating" in sync with the planet surface. There's nothing to slow it down! Of course, the "centrifugal" force is there as well as the "gravity" force, and the propulsion works against both, but the centrifugal part won't be noticeable very much.
Now, add an atmosphere which is also rotating in sync with the planet. Does this change things much? No!
I think the only way to determine if we are on a rotating sphere would be to correctly measure some sort of centrifugal force. There is a noticeable difference of G on the equator compared to the poles, which is attributed to the centrifugal force and looks consistent to it, but it might as well have other reasons. Also, the space agencies claim that they use the earth rotation to start satellites, but we think we can't trust them.
So we're left wondering. Maybe I'll elaborate on some alternative models of the universe sometime. An interesting topic, for sure!
OK, back on the topic of the balloon or the helicopter in the HC model with a rotating earth. It seems there's one thing which is overlooked by the GC supporters in this case and that is the initial speed of the object. If the earth rotates, the object rotates with it.
For the sake of simplicity, let's first reduce the problem to a rotating earth-like planet with NO atmosphere and some sort of anti-gravity craft or a module with some sort of propulsion (thrusters), which slowly takes off from the surface, hovers at some feet altitude and lands one hour later. Will the planet rotate under the craft and the object will land far away from it's initial position? No! Simply because it started off "rotating" in sync with the planet surface. There's nothing to slow it down! Of course, the "centrifugal" force is there as well as the "gravity" force, and the propulsion works against both, but the centrifugal part won't be noticeable very much.
Now, add an atmosphere which is also rotating in sync with the planet. Does this change things much? No!
I think the only way to determine if we are on a rotating sphere would be to correctly measure some sort of centrifugal force. There is a noticeable difference of G on the equator compared to the poles, which is attributed to the centrifugal force and looks consistent to it, but it might as well have other reasons. Also, the space agencies claim that they use the earth rotation to start satellites, but we think we can't trust them.
So we're left wondering. Maybe I'll elaborate on some alternative models of the universe sometime. An interesting topic, for sure!
Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.
Hi rusty
First of all I'm not quite GC supporter, but I don't believe in Earth rotation. I have not overlooked initial speed. I mention it in one of my posts. As you said It's only initial. It doesn't take ages. When you jump out of the car even with the big wind on your back you finally will loose that speed. Why? Because friction of ground is not equal to friction of air. What you overlooking is going in opposite direction. You would face the wind with the density of wall. Do you? Imagine helicopter pushed by wall. Only then you would see it speeding around as fast as the Earth rotating. I can't explain it any simpler, so if you still wonder I won't try to convince you any more.
First of all I'm not quite GC supporter, but I don't believe in Earth rotation. I have not overlooked initial speed. I mention it in one of my posts. As you said It's only initial. It doesn't take ages. When you jump out of the car even with the big wind on your back you finally will loose that speed. Why? Because friction of ground is not equal to friction of air. What you overlooking is going in opposite direction. You would face the wind with the density of wall. Do you? Imagine helicopter pushed by wall. Only then you would see it speeding around as fast as the Earth rotating. I can't explain it any simpler, so if you still wonder I won't try to convince you any more.
Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.
So for you the whole universe (including Andromeda galaxy) is rotating around the Earth?Frost wrote:First of all I'm not quite GC supporter, but I don't believe in Earth rotation.
Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.
If you'd somehow escape gravity (anti-gravity-suit) and thus won't hit the ground (ouch) and have the wind at your back with the same speed as yourself, you'd never loose that speed! No friction, no loss of speed!Frost wrote:Hi rusty
When you jump out of the car even with the big wind on your back you finally will loose that speed. Why? Because friction of ground is not equal to friction of air.
And if you're jumping while driving in your cabriolet and the wind is blowing exactly in your direction with the same speed as the car, you will land in the car perfectly safe. Same in a closed car, train or airplane. And the same with a helicopter, balloon, plane, rocket, jumper, ... on a rotating planet with atmosphere rotating in sync!
Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.
I was gonna post again to mention that you will pick on the car example. I lost my patience. I give up.
Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.
Hi agraposo
If I may, I think I’ll take this opportunity to reiterate the reasons why I started this thread in the first place.
Primarily, it wasn’t a personal, deeply held religious belief in the Geocentric model (having freely admitted to being a comparative novice to the subject and non God botherer) but rather for a series of connections that I felt could at least be part of the reason for the existence of NASA et al and their brilliantly exposed crookedness here at SC.
Yes sir! I certainly do have problems in understanding how our atmosphere moves synchronously with the Earth and so do you it seems as you haven’t answered the question but rather used the created argument that it ‘just does’ because to think otherwise is ridiculous due to scale.
I dunno...maybe you read the introductory post, maybe you didn’t. Whatever, if you’d like to re-cap there’s a brief summary there concerning the history of the Helio model, the unsavory characters that are behind it and the subsequent attempts (after the Copernican model came under threat from Michelson - Morley) to do precisely that... Increase the scale of the Universe by whatever means till it was nonsensical to believe that daily celestial rotation around us was possible.
You say that I should read some books on astronomy before posting up anymore nonsense. Are we on the same page or are we in some kind of parallel Universe? Well if we are, the page I’m looking at is all about exposing a certain ‘space agency’ that appears to have been bullshitting the general populace since it was founded. So assuming that we’re on a continual learning curve here, which modern day authors would you recommend? Whose work would you point to that has not been influenced by the giant leaps taken in our understanding of the cosmos achieved by NASA and their ilk?
If I may, I think I’ll take this opportunity to reiterate the reasons why I started this thread in the first place.
Primarily, it wasn’t a personal, deeply held religious belief in the Geocentric model (having freely admitted to being a comparative novice to the subject and non God botherer) but rather for a series of connections that I felt could at least be part of the reason for the existence of NASA et al and their brilliantly exposed crookedness here at SC.
Yes sir! I certainly do have problems in understanding how our atmosphere moves synchronously with the Earth and so do you it seems as you haven’t answered the question but rather used the created argument that it ‘just does’ because to think otherwise is ridiculous due to scale.
I dunno...maybe you read the introductory post, maybe you didn’t. Whatever, if you’d like to re-cap there’s a brief summary there concerning the history of the Helio model, the unsavory characters that are behind it and the subsequent attempts (after the Copernican model came under threat from Michelson - Morley) to do precisely that... Increase the scale of the Universe by whatever means till it was nonsensical to believe that daily celestial rotation around us was possible.
You say that I should read some books on astronomy before posting up anymore nonsense. Are we on the same page or are we in some kind of parallel Universe? Well if we are, the page I’m looking at is all about exposing a certain ‘space agency’ that appears to have been bullshitting the general populace since it was founded. So assuming that we’re on a continual learning curve here, which modern day authors would you recommend? Whose work would you point to that has not been influenced by the giant leaps taken in our understanding of the cosmos achieved by NASA and their ilk?
-
- Member
- Posts: 5060
- Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm
Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.
You sound like a perfectly reasonable person scud, and for that I am appreciative. I apologize if I came across as being rash. I should give these questions the proper time and not gate keep for something I haven't properly looked into. I will come back to this at some point but sit out the argument for now.
Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.
This kind of reasoning is very common in physics and mathematics, it is called Reductio ad absurdumscud wrote:Yes sir! I certainly do have problems in understanding how our atmosphere moves synchronously with the Earth and so do you it seems as you haven’t answered the question but rather used the created argument that it ‘just does’ because to think otherwise is ridiculous due to scale.
Again, if the stars, galaxies and clusters of galaxies are rotating around a minuscule point in space called Earth, does this make sense to you? I think it is absurd.
If the tiny sky lights are stars like the sun or even bigger, they must be far, far away, don't you agree?scud wrote:to do precisely that... Increase the scale of the Universe by whatever means till it was nonsensical to believe that daily celestial rotation around us was possible.
Astronomy is an old science, you don't need "modern day authors" to see the stars at night, just use a telescope or binoculars and see for yourself! A celestial map would be helpful. You can observe Jupiter satellites and their orbits, double stars and their motion throughout the years, moon craters, and even make some (not faked) photos.scud wrote:You say that I should read some books on astronomy before posting up anymore nonsense. Are we on the same page or are we in some kind of parallel Universe? Well if we are, the page I’m looking at is all about exposing a certain ‘space agency’ that appears to have been bullshitting the general populace since it was founded. So assuming that we’re on a continual learning curve here, which modern day authors would you recommend? Whose work would you point to that has not been influenced by the giant leaps taken in our understanding of the cosmos achieved by NASA and their ilk?
What does this have to do with NASA?
Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.
I think that's one of the key questions here, and probably the source of misunderstanding between myself and Frost. My argument was only about the behavior of objects, IF we take for granted that the atmosphere rotates and moves synchronously with the Earth. I can only assume that your concern, Frost, was about this key question if the atmosphere should follow rotation and why.scud wrote: I certainly do have problems in understanding how our atmosphere moves synchronously with the Earth...
I'm all with you that I don't consider this question to be solved beyond any shred of doubt.
So, take as a model an earth-sized planet, which is initially not rotating and has a perfectly flat rock surface. Now slowly start rotating and accelerate it to the current earth rotation rate, let's say the acceleration takes 24h. What do you think how the following behave:
1. An object (e.g. a rock) placed on the surface (no atmosphere present)
2. An object hovering above the surface (no atmosphere present)
3. An atmosphere (no initial movement whatsoever)
I think we can all agree that 1 will follow rotation (sooner or later, but probably rather instantly) and 2 won't follow rotation at all. But what about 3? My guess would be that it's somewhere in between. I don't think it won't be affected by rotation at all, but neither will it perfectly follow the rotation instantly. It will probably be quite a mess after the first few days. But is there a reason to believe that it will adjust to rotation after some or many or many thousand years? I don't know. What are your arguments for or against it?
-
- Member
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 4:38 pm
Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.
Considering Earth's rotation... Shouldn't a long plane ride take a shorter amount of time going against the Earth's rotation as opposed to going with it? I tried checking flight times that had no adverse weather conditions and couldn't find any difference in flight time in either direction. If we are spinning, I would assume that the times would be different. I am no expert but just chiming in my thoughts.
Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.
I used to fly Atlanta-London fairly often, and was always pleased that the flight to London took about 7 hours, while the flight home from London would take about 8. I always just assumed that difference resulted from flying with the jet stream over, and against the jet stream back home. Quite a major difference in time for a single flight.fast67vellen2o wrote:Considering Earth's rotation... Shouldn't a long plane ride take a shorter amount of time going against the Earth's rotation as opposed to going with it? I tried checking flight times that had no adverse weather conditions and couldn't find any difference in flight time in either direction. If we are spinning, I would assume that the times would be different. I am no expert but just chiming in my thoughts.
How does this time difference fit into your query about flying 'with' the Earth's rotation? Is this helpful?
Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.
I find this rotating atmosphere conundrum most confusing so I hope you guys figure this out.
But, while you're at it, could you also figure out the centrifugal force bit?
I mean, let's say a guy standing on a scale at the equator weighs 160 pounds. That would mean that the force of gravity on his body pulling him toward the center of the Earth MINUS the centrifugal force pushing him OUTWARD from the center equals a downward weight of 160 pounds on a scale.
BUT, if that same guy moves to a more northern latitude then the centrifugal force would be less due to the slower rotational speed and therefore his weight on a scale would increase. AND he would also be forced to lean to the south due to the centrifugal force being at an angle to the force of gravity.
Of course those in the Southern hemisphere would lean to the north.
Therefore all people who do not live at the equator would weigh less if they went there and would stand much straighter than they normally do.
But, while you're at it, could you also figure out the centrifugal force bit?
I mean, let's say a guy standing on a scale at the equator weighs 160 pounds. That would mean that the force of gravity on his body pulling him toward the center of the Earth MINUS the centrifugal force pushing him OUTWARD from the center equals a downward weight of 160 pounds on a scale.
BUT, if that same guy moves to a more northern latitude then the centrifugal force would be less due to the slower rotational speed and therefore his weight on a scale would increase. AND he would also be forced to lean to the south due to the centrifugal force being at an angle to the force of gravity.
Of course those in the Southern hemisphere would lean to the north.
Therefore all people who do not live at the equator would weigh less if they went there and would stand much straighter than they normally do.
Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.
Hiya Lux (can’t say Hi Lux because that’s a Japanese pick-up)
A timely reminder. Here’s my foul mouthed story again on the issue of ‘centrifugal force’....
....Jens Stoltenberg stands with his arms behind his back with fingers firmly crossed as he watches 10,000 tons of Norway’s gold reserves surreptitiously slip out of Narvik port (the worlds most northerly) bound for the port of Esmeraldas Ecuador (the equator) where Pablo eagerly awaits his ill-gotten gains.
Three weeks later the prime minister’s phone rings...
“Hello?”
“Yessa. Eets a Pablo here. You muuuutha fukka. You fucking shorta change me by 30 ton (just under $1.6 billion at todays exchange rate)...I come over and a shove my 45 up your muutha fuckin’ boney ASS!”
“Oh God sorry Pablo (eyes the size of saucepans). I forgot to factor in the rotation of the Earth...what’s your bank account number again?”
It’s not much, but story has it that pole to equator, the Earth’s lateral speed goes from zero to supersonic plus some, which will cause a 0.3% change in ‘weight’ through something that is commonly known as ‘centrifugal force.’ Story also has it that we’re galloping around the Sun in a circular path at 67,500 Mp/h. This too will have significant effect on Pablo’s scales depending upon the time of day he chooses to weigh the spoils. At mid-day, when Pablo and goods are closest to the Sun, the result of centripetal acceleration will be trying to push him towards Earth’s centre (increasing the force applied to the scales...in this case by approx’ 6.1 tons) and at midnight will be trying to fling him away from Earth’s centre, resulting in an equivalent loss. Not much, but as you can see, in the case of valuable commodities our standards become meaningless. The really should be a ‘Greenwich mean weight’ that goes latitudinally, cross referenced with time that goes longitudinally, e.g 1Kg is 1Kg only in Greenwich at 6 in the evening on say April 1st (as we mustn't forget to include that 23.5 degree axial tilt).
“What’s that sir? 2lb of bananas? Sorry governor, can’t be arsed to work that out. We’re one degree North of GMW, it’s the middle of bloody winter and its only 10 in the morning...‘ave the bunch instead”.
Feel free to mess about with this calculator using the oft quoted 94m miles radius to the Sun...
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/newtonian/centrifugal
A timely reminder. Here’s my foul mouthed story again on the issue of ‘centrifugal force’....
....Jens Stoltenberg stands with his arms behind his back with fingers firmly crossed as he watches 10,000 tons of Norway’s gold reserves surreptitiously slip out of Narvik port (the worlds most northerly) bound for the port of Esmeraldas Ecuador (the equator) where Pablo eagerly awaits his ill-gotten gains.
Three weeks later the prime minister’s phone rings...
“Hello?”
“Yessa. Eets a Pablo here. You muuuutha fukka. You fucking shorta change me by 30 ton (just under $1.6 billion at todays exchange rate)...I come over and a shove my 45 up your muutha fuckin’ boney ASS!”
“Oh God sorry Pablo (eyes the size of saucepans). I forgot to factor in the rotation of the Earth...what’s your bank account number again?”
It’s not much, but story has it that pole to equator, the Earth’s lateral speed goes from zero to supersonic plus some, which will cause a 0.3% change in ‘weight’ through something that is commonly known as ‘centrifugal force.’ Story also has it that we’re galloping around the Sun in a circular path at 67,500 Mp/h. This too will have significant effect on Pablo’s scales depending upon the time of day he chooses to weigh the spoils. At mid-day, when Pablo and goods are closest to the Sun, the result of centripetal acceleration will be trying to push him towards Earth’s centre (increasing the force applied to the scales...in this case by approx’ 6.1 tons) and at midnight will be trying to fling him away from Earth’s centre, resulting in an equivalent loss. Not much, but as you can see, in the case of valuable commodities our standards become meaningless. The really should be a ‘Greenwich mean weight’ that goes latitudinally, cross referenced with time that goes longitudinally, e.g 1Kg is 1Kg only in Greenwich at 6 in the evening on say April 1st (as we mustn't forget to include that 23.5 degree axial tilt).
“What’s that sir? 2lb of bananas? Sorry governor, can’t be arsed to work that out. We’re one degree North of GMW, it’s the middle of bloody winter and its only 10 in the morning...‘ave the bunch instead”.
Feel free to mess about with this calculator using the oft quoted 94m miles radius to the Sun...
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/newtonian/centrifugal
Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.
Sorry - 1 kg of gold is the same anywhere, Narvik, Quito, Mars, Moon and has the same mass as the platinum-iridium 1 kg prototype at Paris that can be used to compare masses.