Flat Earthers are still around

On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 1:55:34 PM UTC-6, oriel36 wrote:

I once thought it was something stubborn bordering on criminal which incites
you all to contend with the most basic fact imaginable

Well, it is true that the day is 24 hours long.

And it's also true that this is because the Earth rotates.

Doesn't that make it a basic fact that it rotates once every 24 hours?

What would the Earth be doing if it _didn't_ rotate?

Would it be like we used to think Mercury was - like the Moon is with respect
to the Earth? With half the Earth always in daylight, the other half always in
night?

Or would our days be a year long, with the stars standing still in the sky, at
least when we saw them during the night which was half a year long?

The _former_ case is a possible natural phenomenon - the Moon proves that.

The _latter_ case probably could not happen naturally - it could only be
approximated by accident. So it's not a minimum energy configuration.

If the Earth were a car, following a circular path because that's the direction
in which its tires pulled it, then clearly facing forwards in that path would
be a direct result of its moving in that path. You can't go around in circles
unless you steer to go around in circles, so the fact that, as you go around in
the circle, the car will face in different directions, is a result of the
circular motion.

The car hasn't hit a patch of ice and started spinning.

So I can see why it makes sense to you to say the Moon doesn't rotate, and to
compare the Earth's rotation to the case where it would always face the Sun and
say the Earth rotates once in 24 hours.

But what you don't see is why the other view *also* makes sense - more sense
from viewpoints that are of more practical use to astronomers.

A car travelling in a circle will face north, then west, then south, then east... at least if it's going counter-clockwise. So it does face in different directions.

The Earth, or the Moon, or another body in space, floats freely in space; its orbital motion doesn't result from it being in contact with tracks beneath it.

So orbital motion doesn't bind the rotation of a planet or moon.

The Equation of Time, and lunar libration in longitude, illustrate the
consequences of that.

The Moon turns on its axis _uniformly_, while its orbital motion is elliptical,
so that varies due to Kepler's law of equal areas. So, although the average
period of both motions is the same, leading to the Moon facing towards the
Earth all the time - it doesn't rigidly keep exactly the same side turned to
the Earth.

It seems to wiggle from side to side a little bit.

Considering rotation relative to the fixed stars keeps its laws simple, so that
it can be described mathematically by simple calculations.

And the irregularities in the Moon's apparent rotation - or the Equation of
Time - are synchronized with the orbits of those bodies. So a formula for the
apparent position of the Sun on a sundial includes the same terms as a formula
for the Earth's orbit.

Acknowledging that it is the Earth's orbit that causes the nonuniformities in
the Equation of Time - rather than claiming the Earth has a funny, wiggly
rotation that just happens to copy its orbit - is as obviously the right thing
to do as it is the right thing to do to accept the Copernican theory as the way
to resolve retrogrades!

John Savard

On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 1:39:41 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 2:35:34 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 7:24:21 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 9:29:38 AM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 14:55:16 UTC+2, wrote:
On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 11:14:35 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:


With respect to what?

With respect to the rotational axis.

Nope. Axles on Magic Roundabouts don't [can't] count.
They are part of the problem.

With respect to a fixed, external point. [Distant star, etc.]

"Distant stars" are NOT "fixed, external points," critter.

On short time scales they certainly are...

You sound like oriel...

And you sound like a total ****in' idiot.

On a short time scale, distant stars are fixed in the sky. Even close stars.

Deal with it.

On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 9:52:39 PM UTC-5, palsing wrote:
On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 1:39:41 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 2:35:34 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 7:24:21 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 9:29:38 AM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 14:55:16 UTC+2, wrote:
On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 11:14:35 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:


With respect to what?

With respect to the rotational axis.

Nope. Axles on Magic Roundabouts don't [can't] count.
They are part of the problem.

With respect to a fixed, external point. [Distant star, etc.]

"Distant stars" are NOT "fixed, external points," critter.

On short time scales they certainly are...

You sound like oriel...

And you sound like a total ****in' idiot.

On a short time scale, distant stars are fixed in the sky. Even close stars.

Deal with it.

He has double-down syndrome. When caught in a lie, double down, never admit you are wrong. He cannot admit he might be wrong, but knows that everyone else is always wrong. Reminds me of a certain politician...

On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 4:49:28 AM UTC+1, SlurpieMcDoublegulp wrote:
On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 9:52:39 PM UTC-5, palsing wrote:
On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 1:39:41 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 2:35:34 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 7:24:21 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 9:29:38 AM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 14:55:16 UTC+2, wrote:
On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 11:14:35 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:


With respect to what?

With respect to the rotational axis.

Nope. Axles on Magic Roundabouts don't [can't] count.
They are part of the problem.

With respect to a fixed, external point. [Distant star, etc.]

"Distant stars" are NOT "fixed, external points," critter.

On short time scales they certainly are...

You sound like oriel...

And you sound like a total ****in' idiot.

On a short time scale, distant stars are fixed in the sky. Even close stars.

Deal with it.

He has double-down syndrome. When caught in a lie, double down, never admit you are wrong. He cannot admit he might be wrong, but knows that everyone else is always wrong. Reminds me of a certain politician...

You began this thread lamenting that perhaps a celebrity is concerned about a flat Earth while not a single one of you can handle the fact which tie the 24 hour and Lat/Long systems together. If you wish to model the motions of the Earth then you begin with its rotational speed and this you cannot do, now or in the past despite the enormous history of timekeeping and its links to astronomers who built the timekeeping system out of specific references and in a specific historical trajectory.

It is not really a disgrace because the mindlessness which ignores tradition and technical details is basically pandemic leaving nobody to survey the damage and try to make a difference -

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml

Because this society is experiencing total anarchy not even this assertion exists any more as they assign a different story to rotation based on non-cyclical assertions to arrive at a non-cyclical conclusion -

"At the time of the dinosaurs, Earth completed one rotation in about 23 hours," says MacMillan, who is a member of the VLBI team at NASA Goddard. "In the year 1820, a rotation took exactly 24 hours, or 86,400 standard seconds.. Since 1820, the mean solar day has increased by about 2.5 milliseconds." NASA

Clocks and the Lat/Long system combine timekeeping with geometry organized around the planet's shape and rotation and you can't even manage to give the rotational speed at a rate of 15 degrees per hour or 1037.5 miles per hour and why a human being could do that doesn't bear thinking about.

On Monday, 6 June 2016 16:09:00 UTC-4, SlurpieMcDoublegulp wrote:
What happens if you ask an astrophysicist whether the Earth is flat? If that astrophysicist is Neil deGrasse Tyson, he first gives you a brutal side-eye that terrifies you to your core, before explaining the real reason why there are still people who believe the Earth is flat and we are at the center of the universe.
Read why:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...hp_ref=science

What does it say about Tyson that he'd get into a discussion of physics with a rapper? "Too-too-too-too much time on my hands..."

On Monday, 6 June 2016 16:09:00 UTC-4, SlurpieMcDoublegulp wrote:
What happens if you ask an astrophysicist whether the Earth is flat? If that astrophysicist is Neil deGrasse Tyson, he first gives you a brutal side-eye that terrifies you to your core, before explaining the real reason why there are still people who believe the Earth is flat and we are at the center of the universe.
Read why:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...hp_ref=science

I'd just like to add that liberal Huffington Post's "science" section is pop-science s--- aimed at morons.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/science/

On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 06:19:09 UTC+2, RichA wrote:

I'd just like to add that liberal Huffington Post's "science" section is pop-science s--- aimed at morons.


There are vast numbers of morons in comparison with those with "useful" intelligence. So Huffington could be accused of trying to raise the bar in the general population. Or is simply following standard business practice and serving moronic advertising to a moronic viewer base to sell moronic stuff to ever larger numbers of morons. [MacLardy's, Croak, Starbux, Drunkin', etc.etc]

Anything which makes a moron think slightly more deeply about something could eventually raise moronship standards in general. Though it still isn't guaranteed, of course, because after several million years mankind is still basically a hive moron. The system works. The morons act as gullible workers and consumers without having any potentially dangerous thoughts. While the more intelligent get to play with their own toys with much less competition for self-expression.

China is an interesting test of average moronship. They are producing huge numbers of qualified people and releasing them into what was formerly a peasant, agricultural society. Whether the ratios are changing fast enough to undo the damage caused by the Cultural Revolution is quite another matter. It also depends whether a qualification signifies true intelligence. Rather than an ability to remember lots of details and reproduce them on demand.

The communist party does at least provide a sponge for the inbetweeners. Too dumb to think of anything but greed and personal power. Not bright enough to be a businessman, engineer or scientist. Has the average IQ of Cambodia crashed since its genocide of all those with two brain cells to rub together? I suppose we should just hope [rather desperately] that Pol Pot's bunch of losers never managed to breed successfully. That would only have made matters worse. ;-)

On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 10:52:39 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 1:39:41 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 2:35:34 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 7:24:21 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 9:29:38 AM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 14:55:16 UTC+2, wrote:
On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 11:14:35 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:


With respect to what?

With respect to the rotational axis.

Nope. Axles on Magic Roundabouts don't [can't] count.
They are part of the problem.

With respect to a fixed, external point. [Distant star, etc.]

"Distant stars" are NOT "fixed, external points," critter.

On short time scales they certainly are...

You sound like oriel...

And you sound like a total ****in' idiot.

On a short time scale, distant stars are fixed in the sky. Even close stars.


No one said otherwise, you ****ing moron.

However, the distant star is providing a reference point for determining ANGULAR VELOCITY of the Earth's rotation. Relative to a location on the Earth's equator, that star is moving MUCH faster than 1000 miles per hour.

On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 11:49:28 PM UTC-4, SlurpieMcDoublegulp wrote:
On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 9:52:39 PM UTC-5, palsing wrote:
On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 1:39:41 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 2:35:34 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 7:24:21 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 9:29:38 AM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 14:55:16 UTC+2, wrote:
On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 11:14:35 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:


With respect to what?

With respect to the rotational axis.

Nope. Axles on Magic Roundabouts don't [can't] count.
They are part of the problem.

With respect to a fixed, external point. [Distant star, etc.]

"Distant stars" are NOT "fixed, external points," critter.

On short time scales they certainly are...

You sound like oriel...

And you sound like a total ****in' idiot.

On a short time scale, distant stars are fixed in the sky. Even close stars.

Deal with it.

He has double-down syndrome. When caught in a lie, double down, never admit you are wrong. He cannot admit he might be wrong, but knows that everyone else is always wrong. Reminds me of a certain politician...


------

I am not wrong, Slurpie. You really should read these discussions in order to figure out what they are about before running off at the mouth. That way, you won't automatically take palsing's side and make yourself look like an even bigger idiot than you already are.

On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 12:01:10 PM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 16:41:34 UTC+2, wrote:

I knew the correct answer to that question while I was still in early elementary school! But I learned it from an astronomy book that my parents bought me.

No paper round for you then?

It's paper _route_.

My parents thought (correctly) that I would enjoy and benefit from that book and others. That was because I asked intelligent questions and made insightful comments about things.

It also helped that my country was affluent (unlike the UK) which made books and other useful items readily accessible to anyone, not just the very rich.