That's rigidity in INERTIAL space. The rotation of the Earth in INERTIAL space is something we can actually measure with a gyroscope (along with measurements of the stars.)
You didn't do well in physics class, did you?
Posted on 08/22/2018 12:59:55 PM PDT by BenLurkin
Your question is vague.
I have presented to you a direct, independently repeatable, verifiable fact. You can do the experiment yourself.
Do you trust your own eyes?
That's rigidity in INERTIAL space. The rotation of the Earth in INERTIAL space is something we can actually measure with a gyroscope (along with measurements of the stars.)
You didn't do well in physics class, did you?
With respect, my statements are factually correct.
I hold a degree in Chemical Engineering. In addition, I am educated in the science of gyroscopes, both hardware based (spinning) and electronic (wavelength differential). Physics is a major portion of the Chemical Engineering curriculum.
I have a precision gyroscope with which I have done the experiments myself.
I have presented to you a means by which you can independently verify the truth of what I have stated.
You are choosing to deny the truth without even doing the most cursory of experiments.
My intent is to wake you up. You have been lied to repeatedly. And now the lie is so prevalent that the truth seems odd by comparison.
But there it is. In the cockpit. Observed by your own eyes.
Please wake up.
Blessings to you and your loved ones,
Dan :-)
> Gyroscopes do not jump. They are stationary. Not the same thing at all. <
A stationary version of my argument from post #18. Instead of a jumping man, have a hot air balloon take off on a windless day. Then have that balloon just hold it’s altitude for, say, an hour. The same rotational inertia argument from post #18 would apply.
Regards,
LR
You have offered a second “straw man” argument.
This has NOTHING to do with inertia.
This has EVERYTHING to do with the change in the angle that a portion of the earth would exhibit if it were to rotate. No jumping. No floating. No inertia. Just change in the angle over time.
I'm pretty sure the Earth is flat too. ;-)
I have offered you a blessing.
You have responded with an insult.
I forgive you.
Blessings to you and your loved ones,
Dan :-)
Okay, I’ll give up on the rotational inertia argument. If the earth does not rotate on its axis, how then do you do you answer a more expanded version of edh’s question:
Why does a fixed spot on earth experience a pattern of (approximately) 12 hours of sunlight, then 12 hours of no sunlight?
Wasn’t an insult. What you felt is getting slapped with the truth.
If I was going to insult you I would call you an idiot. Instead I was content to ridicule with good humor. Don’t worry though. In the future I will let you make a fool of yourself for all the internet to see.
But do have a happy life.
As an ECE, I’d be piss poor at my job if I trusted my eyes all of the time (I mean, I can’t see electricity ... I rely on lots of measurements, simulations, and knowledge when I’m helping engineer a custom computing platform for a particular task). Moreover, I asubscribe to Einstein’s famous quote when it comes to obvious/common sense kinds of things like “trusting your eyes” ... “Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by the age of eighteen.”
However, yeah, day and night are only part of the reasons why we know the Earth rotates. Classical Newtonian physics explains why we know the Earth rotates, and how it moves through space, etc. We can observe bodies in the cosmos and predict their movements with ridiculously precise accuracy based on those physics (not perfect mind you, but there’s only so much of the universe we can see).
We know it is round (for the most part ... it bulges a little in the middle) by direct observation (i.e. satellites, man exploring space). Moreover, we can compute with extreme accuracy when the sun “rises” and “sets” at any point on the planet. We can predict when eclipses will occur to the second, and we can also determine *exactly* how an eclipse will look to an observer at any point on the Earth (take your pick too ... lunar or solar).
I mean, you’re living in the dark ages if you think you’re going to prove the Earth is flat and/or it isn’t rotating. If you have the skills to be a chemical engineer, why not apply your gifted mind to something worthwhile instead of ridiculous global, multigenerational, scientific conspiracies.
Now, maybe the Earth is not doing those things when the Earth is observed from some kind of other dimension or if you’re viewing the Earth from a single point in time ... I don’t know ... maybe spacetime in your part of the world is screwed up ... however, in the 4 dimensions we experience, we know the Earth is rotating :-).
You know, if the whole flat / non-rotating Earth / astro-scientific conspiracy thing was a trolling movement just to rile people up, I’d probably join you guys ... it’d be a ton of fun coming up with this nonsense and making people angry over nothing ... however, I kind of weep when I learn that otherwise smart people are serious about it ...
What a waste of taxpayer money. This is not a winning issue in upcoming campaigns. Whats to gain?
The only sane way to return to the Moon is not with a manned expedition. The hazards of the Moon are vacuum, extremes of heat and cold, cosmic and enhanced surface radiation, and extremely abrasive Lunar dust.
The best way to avoid all of these is to first send nuclear powered tunneling robots. Known technology, the lander lands in a crater which is near the northern pole, where there is much more even hot and cold, then it burrows into the side of the crater, making a large, horizontal shaft. At intervals while doing so, it inserts support rebar into the ceiling, a common practice in mines.
Once done, it sprays sealant over the inside surfaces against micro-fractures, then cannibalizes its lander for self sealing pressure doors at the entrance. It uses other lander parts for supports, ceiling, walls and flooring, that connect together like prefab, with electrical wiring already inside them. Finally, almost ready for human habitation, it does a pressure and temperature check. The nuclear power of the robot is used to provide electricity to the habitation.
Only then do you send the humans, so they can bring much more equipment and supplies, so the missions are longer. When the humans leave, they set up the robot to continue to improve the habitation by digging more tunnel space, and even a vertical cistern to store ice and water.
“Manned space flight”
Over budget
with massive cost overruns
Way late in delivery.
One of the biggest disaster areas (money-wise) inside of NASA.
And yet you will not do the simplest of proofs.
The answer begins in Genesis 1:14.
If you will not believe what your Creator has to say about what He designed and built, then I have no power to convince you otherwise.
Blessings to you and your loved ones,
Dan :-)
The Moon has a surface area equivalent to the surface area of Africa. We’ve landed a few probes and had manned reconnaissance in six areas, all near the equator. There is still much to be explored, and much that we can use.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.