Search results

To be fair, there are plenty of excellent posts made by the opponents of the flat earth (can't say the same for the FE side, as it's mostly just repetitious arguments rehashing the same thing) and even some gems like Clete's post on the angle of the sun above the horizon being less than 1°.

The original thread (locked and in the Hall of Fame) has over 5000 posts.

By definition, all motion is relative to an arbitrarily assigned frame of reference. In physics, motion is the change in position of an object with respect to its surroundings in a given interval of time. Motion is mathematically described in terms of displacement, distance, velocity...

Pretty sure that's exactly what RD was asking you since YOU'RE the one who asked: So, Tam, relative to what?

I'll ignore the bait and switch you just tried to pull for a moment so we can have a polite and reasonable discussion. No, I'm simply defining it because you asked for a definition of gravity. I'm not claiming to know the fundamentals of what causes gravity to work. I'm simply telling you that...

Gravity: the force that attracts a body toward the center of the earth, or toward any other physical body having mass.

Yes, relative to the earth. Relative to the sun, there's not much difference between our motion and the earth's motion. USING THE EARTH AS A FRAME OF REFERENCE TO DESCRIBE THE EARTH'S MOTION WILL ALWAYS RESULT IN THE EARTH'S MOTION BEING ZERO! By definition, you CANNOT describe motion of an...

NEITHER OF THOSE HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT! You're trying to equivocate, Dave. Why? Saying it doesn't make it so, Dave. WHICH HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT! If you and I are standing on opposite sides of a highway, facing each other...

In other words, DFT_Dave, you can't use nothing as a frame of reference.

How do you know that space itself isn't moving, Dave? This is why the assumption is that there is no "absolute frame of reference."

Space has not been used as a frame of reference at all in this discussion, Dave, because there's nothing to use AS a frame of reference.

Yes, I believe that's what I said. By walking through the atmosphere... The atmosphere is a FLUID, Dave, not a solid. INCORRECT. The speed is 0 mph relative to the earth. The speed is 67,000 mph relative to the sun. Again, motion is always determined using an EXTERNAL Frame of Reference...

It proves EXACTLY THAT, Dave! This a "proof by assertion" fallacy. "The earth is not moving proves the earth is not moving." Your arguments are anything BUT logical. Relativity is logical. You just can't seem to understand it.

Why?

I was going to respond to these, but the conversation is already past these. I may later.

And this just confirms that you're stupid Dave. The fact that there are no 700-1000 mph windspeeds is PROOF that the atmosphere's spin motion relative to the earth's spin is 0 mph

That speed was recorded in 1934. And 700 mph, let alone 1000 mph, is more than triple the speed of the record. So no, it's not an appropriate analogy. Normal wind speeds (relative to the earth, and I can't believe that I have to specify that) don't get anywhere near 231 mph.

Dave!

The fastest recorded surface windspeed was 231 mph on the top of a mountain. Not 700 mph. Not 1000.

To be more precise, the direction is toward the earth's center of mass. Are you asserting that multiple forces cannot act upon objects simultaneously? If I have a hook set in my ceiling, and have a rope tied to that hook, and a cinderblock on the other end of the rope, and then I pull back...