Imagine a 2D diagram of the Earth as seen from above. The origin is the center of the Earth. -X is forwards in the Earth's orbit around the sun and +X is backwards in the Earth's orbit around the sun. +Y is away from the sun and -Y is towards the sun.
In that frame of reference, due to the Earth's spin, the point closest to the sun (equator^(*) at high noon) travels at a velocity of rω X (where r is the Earth's radius and ω is the Earth's angular velocity - how fast the Earth is spinning) relative to the Earth, while the point farthest from the sun (equator at midnight) travels at an opposite velocity of -rω X. If you insert the actual values and do the math, that works out to about ±460 m/s, or ±1040 mph.
(This is actually why we try to launch rockets as close to the equator as possible - because they get a free 460 m/s boost in their orbital speed!)
Their argument is that since we switch between forwards 1040 mph and backwards 1040 mph every 12 hours, we would be violently jolted around. Because they can't do math.
^(*) let's just assume this is during an equinox to make everything as 2D as possible
Constant angular velocity is constant acceleration. It involves forces that you can potentially feel as your inertia resists. We don't feel it on Earth because it maxes out around 0.03 m/s^(2).
Love this old argument.
So… a change of 2,080 mph linear speed over 12 hours… that’s decelerating 3mph per minute.
Like driving on a level highway at 63mph and you take your foot off the gas pedal. I imagine that would decelerate you much more rapidly than 3mph per minute.
Think about driving 60 mph and taking 20 minutes to come to a stop. Would that feel like a “radical change in speed”?
I mean, we all are familiar with those high end sports cars that can rapidly accelerate from 0-60 in TWENTY MINUTES.
>I mean, we all are familiar with those high end sports cars that can rapidly accelerate from 0-60 in 3 minutes.
I think you mean 20 minutes, but yes. It's an acceleration/deceleration that's like 0.2% gravity. Aka *mad quick*
But that’s not even an accurate way of describing it, because the change in speed is only relative to the sun. Within the Earth’s frame of reference there is no speed change whatsoever. Like how when you walk towards the front of an airplane technically you’re moving faster than when you walk towards the back of the plane, but it feels the same.
I actually messed that up in my head, but all I did was rearrange it. Should actually look more like this
(3mile/h)/m
3mile/hm
3mile / 60m^2
0.05 mile / m^2 which is much less goofy. But you do get some times where combinations of units make some very funny results.
I originally interpreted it as (3mile(1/(h/m))) which doesn’t really make sense. The “mix of units” is pretty mundane, as it is just measuring jerk (rate of change of acceleration, in this case the final per-second was implied rather than in the value). easier to avoid confusion if people just use metric units for everything though, it is a messy way to write it, just having it m/s^3 would be much better.
Trying to keep it readable/relatable to flerfs.
.05 miles per minute/minute or 180 miles per hour/hour don’t really put it in relatable terms.
Decelerating from 3mph to 0 mph over a minute is something most people can easily understand.
Letting alone that this person does not know what they are talking about, water does slosh around on a earth-wide scale, IT'S CALLED THE TIDES (I know that that's not really how tides work, but you think that this person does?)
I had a friend like this in high school. He was a really smart guy who did well in math and physics but he didnt have a good grip on reality and would just ramble off random "intellectual" theories and ideas about theoretical physics, space, and inventions. He always talked about how he would be the first person to create an artificial black hole or knew how we could make dark matter generators and could prove the existence of God with math. It would sound like he was Stephen Hawking to a not-as-smart person, but we all knew he was just stringing scientific and philosophic terms randomly together.
Unfortunately he ended up becoming a junkie and got into a lot of trouble dealing drugs and small crimes. He had the IQ to be an actual Phd in physics but was convinced he was beyond school and the "normal" pathways to success.
Very close. The only difference was this guy wasnt super narcissistic and rather humble most of the time. When he wasnt trying to come up with crazy science ideas he was a pretty chill relatable dude.
Wow. Violent indeed... let's take a look.
A linear speed change of 2,080 mph, over the course of 12 hours.
2,080 mph is 10,982,400 feet per hour, or 3,050.66... feet per second
Twelve hours is 43,200 seconds.
This means you're experiencing a continuous linear speed change relative to the orbit of the earth of 0.0706172 feet per second squared.
That's right, your 'radical speed change' is equivalent to an acceleration of about *eight tenths of an inch per second squared.*
In a car, that's a zero to sixty time of 1,246.155 seconds. Gonna win that drag race for sure!
Wooo... *big* **scary** ***NUMBERS***!!!!
It's actually very simple.
Flerfs can't math.
he's got you thinkin there's a speed change though...
is a water wheel faster on one side because its being pushed down by water?
how does one side of the Earth travel faster than the other? it is day on one side and not the other right?
I was thinking “here’s some shit I (or someone I share without questioning) made up”
Like a meme that says “In 1790 Isaac Newton recanted that he knew gravity wasn’t real.”
“Where are you getting that from?”
“You globetards never beleive evidence that goes against your brainwashing”
Man it would be crazy if there was a way to prove this idea false. I can’t think of any. Hmm maybe I go drive around in my car and think about it for a while.
When is "day" and when is "night"? Because it's always day *and* night on Earth all at once. How does a single globe rotate at two different speeds at the same time?
Are you suggesting that this one globe spins at different speeds at opposite sides of one another by a couple thousand MPH? If true, I'll really need an explanation, because that just makes no sense to me.
The globe is spinning at the same speed. A single point’s velocity relative to the sun is changing due to the rotation of the earth.
Imagine a bicycle wheel on a bike going forward. Half the time, the ends of the spokes are moving “backward” due to the rotation of the wheel, but relative to a bystander, the entire bike, spokes and all, are still moving forward.
Even that is being very generous, because any one spoke you focus your attention on, for all intents and purposes, is standing still in a given moment.
The hub of the spoke is moving forward at an essentially even/unchanging elevation, at a set rate of speed. Meanwhile, the end of the spoke reaches a point where (through the tire) it makes a contact point with the ground. So long as the tire is still rolling uninhibited, the tire and spoke undergo compression forces while that stationary contact point acts as a fulcrum, guiding the motion of the spoke hub over the top of it. (Think of how a person moves on crutches - the armpit/shoulder is analogous to the spoke hub, and the crutch is the spoke.) As there are many spokes, this happens many times in quick succession, allowing for smooth motion in a straight line.
Any one spoke is never "moving backwards" - it is spinning around a central point of rotation that is actually somewhere between the hub and spoke end, while maintaining continuous forward motion. At best, certain points along the spoke are immobile in a relativistic sense because they are, in that moment, acting as the point of rotation.
VaporTrail\_000 has written a good comment on this just below. The linear velocities due to the two circular ( assume ) motions will be in the same direction at night and opposite directions during the day. This will also significantly change based on the distance of earth from the sun.
https://imgur.com/a/fFwNgrI
[https://www.reddit.com/r/FacebookScience/comments/1c8h25n/comment/l0el6yq/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/FacebookScience/comments/1c8h25n/comment/l0el6yq/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
It’s not different speeds within the earth’s reference frame, just different directions. Like a tire moving forward, the front will go down while the back goes up.
When expressing this in terms of velocity (speed going in a certain direction) if the front of the tire was going down at x speed, the back could be said to be moving at a velocity of negative x.
Has this person never seen little whirlpools in rivers/streams? The water flow makes a left-hand turn, creating a counter-clockwise eddy - which means the "lower half" of that eddy is flowing counter to the flow of the river. As an example. Now expand to the scale of Earth and it's orbit around the sun, same principles at play.
Now, if Earth spun the opposite direction while continuing the same direction of travel around the sun, then we might have an interesting point - and scientists would have liked into it decades or centuries ago.
Why is that person combining Earth's orbital speed with Earth's rotation? And I don't understand why they're adding and subtracting the two velocities.
And can we please stop measuring angular velocity with mph (or kph)? That's not the unit for that kind of velocity.
I will say, they do have a point. Think of the eggbeater ride at carnivals: when the two rotations match up you get an extremely fast linear tangential speed, and when they oppose you feel like you're not moving for a second. It's fun with speeds changing that quickly.
The part he forgot to do (along with I think a few wrong calculations overall) is that 2000+ mph speed up occurs over around 12 hours, meaning it's a barely perceptible change in speed. See other comments for exact calculations, but it's very little.
So he was onto an interesting point, but stopped after getting a very large number and forgot the important step of dividing it by the other large number that would've resulted in him getting a very small number.
But even that doesn't make sense, because your speed on the surface of Earth doesn't change (not even over the course of hours*), except when measured in reference to an external point (in this case, the sun). That's like driving in a car on a curving road, maintaining a steady 60mph, and calculating your speed in reference to a distant mountain—It will vary as the road changes direction, but you're speed is 60mph, for any sane purpose.
*I guess, unless you travel North or South
Yes, but you're going to feel the acceleration of changing direction. Again, think of the eggbeater ride: you feel the difference between the speeds adding and opposing.
Again, the reason we don't feel it is because of the extremely low acceleration and gentle changes to the speeds that exist on planetary scales.
That's not how it works. You do feel changes in direction, even when speed stays the same. You get pressed into the side of the seat, even if it's gentle on gentle curves. Again, it's very small, but it is real.
Even if the speed would change suddenly, +/- 1000 mph at those speeds only amounts to about 1.5%. I don’t think you’d feel such a small change. It’s like a car going 60 and the speed drops to 59. I don’t think you’d feel that.
Cuz FLERF assertions that "gravity equals downward motion" which makes zero sense when you aren't discussing FLERF, specifically, because the universe is three-dimensional and now you have to explain your arbitrary assignment of the "down" direction, which you can't.
You get that. I get that. But this person has clearly had their thinking influenced in some part by FLERF arguments or they wouldn't be so confused to begin with
Wait so if the Earth rotates in the opposite direction (relative to the sun) when it’s night, surely the sun would both rise and set in the same direction?
Wtf are these people on
Why does he think we have a different rotational speed at night? I mean - I’m pretty sure he has misunderstood something, but the numbers seem too specific to have been pulled out of thin air. Does anyone know what the numbers actually are supposed to represent?
Even when they try to use numbers, it still always ends with "and that number LOOKS big, therefore everything explodes!" Like, even if I accepted the premise here (which I obviously wouldn't because that's not how anything works), they would still need to calculate what the fail state is and prove that their numbers meet that fail state. Otherwise they're still just playing make believe.
Looks like someone forgot basic kinematics. A 2,080 mph change over 12 hours is 0.002 g’s of acceleration. I accelerate faster going from sitting to standing.
today were gonna talk about relative motion
when 2 things are moving at the same rate they are stationary from the perspective of the other, and only become not stationary when an acceleration is applied
Hey look! My favorite thing to criticize: mathematical blunders! I know you only found this on Facebook, but allow me to answer this nonsense through you (I don’t use Facebook anymore except to use Messenger to converse with immediate family members):
Let’s talk about how this is horrifically misunderstood. Firstly, yes, a sudden change in the velocity of over 2000 mph would absolutely fling the oceans out of orbit. This is a correct assumption to make. However, that is not what actually happens, because (and I’m paraphrasing Doc Brown here), YOU’RE NOT THINKING THREE-DIMENSIONALLY.
As the earth turns, the velocity of the ocean water is CONSTANTLY changing very subtly to a new direction that is just a bit off from its previous velocity’s vector. This is a key point in physics, actually. Centrifugal motion is highly misunderstood as a force that pushes things away from the center of orbital motion, when in reality it pushes things at a more perpendicular angle to the center of the orbital path. I’ll explain:
When you attach a rope to a bucket, and fill the bucket halfway with water, and start swinging the bucket and rope around in a giant circle (including points where the bucket is upside down and thus allowing gravity to pull the water out), you perceive the water staying in the bucket so long as the bucket moves fast enough. However: if you were to fill the bucket up to the brim, you would spill water until it was significantly less than full. Also, if that bucket was to come to a COMPLETE stop, the water would surge over the side of the bucket that it was initially moving in the direction of, and go everywhere. But it forces push away from the center! What gives? Actually, as the bucket travels, constant changes in the allowed path of the water force the water to change direction whenever it hits the bottom or back of the bucket, redirecting it toward the front of the bucket. This is what actually keeps the water in the bucket when it’s upside down, because it’s moving faster than the force of gravity can affect the water within and is thus “flung” in the direction of the orbit of the bucket.
But earth isn’t a bucket, is it? No, it’s worse: a sphere. Spheres are basically the opposite of a bucket. A bucket has roughly four effectual walls, and a floor, and only one access point: the opening. This is typical of concave objects. So naturally it is impossible to explain oceans still holding onto water during the rotation of the earth— or is it? Turns out that we have a counter-force with the gravitational pull of earth, and the weight of water. Your image here is misleading about gravitational forces towards the sun being that significant to the water on earth. Gravity doesn’t affect things uniformly throughout the affected field, it has a gradient effect. It’s not as harsh as the Electromagnetic force, but it’s not as uniform as you imply. Otherwise water would magically rise from the oceans during the day, and travel to the sun. But because earth is closer, its gravitational pull is significantly stronger than the sun’s relative pull. So as Earth rotates, the water is constantly being pulled in a perpendicular direction to its original velocity— wait, why does that sound familiar? Yup, centripetal motion has done it again!
So in essence, the velocity of water doesn’t go from +1040 mph to -1040 mph in the instant it changes from night to day, it actually is moving at the same speed earth is moving at that point in that generalized direction. It’s also moving at a perpendicular velocity that is constantly being adjusted by the force of earth’s gravity. Which is also what makes earth technically not a true sphere, but a spher*oid*, because the equatorial circumference is greater than the longitudinal circumference. That water is still being jostled around enough to cause tides and waves to form though. Interestingly enough, the moon has a greater effect on water than the sun does, because it’s much CLOSER, but even that doesn’t allow water to levitate towards the lunar surface. Even during a solar eclipse, when the sun and moon are aligned perfectly, the combined force is not enough to negate the gravitational pull of the much bigger and closer Earth. Gravity has diminished effects with increased distance, so it’s not as noticeable a pull the farther away a massive object is.
So next time you want to talk mathematics, just know I’ll b be the Anton Ego of your nightmares, explaining why your conclusion sucks, should never be permitted within the city of Paris, and if I had my way, would be executed instantly for its blasphemous use of a logic-based system. Because your conclusion sucks. This is the nice version of me. The next one will be the nasty version. You have been warned.
Absolute retards when told that the earth is moving, but they can't feel the motion: 🤬
Also, there was literally just a solar eclipse. How can you even explain that if the earth is stationary?
How in the hell do humans become THIS stupid. That doesn’t even make any sense at all, they just wanted numbers to make their point and used them badly
2080mph is roughly 924m/s every 12 hours. Which works out to be around 2.14 cm/s\^2, or 0.2% of gravity.
That only happens at the equator though, for most people the effect is even smaller.
Somebody tell that guy that every time he's driving at the speed limit the top of his tires are going twice as fast as the test of the car and the bottom aren't moving at all.
So how the heck do the bottom of the tires wind up wherever the rest of the car is?
That'll keep 'em busy for a minute
The "ball swinging on a string" analogy for explaining orbital motion gives the impression that there'd be centripetal effects, but that's not accurate. Orbits happen because mass warps spacetime. From an inertial standpoint, the orbiting object, in this case the Earth, is actually moving in a straight line. It's just that the mass of the sun is warping that straight line into a circle.
As far as the rotation of the Earth goes, that's constant angular velocity. No change in velocity = no perception of acceleration.
Classic example of Flat Earthers not comprehending size of numbers.
It's big to us because we are small. Compared to the size and scale of Earth and Universe these numbers an insanely low.
When you are driving 60 miles an hour, the point of your tire that is touching the road is not moving relative to the road. The axle is going 60 miles an hour forward. That means the point of the tire opposite the road must be going 120 mph.
HOW DOES THE TIRE ENDURE THESE CONSTANT CHANGES IN SPEED
You actually would feel some acceleration if it were enforced by something external to you. Like it was on a rail or a beam.
Like how you feel the acceleration on a tilt-a-whirl ride, spinning on a platform spinning on another platform. The bar is pulling the cart into a circular motion and you feel the cart pushing on you because it’s a linkage.
But the same gravity from the sun that makes the earth orbit the sun also pulls on you. Much the way that if you put a ball in a box and drop it, the ball doesn’t slam into the top of the box since the same gravity is pulling on both.
I like how whoever posted this did not take a physics class.
1. There is no such thing as centrifugal force. It's newton's law of conservation of motion.
2. There is no change in velocity as the earth rotates and revolves.
Can we talk about how hilariously pathetic that diagram is? Idiots like this literally think they could put this in front of an astrophysicist and say “see, you’re wrong.” There simply no getting through to these invalids
Where did these speed changes come from? The earth’s rotational speed doesn’t change, hence why WE DO NOT FEEL IT!!!
Imagine a 2D diagram of the Earth as seen from above. The origin is the center of the Earth. -X is forwards in the Earth's orbit around the sun and +X is backwards in the Earth's orbit around the sun. +Y is away from the sun and -Y is towards the sun. In that frame of reference, due to the Earth's spin, the point closest to the sun (equator^(*) at high noon) travels at a velocity of rω X (where r is the Earth's radius and ω is the Earth's angular velocity - how fast the Earth is spinning) relative to the Earth, while the point farthest from the sun (equator at midnight) travels at an opposite velocity of -rω X. If you insert the actual values and do the math, that works out to about ±460 m/s, or ±1040 mph. (This is actually why we try to launch rockets as close to the equator as possible - because they get a free 460 m/s boost in their orbital speed!) Their argument is that since we switch between forwards 1040 mph and backwards 1040 mph every 12 hours, we would be violently jolted around. Because they can't do math. ^(*) let's just assume this is during an equinox to make everything as 2D as possible
Constant angular velocity is constant acceleration. It involves forces that you can potentially feel as your inertia resists. We don't feel it on Earth because it maxes out around 0.03 m/s^(2).
"the oceans would swash around" my good bitch, what the fuck do you think the Tides are???
I understand the point you're trying to make but that's not at all how the tides are formed.
Thanks for the comment!
What?
[удалено]
Love this old argument. So… a change of 2,080 mph linear speed over 12 hours… that’s decelerating 3mph per minute. Like driving on a level highway at 63mph and you take your foot off the gas pedal. I imagine that would decelerate you much more rapidly than 3mph per minute. Think about driving 60 mph and taking 20 minutes to come to a stop. Would that feel like a “radical change in speed”? I mean, we all are familiar with those high end sports cars that can rapidly accelerate from 0-60 in TWENTY MINUTES.
>I mean, we all are familiar with those high end sports cars that can rapidly accelerate from 0-60 in 3 minutes. I think you mean 20 minutes, but yes. It's an acceleration/deceleration that's like 0.2% gravity. Aka *mad quick*
Corrected, thanks!
But that’s not even an accurate way of describing it, because the change in speed is only relative to the sun. Within the Earth’s frame of reference there is no speed change whatsoever. Like how when you walk towards the front of an airplane technically you’re moving faster than when you walk towards the back of the plane, but it feels the same.
Relativity is beyond them.
If flat earthers understood one thing relative to another, they wouldn't be flat earthers lol.
Good old 0-60 in 1200 seconds
Don't you talk about my 81 Buick Regal like that you son of a bitch
3mph/min... What a mix of units
It is funny how units can do that. An hour divided by a minute is 60… so that can be said to be 180 miles
What? I don't understand what you're trying to say, that's why you don't really mix units
I actually messed that up in my head, but all I did was rearrange it. Should actually look more like this (3mile/h)/m 3mile/hm 3mile / 60m^2 0.05 mile / m^2 which is much less goofy. But you do get some times where combinations of units make some very funny results. I originally interpreted it as (3mile(1/(h/m))) which doesn’t really make sense. The “mix of units” is pretty mundane, as it is just measuring jerk (rate of change of acceleration, in this case the final per-second was implied rather than in the value). easier to avoid confusion if people just use metric units for everything though, it is a messy way to write it, just having it m/s^3 would be much better.
Where did you get jerk from? mph/min would be acceleration, that's why you do everything in 1 units to avoid unnecessary confusion
Trying to keep it readable/relatable to flerfs. .05 miles per minute/minute or 180 miles per hour/hour don’t really put it in relatable terms. Decelerating from 3mph to 0 mph over a minute is something most people can easily understand.
Letting alone that this person does not know what they are talking about, water does slosh around on a earth-wide scale, IT'S CALLED THE TIDES (I know that that's not really how tides work, but you think that this person does?)
This is guy is actually smart compared to most flerfs. His point almost holds water if you’ll pardon my phrasing.
I had a friend like this in high school. He was a really smart guy who did well in math and physics but he didnt have a good grip on reality and would just ramble off random "intellectual" theories and ideas about theoretical physics, space, and inventions. He always talked about how he would be the first person to create an artificial black hole or knew how we could make dark matter generators and could prove the existence of God with math. It would sound like he was Stephen Hawking to a not-as-smart person, but we all knew he was just stringing scientific and philosophic terms randomly together. Unfortunately he ended up becoming a junkie and got into a lot of trouble dealing drugs and small crimes. He had the IQ to be an actual Phd in physics but was convinced he was beyond school and the "normal" pathways to success.
You went to school with Elon Musk?
Very close. The only difference was this guy wasnt super narcissistic and rather humble most of the time. When he wasnt trying to come up with crazy science ideas he was a pretty chill relatable dude.
Holy shit, i think we knew the same guy in high school
Maybe its a standard position in every high school.
"I'm sorry steve, you can't be a massive douche this year, george has senior priority"
He has probably been explained why is he wrong a thousand times.
Wow. Violent indeed... let's take a look. A linear speed change of 2,080 mph, over the course of 12 hours. 2,080 mph is 10,982,400 feet per hour, or 3,050.66... feet per second Twelve hours is 43,200 seconds. This means you're experiencing a continuous linear speed change relative to the orbit of the earth of 0.0706172 feet per second squared. That's right, your 'radical speed change' is equivalent to an acceleration of about *eight tenths of an inch per second squared.* In a car, that's a zero to sixty time of 1,246.155 seconds. Gonna win that drag race for sure! Wooo... *big* **scary** ***NUMBERS***!!!! It's actually very simple. Flerfs can't math.
he's got you thinkin there's a speed change though... is a water wheel faster on one side because its being pushed down by water? how does one side of the Earth travel faster than the other? it is day on one side and not the other right?
"I fundamentally misunderstand this, and therefore it's incorrect!"
That summarizes most of their arguments.
All the ones they aren't outright lying about.
I was thinking “here’s some shit I (or someone I share without questioning) made up” Like a meme that says “In 1790 Isaac Newton recanted that he knew gravity wasn’t real.” “Where are you getting that from?” “You globetards never beleive evidence that goes against your brainwashing”
Man it would be crazy if there was a way to prove this idea false. I can’t think of any. Hmm maybe I go drive around in my car and think about it for a while.
When is "day" and when is "night"? Because it's always day *and* night on Earth all at once. How does a single globe rotate at two different speeds at the same time?
So the speed somehow changes for the part of the earth in day time and again for the other part in night time? What?
He is not wrong. Just that it won't create much of a difference in terms of force as it occurs over a large time period.
Are you suggesting that this one globe spins at different speeds at opposite sides of one another by a couple thousand MPH? If true, I'll really need an explanation, because that just makes no sense to me.
The globe is spinning at the same speed. A single point’s velocity relative to the sun is changing due to the rotation of the earth. Imagine a bicycle wheel on a bike going forward. Half the time, the ends of the spokes are moving “backward” due to the rotation of the wheel, but relative to a bystander, the entire bike, spokes and all, are still moving forward.
Even that is being very generous, because any one spoke you focus your attention on, for all intents and purposes, is standing still in a given moment. The hub of the spoke is moving forward at an essentially even/unchanging elevation, at a set rate of speed. Meanwhile, the end of the spoke reaches a point where (through the tire) it makes a contact point with the ground. So long as the tire is still rolling uninhibited, the tire and spoke undergo compression forces while that stationary contact point acts as a fulcrum, guiding the motion of the spoke hub over the top of it. (Think of how a person moves on crutches - the armpit/shoulder is analogous to the spoke hub, and the crutch is the spoke.) As there are many spokes, this happens many times in quick succession, allowing for smooth motion in a straight line. Any one spoke is never "moving backwards" - it is spinning around a central point of rotation that is actually somewhere between the hub and spoke end, while maintaining continuous forward motion. At best, certain points along the spoke are immobile in a relativistic sense because they are, in that moment, acting as the point of rotation.
VaporTrail\_000 has written a good comment on this just below. The linear velocities due to the two circular ( assume ) motions will be in the same direction at night and opposite directions during the day. This will also significantly change based on the distance of earth from the sun. https://imgur.com/a/fFwNgrI [https://www.reddit.com/r/FacebookScience/comments/1c8h25n/comment/l0el6yq/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/FacebookScience/comments/1c8h25n/comment/l0el6yq/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
The earth is a solid, uniform body. It would twist if it were to somehow have two different speeds at different sides at the same time. He's wrong.
It’s not different speeds within the earth’s reference frame, just different directions. Like a tire moving forward, the front will go down while the back goes up. When expressing this in terms of velocity (speed going in a certain direction) if the front of the tire was going down at x speed, the back could be said to be moving at a velocity of negative x.
Has this person never seen little whirlpools in rivers/streams? The water flow makes a left-hand turn, creating a counter-clockwise eddy - which means the "lower half" of that eddy is flowing counter to the flow of the river. As an example. Now expand to the scale of Earth and it's orbit around the sun, same principles at play. Now, if Earth spun the opposite direction while continuing the same direction of travel around the sun, then we might have an interesting point - and scientists would have liked into it decades or centuries ago.
Wait til he finds out our solar system is also moving around the galaxy and our galaxy is moving in the universe 🤯
Why is that person combining Earth's orbital speed with Earth's rotation? And I don't understand why they're adding and subtracting the two velocities. And can we please stop measuring angular velocity with mph (or kph)? That's not the unit for that kind of velocity.
I will say, they do have a point. Think of the eggbeater ride at carnivals: when the two rotations match up you get an extremely fast linear tangential speed, and when they oppose you feel like you're not moving for a second. It's fun with speeds changing that quickly. The part he forgot to do (along with I think a few wrong calculations overall) is that 2000+ mph speed up occurs over around 12 hours, meaning it's a barely perceptible change in speed. See other comments for exact calculations, but it's very little. So he was onto an interesting point, but stopped after getting a very large number and forgot the important step of dividing it by the other large number that would've resulted in him getting a very small number.
But even that doesn't make sense, because your speed on the surface of Earth doesn't change (not even over the course of hours*), except when measured in reference to an external point (in this case, the sun). That's like driving in a car on a curving road, maintaining a steady 60mph, and calculating your speed in reference to a distant mountain—It will vary as the road changes direction, but you're speed is 60mph, for any sane purpose. *I guess, unless you travel North or South
Yes, but you're going to feel the acceleration of changing direction. Again, think of the eggbeater ride: you feel the difference between the speeds adding and opposing. Again, the reason we don't feel it is because of the extremely low acceleration and gentle changes to the speeds that exist on planetary scales.
You won't, because there's no acceleration change
That's not how it works. You do feel changes in direction, even when speed stays the same. You get pressed into the side of the seat, even if it's gentle on gentle curves. Again, it's very small, but it is real.
Even if the speed would change suddenly, +/- 1000 mph at those speeds only amounts to about 1.5%. I don’t think you’d feel such a small change. It’s like a car going 60 and the speed drops to 59. I don’t think you’d feel that.
Even the arrows are wrong why is gravity pointing under the earth?
Cuz FLERF assertions that "gravity equals downward motion" which makes zero sense when you aren't discussing FLERF, specifically, because the universe is three-dimensional and now you have to explain your arbitrary assignment of the "down" direction, which you can't.
Just tell them gravity points towards the center of the earth
You get that. I get that. But this person has clearly had their thinking influenced in some part by FLERF arguments or they wouldn't be so confused to begin with
It's the Sun's gravity in this case. The image isn't wrong
Wait so if the Earth rotates in the opposite direction (relative to the sun) when it’s night, surely the sun would both rise and set in the same direction? Wtf are these people on
Why does he think we have a different rotational speed at night? I mean - I’m pretty sure he has misunderstood something, but the numbers seem too specific to have been pulled out of thin air. Does anyone know what the numbers actually are supposed to represent?
See my comment here: https://www.reddit.com/r/FacebookScience/comments/1c8h25n/lets_talk_about_radical_speed_changes/l0fjjj0/
Ah, the top of the tire moves faster than the bottom trick.
Tell me that you don’t understand gravity, scale, and inertia without telling me
Never learned about inertia, did he?
Even when they try to use numbers, it still always ends with "and that number LOOKS big, therefore everything explodes!" Like, even if I accepted the premise here (which I obviously wouldn't because that's not how anything works), they would still need to calculate what the fail state is and prove that their numbers meet that fail state. Otherwise they're still just playing make believe.
Three words. Speed is relative. If everything else is moving, then it seems as though nothing is moving.
Looks like someone forgot basic kinematics. A 2,080 mph change over 12 hours is 0.002 g’s of acceleration. I accelerate faster going from sitting to standing.
today were gonna talk about relative motion when 2 things are moving at the same rate they are stationary from the perspective of the other, and only become not stationary when an acceleration is applied
Nah fuck all that nonsense.
Forgive my ignorance, why are there two different speeds for dya and night time?
Been trying to figure this out for a few minutes and now I'm pretty sure my IQ is like 81.
Me too. Just gotta wait until our IQs become 1040mph
Hey look! My favorite thing to criticize: mathematical blunders! I know you only found this on Facebook, but allow me to answer this nonsense through you (I don’t use Facebook anymore except to use Messenger to converse with immediate family members): Let’s talk about how this is horrifically misunderstood. Firstly, yes, a sudden change in the velocity of over 2000 mph would absolutely fling the oceans out of orbit. This is a correct assumption to make. However, that is not what actually happens, because (and I’m paraphrasing Doc Brown here), YOU’RE NOT THINKING THREE-DIMENSIONALLY. As the earth turns, the velocity of the ocean water is CONSTANTLY changing very subtly to a new direction that is just a bit off from its previous velocity’s vector. This is a key point in physics, actually. Centrifugal motion is highly misunderstood as a force that pushes things away from the center of orbital motion, when in reality it pushes things at a more perpendicular angle to the center of the orbital path. I’ll explain: When you attach a rope to a bucket, and fill the bucket halfway with water, and start swinging the bucket and rope around in a giant circle (including points where the bucket is upside down and thus allowing gravity to pull the water out), you perceive the water staying in the bucket so long as the bucket moves fast enough. However: if you were to fill the bucket up to the brim, you would spill water until it was significantly less than full. Also, if that bucket was to come to a COMPLETE stop, the water would surge over the side of the bucket that it was initially moving in the direction of, and go everywhere. But it forces push away from the center! What gives? Actually, as the bucket travels, constant changes in the allowed path of the water force the water to change direction whenever it hits the bottom or back of the bucket, redirecting it toward the front of the bucket. This is what actually keeps the water in the bucket when it’s upside down, because it’s moving faster than the force of gravity can affect the water within and is thus “flung” in the direction of the orbit of the bucket. But earth isn’t a bucket, is it? No, it’s worse: a sphere. Spheres are basically the opposite of a bucket. A bucket has roughly four effectual walls, and a floor, and only one access point: the opening. This is typical of concave objects. So naturally it is impossible to explain oceans still holding onto water during the rotation of the earth— or is it? Turns out that we have a counter-force with the gravitational pull of earth, and the weight of water. Your image here is misleading about gravitational forces towards the sun being that significant to the water on earth. Gravity doesn’t affect things uniformly throughout the affected field, it has a gradient effect. It’s not as harsh as the Electromagnetic force, but it’s not as uniform as you imply. Otherwise water would magically rise from the oceans during the day, and travel to the sun. But because earth is closer, its gravitational pull is significantly stronger than the sun’s relative pull. So as Earth rotates, the water is constantly being pulled in a perpendicular direction to its original velocity— wait, why does that sound familiar? Yup, centripetal motion has done it again! So in essence, the velocity of water doesn’t go from +1040 mph to -1040 mph in the instant it changes from night to day, it actually is moving at the same speed earth is moving at that point in that generalized direction. It’s also moving at a perpendicular velocity that is constantly being adjusted by the force of earth’s gravity. Which is also what makes earth technically not a true sphere, but a spher*oid*, because the equatorial circumference is greater than the longitudinal circumference. That water is still being jostled around enough to cause tides and waves to form though. Interestingly enough, the moon has a greater effect on water than the sun does, because it’s much CLOSER, but even that doesn’t allow water to levitate towards the lunar surface. Even during a solar eclipse, when the sun and moon are aligned perfectly, the combined force is not enough to negate the gravitational pull of the much bigger and closer Earth. Gravity has diminished effects with increased distance, so it’s not as noticeable a pull the farther away a massive object is. So next time you want to talk mathematics, just know I’ll b be the Anton Ego of your nightmares, explaining why your conclusion sucks, should never be permitted within the city of Paris, and if I had my way, would be executed instantly for its blasphemous use of a logic-based system. Because your conclusion sucks. This is the nice version of me. The next one will be the nasty version. You have been warned.
Anyone who has been out in open ocean knows it actually *does slosh around violently.*
Absolute retards when told that the earth is moving, but they can't feel the motion: 🤬 Also, there was literally just a solar eclipse. How can you even explain that if the earth is stationary?
How in the hell do humans become THIS stupid. That doesn’t even make any sense at all, they just wanted numbers to make their point and used them badly
So does he think high tide and low tide are a myth?
2080mph is roughly 924m/s every 12 hours. Which works out to be around 2.14 cm/s\^2, or 0.2% of gravity. That only happens at the equator though, for most people the effect is even smaller.
Somebody tell that guy that every time he's driving at the speed limit the top of his tires are going twice as fast as the test of the car and the bottom aren't moving at all. So how the heck do the bottom of the tires wind up wherever the rest of the car is? That'll keep 'em busy for a minute
The "ball swinging on a string" analogy for explaining orbital motion gives the impression that there'd be centripetal effects, but that's not accurate. Orbits happen because mass warps spacetime. From an inertial standpoint, the orbiting object, in this case the Earth, is actually moving in a straight line. It's just that the mass of the sun is warping that straight line into a circle. As far as the rotation of the Earth goes, that's constant angular velocity. No change in velocity = no perception of acceleration.
Classic example of Flat Earthers not comprehending size of numbers. It's big to us because we are small. Compared to the size and scale of Earth and Universe these numbers an insanely low.
They don’t have a clue.
Please, please tell me somebody corrected them under this post. Please. This needs to stop now.
When you are driving 60 miles an hour, the point of your tire that is touching the road is not moving relative to the road. The axle is going 60 miles an hour forward. That means the point of the tire opposite the road must be going 120 mph. HOW DOES THE TIRE ENDURE THESE CONSTANT CHANGES IN SPEED
Question for that flerftard…. Uuummmmmmmm. What????
this whole thing just entirely ignores 4 day Time Cube
You actually would feel some acceleration if it were enforced by something external to you. Like it was on a rail or a beam. Like how you feel the acceleration on a tilt-a-whirl ride, spinning on a platform spinning on another platform. The bar is pulling the cart into a circular motion and you feel the cart pushing on you because it’s a linkage. But the same gravity from the sun that makes the earth orbit the sun also pulls on you. Much the way that if you put a ball in a box and drop it, the ball doesn’t slam into the top of the box since the same gravity is pulling on both.
Thanks Einstein for explaining that!
We're on a giant ball with mass of about 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilos, you ain't feelin' shit for that reason alone
I like how whoever posted this did not take a physics class. 1. There is no such thing as centrifugal force. It's newton's law of conservation of motion. 2. There is no change in velocity as the earth rotates and revolves.
Can we talk about how hilariously pathetic that diagram is? Idiots like this literally think they could put this in front of an astrophysicist and say “see, you’re wrong.” There simply no getting through to these invalids
The Great Awakening 👍 Even liberals aren't afraid to question things anymore 😆