[Starlight (OP)]

1 revolution per 24 hrs that is spinning very fast , ~1000mph !

It is fast compared to the speed of an automobile.
Members have given you all the information you need to know why the oceans don't fly off into space.  Stop fighting it and absorb the information!

You mean fake information just like those fake UFO's at area 51 where they use jet engines for propulsion and illusion !

Or perhaps fake moon landings with only 2-3 stage rockets that wouldn't reach the moon .

Fighting it ?  I look for the truth only and 1000 mph centrifugal force is greater than gravity  and the fact is water has little inertia .

[Bored chemist]

A centrifuge force is stronger than the weaker force of gravity !

Yes, but only because it spins very fast.

A centrifuge that only spun at one revolution per day wouldn't achieve much.

1 revolution per 24 hrs that is spinning very fast , ~1000mph !

Yes, OK 1000 mph is pretty fast.
But it isn't speed that relates to force. What gives rise to fcre is acceleration, and that's the rate of  change of speed.

So, let's have a think about how fast the speed of something at the surface of the Earth changes.
A point on the equator is doing about 1600 km/hr
And 12 hours later it will have gone halfway round the world and be traveling in the opposite direction at 1600 km/hr
So the change is 3200 km/hr
And it takes 12 hr to make that change so the rate of change is 3200/12 km/hr/hr
Putting tat into more conventional units
32000 km/hr is about 8900 m/s
12 hrs is 43200 sec
So the acceleration is about about 0.2 m/s/s (I say "about", because the precise calculation is a bit different, it takes account of the fact that the acceleration is in 2 dimensions, rather than 1 but it doesn't make much difference. Kryptid gave the accurate formula, but it's not obvious where that comes from.)
But the acceleration due to gravity is about 10 m/s/s
So you hardly notice the effect of centrifugal force.

I take it you don't think that the 1000 MPH is fake, and I guess you accept that there are 24 hrs in a day.
Those are the only numbers I needed.
Now you can see roughly how to calculate the acceleration I hope you can see there's no need for "fakery".

[Starlight (OP)]

I take it you don't think that the 1000 MPH is fake, and I guess you accept that there are 24 hrs in a day.
Those are the only numbers I needed.
Now you can see roughly how to calculate the acceleration I hope you can see there's no need for "fakery".

Fake science seems to be a talent for science and I'm afraid I don't buy into things that do not conform to simple logic and simple physics .

If some of the water bulges at the equator then there is no reason for the water North and South of the equator not to join the bulge as water mixes with water the same as light mixes with light .

Air pressure can't be a factor or there'd be bulges appearing and vanishing as the air  pressure changed around the globe .

Water as you must be aware as very little inertia so gravity wouldn't hold the water north and south of the equator , ignoring the centrifuge force .

Is science hiding a bigger earth and what science shows us is just the north face of a much larger spherical rock ?


Drawing.png (50.43 kB . 788x504 - viewed 12267 times)

[chiralSPO]

There is no reason to leap to conspiracy theories about fake science.

Maybe try thinking about it this way:

Consider the spinning dish example you provided. Sure, the water slips right off and flies away. Why doesn't the outer edge of the plate slide off too? Surely the same laws of inertia apply to glass and to water?

Well, of course the problem is that we haven't spun the dish nearly fast enough to overcome the strong chemical bonds holding the plate together--take it up to a few million rpm, and I'm sure the plate will fall apart pretty quickly.

If the Earth spun faster and faster, yes the bulge would grow taller and taller, and eventually, the earth could spin fast enough to overcome the gravity.

[Bored chemist]

Fake science seems to be a talent for science and I'm afraid I don't buy into things that do not conform to simple logic and simple physics .

That's why I explained it with simple logic and simple physics.
So what's your excuse for still not believing it?

there is no reason for the water North and South of the equator not to join the bulge

Yes there is.
A very simple reason.
It's held back by gravity.

Is science hiding a bigger earth

How could they?
There have been maps (and globes) of the Earth for longer than we have had modern science.

Water as you must be aware as very little inertia

An entire ocean of water has, obviously, a lot of inertia.
But that's hardly relevant.
It's not being held in place by inertia, gravity is holding it in place.

[Kryptid]

Why ?  Because the answers given do not seem to fit in with the physics given .

They do, but some bizarre reason, you don't accept them.

Yet it is enough centrifuge force to deform the Earths spherical shape !

Any centrifugal force would be enough to deform the Earth's shape at least somewhat. The Earth is about 12,756 kilometers wide across the Equator and about 12,714 kilometers wide from pole-to-pole. That means the Earth is only a mere 0.33% wider around the Equator than around the poles. That's a very tiny distortion, proportionately-speaking.

You may have specific math to back science claims but the magnitude of force that would be needed to reform the earths shape is much more than you are suggesting exists .

Please demonstrate this. I'm not just going to take your word for it.

Is science hiding a bigger earth and what science shows us is just the north face of a much larger spherical rock ?

You've got to be kidding me...

[evan_au]

Is science hiding a bigger earth and what science shows us is just the north face of a much larger spherical rock ?

I'll have none of your Northern chauvinism here, laddie!

As a proud Southerner, I can confidently assure you that:
- Starlight tells you that you are mistaken - just take a look out your window tonight and search for the Magellenic Clouds or the Southern Cross. And yet I can see them on any clear night.
- There are no commercial supersonic airliners operating today, and yet last year I was able to fly from Sydney (Australia) to Helsinki (Finland) in a tiring but bearable time. So the scale of the globe is not in question.

The size of the Earth was first calculated with reasonable accuracy by Eratosthenes around 200BC.
- And he calculated it on a North/South axis, within about 1% of the modern figure
- You have had 2 millennia to catch up.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_geodesy#Hellenistic_world

[Bored chemist]

A trip to the other side of the equator sorts this out beyond doubt.
You can look up and see "the man in the moon" upside down.

[alancalverd]

The centrifugal force is indeed significant as far as world athletics records are concerned.

Air pressure can't be a factor or there'd be bulges appearing and vanishing as the air  pressure changed around the globe .

  It is significant when predicting tides. The published tables relate to standard atmospheric pressure and if you are worried about critical keel clearance or the volume of water that will flood a harbour bar, you need to subtract or add a bit for extreme pressure variations.

[Starlight (OP)]

So what's your excuse for still not believing it?

If the Earth was spinning at ~1000 mph , any object on the surface would ''flirt'' off the earth .  Centrifuge force as always been a linear force associated with outer edges .
Science in my opinion disguises this by using revolutions instead of speed !
Also they faked the moon landings so nothing surprises me with science and the means they take to cover truths .

[Starlight (OP)]

Is science hiding a bigger earth

How could they?

CGI and a piece of cardboard with a circle cut out in the middle to give the impression of a spherical earth through a camera .

[Starlight (OP)]

Is science hiding a bigger earth and what science shows us is just the north face of a much larger spherical rock ?

You've got to be kidding me...

Not at all ! Would you know  ?

Bare in mind knowing would take the highest level of security clearance !

Why not the earth we are shown is actually only a crater full of water on a much bigger rock ?

I am not kidding like other members do with their questions !

[Starlight (OP)]

A trip to the other side of the equator sorts this out beyond doubt.
You can look up and see "the man in the moon" upside down.

I am surprised Australia ever observes sunlight  .   My observations of the suns movements suggests that ''down under'' on a sphere would be in constant shadow and darkness when the sun orbits above my head in the Northern hemisphere .

[Kryptid]

If the Earth was spinning at ~1000 mph , any object on the surface would ''flirt'' off the earth .

Don't just claim this: demonstrate it. Where are the calculations to back up your assertions? All you have provided so far are arguments from incredulity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

Science in my opinion disguises this by using revolutions instead of speed !

The centrifugal force equation is routinely tested in college courses:

If it was wrong, we would know it. Students everywhere would be able to see it for themselves.

Also they faked the moon landings so nothing surprises me with science and the means they take to cover truths .

So basically that means you can throw out any and all evidence that you disagree with under the guise of "conspiracy". That kind of mindset does not lend itself well to learning.

Not at all ! Would you know  ?

Occam's razor very, very strongly suggests that the Earth has the appearance and size that modern science accepts it to have. Unless, of course, you can actually provide verifiable evidence that there is a conspiracy to cover up the true nature of the planet.

[Origin]

I am surprised Australia ever observes sunlight  .   My observations of the suns movements suggests that ''down under'' on a sphere would be in constant shadow and darkness when the sun orbits above my head in the Northern hemisphere .

Holy frijole!  I am equal parts horrified and amused by the profound lack of knowledge of our home planet.

[Bored chemist]

I am surprised Australia ever observes sunlight  .   My observations of the suns movements suggests that ''down under'' on a sphere would be in constant shadow and darkness when the sun orbits above my head in the Northern hemisphere .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

[Starlight (OP)]

Don't just claim this: demonstrate it. Where are the calculations to back up your assertions?

Harry Potter opened up his book of spells to cast a magic spell on the audience !

Sciences way of denial and illusion , they always say you need calculations which is simply not true .

[Starlight (OP)]

I am surprised Australia ever observes sunlight  .   My observations of the suns movements suggests that ''down under'' on a sphere would be in constant shadow and darkness when the sun orbits above my head in the Northern hemisphere .

Holy frijole!  I am equal parts horrified and amused by the profound lack of knowledge of our home planet.

Lack of knowledge or lack of truth ? 

It isn't like I am trying to build a bridge over water here !

[alancalverd]

My observations of the suns movements suggests that ''down under'' on a sphere would be in constant shadow and darkness when the sun orbits above my head in the Northern hemisphere .

Who are you? Donald Trump? No sane person thinks the sun orbits above his head. In Trump's case, of course, it's a halo that only the truly gifted (with the taxpayer's money) can see.

[Kryptid]

Sciences way of denial and illusion , they always say you need calculations which is simply not true .

Then how do you know that the existing equations are wrong? I even posted a video demonstrating that the validity of the equations are tested regularly.