Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Guest

Sky Cat Weighs-In

46 posts in this topic

Want Proof The Earth Is Spherical?

 

Here’s how you can prove it to yourself…

 

Ok, so since there is ‘apparently’ such a big lack of proof, and people have asked for it, I have decided to provide you with an easy, straightforward, test; that anyone can perform.

As stated before, I’m not interested in getting into lengthy arguments, and, even less-so, speculation, which is one of the reasons why I avoid the lengthy ongoing threads, and why I am presenting to you here one of my methods (one should be enough) by which you can prove to yourself that the Earth is spherical (with some additional input from my side, unless you perform all calculations yourself.)

 

No, I am not providing “the proof” to you here, instead I am providing you with the tools needed in order for you to prove it to yourself (and the means/method by which to do so), should you wish to.  Please feel free to participate and share your results here, should you decide to participate, that is.

 

Spinning objects are subject to centrifugal forces and all objects are subject to gravitational forces.  Since the Earth spins, is spherical and its exact dimensions are known, there is a highly predictable centrifugal force (counter to the spin axis) which opposes the force of gravity (inward, towards the centre of mass.)  Since the forces of gravity on- and around Earth, for all locations, are measurable, and predictable, and since other factors, such as mean atmospheric densities (which determines buoyancy), are predictable, it therefore follows that the exact weight and/or change in weight of any fixed-mass object can be the calculated, based on its latitude and its height above the surface of the Earth.
 

 http://i.imgur.com/6dWXEAG.png

The centrifugal force (caused by the Earth’s rate of spin) is higher at the equator and effectively null at the poles. (It is the same effect as if you spin around, your arms will want to fly outward but if you put your arm straight up above your head it does not experience such a force.)   The Earth sphere is slightly flattened: Technically, it is an oblate sphere.  What this means is that (in addition to the centrifugal forces experienced by spinning objects) there is also a difference in mean gravitational force between the poles and the equator.  At the poles there is slightly ‘more gravity’, whilst at the equator there is ‘slightly less’.  These two factors are what determine effective weight of any object on the planet and there is a 0.5288% difference (including accounting for mean atmospheric factors.  Atmospheric density makes a difference, although to a lesser extent), the margin when using the standard value for mean gravity of 9.80665m/s² as the baseline.   The actual variation (when using gravity difference without the mean value) between the equator and poles is 0.53024% greater weight at the poles.

 

In short, objects will weigh more at the poles and they will weigh less at the equator (for instance an object weighing 189Kg at the equator will weigh 190Kg at the north and south poles), or, simply-put, will weigh more the closer they are located to the poles and they will weigh less the closer they are positioned to the equator.  The exact weight at any given latitude and altitude can be mathematically determined to a very high accuracy. [In fact, such things are in fact necessary for the accurate functioning of some vehicles (such as ballistic rockets and ICBMs.)]

 

The Experiment

Weigh an object at some low latitude and then weigh it again at a high latitude (or vice-versa), note the values and then compare them to the predicted result.  For instance, if you’re based in the USA, weight something in Florida, then go up to the Canadian border and weigh it again there, or send it to a friend who can do it for you.) [Even better, go to northern Canada or find a friend in Norway or Siberia.]  If you’re in the Southern Hemisphere, then do something similar. [Ecuador and Chile, for example.]

 

What you will require for this experiment:

+ Some fixed-mass object to be weighed.  Preferably something like non-porous stone or rock, or a non-corrosive metallic item. (One would want to avoid objects that might accumulate moisture and/or react with air or water [corrosion.])

+ A high precision scale, or scales (preferably of the same type, model and manufacturer if using a pair or multiple scales) in good working order.

 

The object to be weighed should be clean/cleaned: Any dust should be removed before weighing and it should be free of condensation.  The room(s) temperature(s) should not be near dew point (so as to prevent possible moisture accumulation.)  In order to reduce possible errors, preferably, in each measuring location, similar weather conditions should be observed (similar air humidity content, similar atmospheric pressure; as close as is practically-possible.)

 

I will assist, in this thread, as much as possible, by providing data for anyone who requests it, based on the latitude and altitude used at their pair of weighing locations.  If the number of requests is manageable, I will calculate the precise expected weights, taking into account Earth’s centrifugal force, mean gravity (excluding gravity anomalies, which are usually insignificant) and mean atmospheric density for the locations.  You can then use these figures to compare with your measured results.

 

Perform the test in one location; note the weight of the object; post it on the thread, along with latitude and altitude; then provide the latitude and altitude of the second location and I will provide the precise expected result of the weight at the second location.

 

For the calculations I will use:

+ Earth’s gravity

+ Earth’s centrifugal forces

+ Earth’s atmospheric density

 

[Note: Altitudes used in calculations are altitudes with relation to the WGS84 datum (above the WGS84 spheroid.)  Altitudes you may be aware of (from things like Google Earth, your smart phone, etc) typically include accounting roughly for crustal undulation determining “sea level” (above or below the WGS84 datum, a = 6378137, b = 6356752.314245, f = 298.257223563) and therefore the input altitude can sometimes be off by a few metres; however, this makes only a very small difference to weights and will effectively not make a difference as the nett effects are unlikely to show up on even high precision weighing devices.  If you can provide WGS84 height then that will make the calculation slightly more accurate; otherwise ignore it as it is not of great significance.]

 

How does this prove the Earth is a sphere?  Since, using arithmetic, geometry, 3D Euclidian vector spaces and known physics principles detailed mathematical descriptions of 3-dimensional objects and their physical properties can be constructed, knowing ‘the starting forces and motions (such as rotation)’ we can accurately predict the forces we should expect to see anywhere on their surface(s).  When measurements are taken and there is sufficient agreement between the observations and the mathematically predicted forces (calculated with the use of 3D spherical geometry and known connotational physics of spinning objects), it represents proof of a spinning object and of spherical geometry of the object being measured (since the forces are precisely predicted using spinning object- and spherical object maths and physics.)

 

No, I will not share “all the calculations” here, primarily because they are too numerous to enumerate and my software is proprietary in nature; however, all calculations are based on logic; my own, plus that of many researchers and scientists who’ve contributed to the fields involved (applied science and mathematics) over the past few thousand years.  It is self-evident and a product of logic.  No, I do not simply “accept what other people say”, whatever their title or organisation, be they universities or any other institution.  I accept something when I am able to verify it myself; and this is the very purpose of this thread: That you may be able to prove something to yourself.  The methods of calculation are freely available on the Internet in many places and you can look them up (the Internet is your friend in this regard, well, mostly, anyway) and perform your own calculations, however, a word of caution: It’s a lot of work and there are many aspects to take into account.  It will take a long time to get to that point, to say the least, however, everything you might need, of you decide to embark on that journey, is freely available online and in the science, maths and geometry literature.  Again, I am saving you a whole bunch of hassle and time, since I will perform the calculations for you! (If you are not in a position to do them yourself.)

 

The purpose of this thread is to ‘give you what you need’ and provide support for those desiring to verify the facts through testing of the predictions based on this, my method of proving the Earth is spherical.  The thread is not intended for “general discussion”, speculation or spurious and unsubstantiated claims or theories.  Just the facts.  Now you can prove it to yourself in unambiguous terms.  Go out and do it, or not, it is up to you.

 

That’s all for now

Have fun!
SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you clarify why discussion of gravity proves that the earth must be a sphere? The equation for gravity has nothing to do with the rotation or motion of any two objects, only their distance apart and their respective masses. Gravity would exist with or without a spinning ball. 

What gravity actually is, as you know from your magnets thread, does not depend on the shape either; it exists independent of shape just as it does for rotation. The only thing rotation might affect is the magnetic poles, which again are not confined to spherical shapes alone. One of the more recent videos you posted has a large disk-shaped magnet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you clarify why discussion of gravity proves that the earth must be a sphere? The equation for gravity has nothing to do with the rotation or motion of any two objects, only their distance apart and their respective masses. Gravity would exist with or without a spinning ball. 

What gravity actually is, as you know from your magnets thread, does not depend on the shape either; it exists independent of shape just as it does for rotation. The only thing rotation might affect is the magnetic poles, which again are not confined to spherical shapes alone. One of the more recent videos you posted has a large disk-shaped magnet.

Correct, gravity has nothing to do with the spin.  The part of the proof involving gravity, although not the most significant part of the proof, has to do with the oblate shape of the Earth (resulting in higher gravity at the poles and lower gravity at the equator.)  This is due to the fact that at the poles one is closer to the Earth's centre of mass and at the equator, one is further from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct, gravity has nothing to do with the spin.  The part of the proof involving gravity, although not the most significant part of the proof, has to do with the oblate shape of the Earth (resulting in higher gravity at the poles and lower gravity at the equator.)  This is due to the fact that at the poles one is closer to the Earth's centre of mass and at the equator, one is further from it.

This magnetic pattern can be explained as well by a disk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This magnetic pattern can be explained as well by a disk.

Not in the same proportions (unless the disk is uneven in its thickness.)  Once again, the gravity part is not the most significant part (the centrifugal forces are), however the gravity aspect (along with the centrafugal force) satisfies the expected weights exactly (without any modifications to the shape of the spheroid required.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not in the same proportions (unless the disk is uneven in its thickness.)  Once again, the gravity part is not the most significant part (the centrifugal forces are), however the gravity aspect (along with the centrafugal force) satisfies the expected weights exactly (without any modifications to the shape of the spheroid required.)

Many FE believe the earth's surface to be flat, but that there is more beneath it in the shape of a half-sphere or rough equivalent. That is, only the surface is flat, with a dome (half sphere) above and an underworld half-sphere below.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many FE believe the earth's surface to be flat, but that there is more beneath it in the shape of a half-sphere or rough equivalent. That is, only the surface is flat, with a dome (half sphere) above and an underworld half-sphere below.

I know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know

This approach seems to be the most logical, instead of trying to prove something by unavailable information, start by known factors.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This approach seems to be the most logical, instead of trying to prove something by unavailable information, start by known factors.    

I agree. Yet so far, there's nothing that requires a sphere earth to be the only explanation for observations or theories. I still don't say for sure what the earth's shape is, because there are too many unknowns and too many phenomena that can be explained by more than one model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the exact same logic i tried explaining in a thread not to long ago. Well done on some nice execution in explaining it. Greenie for you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, Cat, how do we get atmospheric pressure in the first place?  Gravity, in theory, causes minuscule particles of oxygen and nitrogen to "compact" themselves near the surface. A hard vacuum of space exists 62 miles overhead. We must accept that gravity is stronger than the absolute vacuum only 62 miles away? What math justifies that? If gravity is that strong, strong enough to push ocean waters to cling to a sphere earth, then how can butterflies and bumblebees easily ignore this weak force?

Can you ask your physics teacher those questions?

You are really interested in this thing, aren't you? It gets into you, once you open your mind to it. Which you have done. Very interesting. Be careful. The establishment does not like questioners.

 http://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.M7aa585313a5da25fac96a2d963a39f6eo0&pid=15.1 

http://cutelovequotesforher.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Nikola-Tesla-Quotes-with-Photos.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. Yet so far, there's nothing that requires a sphere earth to be the only explanation for observations or theories. I still don't say for sure what the earth's shape is, because there are too many unknowns and too many phenomena that can be explained by more than one model.

Please describe the shape of the object other than a spheriod then which would satisfy the measurements of varied weights in different locations on Earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Restore formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.