Please note, as of October 25th, 2023, this page is still not completely finished. A YouTube video detailing the layers and structure of the spinning globe earth (that you may think you live on) will be added, hopefully in time for Christmas! This should cause a paradigm shift in your world view, once you see that what you believe is IN FACT ridiculous, nonsensical and unscientific. Even if you have not studied the Spin1 page, which proves spinning globe earth is a physical and mechanical impossibility, the video on its own will be more than enough proof.
https://www.tiktok.com/@stfu.maria/video/6881754016041209089
 |
| Image 1. Paulster X |
A COCKAMAMIE THEORY
CONCOCTED BY Paulster X FROM YOUTUBE
 |
| Image 2. Search for cockamamie on Google. Sounds like kaa·kuh·may·mee cockamamie /ˈkäkəˌmāmē/ cock·a·ma·mie ridiculous; implausible. "a cockamamie theory" |
CRYING "GRAVITY"
(Click on date to see this comment in comments section bottom Spin1 page.)
"You seem to have a misunderstanding of what causes tension around the rim of a spinning object. You think it’s centrifugal force alone that causes that tension. It’s not, the tension is caused by a net force acting away from the centre of rotation, which translates into circumferential tension. If there is no net force acting away from the axis, there can be no rim tension. In the case of a flywheel, there is nothing to oppose centrifugal force. There is only a resistance to that force from the material’s molecular bonds. Your premise does therefore apply to a flywheel. But the earth is not a flywheel. The earth has a significant gravitational effect on every piece of matter within it. The inward gravitational acceleration acting on any piece of matter in its ‘rim’ at the equator is approximately 300 times greater than the outward acceleration provided by centrifugal acceleration. Therefore the force towards the axis is much larger than the force away from it, resulting in a net force inward, not outward. This results in a net compression of the earth’s surface, not tension. This is basic high school physics, it would be good for you to learn some."
REPLY
Doctor Nicholas November 17, 2021 at 2:44 PM
No. The tension is not caused "... by a net force acting away from the
centre of rotation ..." because there is no such force pulling on the
axis. It is caused by a force that acts along the diameter, which
requires spinning and molecular bonds to develop.
An outward
radial force exists only on the surface and only applies to surface
objects. Opposing this with "gravity" does not result in a "net
compression of the earth’s surface".
Moreover, "gravity" does
not cause any compression at all, on the spinning body itself (the fake
globe) and cancels itself out within the fake globe, being zero at the
center. According to globe pseudoscience claims.
In other words,
opposing a radial force (that only acts on surface objects riding on the
fake globe) does not in any way oppose or "prevent from occurring in
the first place" hoop stress (which is due to a force that acts along
the diameter which requires molecular bonds and spinning of a solid
body, to develop).
Simply put, so long as a solid body spins like
a top, there will be hoop stress tension, no matter what, even if there
is compression on the outside.
"This is basic high school physics, it would be good for you to learn some."
Leonardo da Vinci — 'There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.'
NOTE
Paulster X is conflating the force relationships and force distribution patterns of two different axes of rotation. The two axes of rotation are defined and described at the top of the Spin1 page.
TABLE 1. EFFECTS OF CENTRIFUGAL FORCE BASED ON AXIS OF ROTATION
| Axis of Rotation of Body |
Centrifugal Force on Axis |
Centrifugal Tension in Body |
|---|---|---|
| Away from center of mass |
Yes |
No |
| Center of mass |
No |
Yes |
YOUTUBE COMMENTS
YouTube comment 1. Paulster X @rockets push off air
more
weight equals less centrifugal tension? I assume you meant more? In
which case, yes it would, if centrifugal tension could propagate in the
first place. The net RADIAL force is towards the earths centre - you
can’t deny that, it’s easily measurable and calculable. Tension is a by
product of force, and without an outward radial force, there can be no
tension force, because the linear tension force is a by product of
outward radial force. No outward radial force = no linear tension force.
Got it?
YouTube comment 2. rockets push off air @paolo salucci {numero uno parrot of Paulster X}
"Molecular bonds have nothing to do with this problem since there is no hoop stress tension. Why should there be? If the only net force present is inward, why should a superficial tension arise? Truth will always be truth, no made up lie will change that. No invented hoop stress that has no reason to exist will change reality." Why should there be tension?--BECAUSE THE OBJECT IS SPINNING LIKE A TOP OVER 1000 MPH. So long as a body is spinning like a top, all the forces of spinning will exist. Any other force is an additional force. Molecular bonds have everything to do with "this problem" because solidity is the first and most basic requirement to be able to spin like a top. The speed limit is directly related to molecular bond strength. No cracked basalt space pear can spin. No solid material can spin like a top over 1000 mph without exploding way before that. If molecular bonds break from spinning like a top, how can an imaginary weaker force (gravity) do better?
It's like saying I want to catch a marlin but I only have sewing thread, so I will spray it with clear coat and now it is strong enough to catch a marlin? EDIT:😄
WHO IS PAULSTER X
Paulster X is an old chap from the UK. He showed up on my channel one day and politely asked to discuss flat earth. He challenged me with equinoxes and was boasting that his argument debunks flat earth. I stopped him in his tracks when I pointed out "you have to imagine a dome" a "celestial dome" for equinoxes to work in the fake globe model. He never challenged anybody ever again with equinoxes. The purpose of the imaginary celestial dome is to bring all the lights in the sky close to earth, close to their actual positions so our observations make sense.
I countered his challenge, by pointing out that the fake globe violates physical realty, in more ways than one. For example, no material can spin like a top 1000 mph & no cracked body can spin at all.
Any one of these two facts destroys the spinning globe fantasy. He
stated that if I prove him wrong, he "can take it on the chin" but he never kept his word. Instead, he concocted a cockamamie compression theory and made hundreds of YouTube comments, trying to sell it.
GRAVITY KING OF REIFICATION FANTASY (SCI-FI)
Reification is the "sure it's just an idea, but it's as real as you or me" fallacy.
Contrived* /kənˈtrīvd/ con·trived deliberately created rather than arising naturally or spontaneously
Conjecture* /kənˈjekCHər/ con·jec·ture an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information. "conjectures about where gravity comes from are many and varied"
*Definitions from Oxford Languages
In physical reality there is just relative density, no force pulls on you, no such thing as "acceleration of gravity". Objects rise and fall based on density; air bubbles go up in water, rocks sink, helium balloons and hot air balloons go up in the air, rain falls down. Gravity disciples will claim that a rock weighs 2.2 lbs because a 2.2 lbf {pound-force} force is pulling on it. They insist, that a rock resting on the ground, is "experiencing a 300:1 net acceleration towards the center of fake globe earth".—But the rock is stationary!
Acceleration has to do with changing how fast an object is moving. If an object is not changing its velocity, then the object is not accelerating. https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/1DKin/Lesson-1/Acceleration
A bullet leaves the barrel at maximum speed, and immediately starts to slow down continuously. Imagine there is a constant force on you, sticking you to the ground, then, the moment you are in free fall (say you step off a diving board), you should not have to start accelerating from zero, you should take off like a rock from a sling shot! The fact that you must accelerate from zero, tells you, there is no constant force "pulling on you at all times" or at all!
GRAVITY GOES TO ZERO AT THE CENTER OF CRACKED FAKE GLOBE EARTH WHERE IS THE SOURCE?
"Gravity attracts objects towards the center", but the source* of gravity is not the center!? In "fact" gravity is zero at the center of fake globe earth, and most globe believers have no clue about this!
*Note that, gravity gets weaker in both directions from the surface: towards the sky (exponentially) and towards the center of the ball (linearly). Thus, mathematically speaking, the source of gravity must be an infinitely thin layer on the surface of the ball! (Where gravity is the strongest!)
GRAVITY NO LONGER CONSIDERED A FORCE AND NOBODY UNDERSTANDS GRAVITY NOT EVEN NEWTON!
 |
| Image 4. Snapshot of Google search posted Dec. 6th, 2021. In general relativity, gravity is not a force between masses. Instead gravity is an effect of the warping of space and time in the presence of mass. |
Physics professor Julius Sumner Miller (in lesson 3) admits: "Here is a scale on which I hang a weight, and I don't care what the scale reads, it reads something. We say it reads the weight of the body, but I really don't know what that means nor did Newton. Because, as we believe, gravitational forces -- the earth -- pulls on this (and) stretches the scale. But remember, even Newton said 'I offer no hypothesis concerning gravitation' nor do we understand it today." Newton himself strongly felt that the impossibility of rationally accounting for action at a distance through an intervening vacuum, was the weak point of his system.
In a letter to Dr. Richard Bentley on Feb 25th, 1692; Isaac Newton says: "Tis inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should, without mediation of something else which is not material, operate upon and affect other matter without mutual contact, as it must be if gravitation, in the sense of Epicurus, be essential and inherent in it. And this is one reason why I desired you WOULD NOT ASCRIBE INNATE GRAVITY TO ME. That gravity should be innate, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws, but whether this agent be material or immaterial I have left to the consideration of my readers." Scheurer, PB. Debrock, G. Newton's Scientific and Philosophical Legacy, 1988, p. 52
THREE QUOTES FROM CHAPTER ON GRAVITATION IN THOMAS WINSHIP'S BOOK
[1]
One of the world's so-called great thinkers, J. S. Mill, is quoted in
Professor Carpenter's "Nature and Man," page 385, as saying:
"Although we speak of a man's fall as caused by the slipping of his
foot, or the breaking of a rung (as the case may be) the efficient cause
IS THE ATTRACTIVE FORCE OF THE EARTH, which the loss of support to the
man's foot brings into operation."
If a man is not "deeper" than to believe what this "deep" thinker has
left on record in this matter; if he has no more brain power than to
accept the foregoing statement, I would strongly advise him to cease
thinking altogether, and thus save the few brains he has. It is simply
astounding that men, who in business matters are sharp enough, are as
dull as bricks and as credulous as children when the awe-inspiring
subject of gravitation, "that grand masterpiece of astronomy," is the
theme. To ask the reason why, or to venture to suggest that the
assumptions of the "learned" require some sort of proof to back them up,
never seems to strike moderns who believe in this monstrous humbug.
[2]
That the paths of the orbs of heaven are not exactly circular disproves the theory of gravitation entirely. INSTANT FAIL!
[3]
C. Vernon Boys, F.R.S., A.R.S.M., M.R.I., in his paper, "The Newtonian Constant of Gravitation," says:
"G, represents that mighty principle under the influence of which every
star, planet and satellite in the universe pursues its allotted course.
Unlike any other known physical influence, it is independent of medium,
it knows no refraction, it cannot cast a shadow. It (GRAVITY) is a mysterious
power which NO MAN CAN EXPLAIN, OF ITS PROPAGATION THROUGH SPACE, ALL
MEN ARE IGNORANT . . . . . I cannot contemplate this mystery, at which
we ignorantly wonder, without thinking of the altar on Mars' hill (at Athens, Greece, to the Unknown God). When
will a St. Paul arise able to declare it unto us? Or is gravitation,
like life, a mystery that never be solved?"—Proceedings of the Royal
Institution of Great Britain, March 1895, p. 355.
GRAVITY IS SELECTIVE (NOT UNIVERSAL) INSTANT FAIL!
The problem ist, that the globe DOES spin with 1 revolution per day. It is a fact, even if you don't feel it. So what is your explanation, that even liquids and gases stick to the surface? PaulsterX gave the correct explanation. If you want to see a spinning broken material, then pour some iron powder over a strong NdFe magnetic ball. The magnetic field is as attractive as gravity to the powder. Then rotate the sphere and watch at which spin rate the powder will leave the attractive surface! FYI: Magnetic field strength has the same distance dependence as gravity, so it is a well suited model experiment.
ReplyDeleteI want to see you spin a cracked up magnetic ball, not broken material on a ball. And spin it over 1000 mph. Good luck!
Delete