List of pseudoscience topics from Wikipedia

[Adios]

Oh spaceballs, now I have to research Machs Principle.

[President Television]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum

Is that good enough?

Assumes a North and South pole, and an equator.

Also, assumes you can make those measurements there, and get the results given.  At the moment, I cannot travel to either location.  The experiment without latitudinal dependence merely implies rotation, which I have not disputed.  Charley Brown might be interested in that bit, though.

Wouldn't it make sense for an object continually rotating over the span of trillions of years to gradually shift into a spherical shape, though?

This, of course, is not addressing the issue of how a flat disc-shaped object would spontaneously form in the middle of space.

EDIT: Ancient astronauts did it.

[Doktor Howl]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum

Is that good enough?

Assumes a North and South pole, and an equator.

Also, assumes you can make those measurements there, and get the results given.  At the moment, I cannot travel to either location.  The experiment without latitudinal dependence merely implies rotation, which I have not disputed.  Charley Brown might be interested in that bit, though.

Wouldn't it make sense for an object continually rotating over the span of trillions of years to gradually shift into a spherical shape, though?

This, of course, is not addressing the issue of how a flat disc-shaped object would spontaneously form in the middle of space.

1.  I have no direct evidence of the age of the Earth.

2.  Then why is the solar system allegedly disc shaped instead of spherical?

[Adios]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum

Is that good enough?

Assumes a North and South pole, and an equator.

Also, assumes you can make those measurements there, and get the results given.  At the moment, I cannot travel to either location.  The experiment without latitudinal dependence merely implies rotation, which I have not disputed.  Charley Brown might be interested in that bit, though.

Wouldn't it make sense for an object continually rotating over the span of trillions of years to gradually shift into a spherical shape, though?

This, of course, is not addressing the issue of how a flat disc-shaped object would spontaneously form in the middle of space.

1.  I have no direct evidence of the age of the Earth.

2.  Then why is the solar system allegedly disc shaped instead of spherical?

Possibly due to slinging itself OUT of round.

[President Television]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum

Is that good enough?

Assumes a North and South pole, and an equator.

Also, assumes you can make those measurements there, and get the results given.  At the moment, I cannot travel to either location.  The experiment without latitudinal dependence merely implies rotation, which I have not disputed.  Charley Brown might be interested in that bit, though.

Wouldn't it make sense for an object continually rotating over the span of trillions of years to gradually shift into a spherical shape, though?

This, of course, is not addressing the issue of how a flat disc-shaped object would spontaneously form in the middle of space.

1.  I have no direct evidence of the age of the Earth.

2.  Then why is the solar system allegedly disc shaped instead of spherical?

Sure, an object spinning for long enough would flatten, but this doesn't explain the movement of the sun from our perspective. The earth would be spinning like a frisbee to flatten, while for days and nights to occur it would have to be flipping like a coin. Anyway, I've got to to for now.

[Golden Applesauce]

Rotating objects tend towards disc-shaped.  Earth has a measurable bulge around the equator; sea level is "higher" there.

This is because the points far away from the axis of rotation move faster than those closer in.  (A point at the edge of a record travels one whole circumference every revolution, a point halfway between the edge and the middle travels much less per revolution.)  The faster you are going, the more centripetal force it takes to keep your orbit constant.  Without enough centripetal force, the object naturally moves further and further away from the center.

[Golden Applesauce]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum

Is that good enough?

Assumes a North and South pole, and an equator.

Also, assumes you can make those measurements there, and get the results given.  At the moment, I cannot travel to either location.  The experiment without latitudinal dependence merely implies rotation, which I have not disputed.  Charley Brown might be interested in that bit, though.

On a serious note, wouldn't it logically follow that gravity would be less at the poles and greater at the equator?

It's the other way around - because of the aforementioned flattening effect, gravity is slightly stronger at the poles because the poles are slightly closer to the center of the Earth.  The equator is slightly further away, and for that reason gravity is slightly weaker.  Pretty sure the effect is less than the difference in gravity from climbing an especially tall mountain, though.

ETA: didn't see this was a flat earth argument.  Carry on.

[Adios]

So let's go with science. The earth is in an elliptical orbit. Is this orbit perfect or is it deteoriating at the furthest points and getting closer to the sun on the flatter parts? If this is the case will we crash into the sun or break orbit and drift away first?

I admit I am over my head here.

[Doktor Howl]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum

Is that good enough?

Assumes a North and South pole, and an equator.

Also, assumes you can make those measurements there, and get the results given.  At the moment, I cannot travel to either location.  The experiment without latitudinal dependence merely implies rotation, which I have not disputed.  Charley Brown might be interested in that bit, though.

Wouldn't it make sense for an object continually rotating over the span of trillions of years to gradually shift into a spherical shape, though?

This, of course, is not addressing the issue of how a flat disc-shaped object would spontaneously form in the middle of space.

1.  I have no direct evidence of the age of the Earth.

2.  Then why is the solar system allegedly disc shaped instead of spherical?

Sure, an object spinning for long enough would flatten, but this doesn't explain the movement of the sun from our perspective. The earth would be spinning like a frisbee to flatten, while for days and nights to occur it would have to be flipping like a coin. Anyway, I've got to to for now.

It could be rotating in both senses.  I can spin a disc and rotate it.

[LMNO]

I have to say, this has become an incredibly interesting thread.

ONWARD!

[Doktor Howl]

So let's go with science. The earth is in an elliptical orbit. Is this orbit perfect or is it deteoriating at the furthest points and getting closer to the sun on the flatter parts? If this is the case will we crash into the sun or break orbit and drift away first?

I admit I am over my head here.

If the world is as described, given enough time, it would crash into the sun.  Breaking orbit would require added energy that would have to come from somewhere, and we are actually inside the sun's "atmosphere", which means we very, very gradually slow down.

However, if the world is as described, two events would happen first:

1.  The moon would crash into the Earth for the same reason, and

2.  The sun would go red giant and pfffft!

[Doktor Howl]

I have to say, this has become an incredibly interesting thread.

ONWARD!

It's a damn shame when a fluff thread gets coopted into an actual discussion.

That being said, I'm having a great deal of fun challenging basic assumptions about the universe and how it operates, at least as a form of mental pushups.  When I get serious about it, shoot me.

[Adios]

I agree, this has me completely absorbed right now.

[Adios]

So let's go with science. The earth is in an elliptical orbit. Is this orbit perfect or is it deteoriating at the furthest points and getting closer to the sun on the flatter parts? If this is the case will we crash into the sun or break orbit and drift away first?

I admit I am over my head here.

If the world is as described, given enough time, it would crash into the sun.  Breaking orbit would require added energy that would have to come from somewhere, and we are actually inside the sun's "atmosphere", which means we very, very gradually slow down.

However, if the world is as described, two events would happen first:

1.  The moon would crash into the Earth for the same reason, and

2.  The sun would go red giant and pfffft!

Couldn't we measure slowing down by the length of days? If we go slower wouldn't days get longer?

Lost me on the sun going red.

[Doktor Howl]

So let's go with science. The earth is in an elliptical orbit. Is this orbit perfect or is it deteoriating at the furthest points and getting closer to the sun on the flatter parts? If this is the case will we crash into the sun or break orbit and drift away first?

I admit I am over my head here.

If the world is as described, given enough time, it would crash into the sun.  Breaking orbit would require added energy that would have to come from somewhere, and we are actually inside the sun's "atmosphere", which means we very, very gradually slow down.

However, if the world is as described, two events would happen first:

1.  The moon would crash into the Earth for the same reason, and

2.  The sun would go red giant and pfffft!

Couldn't we measure slowing down by the length of days? If we go slower wouldn't days get longer?

Lost me on the sun going red.

When a star of our sun's type runs low on fuel, it does fun things.

Go to wikipedia and search "red giant".