Earth water spin off
- Thread starter river
- Start date
- Status
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
the law of specialwatertivity ?
is water so magical that it is immune to gravity ?
if you hold a cup of water in your hand and tip it upside down over your computer ...
is it the spinning of your computer hard drive that attracts the water ?
flat earth membership discounts link ?
the law of specialwatertivity ?
is water so magical that it is immune to gravity ?
if you hold a cup of water in your hand and tip it upside down over your computer ...
is it the spinning of your computer hard drive that attracts the water ?
flat earth membership discounts link ?
Gravity is moving outward .
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
is it ?
where is it moving from ?
where is it moving to ?
what locations is it transiting ?
More correctly from post # 3
Gravity is moving outward .
Answers then to post # 4
Yes .
From the Suns core center .
Outward Where it can .
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
you are just repeating what you have already said to avoid answering the question
how does gravity move ?
Sorry missed that .
Through frequency .
Either physically ( vibration ) ; and/or electromagnetically .
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
if you move a planet, does the gravity stay in the same place ?
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
so you have made the gravity travel ?
did the gravity stop traveling when you stopped moving the planet ?
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
my point is
the gravity did not stop nor start
it continually existed during that time period(like putting a time measure of the existence of the universe)
Sure but it didn't really matter much .
In the bigger picture of our Universe gravity matters little .
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
your emotional need to remain in opposition to my post stands out quite significantly
you do this because you wish to avoid discussing aspects further on in the subject
i get it, that's perfectly ok.
but don't think i don't notice it
is this about gravity & mass as a force on water or is this a discussion about exothermic heat radiation of the earth as a heat exchange chemical process ?
planetary heat loss through exothermic exchange into the cold of space as a chemical property of water in the atmosphere has very little to do with gravitational forces on a mass exerting its own gravity field.
but the conversation is about your need to assert your sense of comfort in knowing a sense of order that aligns to your emotion.
that is not quite how physics science works.
but i don't mind
but as i said, don't think i don't notice.
Nope. Take away the atmosphere and the water would stay right there. It would start boiling, but before it boiled away, it would stay in place. (Case in point - Europa is covered with water. It has no atmosphere. It spins. The water stays in place.)
Moderator note: river has been warning officially for attempting to re-open a closed thread, thus overriding a moderator's action in closing the thread in the first place.
It might have been possible to have a sensible discussion about the topic of that thread, which appears here:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/how-does-water-not-spin-off-the-earth.162679
However, in his opening post, river adds nothing new, and in the ongoing thread he adopts similar troll-like tactics to those of the poster whose thread was closed in the first place. This is unacceptable.
----
Further explanation:
river was well aware that the error in the question had already been pointed out in the previous thread - i.e. that there is "mechanics" that holds the water where it is on the spinning globe.
Notice that river has not at any point attempted to address the explanation given for the actual reason that water does not flow from the north and southern oceans towards the equator due to "centrifugal force", despite being well aware that an explanation was given. This is troll-like behaviour.
Notice also that river's "answer" amounts to four words, and is a non-explanation. He makes no attempt to explain how "atmospheric pressure, with temperature" would answer the original question. So this, too, is a troll-like time-waster. The aim can only be to generate discussion as people are compelled to ask questions to probe into what river could possibly mean by his "answer".
Later in the thread, river makes further nonsense or indecipherable claims, like this one:
Then, a bit further down, we get a typical troll-like provocation:
---
As a result of accumulated warning points, river is temporarily banned from sciforums.
This thread is closed.
It might have been possible to have a sensible discussion about the topic of that thread, which appears here:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/how-does-water-not-spin-off-the-earth.162679
However, in his opening post, river adds nothing new, and in the ongoing thread he adopts similar troll-like tactics to those of the poster whose thread was closed in the first place. This is unacceptable.
----
Further explanation:
This is river's opening post. It purports to be an answer to the question "How can there possibly be water above and below the equator when there is no mechanics to hold the water in those locations on a spinning sphere?"
river was well aware that the error in the question had already been pointed out in the previous thread - i.e. that there is "mechanics" that holds the water where it is on the spinning globe.
Notice that river has not at any point attempted to address the explanation given for the actual reason that water does not flow from the north and southern oceans towards the equator due to "centrifugal force", despite being well aware that an explanation was given. This is troll-like behaviour.
Notice also that river's "answer" amounts to four words, and is a non-explanation. He makes no attempt to explain how "atmospheric pressure, with temperature" would answer the original question. So this, too, is a troll-like time-waster. The aim can only be to generate discussion as people are compelled to ask questions to probe into what river could possibly mean by his "answer".
Later in the thread, river makes further nonsense or indecipherable claims, like this one:
That prompts the obvious question:
To which river's response is:RainbowSingularity said:
Again, troll-like non-explanations.
Then, a bit further down, we get a typical troll-like provocation:
---
As a result of accumulated warning points, river is temporarily banned from sciforums.
This thread is closed.
- Status