Is it possible that the gravity that keeps our feet planted on the Earth is..

If your argument were right and there were isolated points on Earth (i.e. Antarctica) where things could simply go flying off into space, then what would hold Earth together in the first place? We would expect to see giant columns of snow, gas and dust leaking off into space until there's no Earth left!

There are points on the Earth like that. However, since the Earth also rotates, nothing is ever on those points for long enough to fly away. There is one in the Hudson Bay Area exactly where the resultant vector of the Earth's momentum is.

There are points on the Earth like that. However, since the Earth also rotates, nothing is ever on those points for long enough to fly away. There is one in the Hudson Bay Area exactly where the resultant vector of the Earth's momentum is.

Your reasoning is wrong. Newton's laws say that if you shut gravity off, the rotating Earth would fly apart at the seams, doesn't matter who's moving in what direction to start. Newton's laws make it impossible for two people at opposite ends of the Earth to jump away from the surface and both come flying back down unless you add a gravitational force to the picture, no matter how many other motions you take into account.

Your reasoning is wrong. Newton's laws say that if you shut gravity off, the rotating Earth would fly apart at the seams, doesn't matter who's moving in what direction to start. Newton's laws make it impossible for two people at opposite ends of the Earth to jump away from the surface and both come flying back down unless you add a gravitational force to the picture, no matter how many other motions you take into account.

Then how did I predict that there would be a gravitational anomaly between 50 and 60 degrees latitude? I had no knowledge of the Hudson Bay area's gravity until I suspected it and googled for gravitational anomalies. I know that I can't prove that I predicted it, so you can decide if you believe me or not.

You and Origin both act like inertia doesn't exist and that there is centrifugal from the rotation of the earth. There isn't, because there is no centripetal force. The rotation of the earth plus the inertia of objects on its surface cause the normal force. Do you at least see how I could possibly come to that conclusion? Did you watch my video? Did you see how the resultant vectors of different points on the Earth intersect? It's very much like the idea of curved space-time.

I really don't see how this works. If the center Earth is moving in one direction and you are moving in another because the Earth's rotation, how is that not going to cause acceleration on you towards the center of the Earth?
How could that scenario possible cause you to accelerate towards the center of the earth? If somehow, for some reason, it did have that effect then why wouldn't that acceleration down be an acceleration up on the other side of the earth? Even though this is no completely illogical and goes against all experimental results.....

Yes, I am talking about the normal force. You need to look at a body on the surface of the earth and figure out its momentum. Then you need look at how it would change because of the Earth's surface moving it relative to its center. YOU HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THIS WHILE DISREGARDING THE NOTION OF GRAVITY
Why would I disregard gravity. I will try - I take a step - oops, now I am drifting away from the earth's surface when i reach about 20,000 ft I freeze to death - well that sucked.

I've said this before, I don't know the best words to describe what I am talking about, try to use context clues to figure out what I am trying to say.
I have to try and figure out what you are saying based on clues from the context? Come on.

What I mean is the momentum that we get from being a "passenger" on the earth.
I can accept that concept.

I didn't say you would feel these forces.
There are no forces to feel from your velocity.

You wouldn't feel them because there is no proper acceleration, no momentum or energy is being transferred. You may me motionless relative to the surface of the Earth, but you are never really motionless.
We can assume we are motionless or assume we are in motion there is no way to determine our absolute motion.

The surface of the earth is a non-inertial reference frame.
What does that mean?

Nope, not completely wrong. You would have to toss a baseball in the EXACT direction that the Earth is moving. The Earth is not moving in a straight line and since it is rotating and the resultant vector of it's movement is constantly changing relative to any point on its surface, you would not be able to toss that ball exactly in that direction unless you were standing on something in that exact spot traveling in the opposite direction of the Earth's rotation at exactly the same speed. But then you'd have the atmosphere throwing you off. Do you not see that?

No. I sure as hell don't! It sounds [shudder] like you are saying if you got it just right and tossed a ball exactly in the direction the moon is moving (Using the moon so that atmosphere isn't a problem) that the ball would float away from the moon.

There are points on the Earth like that. However, since the Earth also rotates, nothing is ever on those points for long enough to fly away. There is one in the Hudson Bay Area exactly where the resultant vector of the Earth's momentum is.

There is a resultant vector of the earths momentum exactly at Hudson Bay? Really? How did you figure that out? Do you realize that this whole concept is completely devoid of any semblance of meaning?

It's easy for jivebillion to ignore the laws of physics because he has no idea what they are.

How could that scenario possible cause you to accelerate towards the center of the earth? If somehow, for some reason, it did have that effect then why wouldn't that acceleration down be an acceleration up on the other side of the earth? Even though this is no completely illogical and goes against all experimental results.....

Why would I disregard gravity. I will try - I take a step - oops, now I am drifting away from the earth's surface when i reach about 20,000 ft I freeze to death - well that sucked.

I have to try and figure out what you are saying based on clues from the context? Come on.

I can accept that concept.

There are no forces to feel from your velocity.

We can assume we are motionless or assume we are in motion there is no way to determine our absolute motion.

What does that mean?

No. I sure as hell don't! It sounds [shudder] like you are saying if you got it just right and tossed a ball exactly in the direction the moon is moving (Using the moon so that atmosphere isn't a problem) that the ball would float away from the moon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-in...on-inertial_frame:_need_for_fictitious_forces You can't treat the surface of the earth as an inertial reference frame without using fictitious forces.

I am obviously unable to make you at least see why I think things could work this way. If I can't do that, it is unlikely that you will understand me well enough to determine the information that I would need to make me give up on my idea. You all approach finding a solution to a problem very differently than I do.

There is a resultant vector of the earths momentum exactly at Hudson Bay? Really? How did you figure that out? Do you realize that this whole concept is completely devoid of any semblance of meaning?

What do you mean how did I figure that out? I used the directions the Earth is moving both relative to the Sun and the center of the Galaxy and the speed it is moving in those directions. How would you have done it?

It's easy for jivebillion to ignore the laws of physics because he has no idea what they are.

Will you just go away if you have nothing of value to add to the conversation?

There are points on the Earth like that. However, since the Earth also rotates, nothing is ever on those points for long enough to fly away. There is one in the Hudson Bay Area exactly where the resultant vector of the Earth's momentum is.
Er, if that were true, they wouldn't be points, they'd be rings. Ie, someone sitting on a boat on the Hudson Bay could sit there as long as he likes and not fly off (as if how long mattered anyway). If earth's rotation moves the anomaly, then the anomaly moves away from the Hudson Bay!

Er, if that were true, they wouldn't be points, they'd be rings. Ie, someone sitting on a boat on the Hudson Bay could sit there as long as he likes and not fly off (as if how long mattered anyway). If earth's rotation moves the anomaly, then the anomaly moves away from the Hudson Bay!

They are rings, however, since the Earth doesn't do an even number of rotations in a full year, there is one spot on the Earth that is in that position more often than the others. Also, the ground beneath that spot was glacier.

It's easy for jivebillion to ignore the laws of physics because he has no idea what they are.

Now that you mention it.

I cannot rule it out.

They are rings, however, since the Earth doesn't do an even number of rotations in a full year, there is one spot on the Earth that is in that position more often than the others. Also, the ground beneath that spot was glacier.
Seriously? Are you suggesting that the anomaly is somehow burned-in to the Hudson Bay because it is pointed in the direction of Earth's motion more than any other spot?

Seriously? Are you suggesting that the anomaly is somehow burned-in to the Hudson Bay because it is pointed in the direction of Earth's motion more than any other spot?

All I know is that I predicted it would be there and it was. It could be a coincidence, but I keep running into them.

All I know is that I predicted it would be there and it was. It could be a coincidence, but I keep running into them.
Considering that the spot moves, in both daily and yearly cycles, yeah, it is a coincidence. As someone else pointed out, that's the essence of numerology.

I've mostly believed you believed what you were saying, but I'm starting to wonder if you might be messing with us.

Considering that the spot moves, in both daily and weekly cycles, yeah, it is a coincidence. As someone else pointed out, that's the essence of numerology.

I've mostly believed you believed what you were saying, but I'm starting to wonder if you might be messing with us.

I think the problem is he spent a bunch of time on his youtube presentation and cannot bear the thought that it was a complete waste of time, so he is now in the mode of making it up as he goes along. Jiveabillion - it is time to cut your losses and move on to something else. Your ideas are demonstrably wrong and just plain nonsensical - sorry.

Then how did I predict that there would be a gravitational anomaly between 50 and 60 degrees latitude? I had no knowledge of the Hudson Bay area's gravity until I suspected it and googled for gravitational anomalies. I know that I can't prove that I predicted it, so you can decide if you believe me or not.

I don't see how you've made any prediction whatsoever. If you can accurately estimate the difference between the gravitational field strength in New York City and Hudson's Bay without referring to any gravitational data, I'd consider that a "prediction", although I could ask you to then repeat the calculation for Los Angeles, Beijing and a whole bunch of other locations. To simply say that something weird should happen at 50-60 degrees lattitude and then oh golly, something "weird" is happening in Hudson's Bay, doesn't confirm anything whatsoever unless you get into specifics. Besides, if lattitude is what matters, why do we not see the same gravitational anomaly throughout northern Manitoba?

You and Origin both act like inertia doesn't exist and that there is centrifugal from the rotation of the earth. There isn't, because there is no centripetal force. The rotation of the earth plus the inertia of objects on its surface cause the normal force. Do you at least see how I could possibly come to that conclusion?

I see how you could make certain conceptual mistakes and come to that conclusion, but it's not a reasonable conclusion at all. The law of inertia means that every chunk of mass on the surface of the Earth will keep moving at a constant speed in a constant direction, and will go flying off into space as the Earth rotates, unless a gravitational force is applied. Inertial objects cannot rotate around something unless an actual force is holding them in place. Imagine whipping a ball around on a tethered string- if you cut the string, the ball does not come flying back to you.

Did you watch my video? Did you see how the resultant vectors of different points on the Earth intersect? It's very much like the idea of curved space-time.

I watched a little bit, and looked at some of your graphs. Did not see anything that even remotely resembled spacetime curvature. Spacetime is a 4-dimensional manifold, which means its curvature doesn't look like the indentation on a mattress (that's only used as an analogy), nor is it something you can plot as a curved line on a 2D graph. Spacetime curvature is described and modeled in the language of tensor calculus, which takes years of university math & physics to understand.