If gravity is constant everywhere on the ball, wouldn't you weigh less at the equator where the Earth is trying to throw you off@ 1029mph, than in Alaska @ only 300mph?
@@hopmajibhohepeajibho7595 This has never been directly measured. see Calculation only. Note: There is no direct evidence that the physical earth rotates or orbits anything. See: You parrot unverifiable 'facts' very well.
@@ryanqvincent144 well, look up fundamental gravity networks, you'll see that gravitational acceleration decrease with latitude Also, TFE is coming, I'll suggest you to design an experiment that can test a weight change and publish it so all of TFE participants could do it if they want. Although I'm sure that some of them would do that on their own
The change in weight of an object at different latitudes HAS been measured many times - I've done it myself, and the practical measurements agree very well with the calculated values if the normal globe parameters- radius, speed, etc are used. Are you suggesting that this is mere coincidence?
At the Equator the acceleration upwards due to centrifugal force amounts to 0.0337 m/s². Gravity is pulling down 9.8 m/s². That's a bit over 3/100ths up and almost 10 down. Do you think that would make a noticeable difference?
If the earth is a sphere, and gravity acts towards the centre of the earth - which in everyday practical situations it does - then, yes, everyone can be considered to be at the "top" of the world, nothing wrong with that!
Except no. No, for sane people, that’s a hard no. All you’re doing is describing the same effect on a flat earth: all subjects are at 90*. There can be only one 90* observer on a ball. All others are at different degrees. But since the world isn’t a ball, all subjects are still at 90 *.
@frankcrowder9709 Yes, but those 90° angles, some are sideways and some are upside-down, even though they assert everyone is at the top, there are people or water antipodal to you.
No, everyone CAN be considered to be at the top of the world if, as is usually the case, the viewer considers the person under consideration at the 12 o'clock position or on 'top' of the globe. Surely this is purely semantics, and really an argument over nothing of any significance? How have you shown it to be flat? My own tests, of differing weights for the same mass at different latitudes, while not proving that the earth is spherical and rotating, strongly suggest that it is, and make no sense on a flat earth.l Reciprocal zenith angle measurements suggest that all verticals are NOT parallel.
![[SodiumSuflateBattery] #ChemicalEnergy #RenewablePoweR #PowerWithin #BatteryTechnology](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nKCsKv7AN6E/mqdefault.jpg)
If gravity is constant everywhere on the ball, wouldn't you weigh less at the equator where the Earth is trying to throw you off@ 1029mph, than in Alaska @ only 300mph?
Yes, at the equator weight is around 0.3% less than at the poles
@@hopmajibhohepeajibho7595 This has never been directly measured. see Calculation only. Note: There is no direct evidence that the physical earth rotates or orbits anything.
See: You parrot unverifiable 'facts' very well.
@@ryanqvincent144 well, look up fundamental gravity networks, you'll see that gravitational acceleration decrease with latitude
Also, TFE is coming, I'll suggest you to design an experiment that can test a weight change and publish it so all of TFE participants could do it if they want. Although I'm sure that some of them would do that on their own
The change in weight of an object at different latitudes HAS been measured many times - I've done it myself, and the practical measurements agree very well with the calculated values if the normal globe parameters- radius, speed, etc are used. Are you suggesting that this is mere coincidence?
At the Equator the acceleration upwards due to centrifugal force amounts to 0.0337 m/s². Gravity is pulling down 9.8 m/s². That's a bit over 3/100ths up and almost 10 down. Do you think that would make a noticeable difference?
If the earth is a sphere, and gravity acts towards the centre of the earth - which in everyday practical situations it does - then, yes, everyone can be considered to be at the "top" of the world, nothing wrong with that!
Except no. No, for sane people, that’s a hard no. All you’re doing is describing the same effect on a flat earth: all subjects are at 90*. There can be only one 90* observer on a ball. All others are at different degrees. But since the world isn’t a ball, all subjects are still at 90 *.
In the globe model everyone is at right angles to the surface, surely you can see that, even if you don't believe the earth is a globe!
The biggest thing I get from your comment is, IF the Earth's a sphere.
Simple answer..
It's not, we've tested it
@frankcrowder9709
Yes, but those 90° angles, some are sideways and some are upside-down, even though they assert everyone is at the top, there are people or water antipodal to you.
No, everyone CAN be considered to be at the top of the world if, as is usually the case, the viewer considers the person under consideration at the 12 o'clock position or on 'top' of the globe. Surely this is purely semantics, and really an argument over nothing of any significance?
How have you shown it to be flat?
My own tests, of differing weights for the same mass at different latitudes, while not proving that the earth is spherical and rotating, strongly suggest that it is, and make no sense on a flat earth.l
Reciprocal zenith angle measurements suggest that all verticals are NOT parallel.