Please allow me to politely critique your post in the "Gravity" thread, here. Although this thread does not have as much of the centripetal calculations or 'Earth curvature' points made in the other thread (which you somewhat fairly ignore for the sake of pure speculation on a specific point) it does have to do with all of those things.
[...] anyone is free to believe that it is actually the stars
that are circling around us, clockwise over one side of the earth - and counter-clockwise over the other! Good Heavens... and good luck with that one, you flat/concave / pyramidal earthers !
Simon, I appreciate your post. You know that I can only be honest with you and that even so I haven't found any issue to quarrel with you yet. So I hope that you can accept some friendly criticism about your writing style in this last paragraph of yours. I think it's unfair to lump "flat" and "concave" theories together just because you haven't allowed their unanswered questions to exist as openly as the ones you imply in your model speculations. Concave Earth theory would just invert the situation, for which we have no reasonable arguments except that we prefer
it to be the other way. Flat Earth is something you are just cross with for the time being because you feel it's an old insult being leveraged against freethinkers and critical thinkers lately. The different spins are indeed a strange mystery that "Flat Earth" would have to explain well, but you know that if someone were attached to a shape, they would find an explanation they preferred.
You should have just left this little "jab" at other theories besides Flat Earth out of the end of your piece, and formatted the critique of Flat Earth more formally
, and it would make your own post stand stronger, in my opinion.
Furthermore, I think passengers in a 1000mph train might indeed feel bumps and valleys of any given rails on the landscape they were running across. If they made a mostly flat surface for that train (which they typically do) it would be very flat, so having people recollect typical train travel is a bit of a mistake, in my opinion. It's almost
just an argument for
Flat Earth, if someone couldn't pick out what you were trying to say in your complex post above.
Having said that, I am not sure that being "in a bubble" of any kind (invisible and physical "top" to the sky, or lack thereof, notwithstanding) should reduce the centripetal force that I already calculated many posts back in the "The Cold of Space and Our Universe That Isn't" thread. There, I pointed out (hopefully clearly enough) that even scientific instruments pick up nothing
— not even a ripple or mathematical average of ripples in the atmosphere — indicating any rotations to the Earth.
All we have
are the stars and other cosmic things we speculated about in various models so far — Sun, Moon, "planets" — and some electromagnetic readings. So to imply to us that your explanation simply
makes more sense is playing a bit of limbo with our normal standards. I have still not seen any indication you have processed or addressed the points by scud and others regarding all the problems with "just believing" your model of choice.
If you are worried about the fact that these questions have made us a target in some way (which I still have not seen any evidence of) I suggest you simply ignore this thread as usual.
But since this is the thread for "Gravity" questions, I see and recognize and respect your point that gravity has everything to do with atmospheric pressure of some kind.
I just don't think that's the final answer to everything; nor does it really
answer many questions about the so-called "shape" of our "planet" (though personally some of that kind of language is increasingly becoming worthless to me for describing the world we inhabit; I am not sure why we need so badly to choose
a physical "shape" to our world since the spherical map is good enough for navigation).