/sci/ - Science & Math

We assume it will rise.

No. We know the sun will "rise" in the morning because of the earth stopped spinning we'd be frozen to death.

No we don't know. But the chances or it not rising are so small that it's best to just assume it will.

>>2073565
Do you know your face won't explode spontaniously just because you've observed it to be intact all your life?

Do you know that the air around you won't suddenly freeze and trap and suffocate you just because you've been breathing all your life?

Do you know you're not a brain in a vat just because you've observed your body?

No, you don't know any of these things, but we have no evidence to support them, which makes it unwise to live as though they are true. The same goes for your post.

its constantly rising

this post is just terrible and you should feel shitty

>The sun will rise this morning because otherwise it wouldn't be morning.

>>2073567

Not to mention flung into space by inertia.

Hume

>>2073630
>Not to mention flung into space by inertia.
lolwut?

Please explain.

>>2073633

if you were on a merry go round and it suddenly stopped, no deceleration, what do you think would happen?

>>2073633

The Earth is spinning. If it suddenly stopped spinning, we would keep moving. Into space is an exaggeration, I didn't do the maths, but regardless it would fuck everything on the surface up.

>>2073630
No. We would be flung, but parallel to the surface of the Earth, not perpendicularly.

>>2073660

you would probably be flung in a direction and land like a mile away or something. gravity still works. technically, its even more powerful now.

>>2073640
You would not be flung outward. The outward force, the "fictitious" force, depends only on radial velocity, and points OUTWARD. In other words, if radial velocity is 0, there is no outward force. You don't fly anywhere. I will never understand where people get the idea that a sudden stop will fling you outward.

>>2073645
We would keep moving, yes, but tangent to the surface, i.e. not upwards but, from our perception on the ground, parallel to the ground. Now you're also assuming a sudden stop. Even if earth were to go from full velocity to 0 in less than a second, I doubt we'd have enough momentum to be flung into space. Consider that 1. there is air resistance (assuming air stops with the earth) and 2. The earth still has gravity, which will pull us toward the center.

Also, we would be dragged along the ground, the friction would probably slow us down very quickly.

>>2073668
Technically not; gravity always has the same force. And the effect of the rotation of the Earth is extremely small compared to the effect of gravity... WELL under 1%.

And you would probably be crushed by the wall of your own house before you landed a mile away.

Laplace's rule of succession

</thread>

>>2073668
>>2073668
No, you fucking retard, gravity is WEAKER due to the earth's rotation. Centrifugal force competes with gravitational force in the earth's reference frame.

Also, as you move toward the poles the effect is smaller and smaller, and you are (negligibly) heavier at the poles.

>>2073630

Escape velocity of earth: 11.2 km/s

Rotational speed at earth's surface at equator: 0.466 km/s

You'd go really fast and probably die if the earth stopped instantaneously, but you wouldn't get launched into outer space.

>>2073674
Sorry, I meant to add "depends only on radial velocity and position," since your distance from the center of rotation also plays a role.

>>2073683

ok you are a retard.

imagine:

you are on the tilt-a-whirl at your local amusement park, and the spinning force (centrifugal force!), no matter how hard you try, will not let you get out of your seat. you are pinned to the wall.

now, when that ride stops, im pretty sure it is much easier to walk towards the center.

likewise, gravity is pulling us toward the center of the earth. when it stops spinning, centrifugal force is gone, leaving gravity able to pull us easier.

>>2073683

also, are you saying its weaker when spinning? cause thats what i said retard.

i didnt say its weaker when NOT spinning.

>>2073683
> Gravity is weaker due to the earth's rotation
> Centrifugal force
> mfw

>when it stops spinning, centrifugal force is gone, leaving gravity able to pull us easier.

>technically, its even more powerful now.

Do you see where you're contradicting yourself? Or when you say now do you mean the time when the earth stops spinning?

yes. science essentially is observational and experimental trial and error....and out of common observations seeing as the sun did the same thing every single day for thousands of years....kinda makes me see a common pattern leading to an educated guess or a hypothesis that the sun, will indeed, rise tomorrow morning and the morning after that and so on.

tl;dr no shit dumbfuck


oh and just seeing it....we already know that the sun rose* "this morning" because it already happened.....thats called social studies and history....

>>2073714
I suppose you're right in that gravity remains unchanged. What I should have said is that the total central force, the one pulling us toward the center of the earth, is smaller than it would be if the earth weren't spinning. But I didn't expect anyone to notice.

Either way my point remains.

>>2073719
You guys are both imbeciles. He's saying that, with the Earth is spinning, you feel a DOWNWARD force of gravity, and a fictitious UPWARDS force as a result of your inertia.

Earth stops spinning, you now have only the downward force of gravity. Humans observe a greater acceleration to the surface of the Earth.

>>2073719

i see your point. i meant "now" being the time when it stops spinning. not "now" as in literally right now.

>>2073724
You need Laplace's rule of succession or some other Laplacian prior to say that.

If you take an anti-Laplacian belief system, then the sun isn't going to rise tomorrow because it rose yesterday and the day before, etc. When you ask someone with an anti-Laplacian belief system why they keep doing things that don't work, they respond by saying that it never worked before and that's good enough for me.

>>2073710
>technically, its even more powerful now.

The word now is ambiguous, I followed the faulty logic you used with your merry go round analogy and resolved the ambiguity by assuming that now referred to the present where earth is spinning. Either way, you seem to be contradicting yourself.

>>2073756

yeah. i always forget to be extremely clear when doing things over the internet. my fault.

but anyways i guess we should go back to OP's thing.

my guess is that you can be certain because the inertia of the earth will keep it spinning for a while...right? *gulp*

>>2073775
I don't think you can rely on the laws of physics to answer OP's question. I think his point is to question whether the laws of physics as they apply now will apply in 5 minutes, 5 hours, 5 days, 5 years, and the truth is that we don't know, but we have no reason to assume they won't.

>>2073788
ah, very good point. i agree with this the most

>>2073788
Nope, Laplace's rule of succession isn't physics.

>Do we know that the sun will rise this morning just because we have observed it happen many times before?

We don't.

Actually, at some latitudes there's no reason to expect it to rise tomorrow at all.

However since we understand orbital mechanics well enough to predict the next sunrise to a reasonable accuracy and there don't seem to be any outside influences that could prevent it before tomorrow morning, there's an excellent chance that the vast majority of the planet will experience a sunrise tomorrow.

>>2073565
>implying we know anything
everything is just an assumption that you will never be sure of

>>2073887
>implying that its somehow bad to think that things that have happened a lot are more likely to happen again

Its okay to have priors - you don't have to convince a rock that you're right.

>>2073645
Is it bad that I kinda wanna see this happen?

Occam's razor that shit.