-
My "conclusive proof" thread has pretty much run its course. So I feel it s time to bring the matter to its conclusion. In that thread I used two videos to support we live on a motionless flat plane, here they are again:
The physics of water shows we live on a plane:
This video shows the earth is motionless:
Now here is the challenge, using the same videos, prove the ground is moving at 1,000 MPH, and we are on a ball speeding at 1.8 million MPH.
-
...
...
Let me do something similar.
I say that birds can not fly as you see on this video.
Now prove with this video that birds can fly.
See how stupid your bed is. Reflects you capability of your thinking.
-
Clearly the earth is revolving relative to the sun.
-
My "conclusive proof" thread has pretty much run its course.
If by "run its course" you mean you started with a logical fallacy, ignored all evidence you were given then kept moving to more absurd positions (someone a few feet from the pole should be moving 50 mph!) then I agree. You never proved anyone SHOULD feel the motion of the Earth so you started with a false premise.
-
Sure, it has run its course, with you repeatedly getting your ass handed to you, being completely unable to prove a thing, having all your arguments refuted, repeatedly, and ignoring all the evidence given to you which proved you wrong.
Your video's do not prove Earth is stationary.
All they do is prove that for the part, it is stationary w.r.t the observer.
So to prove Earth is moving at 1000 MPH, it is quite simple.
Note that the camera is moving at 1000 MPH.
Earth remains at the same position relative to the Camera.
Thus Earth is moving at 1000 MPH.
Alternatively, here is a video of a motionless plane:
I guess that means planes don't move...
Your water video doesn't show we live on a plane.
The curvature is too small for you to distinguish between curved and flat.
-
...
...
Let me do something similar.
I say that birds can not fly as you see on this video.
Now prove with this video that birds can fly.
See how stupid your bed is. Reflects you capability of your thinking.
Using the clues/signs/evidence from the videos I presented, prove the ground is moving at 1,000 MPH, and we are on a ball speeding at 1.8 million MPH.
-
Clearly the earth is revolving relative to the sun.
Prove it!
-
My "conclusive proof" thread has pretty much run its course.
If by "run its course" you mean you started with a logical fallacy, ignored all evidence you were given then kept moving to more absurd positions (someone a few feet from the pole should be moving 50 mph!) then I agree. You never proved anyone SHOULD feel the motion of the Earth so you started with a false premise.
Using the videos provided on earth's physical state, please support a spinning speeding ball earth. Can't do it, hey?
-
Sure, it has run its course, with you repeatedly getting your ass handed to you, being completely unable to prove a thing, having all your arguments refuted, repeatedly, and ignoring all the evidence given to you which proved you wrong.
Your video's do not prove Earth is stationary.
All they do is prove that for the part, it is stationary w.r.t the observer.
So to prove Earth is moving at 1000 MPH, it is quite simple.
Note that the camera is moving at 1000 MPH.
Earth remains at the same position relative to the Camera.
Thus Earth is moving at 1000 MPH.
Alternatively, here is a video of a motionless plane:
I guess that means planes don't move...
Your water video doesn't show we live on a plane.
The curvature is too small for you to distinguish between curved and flat.
Using the videos provided, please support we are on a spinning speeding ball. Can't do it, can you? Earth's physical nature does not support a spinning speeding ball, does it?
-
My "conclusive proof" thread has pretty much run its course.
If by "run its course" you mean you started with a logical fallacy, ignored all evidence you were given then kept moving to more absurd positions (someone a few feet from the pole should be moving 50 mph!) then I agree. You never proved anyone SHOULD feel the motion of the Earth so you started with a false premise.
Using the videos provided on earth's physical state, please support a spinning speeding ball earth. Can't do it, hey?
Prove you should see something. Can't do it, hey? What part of a logical fallacy do you not understand?
But thanks for proving you didn't bother to read the post you were responding to.
-
Clearly the earth is revolving relative to the sun.
Prove it!
It disappears behind the horizon without getting smaller. It's rays hit the top of a mountain first and leave it last. That is only possible if the earth is round.
-
Using the videos provided, please support we are on a spinning speeding ball. Can't do it, can you? Earth's physical nature does not support a spinning speeding ball, does it?
Get this through your thick, retarded skull:
YOUR VIDEOS PROVE NOTHING, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER! THEY ARE NOT PROOF EARTH IS STATIONARY AND FLAT NOR ARE THEY PROOF EARTH IS A SPINNING GLOBE!!!
Can you understand that?
If you wish to disagree, use the video of the plane to show it is moving, and explain exactly how your videos prove Earth is stationary.
-
Using the videos provided, please support we are on a spinning speeding ball. Can't do it, can you? Earth's physical nature does not support a spinning speeding ball, does it?
Get this through your thick, retarded skull:
YOUR VIDEOS PROVE NOTHING, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER! THEY ARE NOT PROOF EARTH IS STATIONARY AND FLAT NOR ARE THEY PROOF EARTH IS A SPINNING GLOBE!!!
Can you understand that?
If you wish to disagree, use the video of the plane to show it is moving, and explain exactly how your videos prove Earth is stationary.
My two videos show the earth is motionless, and it is a plane. You cannot disprove those claims, and you cannot use earth's physical condition as expressed in those two videos to support a spinning speeding ball. Case closed, hammer the nails in the coffin of the heliocentric model.
That's why you lashed out with such vile and anger, hey Jack? You're done, your cooked.
-
Using the videos provided, please support we are on a spinning speeding ball. Can't do it, can you? Earth's physical nature does not support a spinning speeding ball, does it?
Get this through your thick, retarded skull:
YOUR VIDEOS PROVE NOTHING, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER! THEY ARE NOT PROOF EARTH IS STATIONARY AND FLAT NOR ARE THEY PROOF EARTH IS A SPINNING GLOBE!!!
Can you understand that?
If you wish to disagree, use the video of the plane to show it is moving, and explain exactly how your videos prove Earth is stationary.
Dude, go back to the OP and reread the challenge.
-
My two videos show the earth is motionless, and it is a plane. You cannot disprove those claims, and you cannot use earth's physical condition as expressed in those two videos to support a spinning speeding ball. Case closed, hammer the nails in the coffin of the heliocentric model.
That's why you lashed out with such vile and anger, hey Jack? You're done, your cooked.
No. They don't.
But thanks for once again showing you don't understand relative motion or scale and margin of error.
No. I can't use those 2 videos to show Earth is round and moving, just like you can't use them to show Earth is flat and stationary. They don't show anything either way.
Are you planning on using the video of the plane to show it is moving any time soon?
Using the videos provided, please support we are on a spinning speeding ball. Can't do it, can you? Earth's physical nature does not support a spinning speeding ball, does it?
Get this through your thick, retarded skull:
YOUR VIDEOS PROVE NOTHING, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER! THEY ARE NOT PROOF EARTH IS STATIONARY AND FLAT NOR ARE THEY PROOF EARTH IS A SPINNING GLOBE!!!
Can you understand that?
If you wish to disagree, use the video of the plane to show it is moving, and explain exactly how your videos prove Earth is stationary.
Dude, go back to the OP and reread the challenge.
Your challenge is childish bullshit.
Your videos don't prove anything either way.
It would be like me taking a video of a cat and demanding you use it to prove Earth is flat and stationary. You can't.
The best you can do with that video is show that Earth is stationary relative to the camera. It doesn't show Earth is stationary relative to an absolute reference frame.
You have nothing in that video from that fictitious absolute reference frame.
-
Using the videos provided, please support we are on a spinning speeding ball. Can't do it, can you? Earth's physical nature does not support a spinning speeding ball, does it?
Get this through your thick, retarded skull:
YOUR VIDEOS PROVE NOTHING, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER! THEY ARE NOT PROOF EARTH IS STATIONARY AND FLAT NOR ARE THEY PROOF EARTH IS A SPINNING GLOBE!!!
Can you understand that?
If you wish to disagree, use the video of the plane to show it is moving, and explain exactly how your videos prove Earth is stationary.
Dude, go back to the OP and reread the challenge.
It is proven so many times, and it shown to you so many times.
What would it to prove it to you again. You would anyway refuse any prove.
You anyway set the challenge that way that it is not possible to convince you from the truth.
You set it that because you know you are wrong and only that way you can say that your claim can not be disproven.
Therefore I can say that you are a big lier and only with this kind of false tricks try to look like you tell the truth.
I hope that other people see your lies and see what kind of person you are.
-
Using the videos provided, please support we are on a spinning speeding ball. Can't do it, can you? Earth's physical nature does not support a spinning speeding ball, does it?
Get this through your thick, retarded skull:
YOUR VIDEOS PROVE NOTHING, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER! THEY ARE NOT PROOF EARTH IS STATIONARY AND FLAT NOR ARE THEY PROOF EARTH IS A SPINNING GLOBE!!!
Can you understand that?
If you wish to disagree, use the video of the plane to show it is moving, and explain exactly how your videos prove Earth is stationary.
Dude, go back to the OP and reread the challenge.
It is proven so many times, and it shown to you so many times.
What would it to prove it to you again. You would anyway refuse any prove.
You anyway set the challenge that way that it is not possible to convince you from the truth.
You set it that because you know you are wrong and only that way you can say that your claim can not be disproven.
Therefore I can say that you are a big lier and only with this kind of false tricks try to look like you tell the truth.
I hope that other people see your lies and see what kind of person you are.
I see you could not use the videos presented to support a heliocentric model. Duly noted.
-
Using the videos provided, please support we are on a spinning speeding ball. Can't do it, can you? Earth's physical nature does not support a spinning speeding ball, does it?
Get this through your thick, retarded skull:
YOUR VIDEOS PROVE NOTHING, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER! THEY ARE NOT PROOF EARTH IS STATIONARY AND FLAT NOR ARE THEY PROOF EARTH IS A SPINNING GLOBE!!!
Can you understand that?
If you wish to disagree, use the video of the plane to show it is moving, and explain exactly how your videos prove Earth is stationary.
Dude, go back to the OP and reread the challenge.
It is proven so many times, and it shown to you so many times.
What would it to prove it to you again. You would anyway refuse any prove.
You anyway set the challenge that way that it is not possible to convince you from the truth.
You set it that because you know you are wrong and only that way you can say that your claim can not be disproven.
Therefore I can say that you are a big lier and only with this kind of false tricks try to look like you tell the truth.
I hope that other people see your lies and see what kind of person you are.
"You set it that because you know you are wrong..."
I set it that way because I know earth's physical condition, earth's physical nature, will tell us which idea is correct. I used those two videos to support a motionless plane, of which none of you could disprove my claim, nor can you use the two videos to support a heliocentric model. The heliocentric model is cooked, fried to a crisp. Not by me, but by earth's nature itself, the ultimate litmus test, the ultimate.
-
Because Earth is still spinning painfully slow relatively. Sure, 1000 MPH may seem like a lot, until you consider that
1) It has to travel about 25,000 miles. This is a rate of less than 0.001 rpm. Imagine putting water on a small ball that has a gravitational pull (a ball this dense may or may not turn into a black hole, but this is a hypothetical scenario anyways), tossing it up and having it stay in the air, and having it complete one revolution approximately every 24 hours. The water would barely budge.
2) Intertia exists. The sea doesn't move in the same way that you don't go flying off at 1,040 mph when you travel to the equator.
Now combine these 2 effects, and you got a calm ocean that's affected only by processes that happen in earth's atmosphere, not because of its spin. Is that your only evidence?
-
Using the videos provided, please support we are on a spinning speeding ball. Can't do it, can you? Earth's physical nature does not support a spinning speeding ball, does it?
Get this through your thick, retarded skull:
YOUR VIDEOS PROVE NOTHING, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER! THEY ARE NOT PROOF EARTH IS STATIONARY AND FLAT NOR ARE THEY PROOF EARTH IS A SPINNING GLOBE!!!
Can you understand that?
If you wish to disagree, use the video of the plane to show it is moving, and explain exactly how your videos prove Earth is stationary.
Dude, go back to the OP and reread the challenge.
It is proven so many times, and it shown to you so many times.
What would it to prove it to you again. You would anyway refuse any prove.
You anyway set the challenge that way that it is not possible to convince you from the truth.
You set it that because you know you are wrong and only that way you can say that your claim can not be disproven.
Therefore I can say that you are a big lier and only with this kind of false tricks try to look like you tell the truth.
I hope that other people see your lies and see what kind of person you are.
I see you could not use the videos presented to support a heliocentric model. Duly noted.
Nor can you use them to prove a flat earth. It's like showing a video inside a dark room and saying use this video to prove there is a sun. What, you can't do it? This proves there is no sun.
You were funny at first, but now you are just ignorant and boring.
-
I see you could not use the videos presented to support a heliocentric model. Duly noted.
Just like you cannot honestly use them to support a flat, stationary Earth.
The videos tell you nothing either way.
I set it that way because I know earth's physical condition, earth's physical nature, will tell us which idea is correct. I used those two videos to support a motionless plane, of which none of you could disprove my claim, nor can you use the two videos to support a heliocentric model. The heliocentric model is cooked, fried to a crisp. Not by me, but by earth's nature itself, the ultimate litmus test, the ultimate.
And Earth's physical condition tells us it is a ball that is rotating slowly. Too slowly to be perceived by man, and too large a ball to directly see the curve.
Those videos do not support a motionless plane any more than they support a slowly rotating giant sphere.
You cannot prove your claim so we don't have to disprove it.
I also notice you cannot use the plane to prove the plane is moving.
Like I said, use the video I provided to prove the plane is in motion using nothing but the plane, nothing outside the plane and no instruments on the plane.
If you can't do that, you cannot honestly claim your videos prove Earth is stationary.
I already pointed out your video shows a curved horizon, so either the error is too great to show that Earth is flat or curved, or it shows that Earth isn't flat.
-
Using the clues/signs/evidence from the videos I presented, prove the ground is moving at 1,000 MPH, and we are on a ball speeding at 1.8 million MPH.
(http://www.eastcottvets.co.uk/uploads/Animals/gingerkitten.jpg)
Using the clues/signs/evidence from this picture of a kitten, prove that you are not a troll.
-
My "conclusive proof" thread has pretty much run its course. So I feel it s time to bring the matter to its conclusion. In that thread I used two videos to support we live on a motionless flat plane, here they are again:
The physics of water shows we live on a plane:
RELAXATION MEDITATION-Calm Water-Ocean Waves Lapping Sounds-Tranquil Sky-Soothing Sea (http://)
No, they show nothing of the sort!
Please define "the physics of water" in proper scientific terms, not in some twisted flat earth definition.
I do not see any evidence in that we live on a plane, it could just as easily be a very large globe.
This video shows the earth is motionless:
Swan Family Sunbathing On The Beach (http://)
No, is shows nothing of the sort. There is no way to determine if you are stationary or in constant linear motion.
I do not see any evidence in that video the earth is motionless.
It might be taken as evidence that the earth is not subject to changing motion.
Now here is the challenge, using the same videos, prove the ground is moving at 1,000 MPH, and we are on a ball speeding at 1.8 million MPH.
1) Since the videos do not constitute evidence either way, that is a ridiculous challenge.
2) As has been explained to you numerous times the original evidence that the earth is rotating came not from observations purely on earth
but from astronomical observations, which are just as real and just as valid.
So your "challenge" is quite meaningless.
-
Can you prove, just from this image:
(http://i.imgur.com/cihilmo.png)
If the blue object is flat or round?
If you like, before you tell me, I can give you an encrypted copy of what I used to make the image, so you can then decrypt it and find out.
Or would you like a side by side comparison, one flat one round and you have to pick which is which?
-
If the blue object is flat or round?
Flat. It's a perfect blue rectangle. You'll need a higher resolution than that to demonstrate your point.
-
If the blue object is flat or round?
Flat. It's a perfect blue rectangle. You'll need a higher resolution than that to demonstrate your point.
Can you provide data proving that the pixels on the screen you viewed it with lined up perfectly straight (using only evidence from physical observer's videos)?
-
If the blue object is flat or round?
Flat. It's a perfect blue rectangle. You'll need a higher resolution than that to demonstrate your point.
Nope.
That is exactly my point.
That image isn't enough to determine if it is round or flat.
It is a blue object that it is an image of.
The image does not show the entirety of the object.
He needs to determine (with an explanation) from that picture alone if the object in question is flat or round.
If he is unable to do so, or unable to do so correctly, then it shows his prior arguments about Earth being flat or round to be pure bullshit.
-
how fast would you say we have to be moving in order for us to see it in the video?
-
My "conclusive proof" thread has pretty much run its course. So I feel it s time to bring the matter to its conclusion. In that thread I used two videos to support we live on a motionless flat plane, here they are again:
The physics of water shows we live on a plane:
RELAXATION MEDITATION-Calm Water-Ocean Waves Lapping Sounds-Tranquil Sky-Soothing Sea (http://)
No, they show nothing of the sort!
Please define "the physics of water" in proper scientific terms, not in some twisted flat earth definition.
I do not see any evidence in that we live on a plane, it could just as easily be a very large globe.
This video shows the earth is motionless:
Swan Family Sunbathing On The Beach (http://)
No, is shows nothing of the sort. There is no way to determine if you are stationary or in constant linear motion.
I do not see any evidence in that video the earth is motionless.
It might be taken as evidence that the earth is not subject to changing motion.
Now here is the challenge, using the same videos, prove the ground is moving at 1,000 MPH, and we are on a ball speeding at 1.8 million MPH.
1) Since the videos do not constitute evidence either way, that is a ridiculous challenge.
2) As has been explained to you numerous times the original evidence that the earth is rotating came not from observations purely on earth
but from astronomical observations, which are just as real and just as valid.
So your "challenge" is quite meaningless.
"No, they show nothing of the sort!"
Please use the two videos to show the ground is moving at 1,000 MPH, and we are on a ball speeding at 1.8 million MPH.
You saying the videos do not support my position means jack-crap!
"So your "challenge" is quite meaningless."
Yeah, I'm sure it is meaningless from your position, right? I mean, after all, the videos certainly don't show a spinning speeding condition of earth, do they?
-
how fast would you say we have to be moving in order for us to see it in the video?
Can you use the two videos of earth's condition to prove we are on a ball spinning and speeding?
-
If the blue object is flat or round?
Flat. It's a perfect blue rectangle. You'll need a higher resolution than that to demonstrate your point.
Can you use the two videos linked to prove the ground is moving at 1,000 MPH, or we are on a ball speeding at 1.8 million MPH?
Can you provide data proving that the pixels on the screen you viewed it with lined up perfectly straight (using only evidence from physical observer's videos)?
-
My "conclusive proof" thread has pretty much run its course.
If by "run its course" you mean you started with a logical fallacy, ignored all evidence you were given then kept moving to more absurd positions (someone a few feet from the pole should be moving 50 mph!) then I agree. You never proved anyone SHOULD feel the motion of the Earth so you started with a false premise.
Using the videos provided on earth's physical state, please support a spinning speeding ball earth. Can't do it, hey?
Prove you should see something. Can't do it, hey? What part of a logical fallacy do you not understand?
But thanks for proving you didn't bother to read the post you were responding to.
Thanks for proving you cannot use earth's natural physical condition to support a spinning speeding ball. Your job is done here!
-
how fast would you say we have to be moving in order for us to see it in the video?
Can you use the two videos of earth's condition to prove we are on a ball spinning and speeding?
i'm asking you how you can tell from the vids that we aren't, or in other words; how fast would we have to be moving in order for it to be noticeable in the videos?
-
Because Earth is still spinning painfully slow relatively. Sure, 1000 MPH may seem like a lot, until you consider that
1) It has to travel about 25,000 miles. This is a rate of less than 0.001 rpm. Imagine putting water on a small ball that has a gravitational pull (a ball this dense may or may not turn into a black hole, but this is a hypothetical scenario anyways), tossing it up and having it stay in the air, and having it complete one revolution approximately every 24 hours. The water would barely budge.
2) Intertia exists. The sea doesn't move in the same way that you don't go flying off at 1,040 mph when you travel to the equator.
Now combine these 2 effects, and you got a calm ocean that's affected only by processes that happen in earth's atmosphere, not because of its spin. Is that your only evidence?
Deep breath, very long exhale..........................
I'll repeat, can you use the two videos to support the ground is moving at 1,000 MPH, or we are on a ball speeding at 1.8 million MPH?
-
physcial observer has trolling down to an art. when faced with a hard question, he just ignores it! how convenient
-
You saying the videos do not support my position means jack-crap!
"So your "challenge" is quite meaningless."
Yeah, I'm sure it is meaningless from your position, right? I mean, after all, the videos certainly don't show a spinning speeding condition of earth, do they?
True, "the videos certainly don't show" any evidence of "a spinning speeding condition of earth".
But, the videos do not give any evidence against a spinning speeding condition of earth, either.
So all that can be said, is that all of the evidence that you have so painstakingly assembled means nothing at all.
As I said before and as I will keep saying is that "your challenge is quite meaningless."
You set a meaningless challenge that must always lead to a null result, then keep bitching that we won't accept it as proof.
It is not proof, and not even evidence one way or the other.
Whether or not the earth was rotating at 0.0007 rpm and moving at whatever mph (which you refuse to authenticate)
those videos would look exactly the same.
There are now numerous ways of measuring the earth's rotation and its orbiting of the sun.
But, your little mind won't accept anything that you can't see feel or touch - that's your loss, not mine.
If you choose to remain willfully ignorant, that's your business, but it does not change any facts.
-
Deep breath, very long exhale..........................
I'll repeat, can you use the two videos to support the ground is moving at 1,000 MPH, or we are on a ball speeding at 1.8 million MPH?
I do not see why we should have to consider your 1.8 million MPH, as far as I can find it is either completely fictitious or dragged out of some kiddies book!
So please quote you sources of just run away and play with you play blocks.
-
My "conclusive proof" thread has pretty much run its course.
If by "run its course" you mean you started with a logical fallacy, ignored all evidence you were given then kept moving to more absurd positions (someone a few feet from the pole should be moving 50 mph!) then I agree. You never proved anyone SHOULD feel the motion of the Earth so you started with a false premise.
Using the videos provided on earth's physical state, please support a spinning speeding ball earth. Can't do it, hey?
Prove you should see something. Can't do it, hey? What part of a logical fallacy do you not understand?
But thanks for proving you didn't bother to read the post you were responding to.
Thanks for proving you cannot use earth's natural physical condition to support a spinning speeding ball. Your job is done here!
And you prove AGAIN that you didn't read the post you responded to. Gee, you love your logical fallacies, don't you?
-
My "conclusive proof" thread has pretty much run its course.
If by "run its course" you mean you started with a logical fallacy, ignored all evidence you were given then kept moving to more absurd positions (someone a few feet from the pole should be moving 50 mph!) then I agree. You never proved anyone SHOULD feel the motion of the Earth so you started with a false premise.
Using the videos provided on earth's physical state, please support a spinning speeding ball earth. Can't do it, hey?
Prove you should see something. Can't do it, hey? What part of a logical fallacy do you not understand?
But thanks for proving you didn't bother to read the post you were responding to.
Thanks for proving you cannot use earth's natural physical condition to support a spinning speeding ball. Your job is done here!
And you prove AGAIN that you didn't read the post you responded to. Gee, you love your logical fallacies, don't you?
Oh yeah, now my substantial evidence/clues/signs are logical fallacies, got it! So please, can you use the videos to prove the ground is moving at 1,000 PH, or we are on a ball speeding at 1.8 million MPH? But really, your inability to do so has been noted.
-
My "conclusive proof" thread has pretty much run its course.
If by "run its course" you mean you started with a logical fallacy, ignored all evidence you were given then kept moving to more absurd positions (someone a few feet from the pole should be moving 50 mph!) then I agree. You never proved anyone SHOULD feel the motion of the Earth so you started with a false premise.
Using the videos provided on earth's physical state, please support a spinning speeding ball earth. Can't do it, hey?
Prove you should see something. Can't do it, hey? What part of a logical fallacy do you not understand?
But thanks for proving you didn't bother to read the post you were responding to.
Thanks for proving you cannot use earth's natural physical condition to support a spinning speeding ball. Your job is done here!
And you prove AGAIN that you didn't read the post you responded to. Gee, you love your logical fallacies, don't you?
Oh yeah, now my substantial evidence/clues/signs are logical fallacies, got it! So please, can you use the videos to prove the ground is moving at 1,000 PH, or we are on a ball speeding at 1.8 million MPH? But really, your inability to do so has been noted.
And you prove AGAIN you are unable to read. The logical fallacy is that you NEVER proved that one should feel that motion or that one should see it in the videos. And you never provided any evidence. You provided assertions. I doubt you know the difference. I predict that once again you will fail to read and understand.
-
My "conclusive proof" thread has pretty much run its course.
If by "run its course" you mean you started with a logical fallacy, ignored all evidence you were given then kept moving to more absurd positions (someone a few feet from the pole should be moving 50 mph!) then I agree. You never proved anyone SHOULD feel the motion of the Earth so you started with a false premise.
Using the videos provided on earth's physical state, please support a spinning speeding ball earth. Can't do it, hey?
Prove you should see something. Can't do it, hey? What part of a logical fallacy do you not understand?
But thanks for proving you didn't bother to read the post you were responding to.
Thanks for proving you cannot use earth's natural physical condition to support a spinning speeding ball. Your job is done here!
And you prove AGAIN that you didn't read the post you responded to. Gee, you love your logical fallacies, don't you?
Oh yeah, now my substantial evidence/clues/signs are logical fallacies, got it! So please, can you use the videos to prove the ground is moving at 1,000 PH, or we are on a ball speeding at 1.8 million MPH? But really, your inability to do so has been noted.
And you prove AGAIN you are unable to read. The logical fallacy is that you NEVER proved that one should feel that motion or that one should see it in the videos. And you never provided any evidence. You provided assertions. I doubt you know the difference. I predict that once again you will fail to read and understand.
Right Frenat, anyway to excuse away, hey?
Frenat, can you use the two videos to support the ground is moving at 1,000 MPH, or that we are on a ball speeding at 1.8 million MPH? Yes or no, that is all that is needed, not sorry excuses.
-
My "conclusive proof" thread has pretty much run its course.
If by "run its course" you mean you started with a logical fallacy, ignored all evidence you were given then kept moving to more absurd positions (someone a few feet from the pole should be moving 50 mph!) then I agree. You never proved anyone SHOULD feel the motion of the Earth so you started with a false premise.
Using the videos provided on earth's physical state, please support a spinning speeding ball earth. Can't do it, hey?
Prove you should see something. Can't do it, hey? What part of a logical fallacy do you not understand?
But thanks for proving you didn't bother to read the post you were responding to.
Thanks for proving you cannot use earth's natural physical condition to support a spinning speeding ball. Your job is done here!
And you prove AGAIN that you didn't read the post you responded to. Gee, you love your logical fallacies, don't you?
Oh yeah, now my substantial evidence/clues/signs are logical fallacies, got it! So please, can you use the videos to prove the ground is moving at 1,000 PH, or we are on a ball speeding at 1.8 million MPH? But really, your inability to do so has been noted.
And you prove AGAIN you are unable to read. The logical fallacy is that you NEVER proved that one should feel that motion or that one should see it in the videos. And you never provided any evidence. You provided assertions. I doubt you know the difference. I predict that once again you will fail to read and understand.
Right Frenat, anyway to excuse away, hey?
Frenat, can you use the two videos to support the ground is moving at 1,000 MPH, or that we are on a ball speeding at 1.8 million MPH? Yes or no, that is all that is needed, not sorry excuses.
There is not a single excuse in my post. Just truth. But thanks for proving my prediction correct. BEFORE you ask is someone can use those videos to support that YOU need to prove that one SHOULD see effects of it. You have not done that. AND you've been avoiding the multiple times you've been asked where you got the 1.8 million number. But thanks for the humor!
Prediction: you will continue to avoid multiple questions and the FACT that you haven't proved your assertion
-
The clouds are moving in one video. The water has waves crashing against the shore. Clearly the Earth is not stationary in those videos. So no, from your videos alone, you cannot "prove" the speed of the spin of Earth or the speed of its orbit, but they do a nice job of disproving the motionless argument.
-
And what if everyone agree that with this video we can not prove that the earth is revolving 1 time a day.
Would you than dance around and tell everyone that you are right?
That would only show again that you only have to use tricks so that somebody has to agree with you.
That even proves ones more that you know that you are wrong.
-
And what if everyone agree that with this video we can not prove that the earth is revolving 1 time a day.
Would you than dance around and tell everyone that you are right?
That would only show again that you only have to use tricks so that somebody has to agree with you.
That even proves ones more that you know that you are wrong.
Why would I care what others think? There is only one person I need to prove anything too, and that is me.
What tricks have I used? I'm just pointing our earth's physical state and what it shows. It is you'll using math in books, and staring off into space as little tricks. Boy, you have to be the premier projectionist!
-
And what if everyone agree that with this video we can not prove that the earth is revolving 1 time a day.
Would you than dance around and tell everyone that you are right?
That would only show again that you only have to use tricks so that somebody has to agree with you.
That even proves ones more that you know that you are wrong.
Why would I care what others think? There is only one person I need to prove anything too, and that is me.
What tricks have I used? I'm just pointing our earth's physical state and what it shows. It is you'll using math in books, and staring off into space as little tricks. Boy, you have to be the premier projectionist!
You used the trick of asking a question with that kind of boundaries that only the answer is possible that you want to hear.
So, you think that math is a trick.
May I like to ask how you to manage to go thru your live with this kind of thinking. How do you manage to have a job if you think math is only a trick.
-
And what if everyone agree that with this video we can not prove that the earth is revolving 1 time a day.
Would you than dance around and tell everyone that you are right?
That would only show again that you only have to use tricks so that somebody has to agree with you.
That even proves ones more that you know that you are wrong.
Why would I care what others think? There is only one person I need to prove anything too, and that is me.
What tricks have I used? I'm just pointing our earth's physical state and what it shows. It is you'll using math in books, and staring off into space as little tricks. Boy, you have to be the premier projectionist!
You used the trick of asking a question with that kind of boundaries that only the answer is possible that you want to hear.
So, you think that math is a trick.
May I like to ask how you to manage to go thru your live with this kind of thinking. How do you manage to have a job if you think math is only a trick.
I asked you'll to use the videos to support a spinning speeding ball earth. Not my issue you can't!
The math used to support the heliocentric earth is one of the tricks, not math in general. You're pretty good at obfuscation!
-
[quote author=physical observer
I asked you'll to use the videos to support a spinning speeding ball earth. Not my issue you can't!
The math used to support the heliocentric earth is one of the tricks, not math in general. You're pretty good at obfuscation!
[/quote]
Let's see if you can use the videos to support a stationary earth like in the post Micky T. challenged you to.
You think, if the math supports a global spinning earth it is a trick and the same math is correct if it is used with something else.
Either you are a big troll or you are really dumb.
-
And what if everyone agree that with this video we can not prove that the earth is revolving 1 time a day.
Would you than dance around and tell everyone that you are right?
That would only show again that you only have to use tricks so that somebody has to agree with you.
That even proves ones more that you know that you are wrong.
Why would I care what others think? There is only one person I need to prove anything too, and that is me.
What tricks have I used? I'm just pointing our earth's physical state and what it shows. It is you'll using math in books, and staring off into space as little tricks. Boy, you have to be the premier projectionist!
You used the trick of asking a question with that kind of boundaries that only the answer is possible that you want to hear.
So, you think that math is a trick.
May I like to ask how you to manage to go thru your live with this kind of thinking. How do you manage to have a job if you think math is only a trick.
I asked you'll to use the videos to support a spinning speeding ball earth. Not my issue you can't!
The math used to support the heliocentric earth is one of the tricks, not math in general. You're pretty good at obfuscation!
I'll ask again, though I suspect you will ignore the question. If I showed you a video of enclosed room, could you use it to prove there is a sun? No? Then that is conclusive evidence there is no sun.
This is exactly what you have done.
-
I asked you'll to use the videos to support a spinning speeding ball earth. Not my issue you can't!
The math used to support the heliocentric earth is one of the tricks, not math in general. You're pretty good at obfuscation!
You make an impossible demand and you know it!
Determine the shape of earth first. Historical it came first for very good reason, but it's no point wasting time with the likes of you.
You think that you are so smart, but you are really nothing but an ignorant bigot, so bye, bye.
Crow all you like about you massive win, but the big spherical earth will keep spinning away.
While you will sit there in ignorance of so much that goes on around you.
Good luck with your closed mind and tiny universe.
-
Please use the two videos to show the ground is moving at 1,000 MPH, and we are on a ball speeding at 1.8 million MPH.
Again, we are not claiming these videos support our position. Why should we use them to prove anything?
You are the one claiming they support your position so the burden of proof is on you to prove they do.
You saying the videos do not support my position means jack-crap!
No. You baselessly asserting that they support your position means jack-shit.
You need to explain quite clearly how they are capable of distinguishing between a very slight curve and a flat Earth, as well as between a stationary and moving Earth, and then how they indicate Earth is flat and stationary.
You are yet to do either.
Until you do, your claims are just childish bullshit.
You are also yet to use the video of the plane to demonstrate that it is moving, using just the plane and nothing external to it.
Nor have you been able to use the picture of the mysterious blue object to tell me if it is round or flat.
Yeah, I'm sure it is meaningless from your position, right? I mean, after all, the videos certainly don't show a spinning speeding condition of earth, do they?
Yes, they do. You are just too stupid or dishonest to understand and admit it.
There is no way to tell if Earth is moving or not in those videos.
Oh yeah, now my substantial evidence/clues/signs are logical fallacies, got it! So please, can you use the videos to prove the ground is moving at 1,000 PH, or we are on a ball speeding at 1.8 million MPH? But really, your inability to do so has been noted.
You are yet to provide a single shred of evidence.
All you have done is continually spouted bullshit and ignored all the evidence, argument and refutations provided/made against you.
You can't even use your videos to prove Earth is stationary or flat.
Your inability to do so has been noted. As has your inability to prove the plane is moving and if that blue object is flat or round.
Frenat, can you use the two videos to support the ground is moving at 1,000 MPH, or that we are on a ball speeding at 1.8 million MPH? Yes or no, that is all that is needed, not sorry excuses.
Can you use the 2 videos to show Earth is stationary and flat?
Remember, that requires you to be able to distinguish between moving and stationary and between a slight curve and no curve.
A yes or no isn't all that is needed.
An explanation of how is.
And stop using the 1.8 million MPH. It has been shown to be bullshit many times.
What tricks have I used? I'm just pointing our earth's physical state and what it shows. It is you'll using math in books, and staring off into space as little tricks. Boy, you have to be the premier projectionist!
How about completely ignoring all evidence provided against you, and all refutations of your arguments.
You use a video which shows nothing, and then demand people use this video to prove Earth is in motion and a ball, and then think because they can't it means Earth is flat and stationary.
Reality doesn't work like that, nor do honest rational people that care about the truth.
They don't need to bury their head in the sand rather than look up.
I asked you'll to use the videos to support a spinning speeding ball earth. Not my issue you can't!
And it isn't our issue we can't.
It is your issue that you need to do such dishonest crap to pretend you can conclude Earth is flat and stationary, by ignoring all the evidence.
The math used to support the heliocentric earth is one of the tricks, not math in general. You're pretty good at obfuscation!
Nope.
The math occasionally used to support a flat Earth is one of the tricks, but they typically don't use math and instead use vague nonsense.
The same math they occasionally do use is then often used against them.
-
A shorter version:
Can you use those videos to prove Earth is flat and stationary, clearly explaining how you can distinguish between flat and a very slight curve, as well as between stationary and moving?
Can you use the video of a plane I provided, using just the plane, to show the plane is moving, clearly explaining how?
Can you use the picture of the mysterious blue object I provided, to determine if the blue object is flat or round, clearly explaining how?
If you can't do these things why do you expect us to be able to use those videos to prove that Earth is round and moving?
Especially as we (or at least I) have been telling you all along that the curve is too slight at that distance to be able to distinguish between flat and round, and that you cannot detect absolute motion, only relative motion, and that the rotational motion is too slow to be detected by that system?
Your inability to do so merely shows that we were right all along and that you know you are spouting dishonest bullshit.
-
And what if everyone agree that with this video we can not prove that the earth is revolving 1 time a day.
Would you than dance around and tell everyone that you are right?
That would only show again that you only have to use tricks so that somebody has to agree with you.
That even proves ones more that you know that you are wrong.
Why would I care what others think? There is only one person I need to prove anything too, and that is me.
What tricks have I used? I'm just pointing our earth's physical state and what it shows. It is you'll using math in books, and staring off into space as little tricks. Boy, you have to be the premier projectionist!
You used the trick of asking a question with that kind of boundaries that only the answer is possible that you want to hear.
So, you think that math is a trick.
May I like to ask how you to manage to go thru your live with this kind of thinking. How do you manage to have a job if you think math is only a trick.
I asked you'll to use the videos to support a spinning speeding ball earth. Not my issue you can't!
The math used to support the heliocentric earth is one of the tricks, not math in general. You're pretty good at obfuscation!
i'll play your game
the waves crash against the sand, this tells me that the earth must be accelerating against the waves
-
And what if everyone agree that with this video we can not prove that the earth is revolving 1 time a day.
Would you than dance around and tell everyone that you are right?
That would only show again that you only have to use tricks so that somebody has to agree with you.
That even proves ones more that you know that you are wrong.
Why would I care what others think? There is only one person I need to prove anything too, and that is me.
What tricks have I used? I'm just pointing our earth's physical state and what it shows. It is you'll using math in books, and staring off into space as little tricks. Boy, you have to be the premier projectionist!
You used the trick of asking a question with that kind of boundaries that only the answer is possible that you want to hear.
So, you think that math is a trick.
May I like to ask how you to manage to go thru your live with this kind of thinking. How do you manage to have a job if you think math is only a trick.
I asked you'll to use the videos to support a spinning speeding ball earth. Not my issue you can't!
The math used to support the heliocentric earth is one of the tricks, not math in general. You're pretty good at obfuscation!
i'll play your game
the waves crash against the sand, this tells me that the earth must be accelerating against the waves
Waves occur on both East and West facing shores.
-
Waves occur on both East and West facing shores.
How do you know which way is the video facing?
And also, only the videos show count. Every other video or knowledge does not madder, like the observer also said in his quote.
Same rules for both.
-
Waves occur on both East and West facing shores.
How do you know which way is the video facing?
And also, only the videos show count. Every other video or knowledge does not madder, like the observer also said in his quote.
Same rules for both.
haha, dammit. >:(
-
And what if everyone agree that with this video we can not prove that the earth is revolving 1 time a day.
Would you than dance around and tell everyone that you are right?
That would only show again that you only have to use tricks so that somebody has to agree with you.
That even proves ones more that you know that you are wrong.
Why would I care what others think? There is only one person I need to prove anything too, and that is me.
What tricks have I used? I'm just pointing our earth's physical state and what it shows. It is you'll using math in books, and staring off into space as little tricks. Boy, you have to be the premier projectionist!
You used the trick of asking a question with that kind of boundaries that only the answer is possible that you want to hear.
So, you think that math is a trick.
May I like to ask how you to manage to go thru your live with this kind of thinking. How do you manage to have a job if you think math is only a trick.
I asked you'll to use the videos to support a spinning speeding ball earth. Not my issue you can't!
The math used to support the heliocentric earth is one of the tricks, not math in general. You're pretty good at obfuscation!
i'll play your game
the waves crash against the sand, this tells me that the earth must be accelerating against the waves
Waves occur on both East and West facing shores.
Are we allowed to use videos that physical observer posted but not in this thread? There's the video of the pickup truck filled with water, which sloshed out both sides when it moved, showing that eastern and western waves might be expected on a moving Earth.
-
My "conclusive proof" thread has pretty much run its course. So I feel it s time to bring the matter to its conclusion. In that thread I used two videos to support we live on a motionless flat plane, here they are again:
The physics of water shows we live on a plane:
This video shows the earth is motionless:
Now here is the challenge, using the same videos, prove the ground is moving at 1,000 MPH, and we are on a ball speeding at 1.8 million MPH.
The Earth is moving under the feet of the birds. Actual rotation observed!
-
The Earth is moving under the feet of the birds. Actual rotation observed!
:P But only relative to the ducks as they waddle. :P
But I'm sure Mach's Principle comes into it somewhere!
-
My "conclusive proof" thread has pretty much run its course. So I feel it s time to bring the matter to its conclusion. In that thread I used two videos to support we live on a motionless flat plane, here they are again:
The physics of water shows we live on a plane:
This video shows the earth is motionless:
Now here is the challenge, using the same videos, prove the ground is moving at 1,000 MPH, and we are on a ball speeding at 1.8 million MPH.
The Earth is moving under the feet of the birds. Actual rotation observed!
i could also argue: you clearly can see that the clouds are change the position relative to the earth.
i could claim that the clouds are stationary and the earth under the clouds is moving.
i guess that in the 10min video the change between earth and clouds is appr. 166miles.
166miles/10min = 996 miles/hour , close to 1000 miles/hour.
see proven ;D
-
A lot of people have used a lot of neurons and many words on this but it seems to be a quite simple question with a quite simple answer.
Question
Can you use the 2 videos posted by Physical observer to prove a spinning globe.
Answer
No
Now here's a question for Physical observer.
Can you eat soup with a microscope?
And another one.
Does a deaf Dog have legs?
And Finally.
Since i responded to YOUR challenge and answered truthfully, can you, using the two videos supplied PROVE
a no spinning globe?
-
[quote author=physical observer
I asked you'll to use the videos to support a spinning speeding ball earth. Not my issue you can't!
The math used to support the heliocentric earth is one of the tricks, not math in general. You're pretty good at obfuscation!
Let's see if you can use the videos to support a stationary earth like in the post Micky T. challenged you to.
You think, if the math supports a global spinning earth it is a trick and the same math is correct if it is used with something else.
Either you are a big troll or you are really dumb.
[/quote]
If I told you the earth is a spinning speeding cube, then gave you math for a spinning speeding cube, would you accept it? Or would you see if my claim matches earth's physical condition? You see, the math for a spinning speeding cube would be the trick, right?
Can you use the videos provided to support a spinning speeding globe, or are you just going to call me names?
-
A lot of people have used a lot of neurons and many words on this but it seems to be a quite simple question with a quite simple answer.
Question
Can you use the 2 videos posted by Physical observer to prove a spinning globe.
Answer
No
Now here's a question for Physical observer.
Can you eat soup with a microscope?
And another one.
Does a deaf Dog have legs?
And Finally.
Since i responded to YOUR challenge and answered truthfully, can you, using the two videos supplied PROVE
a no spinning globe?
You sir are correct, you cannot use nature, as expressed in the videos to support a spinning speeding globe. Nature, as expressed in the videos, or by direct observation supports a motionless plane. The rest of your post is just stupid dribble.
"using the two videos supplied PROVE a no spinning globe?"
Sure can, water on a spinning ball:
Water on earth:
People navigating a moving platform:
People navigating earth's surface:
Now I say, that is a heck of a lot more than any of you spherical earthers could provide.
-
I asked you'll to use the videos to support a spinning speeding ball earth. Not my issue you can't!
The math used to support the heliocentric earth is one of the tricks, not math in general. You're pretty good at obfuscation!
Let's see if you can use the videos to support a stationary earth like in the post Micky T. challenged you to.
You think, if the math supports a global spinning earth it is a trick and the same math is correct if it is used with something else.
Either you are a big troll or you are really dumb.
If I told you the earth is a spinning speeding cube, then gave you math for a spinning speeding cube, would you accept it? Or would you see if my claim matches earth's physical condition? You see, the math for a spinning speeding cube would be the trick, right?
Can you use the videos provided to support a spinning speeding globe, or are you just going to call me names?
ok, than show me the math that prove that the earth is a spinning cube.
-
I asked you'll to use the videos to support a spinning speeding ball earth. Not my issue you can't!
The math used to support the heliocentric earth is one of the tricks, not math in general. You're pretty good at obfuscation!
Let's see if you can use the videos to support a stationary earth like in the post Micky T. challenged you to.
You think, if the math supports a global spinning earth it is a trick and the same math is correct if it is used with something else.
Either you are a big troll or you are really dumb.
If I told you the earth is a spinning speeding cube, then gave you math for a spinning speeding cube, would you accept it? Or would you see if my claim matches earth's physical condition? You see, the math for a spinning speeding cube would be the trick, right?
Can you use the videos provided to support a spinning speeding globe, or are you just going to call me names?
The behavior in the videos is consistent with a spinning speeding globe. It would only be consistent with a speeding cube if the video was taken in the center of one of the faces. It's also true that the video doesn't reveal much to distinguish it from a stationary disk, provided that the videos were taken close to the center of the disk.
-
I asked you'll to use the videos to support a spinning speeding ball earth. Not my issue you can't!
The math used to support the heliocentric earth is one of the tricks, not math in general. You're pretty good at obfuscation!
Let's see if you can use the videos to support a stationary earth like in the post Micky T. challenged you to.
You think, if the math supports a global spinning earth it is a trick and the same math is correct if it is used with something else.
Either you are a big troll or you are really dumb.
If I told you the earth is a spinning speeding cube, then gave you math for a spinning speeding cube, would you accept it? Or would you see if my claim matches earth's physical condition? You see, the math for a spinning speeding cube would be the trick, right?
Can you use the videos provided to support a spinning speeding globe, or are you just going to call me names?
The behavior in the videos is consistent with a spinning speeding globe. It would only be consistent with a speeding cube if the video was taken in the center of one of the faces. It's also true that the video doesn't reveal much to distinguish it from a stationary disk, provided that the videos were taken close to the center of the disk.
"The behavior in the videos is consistent with a spinning speeding globe."
Prove it!!!!!! Bet you can't!
-
I asked you'll to use the videos to support a spinning speeding ball earth. Not my issue you can't!
The math used to support the heliocentric earth is one of the tricks, not math in general. You're pretty good at obfuscation!
Let's see if you can use the videos to support a stationary earth like in the post Micky T. challenged you to.
You think, if the math supports a global spinning earth it is a trick and the same math is correct if it is used with something else.
Either you are a big troll or you are really dumb.
If I told you the earth is a spinning speeding cube, then gave you math for a spinning speeding cube, would you accept it? Or would you see if my claim matches earth's physical condition? You see, the math for a spinning speeding cube would be the trick, right?
Can you use the videos provided to support a spinning speeding globe, or are you just going to call me names?
ok, than show me the math that prove that the earth is a spinning cube.
Don't divert from the subject at hand, using earth's physical condition as expressed in the two videos, prove the earth is a spinning speeding globe. GO.................................
-
A lot of people have used a lot of neurons and many words on this but it seems to be a quite simple question with a quite simple answer.
Question
Can you use the 2 videos posted by Physical observer to prove a spinning globe.
Answer
No
Now here's a question for Physical observer.
Can you eat soup with a microscope?
And another one.
Does a deaf Dog have legs?
And Finally.
Since i responded to YOUR challenge and answered truthfully, can you, using the two videos supplied PROVE
a no spinning globe?
You sir are correct, you cannot use nature, as expressed in the videos to support a spinning speeding globe. Nature, as expressed in the videos, or by direct observation supports a motionless plane. The rest of your post is just stupid dribble.
"using the two videos supplied PROVE a no spinning globe?"
Sure can, water on a spinning ball:
Water on earth:
People navigating a moving platform:
People navigating earth's surface:
Now I say, that is a heck of a lot more than any of you spherical earthers could provide.
first video: to high rpm the earth has only an rotation of 1 revolution per day.
and also if you want to scale the earth down to that ballsize you have also to scale down the water (quantity and molecular size)
the other videos show only a small portion of the earth,
please calculate the height difference from the sides to the middle caused by an arc (straight distance=10m, arc radius=6371km(earth radius))
now shoe how you would measure that?
-
I asked you'll to use the videos to support a spinning speeding ball earth. Not my issue you can't!
The math used to support the heliocentric earth is one of the tricks, not math in general. You're pretty good at obfuscation!
Let's see if you can use the videos to support a stationary earth like in the post Micky T. challenged you to.
You think, if the math supports a global spinning earth it is a trick and the same math is correct if it is used with something else.
Either you are a big troll or you are really dumb.
If I told you the earth is a spinning speeding cube, then gave you math for a spinning speeding cube, would you accept it? Or would you see if my claim matches earth's physical condition? You see, the math for a spinning speeding cube would be the trick, right?
Can you use the videos provided to support a spinning speeding globe, or are you just going to call me names?
ok, than show me the math that prove that the earth is a spinning cube.
Don't divert from the subject at hand, using earth's physical condition as expressed in the two videos, prove the earth is a spinning speeding globe. GO.................................
you brought up the spinning cube and that you have math prove for it.
i already did one prove with the relative movement between the clouds and the earth. look at my post before.
-
I asked you'll to use the videos to support a spinning speeding ball earth. Not my issue you can't!
The math used to support the heliocentric earth is one of the tricks, not math in general. You're pretty good at obfuscation!
Let's see if you can use the videos to support a stationary earth like in the post Micky T. challenged you to.
You think, if the math supports a global spinning earth it is a trick and the same math is correct if it is used with something else.
Either you are a big troll or you are really dumb.
If I told you the earth is a spinning speeding cube, then gave you math for a spinning speeding cube, would you accept it? Or would you see if my claim matches earth's physical condition? You see, the math for a spinning speeding cube would be the trick, right?
Can you use the videos provided to support a spinning speeding globe, or are you just going to call me names?
The behavior in the videos is consistent with a spinning speeding globe. It would only be consistent with a speeding cube if the video was taken in the center of one of the faces. It's also true that the video doesn't reveal much to distinguish it from a stationary disk, provided that the videos were taken close to the center of the disk.
"The behavior in the videos is consistent with a spinning speeding globe."
Prove it!!!!!! Bet you can't!
I start with the claim that (1) the videos are consistent with a flat and stationary disk, which you believe. If the Earth has the dimensions it is claimed to have as a globe then a reference frame placed on the surface of the Earth which fixes the orientation and location of the Earth would differ from an inertial frame only by a rotation with angular velocity of approximately 73 microhertz and an acceleration no greater than 34 mm/s^2. These effects are too small to be observed in your videos and therefore (2) if they are consistent with a flat stationary disk they must also be consistent with a spinning speeding globe. Applying modus ponens to (2) and (1) I get the result that the videos are consistent with a spinning speeding globe. QED
-
I asked you'll to use the videos to support a spinning speeding ball earth. Not my issue you can't!
The math used to support the heliocentric earth is one of the tricks, not math in general. You're pretty good at obfuscation!
Let's see if you can use the videos to support a stationary earth like in the post Micky T. challenged you to.
You think, if the math supports a global spinning earth it is a trick and the same math is correct if it is used with something else.
Either you are a big troll or you are really dumb.
If I told you the earth is a spinning speeding cube, then gave you math for a spinning speeding cube, would you accept it? Or would you see if my claim matches earth's physical condition? You see, the math for a spinning speeding cube would be the trick, right?
Can you use the videos provided to support a spinning speeding globe, or are you just going to call me names?
The behavior in the videos is consistent with a spinning speeding globe. It would only be consistent with a speeding cube if the video was taken in the center of one of the faces. It's also true that the video doesn't reveal much to distinguish it from a stationary disk, provided that the videos were taken close to the center of the disk.
"The behavior in the videos is consistent with a spinning speeding globe."
Prove it!!!!!! Bet you can't!
I start with the claim that (1) the videos are consistent with a flat and stationary disk, which you believe. If the Earth has the dimensions it is claimed to have as a globe then a reference frame placed on the surface of the Earth which fixes the orientation and location of the Earth would differ from an inertial frame only by a rotation with angular velocity of approximately 73 microhertz and an acceleration no greater than 34 mm/s^2. These effects are too small to be observed in your videos and therefore (2) if they are consistent with a flat stationary disk they must also be consistent with a spinning speeding globe. Applying modus ponens to (2) and (1) I get the result that the videos are consistent with a spinning speeding globe. QED
Glibly goop. The effects observed in the videos, earth's physical condition, cannot support both ideas. I have shown how it fits a motionless plane for earth, and no one has shown how they fit a spinning speeding globe.
-
I asked you'll to use the videos to support a spinning speeding ball earth. Not my issue you can't!
The math used to support the heliocentric earth is one of the tricks, not math in general. You're pretty good at obfuscation!
Let's see if you can use the videos to support a stationary earth like in the post Micky T. challenged you to.
You think, if the math supports a global spinning earth it is a trick and the same math is correct if it is used with something else.
Either you are a big troll or you are really dumb.
If I told you the earth is a spinning speeding cube, then gave you math for a spinning speeding cube, would you accept it? Or would you see if my claim matches earth's physical condition? You see, the math for a spinning speeding cube would be the trick, right?
Can you use the videos provided to support a spinning speeding globe, or are you just going to call me names?
ok, than show me the math that prove that the earth is a spinning cube.
Don't divert from the subject at hand, using earth's physical condition as expressed in the two videos, prove the earth is a spinning speeding globe. GO.................................
you brought up the spinning cube and that you have math prove for it.
i already did one prove with the relative movement between the clouds and the earth. look at my post before.
If I gave you all that math, what would it prove?
-
[...] no one has shown how they fit a spinning speeding globe.
What, you mean again?
-
I asked you'll to use the videos to support a spinning speeding ball earth. Not my issue you can't!
The math used to support the heliocentric earth is one of the tricks, not math in general. You're pretty good at obfuscation!
Let's see if you can use the videos to support a stationary earth like in the post Micky T. challenged you to.
You think, if the math supports a global spinning earth it is a trick and the same math is correct if it is used with something else.
Either you are a big troll or you are really dumb.
If I told you the earth is a spinning speeding cube, then gave you math for a spinning speeding cube, would you accept it? Or would you see if my claim matches earth's physical condition? You see, the math for a spinning speeding cube would be the trick, right?
Can you use the videos provided to support a spinning speeding globe, or are you just going to call me names?
The behavior in the videos is consistent with a spinning speeding globe. It would only be consistent with a speeding cube if the video was taken in the center of one of the faces. It's also true that the video doesn't reveal much to distinguish it from a stationary disk, provided that the videos were taken close to the center of the disk.
"The behavior in the videos is consistent with a spinning speeding globe."
Prove it!!!!!! Bet you can't!
I start with the claim that (1) the videos are consistent with a flat and stationary disk, which you believe. If the Earth has the dimensions it is claimed to have as a globe then a reference frame placed on the surface of the Earth which fixes the orientation and location of the Earth would differ from an inertial frame only by a rotation with angular velocity of approximately 73 microhertz and an acceleration no greater than 34 mm/s^2. These effects are too small to be observed in your videos and therefore (2) if they are consistent with a flat stationary disk they must also be consistent with a spinning speeding globe. Applying modus ponens to (2) and (1) I get the result that the videos are consistent with a spinning speeding globe. QED
Glibly goop. The effects observed in the videos, earth's physical condition, cannot support both ideas. I have shown how it fits a motionless plane for earth, and no one has shown how they fit a spinning speeding globe.
"The effects observed in the videos, earth's physical condition, cannot support both ideas"
Prove it!!!!!! Bet you can't!
-
you brought up the spinning cube and that you have math prove for it.
i already did one prove with the relative movement between the clouds and the earth. look at my post before.
If I gave you all that math, what would it prove?
it would prove that you are right.
but does that mean you have the math, that proves, that the earth is a spinning cube?
why do you than claim here that the earth is a stationary disc.
I 100% sure you do not have both, the math for a spinning cube nor for a stationary disc.
-
you brought up the spinning cube and that you have math prove for it.
i already did one prove with the relative movement between the clouds and the earth. look at my post before.
If I gave you all that math, what would it prove?
it would prove that you are right.
but does that mean you have the math, that proves, that the earth is a spinning cube?
why do you than claim here that the earth is a stationary disc.
I 100% sure you do not have both, the math for a spinning cube nor for a stationary disc.
"it would prove that you are right"
What, that I can create the math for a spinning speeding cube, or that proves the earth is a spinning speeding cube? By the way bucky, I'm not claiming earth is a spinning speeding cube. My point is, math does not prove the earth is a spinning speeding ball, or a cube. Earth's physical state, earth's physical condition, will tell what earth is, and so far, no one has been able to use the videos of earth's physical condition to support a spinning speeding globe. But I have been able to show with those videos of earth's nature that we live on a flat motionless plane. I mean, if you wish to ignore that fact, nothing I can do.
-
you brought up the spinning cube and that you have math prove for it.
i already did one prove with the relative movement between the clouds and the earth. look at my post before.
If I gave you all that math, what would it prove?
it would prove that you are right.
but does that mean you have the math, that proves, that the earth is a spinning cube?
why do you than claim here that the earth is a stationary disc.
I 100% sure you do not have both, the math for a spinning cube nor for a stationary disc.
"it would prove that you are right"
What, that I can create the math for a spinning speeding cube, or that proves the earth is a spinning speeding cube? By the way bucky, I'm not claiming earth is a spinning speeding cube. My point is, math does not prove the earth is a spinning speeding ball, or a cube. Earth's physical state, earth's physical condition, will tell what earth is, and so far, no one has been able to use the videos of earth's physical condition to support a spinning speeding globe. But I have been able to show with those videos of earth's nature that we live on a flat motionless plane. I mean, if you wish to ignore that fact, nothing I can do.
I proved you didn't prove that. I said QED and everything.
What would you say are the error bars on your alleged proof? Continental drift is allegedly 2cm per year. Did your videos confirm 2 cm/year movement and you subtracted it out to get the speed of zero? Or does your video prove that there is no continental drift?
-
I'm sorry, are you playing dumb or are you really THAT dumb? Are you asking for all the empirical reasobs we know the earth is round AGAIN? And what do you mean the "physical condition" of earth? In these videos, I don't see a flat earth. I see a small part of earth that isn't even really flat. Useless.
Also, why are videos the only accepted evidence?
-
I'm sorry, are you playing dumb or are you really THAT dumb? Are you asking for all the empirical reasobs we know the earth is round AGAIN? And what do you mean the "physical condition" of earth? In these videos, I don't see a flat earth. I see a small part of earth that isn't even really flat. Useless.
Also, why are videos the only accepted evidence?
The videos display earth's physical condition, earth's physical state. You can personally experience and test what is contained in the videos. I can't possibility, with everyone on these boards have a physical "field trip", so I use the videos of common day people that made the videos with no interest in proving a flat or spherical earth, they are just common everyday experiences.
The real issue is, I can use those common everyday experiences with earth's physical state to support a motionless flat plane for earth, and I have. The spherical earthers just "can't handle the truth" that they cannot use those same videos of earth's physical state to support a spinning speeding globe. Tell you the truth, just 1 year ago, I was doing the same as all of you! 9 months ago, I drastically changed my tune!
-
But it's not even clear from the videos that the earth is flat! Your whole idea is just silly, what can you tell about the architecture of a house by looking at the texture of a wall?
That being said, I could just show you a vid of the southern circumpolar stars, but you wouldn't like it, because it has space in it. Or even a sunset, but you'd deny it.
-
I'm sorry, are you playing dumb or are you really THAT dumb? Are you asking for all the empirical reasobs we know the earth is round AGAIN? And what do you mean the "physical condition" of earth? In these videos, I don't see a flat earth. I see a small part of earth that isn't even really flat. Useless.
Also, why are videos the only accepted evidence?
The videos display earth's physical condition, earth's physical state. You can personally experience and test what is contained in the videos. I can't possibility, with everyone on these boards have a physical "field trip", so I use the videos of common day people that made the videos with no interest in proving a flat or spherical earth, they are just common everyday experiences.
The real issue is, I can use those common everyday experiences with earth's physical state to support a motionless flat plane for earth, and I have. The spherical earthers just "can't handle the truth" that they cannot use those same videos of earth's physical state to support a spinning speeding globe. Tell you the truth, just 1 year ago, I was doing the same as all of you! 9 months ago, I drastically changed my tune!
Actually, every time someone points out physical, observable things that the show the earth is round, you just run away. The whole, can't handle the truth thing is on you sparky.
-
"it would prove that you are right"
What, that I can create the math for a spinning speeding cube, or that proves the earth is a spinning speeding cube? By the way bucky, I'm not claiming earth is a spinning speeding cube. My point is, math does not prove the earth is a spinning speeding ball, or a cube. Earth's physical state, earth's physical condition, will tell what earth is, and so far, no one has been able to use the videos of earth's physical condition to support a spinning speeding globe. But I have been able to show with those videos of earth's nature that we live on a flat motionless plane. I mean, if you wish to ignore that fact, nothing I can do.
Did you not read my post, I proved it.
BTW. You are correct the physical stat of the earth shows that it is a globe and that also get supported by mathematical calculation.
Also you wrote that way that you have a prove to show mathematicaly that the earth is a spinning cube.
I were really thinking I would fall for your trick that I would write that you are wrong, that the earth can not be a spinning cube.
I almost forgot, did you do the calculation I ask you for.?
-
I hate to be a bother, but can all of you who agree the OP is trolling here say so? I've read both threads and see no other real possibility.
Also, he has never addressed the 1.8M mph figure, not once.
OP where are you getting your 1.8M mph data?
-
He probably is trolling but some people really are that dumb.
And upon further review, 1.8 million mph is extremely high. I thought it would be close to the sun's orbital speed arounf the center of the galaxy but it's actually way too high.
-
I hate to be a bother, but can all of you who agree the OP is trolling here say so? I've read both threads and see no other real possibility.
Also, he has never addressed the 1.8M mph figure, not once.
OP where are you getting your 1.8M mph data?
I thought it was fairly obvious he was trolling when he'd abandon a claim for one that is even more absurd. Or when he would ignore the hard questions. Or the semantic games he'd play. Or the constant logical fallacies.
Of course there is also this
Yep, I'm a troll! ...
Or this
That's it, I have to be a troll, ...
or this
I gotta be a troll, ...
He's been trying to tell us all along.
-
I hate to be a bother, but can all of you who agree the OP is trolling here say so? I've read both threads and see no other real possibility.
Also, he has never addressed the 1.8M mph figure, not once.
OP where are you getting your 1.8M mph data?
That depends on what you mean by "trolling". I think the subject matter of this site lends itself to having many comments interpreted according to a "death of the author" approach. But more succinctly: yes.
He probably is trolling but some people really are that dumb.
And upon further review, 1.8 million mph is extremely high. I thought it would be close to the sun's orbital speed arounf the center of the galaxy but it's actually way too high.
It's less than the figures I can find for the motion of the local supercluster, but more than I could find for Earth's motion against the CMB. I guess some of the velocities add up destructively?
-
He probably is trolling but some people really are that dumb.
And upon further review, 1.8 million mph is extremely high. I thought it would be close to the sun's orbital speed around the center of the galaxy but it's actually way too high.
It's probably someone's estimate (guess) at the velocity towards "The Great Attractor".
But as to it's relevance to the shape of the earth, only our physical observer could tell, an' 'e ain't talkin'.
-
you brought up the spinning cube and that you have math prove for it.
i already did one prove with the relative movement between the clouds and the earth. look at my post before.
If I gave you all that math, what would it prove?
it would prove that you are right.
but does that mean you have the math, that proves, that the earth is a spinning cube?
why do you than claim here that the earth is a stationary disc.
I 100% sure you do not have both, the math for a spinning cube nor for a stationary disc.
"it would prove that you are right"
What, that I can create the math for a spinning speeding cube, or that proves the earth is a spinning speeding cube? By the way bucky, I'm not claiming earth is a spinning speeding cube. My point is, math does not prove the earth is a spinning speeding ball, or a cube. Earth's physical state, earth's physical condition, will tell what earth is, and so far, no one has been able to use the videos of earth's physical condition to support a spinning speeding globe. But I have been able to show with those videos of earth's nature that we live on a flat motionless plane. I mean, if you wish to ignore that fact, nothing I can do.
I see no numbers in that statement so I guess you are ignoring the challenge to provide any math.
The bold part is absolutely not true. Math very much does show that the Earth is a spinning spheroid. I am not making the outlandish claim here, so you are required to provide evidence to support your statement. I notice you ignored my thread showing your videos and asking for them to be used alone to prove the Earth is motionless. None of those videos show anything that would be inconsistent with a spheroid spinning at 0.0007 rpm with a circumference of around 24900 miles. None of them can be used to absolutely prove either argument.
So here is a video, please use it to prove gravity doesn't exist. They are clearly floating around through this entire video.
-
Under General Relativity, the force of gravity is replaced by distortions in space itself. Objects move following the curvature of space. At low energies, in an inertial reference frame, that works out to move exactly the same way as under Newtonian gravity. Thus, Newtonian gravity is a "fictitious" force.
Sorry, I got what you meant, I'll stahp. ;D
-
If I told you the earth is a spinning speeding cube, then gave you math for a spinning speeding cube, would you accept it? Or would you see if my claim matches earth's physical condition? You see, the math for a spinning speeding cube would be the trick, right?
The math alone is not enough. You need to show that that math matches reality (which it does for RE math, but not for FE math), and that still isn't proof and instead just indicates that the model is consistent with reality. If that is the best model and the math works pretty much always, then it is likely to be true.
But it does provide disproofs, such as a disproof of Earth being flat.
If you gave the math for a cube Earth, and it matched reality better than a spherical Earth, I would accept it.
Can you use the videos provided to support a spinning speeding globe, or are you just going to call me names?
No one has ever claimed to be able to (at least not seriously).
No one has any need to.
Your videos prove nothing.
People being unable to use your shitty videos prove nothing.
You are yet to demonstrate that people should be able to.
If you think they can, then use the video I provided and focusing just on the plane to prove it is moving, and use the picture I provided to determine the shape of the ball.
Or, just use the video to prove that Earth is flat and stationary. You are yet to do so.
As such, your videos and continually whining that people aren't using the crap you want to prove your baseless claims wrong is just childish whining.
You sir are correct, you cannot use nature, as expressed in the videos to support a spinning speeding globe. Nature, as expressed in the videos, or by direct observation supports a motionless plane. The rest of your post is just stupid dribble.
No. It doesn't. As has been explained to you countless times, the vast majority of Earth's nature, including those videos, cannot distinguish either way. But there are a few cases, such as large scale weather patterns and man made instruments which indicate Earth is a spinning ball.
"using the two videos supplied PROVE a no spinning globe?"
Sure can, water on a spinning ball:
Correction: Water on a particular ball spinning at a particular speed.
Congratulations, you have proven Earth isn't a tiny rapidly spinning tennis ball.
You have not proven it is a ball with a radius of ~6371 km spinning at a rate of ~15 degrees an hour.
You have not proven it is flat. You have not proven it is stationary.
Additionally, that was using more than just that video.
People navigating a moving platform:
And just like before, people navigating a specific moving platform in a specific environment.
So you have proven Earth isn't a plane flying through the wind.
You have not proven it is flat or stationary.
Should I go get some videos of people/water on a merry go round, navigating it and staying on it just fine rather than flying off or having trouble standing?
Will that prove the merry go round is stationary? No.
Now I say, that is a heck of a lot more than any of you spherical earthers could provide.
And I don't give a shit if you say that. Just like the rest of your crap, that is pure bullshit.
That is basically nothing.
Meanwhile, us spherical Earthers can provide plenty of evidence that indicates Earth is round, which you just outright ignore.
"The behavior in the videos is consistent with a spinning speeding globe."
Prove it!!!!!! Bet you can't!
That has been proven numerous times.
You only detect relative motion and unbalanced forces/accelerations.
Thus if the camera is moving at 1000 MPH, and Earth (or its surface) is moving at 1000 MPH, in the same direction, then relative to the camera, the Earth will appear stationary.
If the air is also moving at 1000 MPH at the same speed, then relative to the camera (and the people there), the air is stationary, and thus there is no force like in your wing walker video.
The same applies if Earth was moving at 100 million miles per hour.
The force from the spin (as proven earlier) is only a tiny portion of gravity, thus the people would not feel it, nor would people be flying off.
So yes, that is consistent with a spinning speeding globe.
Now how about you try to prove it isn't. Not by providing an example of such case that doesn't match, that just proves it isn't that example, but by explaining exactly what shuold be experienced for the numbers people who accept reality use for Earth (e.g. 15 degrees an hour, 6371 km radius, moving through space at around 500 000 miles per hour, etc).
You need to use either a general case, or a specific case which matches what is claimed about Earth.
Glibly goop. The effects observed in the videos, earth's physical condition, cannot support both ideas. I have shown how it fits a motionless plane for earth, and no one has shown how they fit a spinning speeding globe.
That's right. They can't support both ideas.
They don't support either idea.
That is because they cannot distinguish either way.
No, you haven't shown how it fits a motionless flat plane. You have claimed it does.
People have explained how it fits a spinning speeding globe, repeatedly. You pretending they haven't doesn't make you right. In fact, that post you dismissed as glibly goop was yet another explanation of how it fits a spinning speeding globe.
So no, the videos fit both cases.
The other way to consider this is to note what happens as you approach various limits.
A section of a flat stationary plane is the limit of a section of a speeding, spinning sphere, as the radius approaches infinite and the rotational and linear speed approaches 0.
Thus if it supports/fits a flat stationary plane, it must do the same for the general case of a spinning speeding sphere.
But I have been able to show with those videos of earth's nature that we live on a flat motionless plane. I mean, if you wish to ignore that fact, nothing I can do.
No. You haven't. Stop lying.
We aren't ignoring that fact. We just aren't accepting your delusions.
You are the one ignoring facts.
The real issue is, I can use those common everyday experiences with earth's physical state to support a motionless flat plane for earth, and I have. The spherical earthers just "can't handle the truth" that they cannot use those same videos of earth's physical state to support a spinning speeding globe. Tell you the truth, just 1 year ago, I was doing the same as all of you! 9 months ago, I drastically changed my tune!
No you can't, and no you haven't.
As has been explained repeatedly, the videos are incapable of distinguishing between the 2.
We can handle the truth, and the truth is the videos prove nothing.
You are the one that is unable to handle the truth that your videos prove nothing.
So what happened 9 months ago?
Were you in a car accident and suffered serious brain trauma?
I can guarantee you, 1 year ago you were nothing like me.
At best, you were an ignorant fool that had no idea what you were talking about.
Unlike you, I actually understand.
-
If I told you the earth is a spinning speeding cube, then gave you math for a spinning speeding cube, would you accept it? Or would you see if my claim matches earth's physical condition? You see, the math for a spinning speeding cube would be the trick, right?
The math alone is not enough. You need to show that that math matches reality (which it does for RE math, but not for FE math), and that still isn't proof and instead just indicates that the model is consistent with reality. If that is the best model and the math works pretty much always, then it is likely to be true.
But it does provide disproofs, such as a disproof of Earth being flat.
If you gave the math for a cube Earth, and it matched reality better than a spherical Earth, I would accept it.
Can you use the videos provided to support a spinning speeding globe, or are you just going to call me names?
No one has ever claimed to be able to (at least not seriously).
No one has any need to.
Your videos prove nothing.
People being unable to use your shitty videos prove nothing.
You are yet to demonstrate that people should be able to.
If you think they can, then use the video I provided and focusing just on the plane to prove it is moving, and use the picture I provided to determine the shape of the ball.
Or, just use the video to prove that Earth is flat and stationary. You are yet to do so.
As such, your videos and continually whining that people aren't using the crap you want to prove your baseless claims wrong is just childish whining.
You sir are correct, you cannot use nature, as expressed in the videos to support a spinning speeding globe. Nature, as expressed in the videos, or by direct observation supports a motionless plane. The rest of your post is just stupid dribble.
No. It doesn't. As has been explained to you countless times, the vast majority of Earth's nature, including those videos, cannot distinguish either way. But there are a few cases, such as large scale weather patterns and man made instruments which indicate Earth is a spinning ball.
"using the two videos supplied PROVE a no spinning globe?"
Sure can, water on a spinning ball:
Correction: Water on a particular ball spinning at a particular speed.
Congratulations, you have proven Earth isn't a tiny rapidly spinning tennis ball.
You have not proven it is a ball with a radius of ~6371 km spinning at a rate of ~15 degrees an hour.
You have not proven it is flat. You have not proven it is stationary.
Additionally, that was using more than just that video.
People navigating a moving platform:
And just like before, people navigating a specific moving platform in a specific environment.
So you have proven Earth isn't a plane flying through the wind.
You have not proven it is flat or stationary.
Should I go get some videos of people/water on a merry go round, navigating it and staying on it just fine rather than flying off or having trouble standing?
Will that prove the merry go round is stationary? No.
Now I say, that is a heck of a lot more than any of you spherical earthers could provide.
And I don't give a shit if you say that. Just like the rest of your crap, that is pure bullshit.
That is basically nothing.
Meanwhile, us spherical Earthers can provide plenty of evidence that indicates Earth is round, which you just outright ignore.
"The behavior in the videos is consistent with a spinning speeding globe."
Prove it!!!!!! Bet you can't!
That has been proven numerous times.
You only detect relative motion and unbalanced forces/accelerations.
Thus if the camera is moving at 1000 MPH, and Earth (or its surface) is moving at 1000 MPH, in the same direction, then relative to the camera, the Earth will appear stationary.
If the air is also moving at 1000 MPH at the same speed, then relative to the camera (and the people there), the air is stationary, and thus there is no force like in your wing walker video.
The same applies if Earth was moving at 100 million miles per hour.
The force from the spin (as proven earlier) is only a tiny portion of gravity, thus the people would not feel it, nor would people be flying off.
So yes, that is consistent with a spinning speeding globe.
Now how about you try to prove it isn't. Not by providing an example of such case that doesn't match, that just proves it isn't that example, but by explaining exactly what shuold be experienced for the numbers people who accept reality use for Earth (e.g. 15 degrees an hour, 6371 km radius, moving through space at around 500 000 miles per hour, etc).
You need to use either a general case, or a specific case which matches what is claimed about Earth.
Glibly goop. The effects observed in the videos, earth's physical condition, cannot support both ideas. I have shown how it fits a motionless plane for earth, and no one has shown how they fit a spinning speeding globe.
That's right. They can't support both ideas.
They don't support either idea.
That is because they cannot distinguish either way.
No, you haven't shown how it fits a motionless flat plane. You have claimed it does.
People have explained how it fits a spinning speeding globe, repeatedly. You pretending they haven't doesn't make you right. In fact, that post you dismissed as glibly goop was yet another explanation of how it fits a spinning speeding globe.
So no, the videos fit both cases.
The other way to consider this is to note what happens as you approach various limits.
A section of a flat stationary plane is the limit of a section of a speeding, spinning sphere, as the radius approaches infinite and the rotational and linear speed approaches 0.
Thus if it supports/fits a flat stationary plane, it must do the same for the general case of a spinning speeding sphere.
But I have been able to show with those videos of earth's nature that we live on a flat motionless plane. I mean, if you wish to ignore that fact, nothing I can do.
No. You haven't. Stop lying.
We aren't ignoring that fact. We just aren't accepting your delusions.
You are the one ignoring facts.
The real issue is, I can use those common everyday experiences with earth's physical state to support a motionless flat plane for earth, and I have. The spherical earthers just "can't handle the truth" that they cannot use those same videos of earth's physical state to support a spinning speeding globe. Tell you the truth, just 1 year ago, I was doing the same as all of you! 9 months ago, I drastically changed my tune!
No you can't, and no you haven't.
As has been explained repeatedly, the videos are incapable of distinguishing between the 2.
We can handle the truth, and the truth is the videos prove nothing.
You are the one that is unable to handle the truth that your videos prove nothing.
So what happened 9 months ago?
Were you in a car accident and suffered serious brain trauma?
I can guarantee you, 1 year ago you were nothing like me.
At best, you were an ignorant fool that had no idea what you were talking about.
Unlike you, I actually understand.
"You need to show that that math matches reality..."
Go ahead, match your math to the reality shown in the two videos. This I have to see................................... Bet you can't do it! Your spinning speeding ball math does not match a motionless plane we observe about earth.
"1 year ago you were nothing like me."
Yeah, you're right, I'm was a little more opened minded and honest with myself. You're still stuck in a mental brick wall and trickery full of lies!
"So what happened 9 months ago?"
I compared the FE model, and the RE model, to earth's physical condition. The FE model won!
-
I compared the FE model, and the RE model, to earth's physical condition. The FE model won!
Those videos do not provide evidence in favour of either a flat stationary earth or a rotating Globe. The information is simply not there.
So I would ask you: "What in those videos is inconsistent with a rotating Globe?"
-
A lot of people have used a lot of neurons and many words on this but it seems to be a quite simple question with a quite simple answer.
Question
Can you use the 2 videos posted by Physical observer to prove a spinning globe.
Answer
No
Now here's a question for Physical observer.
Can you eat soup with a microscope?
And another one.
Does a deaf Dog have legs?
And Finally.
Since i responded to YOUR challenge and answered truthfully, can you, using the two videos supplied PROVE
a no spinning globe?
You sir are correct, you cannot use nature, as expressed in the videos to support a spinning speeding globe. Nature, as expressed in the videos, or by direct observation supports a motionless plane. The rest of your post is just stupid dribble.
"using the two videos supplied PROVE a no spinning globe?"
Sure can, water on a spinning ball:
Water on earth:
People navigating a moving platform:
People navigating earth's surface:
Now I say, that is a heck of a lot more than any of you spherical earthers could provide.
first video: to high rpm the earth has only an rotation of 1 revolution per day.
and also if you want to scale the earth down to that ballsize you have also to scale down the water (quantity and molecular size)
the other videos show only a small portion of the earth,
please calculate the height difference from the sides to the middle caused by an arc (straight distance=10m, arc radius=6371km(earth radius))
now shoe how you would measure that?
"first video: to high rpm the earth has only an rotation of 1 revolution per day."
The aircraft wing is moving at 100 MPH as it makes its revolution around the airfield, the wing-walker still has issues. The ground you stand on is moving at 1,000 MPH, yet we have no issues with standing and walking around? Let me repeat, the ground you walk on is moving 900 MPH faster than the wing-walker's wing.
"the other videos show only a small portion of the earth"
And that is the portion we can physically observe, yet we are told to ignore what is observed in favor of math in a book, and ignant man's ideas and beliefs. No thanks, I'm sticking with what I can physically observe.
Look, you cannot use earth's physical condition, earth's physical state, to support a spinning speeding ball earth. I don't know why you still think the spherical earth idea is correct if you can't support it with the physical state of earth.
I'll tell you this, if "fake-stream science" said the world was motionless and flat, and people came forward saying the earth was a spinning speeding ball, you would laugh them out of existence, wouldn't you?
-
I compared the FE model, and the RE model, to earth's physical condition. The FE model won!
Those videos do not provide evidence in favour of either a flat stationary earth or a rotating Globe. The information is simply not there.
So I would ask you: "What in those videos is inconsistent with a rotating Globe?"
Your denialism is outstanding! You must deny what earth's physical condition reveals to save your defunct spherical earth beliefs. Meanwhile, you cannot use the same videos to support a spinning speeding ball earth, that is why you deny the videos. Not because they support my claims, but more that they don't support your claims.
-
...
I compared the FE model, and the RE model, to earth's physical condition. The FE model won!
which physical condition you are talking about?
is it that you to not see a curvature when you look at a pond?
as i said to you, do the math! calculate what kind of height difference you have to see.
as i assume you are not able to do so i do it for you: on a distance of 10m you see a height difference of 0.002mm.
now tell me if you can see such a difference?
look up the videos of CoolHardLogic on youtube and look it with (as you claim you have one) open mind.
-
I compared the FE model, and the RE model, to earth's physical condition. The FE model won!
Those videos do not provide evidence in favour of either a flat stationary earth or a rotating Globe. The information is simply not there.
So I would ask you: "What in those videos is inconsistent with a rotating Globe?"
Good FLIPPING GAWD!!!!!!! The same questions over and over and over!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Go back and look at my post with the four videos. I show water on a spinning ball, and I show someone navigating a moving platform. Get a FLIPPING clue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm beginning to think your name means, rabid-noise!
-
...
I compared the FE model, and the RE model, to earth's physical condition. The FE model won!
which physical condition you are talking about?
is it that you to not see a curvature when you look at a pond?
as i said to you, do the math! calculate what kind of height difference you have to see.
as i assume you are not able to do so i do it for you: on a distance of 10m you see a height difference of 0.002mm.
now tell me if you can see such a difference?
look up the videos of CoolHardLogic on youtube and look it with (as you claim you have one) open mind.
"is it that you to not see a curvature when you look at a pond?"
Good FLIPPING GAWD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Did you not see the video of water on a spinning ball? What is wrong with you people???????????????? The centrifugal force of a surface spinning at 1,000 MPH would eject the water off its surface. Water on earth is not being affected by a 1,000 MPH spin, anywhere on earth. The signs the surface of earth is moving at 1,000 MPH are just not there! Do you FLIPPING get it now?
I looked up your ColdHardLogic, and right off the bat it said, "Testing Flattards". That's deliberate poisoning the well before presenting an argument, and we all know why people do that, because their arguments usually suck, so they want you to be in a negative frame of mind in respects to their adversary. Sorry bucky, I don't fall for stupid little tricks like that.
-
...
I compared the FE model, and the RE model, to earth's physical condition. The FE model won!
which physical condition you are talking about?
is it that you to not see a curvature when you look at a pond?
as i said to you, do the math! calculate what kind of height difference you have to see.
as i assume you are not able to do so i do it for you: on a distance of 10m you see a height difference of 0.002mm.
now tell me if you can see such a difference?
look up the videos of CoolHardLogic on youtube and look it with (as you claim you have one) open mind.
"is it that you to not see a curvature when you look at a pond?"
Good FLIPPING GAWD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Did you not see the video of water on a spinning ball? What is wrong with you people???????????????? The centrifugal force of a surface spinning at 1,000 MPH would eject the water off its surface. Water on earth is not being affected by a 1,000 MPH spin, anywhere on earth. The signs the surface of earth is moving at 1,000 MPH are just not there! Do you FLIPPING get it now?
I looked up your ColdHardLogic, and right off the bat it said, "Testing Flattards". That's deliberate poisoning the well before presenting an argument, and we all know why people do that, because their arguments usually suck, so they want you to be in a negative frame of mind in respects to their adversary. Sorry bucky, I don't fall for stupid little tricks like that.
Because in fact, you're a flattard, the worst in this forum, not even real FE'ers back you up because how moronic you're statements are...fucking troll....
-
...
I compared the FE model, and the RE model, to earth's physical condition. The FE model won!
which physical condition you are talking about?
is it that you to not see a curvature when you look at a pond?
as i said to you, do the math! calculate what kind of height difference you have to see.
as i assume you are not able to do so i do it for you: on a distance of 10m you see a height difference of 0.002mm.
now tell me if you can see such a difference?
look up the videos of CoolHardLogic on youtube and look it with (as you claim you have one) open mind.
"is it that you to not see a curvature when you look at a pond?"
Good FLIPPING GAWD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Did you not see the video of water on a spinning ball? What is wrong with you people???????????????? The centrifugal force of a surface spinning at 1,000 MPH would eject the water off its surface. Water on earth is not being affected by a 1,000 MPH spin, anywhere on earth. The signs the surface of earth is moving at 1,000 MPH are just not there! Do you FLIPPING get it now?
I looked up your ColdHardLogic, and right off the bat it said, "Testing Flattards". That's deliberate poisoning the well before presenting an argument, and we all know why people do that, because their arguments usually suck, so they want you to be in a negative frame of mind in respects to their adversary. Sorry bucky, I don't fall for stupid little tricks like that.
we explained to you how that scaled down example does not work.
with that comment you show that you have not an open mind and can not see the explanations the videos show.
you only show a random video about a beach and claim that the earth is flat, without any explanation how you come to your conclusion.
you not even look at all the explanation in the posts.
That show how you are not willing to listen to explanations and only yelling out your opinion.
you are really resistance to learn anything. you have your opinion and you simply do not want to see that you are wrong.
its the mentality of a 5-year old brad with finger in the ears and screaming "lalalala".
-
...
I compared the FE model, and the RE model, to earth's physical condition. The FE model won!
which physical condition you are talking about?
is it that you to not see a curvature when you look at a pond?
as i said to you, do the math! calculate what kind of height difference you have to see.
as i assume you are not able to do so i do it for you: on a distance of 10m you see a height difference of 0.002mm.
now tell me if you can see such a difference?
look up the videos of CoolHardLogic on youtube and look it with (as you claim you have one) open mind.
"is it that you to not see a curvature when you look at a pond?"
Good FLIPPING GAWD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Did you not see the video of water on a spinning ball? What is wrong with you people? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? The centrifugal force of a surface spinning at 1,000 MPH would eject the water off its surface. Water on earth is not being affected by a 1,000 MPH spin, anywhere on earth. The signs the surface of earth is moving at 1,000 MPH are just not there! Do you FLIPPING get it now?
I looked up your ColdHardLogic, and right off the bat it said, "Testing Flattards". That's deliberate poisoning the well before presenting an argument, and we all know why people do that, because their arguments usually suck, so they want you to be in a negative frame of mind in respects to their adversary. Sorry bucky, I don't fall for stupid little tricks like that.
we explained to you how that scaled down example does not work.
with that comment you show that you have not an open mind and can not see the explanations the videos show.
you only show a random video about a beach and claim that the earth is flat, without any explanation how you come to your conclusion.
you not even look at all the explanation in the posts.
That show how you are not willing to listen to explanations and only yelling out your opinion.
you are really resistance to learn anything. you have your opinion and you simply do not want to see that you are wrong.
its the mentality of a 5-year old brad with finger in the ears and screaming "lalalala".
One could take his BS and dismiss it rationally.
Like an adult.
Instead of resorting to name calling.
Self control.
-
...
I compared the FE model, and the RE model, to earth's physical condition. The FE model won!
which physical condition you are talking about?
is it that you to not see a curvature when you look at a pond?
as i said to you, do the math! calculate what kind of height difference you have to see.
as i assume you are not able to do so i do it for you: on a distance of 10m you see a height difference of 0.002mm.
now tell me if you can see such a difference?
look up the videos of CoolHardLogic on youtube and look it with (as you claim you have one) open mind.
"is it that you to not see a curvature when you look at a pond?"
Good FLIPPING GAWD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Did you not see the video of water on a spinning ball? What is wrong with you people???????????????? The centrifugal force of a surface spinning at 1,000 MPH would eject the water off its surface. Water on earth is not being affected by a 1,000 MPH spin, anywhere on earth. The signs the surface of earth is moving at 1,000 MPH are just not there! Do you FLIPPING get it now?
I looked up your ColdHardLogic, and right off the bat it said, "Testing Flattards". That's deliberate poisoning the well before presenting an argument, and we all know why people do that, because their arguments usually suck, so they want you to be in a negative frame of mind in respects to their adversary. Sorry bucky, I don't fall for stupid little tricks like that.
we explained to you how that scaled down example does not work.
with that comment you show that you have not an open mind and can not see the explanations the videos show.
you only show a random video about a beach and claim that the earth is flat, without any explanation how you come to your conclusion.
you not even look at all the explanation in the posts.
That show how you are not willing to listen to explanations and only yelling out your opinion.
you are really resistance to learn anything. you have your opinion and you simply do not want to see that you are wrong.
its the mentality of a 5-year old brad with finger in the ears and screaming "lalalala".
Yeah, you gotta find some way to slow that earth right down, don't cha?
"random video about a beach and claim that the earth is flat,"
Motionless, not flat. The lake video shows water level and clam. The surface of the calm lake shows we live on a flat plane. The calm surface also shows the earth is not in motion.
"mentality of a 5-year old brad with finger in the ears and screaming "lalalala"."
Project much, do you?
Only one person to date answered the challenge correctly. They said it can not be done, that is, use the two videos expressing earth's physical state, to support a spinning speeding globe. Do you agree with that assessment?
-
...
I compared the FE model, and the RE model, to earth's physical condition. The FE model won!
which physical condition you are talking about?
is it that you to not see a curvature when you look at a pond?
as i said to you, do the math! calculate what kind of height difference you have to see.
as i assume you are not able to do so i do it for you: on a distance of 10m you see a height difference of 0.002mm.
now tell me if you can see such a difference?
look up the videos of CoolHardLogic on youtube and look it with (as you claim you have one) open mind.
"is it that you to not see a curvature when you look at a pond?"
Good FLIPPING GAWD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Did you not see the video of water on a spinning ball? What is wrong with you people???????????????? The centrifugal force of a surface spinning at 1,000 MPH would eject the water off its surface. Water on earth is not being affected by a 1,000 MPH spin, anywhere on earth. The signs the surface of earth is moving at 1,000 MPH are just not there! Do you FLIPPING get it now?
I looked up your ColdHardLogic, and right off the bat it said, "Testing Flattards". That's deliberate poisoning the well before presenting an argument, and we all know why people do that, because their arguments usually suck, so they want you to be in a negative frame of mind in respects to their adversary. Sorry bucky, I don't fall for stupid little tricks like that.
we explained to you how that scaled down example does not work.
with that comment you show that you have not an open mind and can not see the explanations the videos show.
you only show a random video about a beach and claim that the earth is flat, without any explanation how you come to your conclusion.
you not even look at all the explanation in the posts.
That show how you are not willing to listen to explanations and only yelling out your opinion.
you are really resistance to learn anything. you have your opinion and you simply do not want to see that you are wrong.
its the mentality of a 5-year old brad with finger in the ears and screaming "lalalala".
"you only show a random video about a beach"
The wind turbulence created from a solid object spinning at 1,000 MPH, and dragging the gaseous atmosphere with it from friction, would shred the feathers right off those swans. A sudden wind gust of 30 MPH can damage the wings of birds with long wing spans.
I've watched plenty of videos, I choose to use that one, it is not a random choice.
-
Physical Observer, here's a quick thought experiment for thinking about centripetal force, rotational speed, and this idea that water (and everything else) should be flying off the face of the Earth.
If you get in a car, floor the gas pedal, crank the wheel hard left and start doing donuts in the Burger King parking lot, you're going to feel a lot of force pulling you towards the right side of the car. You're probably going to have to hold onto the wheel pretty tightly just to stay upright. Your coffee is going to slosh out of the cup, any loose objects on the dash will fly off to the right and end up in the floor. Right? That is your tennis ball analogy.
Now pretend you are driving around a circular track 1000 miles in diameter. Stomp that pedal and drive as fast as the car will allow (let's say 131 mph) and hold that speed. Do you expect to still be flung out to the right side of the car? Of course not, even though you're driving even faster than you were in the parking lot. Because you are driving a circle so big that from your vantage point the road is, for all intents and purposes, straight.
I know this doesn't answer your issue about the supposed wind resistance we should feel, but as far as why we shouldn't be flung out into space does this clarify anything?
By the way I chose 131 mph as the speed because that's what you'd need to do to get around the 1000-mile-wide circle in 24 hours.
-
"you only show a random video about a beach"
The wind turbulence created from a solid object spinning at 1,000 MPH, and dragging the gaseous atmosphere with it from friction, would shred the feathers right off those swans. A sudden wind gust of 30 MPH can damage the wings of birds with long wing spans.
I've watched plenty of videos, I choose to use that one, it is not a random choice.
Only if there were some resistance to that spinning motion from an external source. You've never shown that to be the case. You've never shown any proof for your assertions, just made the assertions and ignored everything else.
-
...
Only one person to date answered the challenge correctly. They said it can not be done, that is, use the two videos expressing earth's physical state, to support a spinning speeding globe. Do you agree with that assessment?
we all understand that with that two videos you can not prove both, spinning earth and stationary earth.
but that does not mean that your idea of a stationary earth is correct.
we explained to you a lot of time how to prove it, but it seam you do not understand it.
one single question:
what would it talk to convince you that you are wrong?
-
"you only show a random video about a beach"
The wind turbulence created from a solid object spinning at 1,000 MPH, and dragging the gaseous atmosphere with it from friction, would shred the feathers right off those swans. A sudden wind gust of 30 MPH can damage the wings of birds with long wing spans.
I've watched plenty of videos, I choose to use that one, it is not a random choice.
Only if there were some resistance to that spinning motion from an external source. You've never shown that to be the case. You've never shown any proof for your assertions, just made the assertions and ignored everything else.
I have not seen anyone that proved my assertions incorrect. I mean, is the ground under those beacher's feet moving at 1,000 MPH? I say it is not, they are acting as if the ground, and the atmosphere, is not moving, that they are motionless. If the atmosphere is being dragged along by the 1,000 ground level MPH, and it is because of the friction where atmosphere meets earth's surface, the wind turbulence would be unbearable. Go plant your feet on the ground outside, now, the two little patches of ground that your little toes occupy is said to be moving at 1,000 MPH. Is that what you are experiencing? I don't understand why the wing-walker is such an amazing feat, I'm mean the crowd is navigating a 1,000 MPH platform. It should be the wing-walker cheering the crowd on, right?
Go back to my post with four videos from yesterday. There you will find the examples of my assertions, the ground is motionless, and it is a plane. It's the one with 'water on a spinning ball', and the 'wing-walker'.
Frenat, the argument is really over, it was admitted by a honest individual there is no way to support a spinning speeding ball earth with the videos expressing earth's physical condition, earth's physical state. Whatever you'll have to say from this point forward is just farting in the wind!
-
And okay, in the spirit of fair play, I'll go ahead and go on the record saying
No, we can not prove the earth is spinning using those videos.
I can't prove raccoons are mammals using a Rubik's cube either, but it seems like it's important to you to have us admit the obvious, so there you go.
-
...
Only one person to date answered the challenge correctly. They said it can not be done, that is, use the two videos expressing earth's physical state, to support a spinning speeding globe. Do you agree with that assessment?
we all understand that with that two videos you can not prove both, spinning earth and stationary earth.
but that does not mean that your idea of a stationary earth is correct.
we explained to you a lot of time how to prove it, but it seam you do not understand it.
one single question:
what would it talk to convince you that you are wrong?
Nothing, he is just here to troll. He is able to form words and sentences, find videos that support nothing, and ignores the more simplified refutations to his claims means he is smart enough to not really believe this garbage. He is full of shit.
-
...
Only one person to date answered the challenge correctly. They said it can not be done, that is, use the two videos expressing earth's physical state, to support a spinning speeding globe. Do you agree with that assessment?
we all understand that with that two videos you can not prove both, spinning earth and stationary earth.
but that does not mean that your idea of a stationary earth is correct.
we explained to you a lot of time how to prove it, but it seam you do not understand it.
one single question:
what would it talk to convince you that you are wrong?
"we all understand that with that two videos you can not prove both,"
Gee, am I supposed to link every video ever made near an ocean, or looking at a lake? Why don't you try to find a video among the millions that exist that shows the opposite of what I claim. This is just another weak excuse for rejection, and very, very weak at that!
"what would it talk to convince you that you are wrong?"
I'm now slamming my head against a wall, because it's like I'm talking to a wall. Use the FLIPPING videos that are expressing earth's physical state, earth's physical condition, to support the ground is moving at 1,000 MPH, and we are on a ball speeding at 1.8 million MPH. But it's too late for you, because it has already been admitted it is impossible to do so. If you think you can do it, watch the videos, and where you find a clue/sign/evidence the ground is moving at 1,000 MPH, or we are speeding at 1.8 million MPH, then give me the time stamp and I'll take a look.
I mean, if you gave me this to support we are on a ball speeding at 1.8 million MPH, or use it to support the physical effects of the atmosphere being dragged along with spinning earth, you might have a point:
-
...
Only one person to date answered the challenge correctly. They said it can not be done, that is, use the two videos expressing earth's physical state, to support a spinning speeding globe. Do you agree with that assessment?
we all understand that with that two videos you can not prove both, spinning earth and stationary earth.
but that does not mean that your idea of a stationary earth is correct.
we explained to you a lot of time how to prove it, but it seam you do not understand it.
one single question:
what would it talk to convince you that you are wrong?
Nothing, he is just here to troll. He is able to form words and sentences, find videos that support nothing, and ignores the more simplified refutations to his claims means he is smart enough to not really believe this garbage. He is full of shit.
I know...I've known all along. I jumped into the fray anyway like a dope. I'm not proud!
-
...
Only one person to date answered the challenge correctly. They said it can not be done, that is, use the two videos expressing earth's physical state, to support a spinning speeding globe. Do you agree with that assessment?
we all understand that with that two videos you can not prove both, spinning earth and stationary earth.
but that does not mean that your idea of a stationary earth is correct.
we explained to you a lot of time how to prove it, but it seam you do not understand it.
one single question:
what would it talk to convince you that you are wrong?
Nothing, he is just here to troll. He is able to form words and sentences, find videos that support nothing, and ignores the more simplified refutations to his claims means he is smart enough to not really believe this garbage. He is full of shit.
Yeah, that has to be it, I'm a troll, I just can't be right, right?
-
...
I compared the FE model, and the RE model, to earth's physical condition. The FE model won!
which physical condition you are talking about?
is it that you to not see a curvature when you look at a pond?
as i said to you, do the math! calculate what kind of height difference you have to see.
as i assume you are not able to do so i do it for you: on a distance of 10m you see a height difference of 0.002mm.
now tell me if you can see such a difference?
look up the videos of CoolHardLogic on youtube and look it with (as you claim you have one) open mind.
"is it that you to not see a curvature when you look at a pond?"
Good FLIPPING GAWD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Did you not see the video of water on a spinning ball? What is wrong with you people???????????????? The centrifugal force of a surface spinning at 1,000 MPH would eject the water off its surface. Water on earth is not being affected by a 1,000 MPH spin, anywhere on earth. The signs the surface of earth is moving at 1,000 MPH are just not there! Do you FLIPPING get it now?
I looked up your ColdHardLogic, and right off the bat it said, "Testing Flattards". That's deliberate poisoning the well before presenting an argument, and we all know why people do that, because their arguments usually suck, so they want you to be in a negative frame of mind in respects to their adversary. Sorry bucky, I don't fall for stupid little tricks like that.
So ?
"Acceleration in circular motion is: a = v2/r. Rotation velocity of the surface of the earth is: v = (2pir/(246060)) and radius of the earth is 6378.1km. Then the centrifugal acceleration is about 0.0337 m/s2. Which is about 0.3% of g (9.81 m/s2)."
-
"So what happened 9 months ago?"
Got butt raped by a penguin?
-
...
Only one person to date answered the challenge correctly. They said it can not be done, that is, use the two videos expressing earth's physical state, to support a spinning speeding globe. Do you agree with that assessment?
we all understand that with that two videos you can not prove both, spinning earth and stationary earth.
but that does not mean that your idea of a stationary earth is correct.
we explained to you a lot of time how to prove it, but it seam you do not understand it.
one single question:
what would it talk to convince you that you are wrong?
Nothing, he is just here to troll. He is able to form words and sentences, find videos that support nothing, and ignores the more simplified refutations to his claims means he is smart enough to not really believe this garbage. He is full of shit.
Yeah, that has to be it, I'm a troll, I just can't be right, right?
One of the very few true things you have said. It has been explained to you ad nauseoum why you don't feel motion, you ignore it. You have been asked repeatedly to show why you should feel motion, you ignore it. The only reason people respond to you at all is so that some other person doesn't come in at look at your nonsense and actually believe it.
Yes, you are a troll, no, logic, reason, evidence, observation and science say you cannot be right.
-
...
I'm now slamming my head against a wall, because it's like I'm talking to a wall. Use the FLIPPING videos that are expressing earth's physical state, earth's physical condition, to support the ground is moving at 1,000 MPH, and we are on a ball speeding at 1.8 million MPH. But it's too late for you, because it has already been admitted it is impossible to do so. If you think you can do it, watch the videos, and where you find a clue/sign/evidence the ground is moving at 1,000 MPH, or we are speeding at 1.8 million MPH, then give me the time stamp and I'll take a look.
...
that explains a lot if you slam your head against a wall. ;D
you only can convinced if somebody could explain it with a video you chose were you and everybody else knows it is not possible to prove it with that one video.
its like: convince me, but do not use any evidence that proves i am wrong.
or like: prove me that light exist but only with a black photo.
that is the most idiotic standpoint i ever heard of.
than i also say: prove with these two videos that the earth is stationary.
-
...
I'm now slamming my head against a wall, because it's like I'm talking to a wall. Use the FLIPPING videos that are expressing earth's physical state, earth's physical condition, to support the ground is moving at 1,000 MPH, and we are on a ball speeding at 1.8 million MPH. But it's too late for you, because it has already been admitted it is impossible to do so. If you think you can do it, watch the videos, and where you find a clue/sign/evidence the ground is moving at 1,000 MPH, or we are speeding at 1.8 million MPH, then give me the time stamp and I'll take a look.
...
or like: prove me that light exist but only with a black photo.
I refer back to my video of people on the ISS, asked him to use it to prove gravity does not exist. He ignored it. I also used his own videos to ask him to use them to prove the Earth is motionless, he ignored it. Futher evidence of a troll.
My hypothesis is that he is a troll, I have given evidence to support my hypothesis. I see two peer reviews so far in support of my claim. Therefore I now claim the theory of the physical observer troll has been verified.
If you disagree please proivide counter evidence to be examined.
-
...
I'm now slamming my head against a wall, because it's like I'm talking to a wall. Use the FLIPPING videos that are expressing earth's physical state, earth's physical condition, to support the ground is moving at 1,000 MPH, and we are on a ball speeding at 1.8 million MPH. But it's too late for you, because it has already been admitted it is impossible to do so. If you think you can do it, watch the videos, and where you find a clue/sign/evidence the ground is moving at 1,000 MPH, or we are speeding at 1.8 million MPH, then give me the time stamp and I'll take a look.
...
or like: prove me that light exist but only with a black photo.
I refer back to my video of people on the ISS, asked him to use it to prove gravity does not exist. He ignored it. I also used his own videos to ask him to use them to prove the Earth is motionless, he ignored it. Futher evidence of a troll.
My hypothesis is that he is a troll, I have given evidence to support my hypothesis. I see two peer reviews so far in support of my claim. Therefore I now claim the theory of the physical observer troll has been verified.
If you disagree please proivide counter evidence to be examined.
While I support your theory, I must admit that it is possible that he has taken several, unintentional, blows to the head since his 2% glory days of high school.
-
...
I'm now slamming my head against a wall, because it's like I'm talking to a wall. Use the FLIPPING videos that are expressing earth's physical state, earth's physical condition, to support the ground is moving at 1,000 MPH, and we are on a ball speeding at 1.8 million MPH. But it's too late for you, because it has already been admitted it is impossible to do so. If you think you can do it, watch the videos, and where you find a clue/sign/evidence the ground is moving at 1,000 MPH, or we are speeding at 1.8 million MPH, then give me the time stamp and I'll take a look.
...
or like: prove me that light exist but only with a black photo.
I refer back to my video of people on the ISS, asked him to use it to prove gravity does not exist. He ignored it. I also used his own videos to ask him to use them to prove the Earth is motionless, he ignored it. Futher evidence of a troll.
My hypothesis is that he is a troll, I have given evidence to support my hypothesis. I see two peer reviews so far in support of my claim. Therefore I now claim the theory of the physical observer troll has been verified.
If you disagree please proivide counter evidence to be examined.
Yeah, okay, but can you PROVE he's a troll using only this video?
-
...
My hypothesis is that he is a troll, I have given evidence to support my hypothesis. I see two peer reviews so far in support of my claim. Therefore I now claim the theory of the physical observer troll has been verified.
If you disagree please proivide counter evidence to be examined.
it looks very likely and also to his advantage we can say he is a troll. That also would mean that he is aware that he is wrong.
With this in mind, we still should reply to his post that he is wrong, otherwise other people who will read this could think he is correct.
a other hypothesis would be that he really believes what he is writing. but for that i do not have any evidence. for evidence of that hypothesis we would have to meet him in person and would have a closer discussion to examen his reactions to shown evidence.
-
If you get in a car, floor the gas pedal, crank the wheel hard left and start doing donuts in the Burger King parking lot,
Personal experience, DON'T DO THAT !
(it was Jack in the Box.)
-
Yep, just down to hurling insults.
-
If you get in a car, floor the gas pedal, crank the wheel hard left and start doing donuts in the Burger King parking lot,
Personal experience, DON'T DO THAT !
(it was Jack in the Box.)
why not, would be fun to see physical_observer do that ;D
-
"you only show a random video about a beach"
The wind turbulence created from a solid object spinning at 1,000 MPH, and dragging the gaseous atmosphere with it from friction, would shred the feathers right off those swans. A sudden wind gust of 30 MPH can damage the wings of birds with long wing spans.
I've watched plenty of videos, I choose to use that one, it is not a random choice.
Only if there were some resistance to that spinning motion from an external source. You've never shown that to be the case. You've never shown any proof for your assertions, just made the assertions and ignored everything else.
I have not seen anyone that proved my assertions incorrect. I mean, is the ground under those beacher's feet moving at 1,000 MPH? I say it is not, they are acting as if the ground, and the atmosphere, is not moving, that they are motionless. If the atmosphere is being dragged along by the 1,000 ground level MPH, and it is because of the friction where atmosphere meets earth's surface, the wind turbulence would be unbearable. Go plant your feet on the ground outside, now, the two little patches of ground that your little toes occupy is said to be moving at 1,000 MPH. Is that what you are experiencing? I don't understand why the wing-walker is such an amazing feat, I'm mean the crowd is navigating a 1,000 MPH platform. It should be the wing-walker cheering the crowd on, right?
And you prove again that you either have no concept of relative velocity or you are just ignoring it. If the atmosphere is moving with the ground (and it is) then there is no extreme wind turbulence that would be felt. There is nothing external to the atmosphere that would be preventing it from moving with the Earth.
Go back to my post with four videos from yesterday. There you will find the examples of my assertions, the ground is motionless, and it is a plane. It's the one with 'water on a spinning ball', and the 'wing-walker'. [/qqquote]
The ball that spins far faster because you don't understand scale or centripetal force and the wing walker that has a higher relative velocity with the wind. Both don't actually support your argument.
Frenat, the argument is really over, it was admitted by a honest individual there is no way to support a spinning speeding ball earth with the videos expressing earth's physical condition, earth's physical state. Whatever you'll have to say from this point forward is just farting in the wind!
You haven't seen your assertions proved incorrect because you ignore the posts that do so.
Just as you ignored that not only can the video not prove a "spinning, speeding ball Earth", they also can't prove the opposite.
-
Yep, just down to hurling insults.
what are hurling insults?
are that insults that get screamed at a Hurling game?
or did you mean hurting insults?
we only try to understand how your mind works.
-
Yep, just down to hurling insults.
Opposed to hurling the same played out arguments?
-
Yep, just down to hurling insults.
Opposed to hurling the same played out arguments?
I noticed you didn't take up the challenge, hey?
-
Yep, just down to hurling insults.
Opposed to hurling the same played out arguments?
I noticed you didn't take up the challenge, hey?
What kind of challenge?
-
"You need to show that that math matches reality..."
Go ahead, match your math to the reality shown in the two videos. This I have to see................................... Bet you can't do it! Your spinning speeding ball math does not match a motionless plane we observe about earth.
I already did that. You ignored it. I did it in your previous thread.
Here is some of it again:
Relative to a fictitious absolute reference frame, Earth is moving at speed u. The camera is also moving at speed u in the same direction (ignoring the minor motions of the guy pointing it in different directions and walking around).
Thus the speed of Earth relative to the camera is u-u=0.
The air is also moving at speed u (again in the same direction, and again ignoring slight variations like wind).
This means the speed of the air relative to the camera (and the people and the duck) is u-u=0. This means the effect of the air on the people, as a force which resists their motion will be =-k*0=0.
So do you accept that the video is consistent with both a stationary Earth and an Earth moving in a linear motion at a constant speed?
If not, point out exactly what is wrong with this proof, explaining what it should be.
Otherwise, I see no point in putting any more up (especially as I already have elsewhere and you just ignored it).
"1 year ago you were nothing like me."
Yeah, you're right, I'm was a little more opened minded and honest with myself. You're still stuck in a mental brick wall and trickery full of lies!
You seem to be confusing being open minded with being a gullible fool.
I am open minded and honest and rational. That means I wont just accept childish bullshit as fact.
You are the one with the mental brick wall, unable to even accept the fact that your videos prove nothing.
"So what happened 9 months ago?"
I compared the FE model, and the RE model, to earth's physical condition. The FE model won!
Now really, what happened? Did you fall and smash your head into the ground? Get into a car accident? What?
The RE model matches reality, the FE model doesn't.
At small scales, both do, but that doesn't mean FE wins. That means the tie.
In all contests which don't end in a tie, the RE model wins.
"first video: to high rpm the earth has only an rotation of 1 revolution per day."
The aircraft wing is moving at 100 MPH as it makes its revolution around the airfield, the wing-walker still has issues. The ground you stand on is moving at 1,000 MPH, yet we have no issues with standing and walking around? Let me repeat, the ground you walk on is moving 900 MPH faster than the wing-walker's wing.
Again, too high an rpm. Try it in a plane that circles once per day.
It isn't merely the tangential velocity which matters.
Sure, the plane was going at 100 MPH, but in a much smaller circle producing a much greater force.
The wing walker also has the additional issue of moving relative to the air.
So no, we have no issue with standing and walking around as the air isn't moving relative to us at 1000 MPH like you seem to repeatedly indicate and the rotation of Earth is so slow it isn't funny, it requires a force which is just a tiny fraction of gravity to overcome.
"the other videos show only a small portion of the earth"
And that is the portion we can physically observe, yet we are told to ignore what is observed in favor of math in a book, and ignant man's ideas and beliefs. No thanks, I'm sticking with what I can physically observe.
Yes, we are told to ignore what we observe, but not in favour of math in a book, in favour of your pathetic delusions. You are the one telling us to ignore what we observe and instead focus on something which tells us nothing.
What you have been told repeatedly is that it is too small a section to directly observe the curve and you cannot detect absolute motion.
So looking at that tiny section of Earth tells us nothing.
The best you could do is also observing things on Earth, like a ship disappearing over the horizon or Foucault's pendulum appearing to rotate, or large scale weather systems, all of which support a spinning globe. And with the math that you wish to ignore, you can determine the size and rotational speed of this globe.
Look, you cannot use earth's physical condition, earth's physical state, to support a spinning speeding ball earth. I don't know why you still think the spherical earth idea is correct if you can't support it with the physical state of earth.
Again, we can and have. You repeatedly ignore it.
You cannot use it to show that Earth isn't spinning or speeding or round. All you can do is show it doesn't match specific cases which no one is claiming it does.
I'll tell you this, if "fake-stream science" said the world was motionless and flat, and people came forward saying the earth was a spinning speeding ball, you would laugh them out of existence, wouldn't you?
No. I would be laughing at your pathetic fake-stream science which cannot explain even simple things like why the sun appears to rise from the south east in the southern summer, while it is meant to be to the north, or large scale weather patterns, or why there are 2 celestial poles, and so on.
Good FLIPPING GAWD!!!!!!! The same questions over and over and over!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Go back and look at my post with the four videos. I show water on a spinning ball, and I show someone navigating a moving platform. Get a FLIPPING clue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, the same questions over and over as you are yet to explain them.
Instead you provide specific cases which do not apply to Earth.
Earth is much larger than the tennis ball and spinning much more slowly.
And as has been pointed out, we don't have the wind blowing 1000 MPH, as it is moving with us.
You are yet to tell us exactly what should be in the video if Earth is rotating at the slow rate of 15 degrees an hour and is a ball with a radius of ~ 6371 km.
Once you actually answer that honestly, explaining how you concluded that, we will stop asking.
The centrifugal force of a surface spinning at 1,000 MPH would eject the water off its surface. Water on earth is not being affected by a 1,000 MPH spin, anywhere on earth. The signs the surface of earth is moving at 1,000 MPH are just not there! Do you FLIPPING get it now?
No. This has already been pointed out to be bullshit.
The centrifugal force depends on the tangential velocity (or angular velocity) and the radius.
The exact formula for the acceleration is F=v^2/r.
So if you have a tiny ball (like that tennis ball) spinning at 1000 MPH, the water will fly off. If you have a massive ball (like Earth), then it won't.
This means for an object with a radius of 6371 km, and a tangential velocity of 1600 km/hr, you get jack shit acceleration. Specifically, you need an acceleration of (1600^2 km/hr) / (6371 km).
But this gives you horrible units to work with. Accelerations are typically given in m/s^2, where gravity (or whatever bullshit you want to use instead) is 9.8 m/s^2.
So converting those units we have a velocity of 444 m/s and a radius of 6371000 m.
This means the acceleration =(444^2/6371000) m/s^2=~0.03 m/s^2.
That means the centrifugal force of Earth's rotation will cause the water to "fly off" accelerating away at a rate of 0.03 m/s^2, while gravity is pulling this water back to Earth, accelerating it towards Earth at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2.
Or you can deal with the force.
Assuming you are looking at 1 kg of water, it will be forced of with an apparent force of 0.03 N, and pulled down by gravity with a force of 9.8 N.
This means the net force will be 9.77 N, pulling it down.
So no, water on Earth spinning at 1000 MPH will not fly off.
Do you accept that?
If not, explain exactly what is wrong with it.
Stop just repeating the same delusional bullshit.
Yeah, you gotta find some way to slow that earth right down, don't cha?
No. In order to produce a scale model, where the acceleration (or apparent centrifugal force) remains the same, you need a to remain constant.
a=v^2/r. That means if you scale r down, you need to scale v down as well.
Cutting r down by a factor of 4, means you need to scale v down by a factor of 2.
e.g.
(v/2)^2/(r/4)=(v^2/4)/(r/4)=v/r.
This can be generalised.
If you scale the velocity by x, you need to scale the radius by x^2. (or if you scale the radius by y, you need to scale the velocity by sqrt(y)).
i.e a=(v*x)^2/(r*x^2)=v^2*x^2/(r*x^2)=v/r
This means if you scale the radius down by a factor of 1000000 (e.g. going from 6371 km (or 6371000 m) to 6.371 m you need to scale the velocity down by a factor of 1000 (as 1000000 is 1000^2).
This means to compare Earth to a ball which has a radius of 6.371 m, you need to have it going at a speed of 1 MPH. If you wish to scale it further to a ball that has a radius of say 6.371 cm, you need to scale the velocity down to 0.1 MPH.
So go get your tennis ball and try spinning it's surface goes at 0.1 MPH. See if the water flies off then.
"random video about a beach and claim that the earth is flat,"
Motionless, not flat. The lake video shows water level and clam. The surface of the calm lake shows we live on a flat plane. The calm surface also shows the earth is not in motion.
No. It doesn't. It shows that the water and people are not moving relative to Earth (ignoring the slight movements from them walking). It doesn't show Earth is not in motion.
"mentality of a 5-year old brad with finger in the ears and screaming "lalalala"."
Project much, do you?
No. That is what you are doing.
People repeatedly explain why you are wrong, and you just ignore it.
You are the one projecting, such as when you claim we aren't open minded and instead have a mental brick wall.
Do you notice how we deal with what you say, while you just dismiss what we say?
Only one person to date answered the challenge correctly. They said it can not be done, that is, use the two videos expressing earth's physical state, to support a spinning speeding globe. Do you agree with that assessment?
Nope.
Several people have.
The videos can only be used to limit Earth's motion into some rough bounds.
They cannot be used to support either a flat stationary Earth or a slowly spinning very large Earth as they cannot distinguish one way or another.
Did you notice how you failed the challenges in the other thread, and failed to prove that the videos show Earth to be motionless and flat, and you failed to show the plane is moving and failed to show if the blue object is round or flat?
And remember, these are just 2 videos, not the entirety of Earth's physical state, nor the entirety of the evidence.
The wind turbulence created from a solid object spinning at 1,000 MPH, and dragging the gaseous atmosphere with it from friction, would shred the feathers right off those swans. A sudden wind gust of 30 MPH can damage the wings of birds with long wing spans.
Except that isn't what Earth is doing.
For the most part, the atmosphere is kept moving with Earth due to inertia and similar forces acting on both, as well as gravity keeping it stuck to Earth.
As the atmosphere is moving at a speed of 0 relative to Earth (ignoring the wind), there is no turbulence.
Stop acting like the air is stationary.
I have not seen anyone that proved my assertions incorrect.
That's because you keep ignoring it. It has been done repeatedly.
I mean, is the ground under those beacher's feet moving at 1,000 MPH?
Probably not as I doubt they are at the equator. But lets just assume they are, then yes, but guess what? Their feet are moving at that speed as well, as are their bodies.
As such, there is no issue.
I say it is not, they are acting as if the ground, and the atmosphere, is not moving, that they are motionless.
And that is because relative to them, it is motionless, as they are moving at the same speed.
If the atmosphere is being dragged along by the 1,000 ground level MPH, and it is because of the friction where atmosphere meets earth's surface, the wind turbulence would be unbearable.
But it isn't.
If Earth was stationary and then started spinning, the friction between the air and the solid Earth would result in the atmosphere speeding up to spin with Earth. But that isn't what happens on a daily basis.
The atmosphere is already spinning with Earth. It isn't friction which keeps it moving at the same speed, it is inertia.
As such, no turbulence is expected.
Go plant your feet on the ground outside, now, the two little patches of ground that your little toes occupy is said to be moving at 1,000 MPH. Is that what you are experiencing?
Again, only at the equator.
But otherwise, yep. That is because the air and myself are also moving at that speed.
I don't understand why the wing-walker is such an amazing feat, I'm mean the crowd is navigating a 1,000 MPH platform.
Because unlike us, the wing walker is moving through the atmosphere at relative speed.
To us, the air is stationary as we are moving at the same speed as it. To the wing walker, the air is not stationary as they are not moving at the same speed.
Then there is the issue of Earth moving quite uniformly (ignoring Earthquakes), except on precisely made tracks and things in free fall, no object is capable of moving that smoothly. So unlike us, with the Earth moving uniformly so we don't need to continually compensate, the plane is moving far more sporadically so the wing walker needs to constantly make adjustments.
Go back to my post with four videos from yesterday. There you will find the examples of my assertions, the ground is motionless, and it is a plane. It's the one with 'water on a spinning ball', and the 'wing-walker'.
Your videos just show that Earth isn't a tiny rapidly spinning ball and it isn't moving through an atmosphere in a jerky manner.
The videos don't prove Earth to be flat or motionless.
Frenat, the argument is really over, it was admitted by a honest individual there is no way to support a spinning speeding ball earth with the videos expressing earth's physical condition, earth's physical state. Whatever you'll have to say from this point forward is just farting in the wind!
The argument was over pretty much as soon as you made it.
Your videos do not prove Earth is stationary or flat.
There is no way to support a flat stationary Earth over a slowly rotating massive ball with the videos you provided.
Why don't you try to find a video among the millions that exist that shows the opposite of what I claim. This is just another weak excuse for rejection, and very, very weak at that!
I found a picture, and you just dismissed it as fake.
I found a common occurrence, and you just ignored it/lied about it, pretending Fiji was north of the Equator and Japan is really NZ, but still Japan.
We expect you would do the same for any others, either dismiss them as fake or ignore them.
Also note, you are the one rejecting evidence, not us.
We accept your videos. We comment on them. We just point out that they don't show anything either way.
On the other hand, we provide you evidence and you just dismiss it because it doesn't fit with what you want.
I'm now slamming my head against a wall, because it's like I'm talking to a wall.
No. You are the wall, that seems completely incapable of reading and comprehending and responding to what people say.
Use the FLIPPING videos that are expressing earth's physical state, earth's physical condition, to support the ground is moving at 1,000 MPH, and we are on a ball speeding at 1.8 million MPH. But it's too late for you, because it has already been admitted it is impossible to do so.
So you have a completely dishonest standard of evidence and no intention of ever admitting you are wrong.
That is akin to us providing you with a picture of a rock and demanding you use it to prove Earth is flat and stationary and only accepting that.
Yeah, that has to be it, I'm a troll, I just can't be right, right?
That's right.
If you were right you wouldn't be focusing on 2 shitty little videos and demanding people do the impossible with it.
If you were right you wouldn't be ignoring the mountains of evidence people have provided because it doesn't fit your dishonest criteria.
If you were right you would explain (using the correct math), what you would expect to see in these videos if Earth is as claimed by science (i.e. what it is in reality), vs if it was flat and stationary. You would also state the errors in the video and realise that the videos cannot be used to distinguish between them.
So no, it can't be that you are right.
I noticed you didn't take up the challenge, hey?
And we noticed that you didn't take up the corresponding challenge of using the videos to prove Earth is flat and motionless, or to prove that the plane is in motion, or to prove that the mysterious blue object is flat or round.
I wonder why that is?
Is it because you know you can't and you know that the videos and pictures cannot distinguish between the 2?
-
How about this? (and you can ignore the previous post if you do agree to this)
Instead of continually repeating the same crap with us continually refuting it, or just hurling insults at each other, you go through it point by point, and discuss in detail what should be see if Earth was flat vs round, moving vs stationary, spinning vs stationary?
Rather than just using anecdotes or specific examples?
If so, which would you like to do first?
Spinning vs stationary,
moving linearly vs stationary, or
round vs flat?
-
Yep, just down to hurling insults.
Oh my did I miss insult time?
I fart in your general direction, your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries.
-
Yep, just down to hurling insults.
Oh my did I miss insult time?
I fart in your general direction, your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries.
Yeah Mikey T, that is all you have, disgusting insults from a low-life disgusting turd! Do you feel better now little juvenile baby?
-
How about this? (and you can ignore the previous post if you do agree to this)
Instead of continually repeating the same crap with us continually refuting it, or just hurling insults at each other, you go through it point by point, and discuss in detail what should be see if Earth was flat vs round, moving vs stationary, spinning vs stationary?
Rather than just using anecdotes or specific examples?
If so, which would you like to do first?
Spinning vs stationary,
moving linearly vs stationary, or
round vs flat?
Too bad earth's physical condition does not support your belief system, hey? Go cry to your mommy!
-
Centripetal force and rotating water:
Water in a container on earth:
Case closed!
-
Centripetal force and rotating water:
Water in a container on earth:
Case closed!
yes case closed, you can clearly see that the watersurface in the prictures of the second videos are curved, for example where you see a distance of 10m you can clearly see that the middle of the 10m is 0.002 mm higher than the outsidepoints.
also at the first video at the very first point where the contraption spins with 1 rotation/day you can see the curvature of the water.
thank you for showing the videos to prove the earth is a spinning globe.
-
Centripetal force and rotating water:
Water in a container on earth:
Case closed!
yes case closed, you can clearly see that the watersurface in the prictures of the second videos are curved, for example where you see a distance of 10m you can clearly see that the middle of the 10m is 0.002 mm higher than the outsidepoints.
also at the first video at the very first point where the contraption spins with 1 rotation/day you can see the curvature of the water.
thank you for showing the videos to prove the earth is a spinning globe.
0+
Funny, I never saw curved water in the second video, maybe a time stamp would be helpful. I never saw in the second video where someone measured a distance of 10m. Your retort is just globbly goop!
"you can see the curvature of the water."
Yeah, I'm glad you brought that up. Did you notice the water becomes concave, not convex, like it should be on a spherical earth?
Again, water in a container on earth, you'll see it does NOT mimic the water in the experiments:
Case closed!
-
How about this? (and you can ignore the previous post if you do agree to this)
Instead of continually repeating the same crap with us continually refuting it, or just hurling insults at each other, you go through it point by point, and discuss in detail what should be see if Earth was flat vs round, moving vs stationary, spinning vs stationary?
Rather than just using anecdotes or specific examples?
If so, which would you like to do first?
Spinning vs stationary,
moving linearly vs stationary, or
round vs flat?
"Instead of continually repeating the same crap with us continually refuting it,"
I'll keep repeating because to date no one has refuted what I claim earth's physical state means. You can't prove what I claim is incorrect, and you cannot use the physical condition of earth to support a spinning speeding globe. That's really why you want me to stop, oh don't I know it!
-
Centripetal force and rotating water:
Water in a container on earth:
Case closed!
yes case closed, you can clearly see that the watersurface in the prictures of the second videos are curved, for example where you see a distance of 10m you can clearly see that the middle of the 10m is 0.002 mm higher than the outsidepoints.
also at the first video at the very first point where the contraption spins with 1 rotation/day you can see the curvature of the water.
thank you for showing the videos to prove the earth is a spinning globe.
0+
Funny, I never saw curved water in the second video, maybe a time stamp would be helpful. I never saw in the second video where someone measured a distance of 10m. Your retort is just globbly goop!
"you can see the curvature of the water."
Yeah, I'm glad you brought that up. Did you notice the water becomes concave, not convex, like it should be on a spherical earth?
Again, water in a container on earth, you'll see it does NOT mimic the water in the experiments:
Case closed!
how do you prove that the water surface is flat?
how do you measure it exactly?
i say the water is 0.002mm higher in the center of a 10m distance, prove me that i am wrong.
prove me with actual measurements.
in the second video i was talking about the point where the object was spinning with 1 revolution/day, i was not referring to the water surface at a higher revolution. you have to keep the revolution per time if you scale down an object.
and also that model does not even represent a globe or a disc, therefor it does not prove anything about if the earth is spinning or stationary.
-
How about this? (and you can ignore the previous post if you do agree to this)
Instead of continually repeating the same crap with us continually refuting it, or just hurling insults at each other, you go through it point by point, and discuss in detail what should be see if Earth was flat vs round, moving vs stationary, spinning vs stationary?
Rather than just using anecdotes or specific examples?
If so, which would you like to do first?
Spinning vs stationary,
moving linearly vs stationary, or
round vs flat?
"Instead of continually repeating the same crap with us continually refuting it,"
I'll keep repeating because to date no one has refuted what I claim earth's physical state means. You can't prove what I claim is incorrect, and you cannot use the physical condition of earth to support a spinning speeding globe. That's really why you want me to stop, oh don't I know it!
you can not prove that the earth is a stationary disc.
and for the second sentence: you are simply wrong because it is proven many times and it is shown to you many times
we all know why we want to stop you to post your ideas, because they are simply wrong and misleading.
-
Yep, just down to hurling insults.
Opposed to hurling the same played out arguments?
I noticed you didn't take up the challenge, hey?
The one that was destroyed in this thread or the one destroyed in the other thread?
-
Too bad earth's physical condition does not support your belief system, hey? Go cry to your mommy!
So do you want to try it one bit at a time without all the pathetic childish insults to hide the fact you cannot prove Earth is stationary or flat?
Centripetal force and rotating water:
Case closed!
Yes, case closed, Earth is not a tiny container spinning really quickly.
I take it you are taking the spinning vs stationary route.
You case for Earth being stationary is still wide open.
If you want to use videos rather than math, then find a variety of videos showing water spinning at various speeds and various scales.
Again, water in a container on earth, you'll see it does NOT mimic the water in the experiments:
And that is because the water on Earth is spinning at a much slower rate and thus experiences far less apparent centrifugal force.
If Earth is spinning at the rate of 1 revolution per day, with a radius of ~ 6371 km, you wouldn't expect it to mimic the water in the experiments.
"Instead of continually repeating the same crap with us continually refuting it,"
I'll keep repeating because to date no one has refuted what I claim earth's physical state means. You can't prove what I claim is incorrect, and you cannot use the physical condition of earth to support a spinning speeding globe. That's really why you want me to stop, oh don't I know it!
Except you have been refuted, repeatedly.
We have repeatedly pointed out that your videos, your analysis of Earth's physical state is fundamentally flawed and cannot distinguish between Earth being flat and stationary or round and moving.
We have also provided evidence from Earth's physical condition (but not in those videos) that prove Earth is a spinning ball, which you just ignore.
I want you to stop repeating the same crap and try a rational argument for once, where instead of using shitty videos for a horribly invalid comparison you try using actual evidence and explain exactly what you would expect for a spinning vs stationary, round vs flat, moving vs stationary Earth, with the numbers used by real scientists, instead of pretending Earth should act like a tennis ball spinning really fast.
This is because I am getting tired of you spamming the same refuted bullshit.
-
Too bad earth's physical condition does not support your belief system, hey? Go cry to your mommy!
So do you want to try it one bit at a time without all the pathetic childish insults to hide the fact you cannot prove Earth is stationary or flat?
Centripetal force and rotating water:
Case closed!
Yes, case closed, Earth is not a tiny container spinning really quickly.
I take it you are taking the spinning vs stationary route.
You case for Earth being stationary is still wide open.
If you want to use videos rather than math, then find a variety of videos showing water spinning at various speeds and various scales.
Again, water in a container on earth, you'll see it does NOT mimic the water in the experiments:
And that is because the water on Earth is spinning at a much slower rate and thus experiences far less apparent centrifugal force.
If Earth is spinning at the rate of 1 revolution per day, with a radius of ~ 6371 km, you wouldn't expect it to mimic the water in the experiments.
"Instead of continually repeating the same crap with us continually refuting it,"
I'll keep repeating because to date no one has refuted what I claim earth's physical state means. You can't prove what I claim is incorrect, and you cannot use the physical condition of earth to support a spinning speeding globe. That's really why you want me to stop, oh don't I know it!
Except you have been refuted, repeatedly.
We have repeatedly pointed out that your videos, your analysis of Earth's physical state is fundamentally flawed and cannot distinguish between Earth being flat and stationary or round and moving.
We have also provided evidence from Earth's physical condition (but not in those videos) that prove Earth is a spinning ball, which you just ignore.
I want you to stop repeating the same crap and try a rational argument for once, where instead of using shitty videos for a horribly invalid comparison you try using actual evidence and explain exactly what you would expect for a spinning vs stationary, round vs flat, moving vs stationary Earth, with the numbers used by real scientists, instead of pretending Earth should act like a tennis ball spinning really fast.
This is because I am getting tired of you spamming the same refuted bullshit.
"So do you want to try it one bit at a time..."
I am! One bit at a time I will destroy your pathetic beliefs, you bet!
Let me ask, how does a clam flat lake prove the ground is moving at 1,000 MPH? How does a calm flat lake not support my claim the earth is a motionless plane? Because I really haven't seen any one tackle that, seriously! Please answer the two questions and try to avoid diversion, okay?
-
Let me ask, how does a clam flat lake prove the ground is moving at 1,000 MPH?
It doesn't. So?
How does a calm flat lake not support my claim the earth is a motionless plane?
How does it support your claim?
-
As you seem to have went for the spinning vs stationary bit first, here is how to do it honestly.
You don't just find a picture of something spinning really fast.
If that is your first attempt, and you find a video like this:
or
You don't just conclude all spinning objects act like that.
Instead you look for other spinning things, like this:
Or this:
Which clearly shows there is more to it than spin=>Everything flies off.
In fact, most videos alone show that as things need to get up to speed before flying off or blowing up.
So you need to find lots of different conditions and find a correlation, also noting the forces which are acting to hold the objects in place. (this means you need to vary r, v, omega, the shape, the substance, etc.
If you do this, you will find the apparent acceleration follows the formula:
a=v^2/r=omega^2*r.
Or you can just do a pure mathematical approach.
First note that a is acceleration, v is the tangential velocity, r is the radius about which it is spinning, omega is the angular velocity, measured in radians per unit time.
We note that there exists a relationship between the angle theta, the arc length l and the radius, given by l=r*theta.
This is simplest or most well known when theta=2*pi, at which point l is the circumference of the circle, given by 2*pi*r.
The period T, i.e. the time taken to complete a rotation, is given by 2*pi/omega, as it needs to rotate 2*pi radians.
It is also given by 2*pi*r/v as it needs to travel a length of 2*pi*r.
This creates a relationship between omega and v (for some people, the arc length relationship would be enough, as moving through theta means it moves through l, and then just divide both by time.
This relation is v=omega*r or omega=v/r
So that has them all nice and linked, but what about the acceleration?
Well, v is a vector, which means it can be broken into its x and y (for 2D, z as well if you go to 3D) components.
More trig can help us out here.
If you measure phi as the bearing it is heading in, measured counterclockwise from the +x direction, then the x component of its velocity is given by vx=v*cos(phi), and the y component is given by vy=v*sin(phi).
Note that at any point, the velocity will be perpendicular to the line connecting the centre to the point, or offset by an angle of pi/4, with the direction (i.e. plus or minus) being dependent on the direction of rotation.
Also note that any position will be equivalent to any other by simply rotating the coordinate system, and the opposite spin (e.g. switching between clockwise and counterclockwise) by flipping x or y or rotating it around the x axis instead of the z axis.
So now lets consider what the acceleration would be when the object is just at (0,-r), for counterclockwise rotation. We will do this by looking at it a tiny bit before and a tiny bit after (dt).
So at a tiny bit before (which I will denote with i), its angular position is -pi/4-omega*dt, and its velocity vector is pointing towards -omega*dt. A tiny bit after (which I will denote with f) its position is -pi/4+omega*dt and its velocity vector is pointing towards omega*dt.
We can now find the x and y components of its velocity.
First lets look at the x components, and the difference (which will be denoted with d)
vxi=v*cos(-omega*dt), vxf=v*cos(omega*dt).
vxd=v*cos(omega*dt)-v*cos(-omega*dt).
Note that cos(z)=cos(-z).
Thus cos(-omega*dt)=cos(omega*dt).
Thus vxd=v*cos(omega*dt)-v*cos(omega*dt)=0.
So there is no difference in the x component of the velocity.
So now the y.
vyi=v*sin(-omega*dt), vyf=v*sin(omega*dt).
vyd=v*sin(omega*dt)-v*sin(-omega*dt).
Note that dt is very small, so omega*dt is very small.
This allows us to use an approximation (which holds quite well, and is fine for what we are doing), that sin(z)=z for small values of z.
Thus vyd=v*omega*dt-v*(-omega)*dt
=v*omega*dt+v*omega*dt
=2*v*omega*dt.
So the difference in the y component is 2*v*omega*dt.
And thus the overall difference is 2*v*omega*dt, pointing directly towards the centre. (as the x component is 0).
Now to find our acceleration, we divide that by the period of time it has been accelerating for, which is 2*dt, as we started at -dt and finished at +dt.
So a=2*v*omega*dt/(2*dt)
=v*omega
=omega^2*r=v^2/r.
So now that we have this, we can determine what the acceleration would be for Earth, or determine what the scale model would have to be.
To find it out for Earth, lets use the normal units for acceleration, i.e. m and s.
Earth's radius is ~ 6371 km=6371000 m.
Earth's tangential velocity at the equator as you have often said is 1000 MPH, which is ~ 1600 km/hr=~444 m/s.
So now plugging that into our formula above, the acceleration needed to maintain a circular path around Earth, and thus the apparent centrifugal acceleration would be ~0.03 m/s^2.
Compare that to gravity, 9.8 m/s^2.
This means the net acceleration (from gravity minus the apparent centrifugal one) would be 9.77 m/s^2 (in reality it is higher as gravity is a bit more than 9.8).
So you wouldn't notice it unless you use very accurate equipment.
The other way to do this is consider the force or the mass required for that force.
If you take a 1 kg weight, the centrifugal force acting on it would be m*a=0.03N.
This corresponds to the weight of 0.003 kg.
So do you think you would be able to tell if I shaved 3 g of a 1 kg weight? If not, why think you should be able to feel this rotation?
This shows the centrifugal force from rotation is negligible and would not be detected by humans.
The other option is to produce a scale model, which you can have a video of. But you can't just pick the speed and size at random. You need a to remain constant to accurately reflect what you would expect on Earth.
a=v^2/r. That means if you scale r down, you need to scale v down as well.
Cutting r down by a factor of 4, means you need to scale v down by a factor of 2.
e.g.
(v/2)^2/(r/4)=(v^2/4)/(r/4)=v/r.
This can be generalised.
If you scale the velocity by x, you need to scale the radius by x^2. (or if you scale the radius by y, you need to scale the velocity by sqrt(y)).
i.e a=(v*x)^2/(r*x^2)=v^2*x^2/(r*x^2)=v/r
This means if you scale the radius down by a factor of 1000000 (e.g. going from 6371 km (or 6371000 m) to 6.371 m you need to scale the velocity down by a factor of 1000 (as 1000000 is 1000^2).
This means to compare Earth to a ball which has a radius of 6.371 m, you need to have it going at a speed of 1 MPH. If you wish to scale it further to a ball that has a radius of say 6.371 cm, you need to scale the velocity down to 0.1 MPH.
So go get your tennis ball and try spinning it so it's surface goes at 0.1 MPH. See if the water flies off then.
Before you go providing any more videos, first state the speed and size of the object in question to determine if it keeps a as 0.03 m/s^2 (or have it smaller). If it doesn't, then it does not refute Earth spinning.
Now then, do you have any rational objections to this, or a video of an object spinning with a=0.03 m/s^2
-
"So do you want to try it one bit at a time..."
I am! One bit at a time I will destroy your pathetic beliefs, you bet!
Except you are yet to destroy anything.
Let me ask, how does a clam flat lake prove the ground is moving at 1,000 MPH? How does a calm flat lake not support my claim the earth is a motionless plane? Because I really haven't seen any one tackle that, seriously! Please answer the two questions and try to avoid diversion, okay?
It doesn't.
It doesn't prove or support either one.
This is because it is unable to distinguish between the 2.
People have repeatedly tackled that and explained why.
The apparent centrifugal acceleration that would results from Earth's rotation (even at 1000 MPH) is negligible. Gravity is much much stronger than it and will hold the surface down.
As such, you cannot distinguish between the 2.
That is why you cannot use it to support Earth being stationary. (one point at a time, not dealing with shape now).
People have asked repeatedly how does it support Earth being motionless when it cannot distinguish between them and we are yet to see you tackle that other than providing videos of things spinning much much much faster than Earth.
-
Yep, just down to hurling insults.
Oh my did I miss insult time?
I fart in your general direction, your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries.
Yeah Mikey T, that is all you have, disgusting insults from a low-life disgusting turd! Do you feel better now little juvenile baby?
Not a Monty Python fan I see.
FYI its when the English try to get access to the French castle in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. This is the French soldiers insults to King Aurthur. I thought it was quite funny. I also thought the symbolism was pretty good, me standing on my wall of science, you as King Authur on your great quest and I wouldn't lend help. Plus the Frenchman's castle is in England and the English are wondering why they are there, much like me being on the flat earth forums.
So you do not wish to be associated with King Aurthur? Thats ok.
-
in the second video i was talking about the point where the object was spinning with 1 revolution/day, i was not referring to the water surface at a higher revolution. you have to keep the revolution per time if you scale down an object.
and also that model does not even represent a globe or a disc, therefor it does not prove anything about if the earth is spinning or stationary.
Keeping the angular velocity constant while shrinking the object will reduce the acceleration.
You need to keep the constant omega*v=omega^2*r=v^2/r constant.
If you scale the radius by 1/1 million (so dropping it to 6.371 m), you need to scale the tangential velocity by 1/1000 (so 1MPH), or scale the angular velocity by 1000 (so 1 rev per 1.44 minutes or 250 degrees a minute).
-
in the second video i was talking about the point where the object was spinning with 1 revolution/day, i was not referring to the water surface at a higher revolution. you have to keep the revolution per time if you scale down an object.
and also that model does not even represent a globe or a disc, therefor it does not prove anything about if the earth is spinning or stationary.
Keeping the angular velocity constant while shrinking the object will reduce the acceleration.
You need to keep the constant omega*v=omega^2*r=v^2/r constant.
If you scale the radius by 1/1 million (so dropping it to 6.371 m), you need to scale the tangential velocity by 1/1000 (so 1MPH), or scale the angular velocity by 1000 (so 1 rev per 1.44 minutes or 250 degrees a minute).
Globbly goop, it was already admitted days ago you cannot use earth's physical condition, as expressed in the videos, to support a spinning spherical earth. You're here wasting your time, I'm here to keep shoving it in your face!
-
Globbly goop, it was already admitted days ago you cannot use earth's physical condition, as expressed in the videos, to support a spinning spherical earth. You're here wasting your time, I'm here to keep shoving it in your face!
Not globbly goop.
I explained it quite well.
Dismissing something as globbly goop isn't destroying it or refuting it. It just shows you are unable to do so.
Yes, it was admitted right from the start that your challenge was a dishonest pile of shit.
It was also pointed out that you cannot use Earth's physical conditions as expressed in the videos to support a flat stationary Earth as it is unable to distinguish between a flat stationary Earth and a round Earth that is spinning slowly and moving.
The only thing you are shoving in people's faces is your own stupidity and incompetence, while we keep handing your ass to you.
Now then, can you make any rational objection to what I have said, including that nice long comment dealing with how to determine what the expected result of Earth spinning at the rate it is spinning and what your scale model would need to be? (You need to be able to if you want any chance of destroying me).
If you can't don't worry, just admit you can't, accept that your videos can't distinguish between a spinning and stationary Earth and we can move on to the next issue.
Or are you only capable of more childish crap?
-
Jack, we have very strong evidence of physical observer only being a troll. He will only refuse any explanation that contradicts his points and falsely claim a win.
Don't let him get under your skin, he is quite amusing.
-
And he still won't answer where the 1.8M mph data comes from. Just like he won't answer it this time.
-
<< Removed extraneous rubbish >>
It was already proved days ago you cannot use earth's physical condition, as expressed in the videos, to prove a flat stationary earth.
You're here wasting your time and I'm here to keep shoving it in your face!
-
<< irrelevant rubbish deleted >>
And you still won't answer where the 1.8M mph data comes from.
And I'm here to keep shoving it in your face!
-
<< irrelevant rubbish deleted >>
And you still won't answer where the 1.8M mph data comes from.
And I'm here to keep shoving it in your face!
He probably guessed to be honest.
What happens of you add all of earths motion together e.g. rotation, orbital velocity, velocity of our solar system, velocity of our galaxy etc.
I'm too lazy atm.
I'm still hoping for an honest debate also.
-
<< irrelevant rubbish deleted >>
And you still won't answer where the 1.8M mph data comes from.
And I'm here to keep shoving it in your face!
He probably guessed to be honest.
What happens of you add all of earths motion together e.g. rotation, orbital velocity, velocity of our solar system, velocity of our galaxy etc.
I'm too lazy atm.
I'm still hoping for an honest debate also.
I think his 1.8M mph is an estimate of our galaxy's velocity towards the "Great Attractor", Universe Today, What Is The Great Attractor? (http://www.universetoday.com/113150/what-is-the-great-attractor/)
There it suggests 2.2M mph, that'll make physical observer happy!
-
Well there you go, thanks.
-
<< irrelevant rubbish deleted >>
And you still won't answer where the 1.8M mph data comes from.
And I'm here to keep shoving it in your face!
You should probably take it a mite easy on this guy. I'm trying to think of a nice way to say this - I think he's a little challenged. I don't think he could really comprehend what you're telling him even if he wanted to.
-
He probably guessed to be honest.
What happens of you add all of earths motion together e.g. rotation, orbital velocity, velocity of our solar system, velocity of our galaxy etc.
I'm too lazy atm.
I'm still hoping for an honest debate also.
Ignoring the velocity of the galaxy, you get roughly half a million miles per hour. The biggest contributor (which allows you to just basically ignore the rest if you just want ball park figures) is the velocity of the solar system/sun, at 220 km/s relative to the galactic centre or 370 km/s relative to the background radiation.
Earth's orbit is a mere 30 km/s and its rotation (at the equator), is less than 0.5 km/s.
1.8 million miles per hour is 2.88 million km per hour but that is 800 km/s, around 2 times the speed relative to the background radiation.
As for the galactic velocity, compared to what?
Compared to objects at the edge of the visible universe, that would be roughly the speed of light.
There are so many other things to compare it to it doesn't make sense to pick any.
-
He probably guessed to be honest.
What happens of you add all of earths motion together e.g. rotation, orbital velocity, velocity of our solar system, velocity of our galaxy etc.
I'm too lazy atm.
I'm still hoping for an honest debate also.
Ignoring the velocity of the galaxy, you get roughly half a million miles per hour. The biggest contributor (which allows you to just basically ignore the rest if you just want ball park figures) is the velocity of the solar system/sun, at 220 km/s relative to the galactic centre or 370 km/s relative to the background radiation.
Earth's orbit is a mere 30 km/s and its rotation (at the equator), is less than 0.5 km/s.
1.8 million miles per hour is 10.8 million km per hour but that is 3 000 km/s, around 10 times the speed relative to the background radiation.
As for the galactic velocity, compared to what?
Compared to objects at the edge of the visible universe, that would be roughly the speed of light.
There are so many other things to compare it to it doesn't make sense to pick any.
You made a mistake in converting. 1.8 million mph is about 2.9 million km/h or about 805 km/s.
I forget if this is the thread I already mentioned this in but the speed relative to the background radiation is about 0.8 million mph so maybe 0.8 got turned into 1.8 by mistake at some point.
-
He probably guessed to be honest.
What happens of you add all of earths motion together e.g. rotation, orbital velocity, velocity of our solar system, velocity of our galaxy etc.
I'm too lazy atm.
I'm still hoping for an honest debate also.
Ignoring the velocity of the galaxy, you get roughly half a million miles per hour. The biggest contributor (which allows you to just basically ignore the rest if you just want ball park figures) is the velocity of the solar system/sun, at 220 km/s relative to the galactic centre or 370 km/s relative to the background radiation.
Earth's orbit is a mere 30 km/s and its rotation (at the equator), is less than 0.5 km/s.
1.8 million miles per hour is 10.8 million km per hour but that is 3 000 km/s, around 10 times the speed relative to the background radiation.
As for the galactic velocity, compared to what?
Compared to objects at the edge of the visible universe, that would be roughly the speed of light.
There are so many other things to compare it to it doesn't make sense to pick any.
You made a mistake in converting. 1.8 million mph is about 2.9 million km/h or about 805 km/s.
I forget if this is the thread I already mentioned this in but the speed relative to the background radiation is about 0.8 million mph so maybe 0.8 got turned into 1.8 by mistake at some point.
Thanks. I've fixed it now.
It seems the 1. didn't go in.
-
As for the galactic velocity, compared to what?
Compared to the "Great Attractor", see more in Re: Bet you can't do it! « Reply #153 on: Today at 02:11:51 PM ». (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69588.msg1879150#msg1879150)
-
As for the galactic velocity, compared to what?
Compared to the "Great Attractor", see more in Re: Bet you can't do it! « Reply #153 on: Today at 02:11:51 PM ». (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69588.msg1879150#msg1879150)
But that is just one of the many things we are being drawn towards, so why that? Why not the Shapely Supercluster with its Shapely Attractor?
-
As for the galactic velocity, compared to what?
Compared to the "Great Attractor", see more in Re: Bet you can't do it! « Reply #153 on: Today at 02:11:51 PM ». (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69588.msg1879150#msg1879150)
But that is just one of the many things we are being drawn towards, so why that? Why not the Shapely Supercluster with its Shapely Attractor?
You did read Universe Today, What Is The Great Attractor? (http://www.universetoday.com/113150/what-is-the-great-attractor/)
Though in the earlier post, I said "2.2M mph", but it should be "2.2 million kilometers per hour".
-
You did read Universe Today, What Is The Great Attractor? (http://www.universetoday.com/113150/what-is-the-great-attractor/)
Though in the earlier post, I said "2.2M mph", but it should be "2.2 million kilometers per hour".
Yep.
I have also read other information.
The great attractor isn't as great as some people make it out to be.
We are pulled more towards the Shapely Attractor.
-
He probably guessed to be honest.
What happens of you add all of earths motion together e.g. rotation, orbital velocity, velocity of our solar system, velocity of our galaxy etc.
I'm too lazy atm.
I'm still hoping for an honest debate also.
Ignoring the velocity of the galaxy, you get roughly half a million miles per hour. The biggest contributor (which allows you to just basically ignore the rest if you just want ball park figures) is the velocity of the solar system/sun, at 220 km/s relative to the galactic centre or 370 km/s relative to the background radiation.
Earth's orbit is a mere 30 km/s and its rotation (at the equator), is less than 0.5 km/s.
1.8 million miles per hour is 2.88 million km per hour but that is 800 km/s, around 2 times the speed relative to the background radiation.
As for the galactic velocity, compared to what?
Compared to objects at the edge of the visible universe, that would be roughly the speed of light.
There are so many other things to compare it to it doesn't make sense to pick any.
"velocity of the galaxy,... background radiation"
What a FLIPPING joke! You guys really suck in this globbly goop, hey?
-
Didn't I tell you'll you won't be able to use earth's physical condition{expressed in the many videos I linked}, to support a spinning speeding ball? Now you are down to hiding in fake scientific globbly goop.
The spherical earth idea is DEAD! People are becoming wise to "fake-stories"!
-
Didn't I tell you'll you won't be able to use earth's physical condition{expressed in the many videos I linked}, to support a spinning speeding ball? Now you are down to hiding in fake scientific globbly goop.
The spherical earth idea is DEAD! People are becoming wise to "fake-stories"!
Why don't you prove the earth is flat using only Dr. Seuss's Green Eggs and Ham? If you can't I am going to declare that the flat earth idea is DEAD!
-
Didn't I tell you'll you won't be able to use earth's physical condition{expressed in the many videos I linked}, to support a spinning speeding ball? Now you are down to hiding in fake scientific globbly goop.
The spherical earth idea is DEAD! People are becoming wise to "fake-stories"!
Why don't you prove the earth is flat using only Dr. Seuss's Green Eggs and Ham? If you can't I am going to declare that the flat earth idea is DEAD!
What a stupid post!
-
"velocity of the galaxy,... background radiation"
What a FLIPPING joke! You guys really suck in this globbly goop, hey?
Nope. We're stuck in reality.
To retards, that might seem like globbly goop because it is far beyond their comprehension.
Have you thought of or found a rational refutation of my argument?
Have you found a video of a ball with a radius of 6.731 cm spinning so its outside moves at 0.1 mile per hour?
Didn't I tell you'll you won't be able to use earth's physical condition{expressed in the many videos I linked}, to support a spinning speeding ball? Now you are down to hiding in fake scientific globbly goop.
The spherical earth idea is DEAD! People are becoming wise to "fake-stories"!
Yes, you did tell that, and we said that is true.
However we also explained why, pointing out that the videos can't tell either way. You cannot use them to support a flat stationary Earth either.
I would say you are down to hiding in ignorance and ignoring arguments and evidence, but you were always like that.
On the other hand, we stick to real science which actually has explanatory power and matches observed reality, while you hide from observed reality to stick to your delusional bullshit.
If you want to say the idea is dead, you need to refute my argument, or like I said, admit you can't, admit your videos do not prove Earth is not rotating and move onto another point.
Didn't I tell you'll you won't be able to use earth's physical condition{expressed in the many videos I linked}, to support a spinning speeding ball? Now you are down to hiding in fake scientific globbly goop.
The spherical earth idea is DEAD! People are becoming wise to "fake-stories"!
Why don't you prove the earth is flat using only Dr. Seuss's Green Eggs and Ham? If you can't I am going to declare that the flat earth idea is DEAD!
What a stupid post!
No more stupid than your OP.
-
Didn't I tell you'll you won't be able to use earth's physical condition{expressed in the many videos I linked}, to support a spinning speeding ball? Now you are down to hiding in fake scientific globbly goop.
The spherical earth idea is DEAD! People are becoming wise to "fake-stories"!
Why don't you prove the earth is flat using only Dr. Seuss's Green Eggs and Ham? If you can't I am going to declare that the flat earth idea is DEAD!
What a stupid post!
Yes.
(http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/992/397/9c9.gif)
-
Didn't I tell you'll you won't be able to use earth's physical condition{expressed in the many videos I linked}, to support a spinning speeding ball? Now you are down to hiding in fake scientific globbly goop.
The spherical earth idea is DEAD! People are becoming wise to "fake-stories"!
They sure are becoming wise to "fake-stories"!
Like pretending that the earth is flat when it has been known to be a sphere for 2,500 years.
Like pretending that the earth is flat when no-one has a "flat earth model" that comes close to explaining the earth we observe.
But as for the spherical earth idea being DEAD! I'm afraid you've proved nothing with your fake proofs and fake videos.
-
Didn't I tell you'll you won't be able to use earth's physical condition{expressed in the many videos I linked}, to support a spinning speeding ball? Now you are down to hiding in fake scientific globbly goop.
The spherical earth idea is DEAD! People are becoming wise to "fake-stories"!
They sure are becoming wise to "fake-stories"!
Like pretending that the earth is flat when it has been known to be a sphere for 2,500 years.
Like pretending that the earth is flat when no-one has a "flat earth model" that comes close to explaining the earth we observe.
But as for the spherical earth idea being DEAD! I'm afraid you've proved nothing with your fake proofs and fake videos.
You sure it is not you pretending the earth is a spinning speeding ball? Do you call my videos fake because they do not support your defunct beliefs?
Here's your chance, using this video of a calm lake, prove the earth is a spinning speeding ball, BET YOU CAN'T DO IT!!!!!!
-
Didn't I tell you'll you won't be able to use earth's physical condition{expressed in the many videos I linked}, to support a spinning speeding ball? Now you are down to hiding in fake scientific globbly goop.
The spherical earth idea is DEAD! People are becoming wise to "fake-stories"!
They sure are becoming wise to "fake-stories"!
Like pretending that the earth is flat when it has been known to be a sphere for 2,500 years.
Like pretending that the earth is flat when no-one has a "flat earth model" that comes close to explaining the earth we observe.
But as for the spherical earth idea being DEAD! I'm afraid you've proved nothing with your fake proofs and fake videos.
You sure it is not you pretending the earth is a spinning speeding ball? Do you call my videos fake because they do not support your defunct beliefs?
Here's your chance, using this video of a calm lake, prove the earth is a spinning speeding ball, BET YOU CAN'T DO IT!!!!!!
What a stupid post!
-
I see Physical Observer is still continuing with his logical fallacy.
-
Didn't I tell you'll you won't be able to use earth's physical condition{expressed in the many videos I linked}, to support a spinning speeding ball? Now you are down to hiding in fake scientific globbly goop.
The spherical earth idea is DEAD! People are becoming wise to "fake-stories"!
They sure are becoming wise to "fake-stories"!
Like pretending that the earth is flat when it has been known to be a sphere for 2,500 years.
Like pretending that the earth is flat when no-one has a "flat earth model" that comes close to explaining the earth we observe.
But as for the spherical earth idea being DEAD! I'm afraid you've proved nothing with your fake proofs and fake videos.
You sure it is not you pretending the earth is a spinning speeding ball? Do you call my videos fake because they do not support your defunct beliefs?
Here's your chance, using this video of a calm lake, prove the earth is a spinning speeding ball, BET YOU CAN'T DO IT!!!!!!
Again, no one is claiming you can.
The simple fact is the video cannot distinguish between a slowly spinning speeding massive ball and a flat stationary plane.
Try to use the video to prove Earth is flat and motionless. BET YOU CAN'T DO IT!!!!!
I have already conclusively demonstrated that the apparent acceleration from Earth's rotation is not noticeable, and an appropriate scale model (which keeps the acceleration the same) would be a ball with a radius of 6.371 cm spinning with a tangential velocity of 0.1 MPH. So do you have a video of such a ball spinning at such a speed (or less)? Or only the tiny ball spinning really really fast making it incomparable to Earth's rotation?
-
I see Physical Observer is still continuing with his logical fallacy.
Is that what it is now? ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Here is another chance. Using the video of earth's physical condition, prove the earth is a spinning speeding ball:
-
Also, your video clearly shows a curve.
On the left hand side, the horizon is flat, at a y position of 416 px.
But after a while it begins to curve down such that it ends at the right side at a y position of 421 px.
-
I see Physical Observer is still continuing with his logical fallacy.
Is that what it is now? ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Here is another chance. Using the video of earth's physical condition, prove the earth is a spinning speeding ball:
Yes, that is what it is.
You are saying This doesn't prove X so Y is true.
Your video doesn't prove Y either.
Here is another chance for you, use that video to show Earth is stationary and flat, rather than just rotating very slowly and being a very large sphere.
-
I see Physical Observer is still continuing with his logical fallacy.
Is that what it is now? ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Here is another chance. Using the video of earth's physical condition, prove the earth is a spinning speeding ball:
And now he's proving he never read my post days ago when I explained HOW he is constantly resorting to a logical fallacy. Exactly what is expected of a troll. I estimate he reads about 2-3% of the posts directed toward him. Oh well, at least he's good for humor!
-
I see Physical Observer is still continuing with his logical fallacy.
Is that what it is now? ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Here is another chance. Using the video of earth's physical condition, prove the earth is a spinning speeding ball:
What a stupid post!
-
And he still won't answer where the 1.8M mph data comes from. Just like he won't answer it this time.
Still waiting....
-
Didn't I tell you'll you won't be able to use earth's physical condition{expressed in the many videos I linked}, to support a spinning speeding ball? Now you are down to hiding in fake scientific globbly goop.
The spherical earth idea is DEAD! People are becoming wise to "fake-stories"!
They sure are becoming wise to "fake-stories"!
Like pretending that the earth is flat when it has been known to be a sphere for 2,500 years.
Like pretending that the earth is flat when no-one has a "flat earth model" that comes close to explaining the earth we observe.
But as for the spherical earth idea being DEAD! I'm afraid you've proved nothing with your fake proofs and fake videos.
You sure it is not you pretending the earth is a spinning speeding ball? Do you call my videos fake because they do not support your defunct beliefs?
Here's your chance, using this video of a calm lake, prove the earth is a spinning speeding ball, BET YOU CAN'T DO IT!!!!!!
Again, no one is claiming you can.
The simple fact is the video cannot distinguish between a slowly spinning speeding massive ball and a flat stationary plane.
Try to use the video to prove Earth is flat and motionless. BET YOU CAN'T DO IT!!!!!
I have already conclusively demonstrated that the apparent acceleration from Earth's rotation is not noticeable, and an appropriate scale model (which keeps the acceleration the same) would be a ball with a radius of 6.371 cm spinning with a tangential velocity of 0.1 MPH. So do you have a video of such a ball spinning at such a speed (or less)? Or only the tiny ball spinning really really fast making it incomparable to Earth's rotation?
Please, using this video of earth's physical condition, what we humans experience on earth, support the earth is a spinning speeding ball, BET YOU CAN'T DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I mean, if the earth surface is moving at 1,000 MPH, and we are speeding at 1.8 million MPH, there should be physical clues/signs/evidence of that from earth's physical state, right?
If you can't do it, then go away, stop responding, and we'll let the thread die. But I'll never let you forget it!
-
And he still won't answer where the 1.8M mph data comes from. Just like he won't answer it this time.
Still waiting....
Combined from speeding around the sun, and speeding through space, ALLEGDEDLY!!!!!!
Go ahead, using this video of earth, please support we are spinning and speeding on a ball, BET YOU CAN'T DO IT!
-
I see Physical Observer is still continuing with his logical fallacy.
Is that what it is now? ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Here is another chance. Using the video of earth's physical condition, prove the earth is a spinning speeding ball:
and i tell you again the surface of that water is not flat it is curved with an radius of appr. 6300km.
prove to me that the surface is flat. you know the how accurate you have to measure. i told you before.
-
I mean, if the earth surface is moving at 1,000 MPH, and we are speeding at 1.8 million MPH, there should be physical clues/signs/evidence of that from earth's physical state, right?
You are coming to incorrect conclusions because you are basing them on false premises.
The videos you posted do not tell us much one way or the other about the shape or movements of the earth. You are a priori stating that they do, and on that basis declaring the earth to be stationary.
It's an obvious logical fallacy. I would encourage you to consider this before posting anything more and embarrassing yourself further.
-
And he still won't answer where the 1.8M mph data comes from. Just like he won't answer it this time.
Still waiting....
Combined from speeding around the sun, and speeding through space, ALLEGDEDLY!!!!!!
Go ahead, using this video of earth, please support we are spinning and speeding on a ball, BET YOU CAN'T DO IT!
You just combined the numbers? What numbers, and what sources for these numbers? You've claimed it repeatedly, so you must have these numbers handy.
-
And he still won't answer where the 1.8M mph data comes from. Just like he won't answer it this time.
Still waiting....
Combined from speeding around the sun, and speeding through space, ALLEGDEDLY!!!!!!
Go ahead, using this video of earth, please support we are spinning and speeding on a ball, BET YOU CAN'T DO IT!
You just combined the numbers? What numbers, and what sources for these numbers? You've claimed it repeatedly, so you must have these numbers handy.
Betting his source is a youtube video that pulled it from another youtube video, etc.
-
And he still won't answer where the 1.8M mph data comes from. Just like he won't answer it this time.
Still waiting....
Combined from speeding around the sun, and speeding through space, ALLEGDEDLY!!!!!!
Go ahead, using this video of earth, please support we are spinning and speeding on a ball, BET YOU CAN'T DO IT!
You just combined the numbers? What numbers, and what sources for these numbers? You've claimed it repeatedly, so you must have these numbers handy.
Yeah, every time I use MPH numbers, it always becomes an issue, and I'm shown a whole new set of numbers. Please, how fast is the earth traveling around the sun, and how fast is the earth traveling through space. I'll use whatever numbers you give me, because I know they'll be ridicules anyway!
Anyway, using the video showing earth's physical state, please support a spinning speeding globe for earth:
And you thought you were going to be so clever with your simple diversion!
-
I mean, if the earth surface is moving at 1,000 MPH, and we are speeding at 1.8 million MPH, there should be physical clues/signs/evidence of that from earth's physical state, right?
You are coming to incorrect conclusions because you are basing them on false premises.
The videos you posted do not tell us much one way or the other about the shape or movements of the earth. You are a priori stating that they do, and on that basis declaring the earth to be stationary.
It's an obvious logical fallacy. I would encourage you to consider this before posting anything more and embarrassing yourself further.
"basing them on false premises."
If that is the case, then please support a spinning speeding earth with this video of earth's physical condition, should be easy to do, right:
Why do you'll need to accuse me of this, or saying I'm doing that? Is it because you cannot support a spinning speeding ball earth using earth itself? So of course, you have to shot me down someway, right? Well buckies, you brought a spit-ball straw to a tank battle!
-
If that is the case, then please support a spinning speeding earth with this video of earth's physical condition, should be easy to do, right:
No. That is another false premise - Or actually it's the same one in different packaging.
It's fine if you like to do this kind of thing but why don't you find a different topic to gnaw on? This is getting kind of boring.
-
I see Physical Observer is still continuing with his logical fallacy.
Is that what it is now? ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Here is another chance. Using the video of earth's physical condition, prove the earth is a spinning speeding ball:
Sun remains the same size as it rises and rises too fast for flat Earth. That was easy.
-
Didn't I tell you'll you won't be able to use earth's physical condition{expressed in the many videos I linked}, to support a spinning speeding ball? Now you are down to hiding in fake scientific globbly goop.
The spherical earth idea is DEAD! People are becoming wise to "fake-stories"!
They sure are becoming wise to "fake-stories"!
Like pretending that the earth is flat when it has been known to be a sphere for 2,500 years.
Like pretending that the earth is flat when no-one has a "flat earth model" that comes close to explaining the earth we observe.
But as for the spherical earth idea being DEAD! I'm afraid you've proved nothing with your fake proofs and fake videos.
You sure it is not you pretending the earth is a spinning speeding ball? Do you call my videos fake because they do not support your defunct beliefs?
Here's your chance, using this video of a calm lake, prove the earth is a spinning speeding ball, BET YOU CAN'T DO IT!!!!!!
Again, no one is claiming you can.
The simple fact is the video cannot distinguish between a slowly spinning speeding massive ball and a flat stationary plane.
Try to use the video to prove Earth is flat and motionless. BET YOU CAN'T DO IT!!!!!
I have already conclusively demonstrated that the apparent acceleration from Earth's rotation is not noticeable, and an appropriate scale model (which keeps the acceleration the same) would be a ball with a radius of 6.371 cm spinning with a tangential velocity of 0.1 MPH. So do you have a video of such a ball spinning at such a speed (or less)? Or only the tiny ball spinning really really fast making it incomparable to Earth's rotation?
Please, using this video of earth's physical condition, what we humans experience on earth, support the earth is a spinning speeding ball, BET YOU CAN'T DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I mean, if the earth surface is moving at 1,000 MPH, and we are speeding at 1.8 million MPH, there should be physical clues/signs/evidence of that from earth's physical state, right?
If you can't do it, then go away, stop responding, and we'll let the thread die. But I'll never let you forget it!
Wrong. Speed is relative. We are moving at a thousand miles an hour relative to what? The earth is moving at the same speed we are, and the atmosphere is. What physical signs would you expect to see when things are moving at the same speed? Do you see signs of movement in your car? Does you coffee cup go slamming to the back seat at 60 mph as you're driving down the highway? No? Then your point is invalid.
-
If that is the case, then please support a spinning speeding earth with this video of earth's physical condition, should be easy to do, right:
No. That is another false premise - Or actually it's the same one in different packaging.
It's fine if you like to do this kind of thing but why don't you find a different topic to gnaw on? This is getting kind of boring.
Seconded.
You cannot prove (or disprove) any theorum if you arbitrarily narrow the field of evidence.
This is nonsense (especially give the answers already provided).
-
Please, using this video of earth's physical condition, what we humans experience on earth, support the earth is a spinning speeding ball, BET YOU CAN'T DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How about you use it to prove Earth is stationary and flat? I BET YOU CAN'T!!!
If you can't do it, then go away, stop responding and we'll let the thread die, but we won't let you forget it.
I mean, if the earth surface is moving at 1,000 MPH, and we are speeding at 1.8 million MPH, there should be physical clues/signs/evidence of that from earth's physical state, right?
No. As people have repeatedly pointed out, there should not be any clues of Earth's linear motion expressed in its physical state. There will be when you look external to Earth, such as looking at the stars and observing relative motion, but even then, the linear speed is only measurable with very accurate tools.
What you can see signs of is Earth's rotation, but that still requires very large scale things, like large scale weather patterns or things which persist for long times like Foucault's pendulum.
You would not expect any signs of Earth's motion in those videos.
This has been pointed out and explained to you in detail many times and you are yet to refute it. Instead you just put up videos showing things that are nothing like Earth.
Like people have asked repeatedly, what signs are you expecting and why?
If you are unable to explain it, you cannot prove Earth is stationary or flat with your videos.
And remember, you can't just use a general case, you need to use a specific case which matches Earth.
You need to tell us exactly what you would expect on a sphere with a radius of 6371 km that is rotating at a rate of 15 degrees an hour and flying through the vacuum of space. If you wish to claim space isn't a vacuum, then tell us what matter is there and what effect it should have.
If you can't do it, then go away, stop responding, and we'll let the thread die. But I'll never let you forget it!
Combined from speeding around the sun, and speeding through space, ALLEGDEDLY!!!!!!
And what do you think those speeds are and what are your sources for those numbers?
Yeah, every time I use MPH numbers, it always becomes an issue, and I'm shown a whole new set of numbers. Please, how fast is the earth traveling around the sun, and how fast is the earth traveling through space. I'll use whatever numbers you give me, because I know they'll be ridicules anyway!
Nope. Nothing ridiculous about them, as Earth isn't moving through air and instead is moving on an astronomical scale.
Earth's speed around the sun is roughly 30 km/s
That is roughly 67 500 miles per hour.
The suns speed around the galactic centre is ~220 km/s, which is roughly 495 000 miles per hour.
"basing them on false premises."
If that is the case, then please support a spinning speeding earth with this video of earth's physical condition, should be easy to do, right:
Again, that is a false premise.
It shouldn't be easy to do as a video like that cannot distinguish between them.
Why do you'll need to accuse me of this, or saying I'm doing that? Is it because you cannot support a spinning speeding ball earth using earth itself? So of course, you have to shot me down someway, right? Well buckies, you brought a spit-ball straw to a tank battle!
No. It is because you are doing that.
That post is it again.
We cannot use the videos you have provided. That doesn't mean we cannot do it using Earth itself. We have and you have ignored it.
Regardless, you are still then coming to a conclusion (or at least implying it) that Earth is flat and stationary based on an alleged lack of people being able to do otherwise.
That isn't how it works. You would need to provide evidence for Earth being flat and stationary, which requires showing it is capable of distinguishing between the 2, so you need to distinguish between 0 speed, and any non-zero speed.
You need to distinguish between 0 curvature and any curvature, including very slight curvature.
But you can't.
-
I gave you the option of going over it point by point, but you just dismissed it.
Would you like to try again?
The three points were:
Earth is spinning (specifically at a rate of 15 degrees an hour).
Earth is round (specifically with a radius of 6371 km).
Earth (and everything on it) is moving through space at some speed.
Previously you started with spinning. Did you want to try that again?
I showed you the acceleration required to remain in a circular path, even at the equator is only a mere 0.03 m/s^2. Gravity (or whatever else you wish to claim holds us to Earth) provides over 300 times this, so you wouldn't be expecting anything to go flying off into space from this rotation.
I showed that if you want to compare this to a small object, such as a ball with a radius of 6.371 cm, then you need to scale the rotation, such that the surface of the ball would be going at 0.1 miles per hour (0.16 km/hr or 4.444 cm / s ) the period would become 8.64 seconds.
Compare it to a ball spinning much much faster is just dishonest crap which doesn't disprove Earth spinning at all.
-
MPH can only be measured with respect to what's happening on Earth.
A speed of over 1000 mph is simply what it says. It's a speed of 1000 mph.
All we have to do is to find out how many things go at 1000 mph, or more and then understand that we, as humans should be moving at that speed.
It doesn't matter whether it's told that the Earth spins only once in 24 hours and that makes its rotation very slow. The fact we are told about MPH means exactly what it says...to us....so therefore we expect to move at that speed with feet firmly planted on the deck.
The argument of the atmosphere moving in unison with the supposed ball rendering us unable to feel the motion, is total and utter nonsensical clap trap but most people are duped into believing it actually makes sense.
They believe it makes sense because of no other reason than being told about riding in cars, trains, or planes, in supposed sealed units that saunter through atmosphere and yet we supposedly do not feel the motion.
The reality is, if we were spinning on a ball we would be under what's known as centrifugal force, or would have except that the laws have changed on that and it's basically became a fictional force, where the real force is now, centripetal force, or an inward force.
The changes are due to people using common sense and realising that this outward slinging force should be slinging us off this supposed planet and yet it doesn't because it's changed to centripetal force. An inward force that stops us being slung into so called space.
People are all too willing to abandon basic common sense and clear and observable, repeatable experiments proving a physical,w here this rotation occurs and also the MPH which we all observe as a man made speed.
So instead of adhering to a thought process of a car, train, bus or plane going in a near straight direction, think of it doing a turn around a circular road, track or sky, because we all know that even the slightest movement away from centre results in a force in the same direction for anyone being part of that scenario.
Ok, so the silly arguments are us being spun with atmosphere and also solid ground, as well as water.
We physically know that water and atmosphere do not follow the example of the so called spin rotation but apparently, this is an atmosphere within an atmosphere, if you can get your head around it.
Take us outside of the so called ball into so called space with so called satellites being slung around the Earth and following the exact MPH of the Earth spin, as we are told. These so called satellites being around 23,000 miles away from Earth, as we are told. In geo-sync with Earth and yet under no influence of the atmosphere of Earth and yet they are still on the inward centripetal force, or the inward force, or to put it more simpler....they are held by the magical string attached from Earth into so called space orbit of it.
To make it even easier, we have to believe that a satellite like this, is like a person holding a hammer in the Olympics and swinging it around as he/she follows it around.
The magical string. The invisible nonsense that is battered into people's brains as realistic.
Nobody gives any thought to how they tell us that space crafts that get sent to so called moons and mars do this speed/acceleration around the Earth and then sling shots onto a trajectory towards whatever planet they tell us.
The issue is, has anyone ever thought about the sling shot?
We can see it work on Earth with the hammer thrower. We can see when he/she lets go, it takes a set direction.
What is a rocket doing after being released from the solid deck into the atmosphere and then supposedly through it at an angle?
It's accelerating around a supposed globe and held on by this imaginary string force. It circles the Earth however many times and gains speed.
From this point on it has to snap the imaginary string force keeping it attached to Earth, only this time it's not acting like the hammer thrower and his/her hammer, because it isn't in geo-sync.
It's actually moving many many times faster than the supposed Earth's rotation, as if it's string was attached to Earth in a groove like a so called malfunctioning yo-yo that allows the string to keep circling without being wound in or out.
The issue is, how does the string snap to set the rocket into motion away from Earth?
Does someone tap the brake pedal?
A quick puff of aerosol?
A quick side blast of super fire thrust?
How does this happen that can be thought of as anything even remotely looking like realistic.
Observable it is not. Repeatable it is obviously not.
The story tellers of sci-fi that fools the gullible of which we all are.
Sometimes being gullible is the easiest option, but it's not an option that a person takes willingly, because nobody likes to think they are gullible, although deep down they know they do succumb to it many times, which does go for all people.
The strongest people are those that are willing to eradicate some of their naivety for sucker stories.
The way to do that is to actually go through each story told and look for potential flaws in it.
All people have to remember is, the magical stuff that we see in so called space and what not, were all the imagination of sci-fi writers/story tellers and brought to life by the special effects teams and narrators.
To find out the difference between star trek and star wars, or Apollo to the moon or spaceX to mars, you need to re-read the story-lines and you need to look into your own mind to actually set it to a comfortable stance of seeing the bigger picture after every re-read.
-
MPH can only be measured with respect to what's happening on Earth.
A speed of over 1000 mph is simply what it says. It's a speed of 1000 mph.
All we have to do is to find out how many things go at 1000 mph, or more and then understand that we, as humans should be moving at that speed.
It doesn't matter whether it's told that the Earth spins only once in 24 hours and that makes its rotation very slow. The fact we are told about MPH means exactly what it says...to us....so therefore we expect to move at that speed with feet firmly planted on the deck.
The argument of the atmosphere moving in unison with the supposed ball rendering us unable to feel the motion, is total and utter nonsensical clap trap but most people are duped into believing it actually makes sense.
They believe it makes sense because of no other reason than being told about riding in cars, trains, or planes, in supposed sealed units that saunter through atmosphere and yet we supposedly do not feel the motion.
The reality is, if we were spinning on a ball we would be under what's known as centrifugal force, or would have except that the laws have changed on that and it's basically became a fictional force, where the real force is now, centripetal force, or an inward force.
The changes are due to people using common sense and realising that this outward slinging force should be slinging us off this supposed planet and yet it doesn't because it's changed to centripetal force. An inward force that stops us being slung into so called space.
People are all too willing to abandon basic common sense and clear and observable, repeatable experiments proving a physical,w here this rotation occurs and also the MPH which we all observe as a man made speed.
So instead of adhering to a thought process of a car, train, bus or plane going in a near straight direction, think of it doing a turn around a circular road, track or sky, because we all know that even the slightest movement away from centre results in a force in the same direction for anyone being part of that scenario.
Ok, so the silly arguments are us being spun with atmosphere and also solid ground, as well as water.
We physically know that water and atmosphere do not follow the example of the so called spin rotation but apparently, this is an atmosphere within an atmosphere, if you can get your head around it.
Take us outside of the so called ball into so called space with so called satellites being slung around the Earth and following the exact MPH of the Earth spin, as we are told. These so called satellites being around 23,000 miles away from Earth, as we are told. In geo-sync with Earth and yet under no influence of the atmosphere of Earth and yet they are still on the inward centripetal force, or the inward force, or to put it more simpler....they are held by the magical string attached from Earth into so called space orbit of it.
To make it even easier, we have to believe that a satellite like this, is like a person holding a hammer in the Olympics and swinging it around as he/she follows it around.
The magical string. The invisible nonsense that is battered into people's brains as realistic.
Nobody gives any thought to how they tell us that space crafts that get sent to so called moons and mars do this speed/acceleration around the Earth and then sling shots onto a trajectory towards whatever planet they tell us.
The issue is, has anyone ever thought about the sling shot?
We can see it work on Earth with the hammer thrower. We can see when he/she lets go, it takes a set direction.
What is a rocket doing after being released from the solid deck into the atmosphere and then supposedly through it at an angle?
It's accelerating around a supposed globe and held on by this imaginary string force. It circles the Earth however many times and gains speed.
From this point on it has to snap the imaginary string force keeping it attached to Earth, only this time it's not acting like the hammer thrower and his/her hammer, because it isn't in geo-sync.
It's actually moving many many times faster than the supposed Earth's rotation, as if it's string was attached to Earth in a groove like a so called malfunctioning yo-yo that allows the string to keep circling without being wound in or out.
The issue is, how does the string snap to set the rocket into motion away from Earth?
Does someone tap the brake pedal?
A quick puff of aerosol?
A quick side blast of super fire thrust?
How does this happen that can be thought of as anything even remotely looking like realistic.
Observable it is not. Repeatable it is obviously not.
The story tellers of sci-fi that fools the gullible of which we all are.
Sometimes being gullible is the easiest option, but it's not an option that a person takes willingly, because nobody likes to think they are gullible, although deep down they know they do succumb to it many times, which does go for all people.
The strongest people are those that are willing to eradicate some of their naivety for sucker stories.
The way to do that is to actually go through each story told and look for potential flaws in it.
All people have to remember is, the magical stuff that we see in so called space and what not, were all the imagination of sci-fi writers/story tellers and brought to life by the special effects teams and narrators.
To find out the difference between star trek and star wars, or Apollo to the moon or spaceX to mars, you need to re-read the story-lines and you need to look into your own mind to actually set it to a comfortable stance of seeing the bigger picture after every re-read.
so you are half right, the rotation of the earth is moving us at about a thousand miles an hour. if a set of magical brakes were applied to the earth and we suddenly stopped, it would be like hitting a wall going twice the speed of most airplanes. however velocity isn't detectable using only your senses, you can feel acceleration, but not velocity. which is why pouring wine on airplanes is possible. centrifugal force is a form of acceleration, when a ball rotates; though it has constant velocity, the surface of a ball is constantly changing direction, which is accelerating. be it a marble or a planet; if it makes one rotation a day, the acceleration is the same, however the velocity at the surface increases exponentially with radius.
that being said the rotation of the earth does exert force on you, it's insignificant compared to gravity, but it's there. it is a well documented fact that you weigh less at the equator than you do at the poles. however the change is minuscule at best.
what a dishonest argument, gravity isn't like a string to be snapped. it's more similar to magnetism, except much weaker, it's a force of attraction between objects that fades with distance. with an object as big as the earth that distance is rather significant. i assume you understand how orbits work even if you don't believe in them. a gravity assist is just expanding an orbit until you escape the gravity of whatever you are orbiting.
-
MPH can only be measured with respect to what's happening on Earth.
No. It can be measured with respect to many different things.
If you just want to measure speed relative to Earth, in a non-inertial rotating reference frame, then we and Earth are stationary.
But that is just because you are changing the reference frame.
It doesn't matter whether it's told that the Earth spins only once in 24 hours and that makes its rotation very slow.
That depends, are you just focusing on the linear speed, which is undetectable except in reference to another object, or the effects of rotation as well?
If you want to consider the rotation, then you do need to consider our size/just how slow that 1000 MPH is.
The fact we are told about MPH means exactly what it says...to us....so therefore we expect to move at that speed with feet firmly planted on the deck.
Yes, with the deck and the atmosphere moving with us.
The argument of the atmosphere moving in unison with the supposed ball rendering us unable to feel the motion, is total and utter nonsensical clap trap but most people are duped into believing it actually makes sense.
No. It is reality.
If it wasn't, and it was just Earth moving, then friction between the atmosphere and Earth would cause the atmosphere to speed up.
They believe it makes sense because of no other reason than being told about riding in cars, trains, or planes, in supposed sealed units that saunter through atmosphere and yet we supposedly do not feel the motion.
And you are looking at it the wrong way.
It isn't because they are in a shell that they don't feel motion. It is when you are outside the shell, moving relative to the atmosphere, that you do feel it. If the atmosphere is moving with you, you don't feel it.
The reality is, if we were spinning on a ball we would be under what's known as centrifugal force, or would have except that the laws have changed on that and it's basically became a fictional force, where the real force is now, centripetal force, or an inward force.
The centrifugal force is a fictitious force as it is only an apparent force for a non-inertial, rotating reference frame.
It is inertia, not a force, that results in things being flung out of rapidly spinning objects.
The centripetal force is the force that is required to maintain the rotational motion.
And if you bother doing the math, you find out the acceleration required to keep us moving with the surface of Earth, at the equator, is 0.03 m/s^2. Gravity provides over 300 times that force.
As such, we would not expect to be flung off.
Claiming we should be flung off because of centrifugal force is total and utter nonsensical clap trap, because the force is simply far too tiny because of just how slowly Earth rotates.
The changes are due to people using common sense and realising that this outward slinging force should be slinging us off this supposed planet and yet it doesn't because it's changed to centripetal force. An inward force that stops us being slung into so called space.
No. The change is due to people throwing reason and rationality out the window and instead of thinking about it and balancing forces, they just accept this childish bullshit.
The inward force keeping us to the planet is gravity.
People are all too willing to abandon basic common sense and clear and observable, repeatable experiments proving a physical,w here this rotation occurs and also the MPH which we all observe as a man made speed.
No. People seem to be all too willing to abandon basic common sense, reason, rationality and clear and observable, repeatable experiments proving that the rotation does occur, all because of childish nonsense.
So instead of adhering to a thought process of a car, train, bus or plane going in a near straight direction, think of it doing a turn around a circular road, track or sky, because we all know that even the slightest movement away from centre results in a force in the same direction for anyone being part of that scenario.
Sure, an extremely gradual turn, such that it takes an entire day to complete a circle. Also, just to complete the comparison to Earth, imagine you are being pulled to the inside of that turn by a force more than 300 times that required to keep you following the circle.
Ok, so the silly arguments are us being spun with atmosphere and also solid ground, as well as water.
We physically know that water and atmosphere do not follow the example of the so called spin rotation but apparently, this is an atmosphere within an atmosphere, if you can get your head around it.
No. We know they do, as friction will result in them matching.
However we know that just like many things, it isn't perfect. So instead of spinning at exactly 1000 MPH to match Earth, it may spin slightly slower or faster, resulting in winds.
Take us outside of the so called ball into so called space with so called satellites being slung around the Earth and following the exact MPH of the Earth spin, as we are told. These so called satellites being around 23,000 miles away from Earth, as we are told. In geo-sync with Earth and yet under no influence of the atmosphere of Earth and yet they are still on the inward centripetal force, or the inward force, or to put it more simpler....they are held by the magical string attached from Earth into so called space orbit of it.
That is because of how orbits work.
In the case of Satellites, they are distant enough and/or orbiting fast enough such that the centripetal force required to keep it in an orbit is provided pretty much exactly by the attractive force of gravity. (it being non-exact results in an elliptical orbit).
They don't follow the same MPH spin of Earth. Instead they follow the same degrees per hour of Earth (for a geosynchronous one).
So rather than the path of the equator, with a circumference of 40 000 km to traverse in 24 hours (technically 23 hours, 56 minutes ish), resulting in a speed of ~1666 km/hr, the geosynchronous satellites have an orbit with radius of 42164 km, and thus a circumference of 264924 km, resulting in a velocity of ~ 11 039 km/hr, 7 times as fast.
To make it even easier, we have to believe that a satellite like this, is like a person holding a hammer in the Olympics and swinging it around as he/she follows it around.
The magical string. The invisible nonsense that is battered into people's brains as realistic.
Not quite a string, but quite similar.
Gravity is providing the force which would be provided by the string.
The only nonsense is your rejection of it.
Nobody gives any thought to how they tell us that space crafts that get sent to so called moons and mars do this speed/acceleration around the Earth and then sling shots onto a trajectory towards whatever planet they tell us.
No. FEers don't give it thought, because they can't understand.
People that actually care do.
It is quite simple, they pass close to the planet, enter a hyperbolic or parabolic orbit, use the planets gravity to turn the craft around resulting in a significant change in speed relative to the solar system, but no significant change relative to the planet in question.
The issue is, has anyone ever thought about the sling shot?
We can see it work on Earth with the hammer thrower. We can see when he/she lets go, it takes a set direction.
Yes, plenty of people have.
It is nothing like the hammer thrower.
You can't just let the string go.
What is a rocket doing after being released from the solid deck into the atmosphere and then supposedly through it at an angle?
It's accelerating around a supposed globe and held on by this imaginary string force.
No. It is held by this very real gravity.
It circles the Earth however many times and gains speed.
From this point on it has to snap the imaginary string force keeping it attached to Earth, only this time it's not acting like the hammer thrower and his/her hammer, because it isn't in geo-sync.
It's actually moving many many times faster than the supposed Earth's rotation, as if it's string was attached to Earth in a groove like a so called malfunctioning yo-yo that allows the string to keep circling without being wound in or out.
The issue is, how does the string snap to set the rocket into motion away from Earth?
Does someone tap the brake pedal?
A quick puff of aerosol?
A quick side blast of super fire thrust?
It doesn't, and this is another issue of the string analogy.
The tension in the analogy string gets less and less as the object gets further away until eventually it reaches effectively 0.
The string "snaps" itself as the object moves further away, which is done by either its inertia, or a booster, or some combination of them.
How does this happen that can be thought of as anything even remotely looking like realistic.
By no longer thinking of it as a string and instead accepting it for what it is.
Observable it is not. Repeatable it is obviously not.
No. It is quite observable. You can notice how the craft is accelerated less as it is further away.
It is quite repeatable due to the sheer number of times it has been done.
The story tellers of sci-fi that fools the gullible of which we all are.
No. Not us all.
You might be a gullible fool that has fallen for the FE bullshit, but not me.
I actually understand these things that have been used to so easily con you.
The strongest people are those that are willing to eradicate some of their naivety for sucker stories.
The way to do that is to actually go through each story told and look for potential flaws in it.
Which is what I did with FE. I found so many flaws it isn't funny.
All people have to remember is, the magical stuff that we see in so called space and what not, were all the imagination of sci-fi writers/story tellers and brought to life by the special effects teams and narrators.
Not all. Some was brought to life by real scientists.
Are you going to say cell phones are all just special effects and the like as well?
To find out the difference between star trek and star wars, or Apollo to the moon or spaceX to mars, you need to re-read the story-lines and you need to look into your own mind to actually set it to a comfortable stance of seeing the bigger picture after every re-read.
Well Apollo was based entirely upon technology that they had at the time. It was a real program which actually happened.
Star trek is fictional, it contradicts itself, it is based in the future and has technology we simply don't have.
-
Now scepti, do you have anything rational to say on the topic at hand, or just childish nonsense?
Do you have any refutation of the tiny centripetal force required to keep us rotating with Earth?
Do you have a magic way to feel absolute motion?
-
here a video for physical observer:
and also i invite you, physical observer, to come to Ontario and check it out. i live here near by Niagara on the Lake and we can drive there and do the observation.
-
So instead of adhering to a thought process of a car, train, bus or plane going in a near straight direction, think of it doing a turn around a circular road, track or sky, because we all know that even the slightest movement away from centre results in a force in the same direction for anyone being part of that scenario.
I addressed the analogy of driving around a circular track earlier in this thread to demonstrate why physical observer is necessarily trolling us all. It was ignored. I suggested thinking of a 1000-mile-wide track, but you know what? That's not even necessary.
Pick a circular track of ANY size. Take 24 hours to drive one lap. Tell me how much centrifugal force you feel pulling you towards the outside of the turn.
-
So instead of adhering to a thought process of a car, train, bus or plane going in a near straight direction, think of it doing a turn around a circular road, track or sky, because we all know that even the slightest movement away from centre results in a force in the same direction for anyone being part of that scenario.
I addressed the analogy of driving around a circular track earlier in this thread to demonstrate why physical observer is necessarily trolling us all. It was ignored. I suggested thinking of a 1000-mile-wide track, but you know what? That's not even necessary.
Pick a circular track of ANY size. Take 24 hours to drive one lap. Tell me how much centrifugal force you feel pulling you towards the outside of the turn.
Yeah, take 24 hours driving at 1000 mph. You neglect to mention this.
I've already mentioned the dishonesty you people use with the one rotation in a day bag of crap.
-
So instead of adhering to a thought process of a car, train, bus or plane going in a near straight direction, think of it doing a turn around a circular road, track or sky, because we all know that even the slightest movement away from centre results in a force in the same direction for anyone being part of that scenario.
I addressed the analogy of driving around a circular track earlier in this thread to demonstrate why physical observer is necessarily trolling us all. It was ignored. I suggested thinking of a 1000-mile-wide track, but you know what? That's not even necessary.
Pick a circular track of ANY size. Take 24 hours to drive one lap. Tell me how much centrifugal force you feel pulling you towards the outside of the turn.
Yeah, take 24 hours driving at 1000 mph. You neglect to mention this.
I've already mentioned the dishonesty you people use with the one rotation in a day bag of crap.
This works fine...as long as your track has a 24,000 mile circumference. We keep making this distinction because it actually is critically important to what we're all discussing here.
-
So instead of adhering to a thought process of a car, train, bus or plane going in a near straight direction, think of it doing a turn around a circular road, track or sky, because we all know that even the slightest movement away from centre results in a force in the same direction for anyone being part of that scenario.
I addressed the analogy of driving around a circular track earlier in this thread to demonstrate why physical observer is necessarily trolling us all. It was ignored. I suggested thinking of a 1000-mile-wide track, but you know what? That's not even necessary.
Pick a circular track of ANY size. Take 24 hours to drive one lap. Tell me how much centrifugal force you feel pulling you towards the outside of the turn.
Yeah, take 24 hours driving at 1000 mph. You neglect to mention this.
I've already mentioned the dishonesty you people use with the one rotation in a day bag of crap.
This works fine...as long as your track has a 24,000 mile circumference. We keep making this distinction because it actually is critically important to what we're all discussing here.
Give it a 100,000 mile circumference, it's still over 1000 mph for a human being.
-
So instead of adhering to a thought process of a car, train, bus or plane going in a near straight direction, think of it doing a turn around a circular road, track or sky, because we all know that even the slightest movement away from centre results in a force in the same direction for anyone being part of that scenario.
I addressed the analogy of driving around a circular track earlier in this thread to demonstrate why physical observer is necessarily trolling us all. It was ignored. I suggested thinking of a 1000-mile-wide track, but you know what? That's not even necessary.
Pick a circular track of ANY size. Take 24 hours to drive one lap. Tell me how much centrifugal force you feel pulling you towards the outside of the turn.
Yeah, take 24 hours driving at 1000 mph. You neglect to mention this.
I've already mentioned the dishonesty you people use with the one rotation in a day bag of crap.
It's not dishonesty at all. You don't feel the movement when you are sitting on a speeding train, assuming it's path is straight and level, do you? Even if that train was moving at 1000 mph you would not feel it. What you feel is acceleration, a change in speed. So you feel pulled to the side when it goes around a curve.
Now imagine that same train going around a curve so slight that it takes 24 hours to make a complete circle. That acceleration would have such a tiny affect that you would never notice it compared to gravity pulling on you.
There is nothing dishonest there, and it's easily understood. And it fits all observable phenomenon. Round, spinning earth explains sunrise and sunset and how the light hits the top of a mountain first in the morning. And how the sun and moon stay the same size throughout the day, and how the stars appear to rotate around the earth.
I have not seen a flat earth model that explains these things.
-
The difference between velocity and acceleration and their respective effects seems a little too difficult for some people to comprehend.
I'll try again.
We don't notice the movement of the earth because, even though it is around 1000 MPH it is a nearly constant velocity and the atmosphere moves with us. If that 1000 MPH were in a straight line it would be a constant velocity and would be undetectable. Because we are turning, the velocity is constantly changing. (only in direction though not in speed)It is this turn which we should technically be able to detect but since we are only turning 15 degrees an hour we can't really detect it.
-
The difference between velocity and acceleration and their respective effects seems a little too difficult for some people to comprehend.
I'll try again.
We don't notice the movement of the earth because, even though it is around 1000 MPH it is a nearly constant velocity and the atmosphere moves with us. If that 1000 MPH were in a straight line it would be a constant velocity and would be undetectable. Because we are turning, the velocity is constantly changing. (only in direction though not in speed)It is this turn which we should technically be able to detect but since we are only turning 15 degrees an hour we can't really detect it.
Of course we can't detect it. It's because it is absolutely not spinning at all.
-
The difference between velocity and acceleration and their respective effects seems a little too difficult for some people to comprehend.
I'll try again.
We don't notice the movement of the earth because, even though it is around 1000 MPH it is a nearly constant velocity and the atmosphere moves with us. If that 1000 MPH were in a straight line it would be a constant velocity and would be undetectable. Because we are turning, the velocity is constantly changing. (only in direction though not in speed)It is this turn which we should technically be able to detect but since we are only turning 15 degrees an hour we can't really detect it.
Of course we can't detect it. It's because it is absolutely not spinning at all.
If it was turning at 15 degrees per hour do you think you would be able to detect it?
-
The difference between velocity and acceleration and their respective effects seems a little too difficult for some people to comprehend.
I'll try again.
We don't notice the movement of the earth because, even though it is around 1000 MPH it is a nearly constant velocity and the atmosphere moves with us. If that 1000 MPH were in a straight line it would be a constant velocity and would be undetectable. Because we are turning, the velocity is constantly changing. (only in direction though not in speed)It is this turn which we should technically be able to detect but since we are only turning 15 degrees an hour we can't really detect it.
Of course we can't detect it. It's because it is absolutely not spinning at all.
If it was turning at 15 degrees per hour do you think you would be able to detect it?
Absolutely at 1000 mph, yep, no doubt about it and not only that but, unless we were bolted to the ground, we would be sliding along it until we go off level, which would be fairly instant and then back to the deck again.
You people really do need to wake up.
Thinking atmosphere drags you along with the solid floor of Earth is not just laughable, it's scary to think people actually believe it after being told about it.
Yeah but gravity. Yeah but centripetal force. Yeah but it's a reference frame. Yeah but atmosphere and solid, plus water all follow a set pattern.
Yeah but magic is real even though we can never ever witness it, unless we accept men feigning it.
Absolutely ridiculous and no amount of so called scientific jargon will change that FACT.
-
So instead of adhering to a thought process of a car, train, bus or plane going in a near straight direction, think of it doing a turn around a circular road, track or sky, because we all know that even the slightest movement away from centre results in a force in the same direction for anyone being part of that scenario.
I addressed the analogy of driving around a circular track earlier in this thread to demonstrate why physical observer is necessarily trolling us all. It was ignored. I suggested thinking of a 1000-mile-wide track, but you know what? That's not even necessary.
Pick a circular track of ANY size. Take 24 hours to drive one lap. Tell me how much centrifugal force you feel pulling you towards the outside of the turn.
Yeah, take 24 hours driving at 1000 mph. You neglect to mention this.
I've already mentioned the dishonesty you people use with the one rotation in a day bag of crap.
This works fine...as long as your track has a 24,000 mile circumference. We keep making this distinction because it actually is critically important to what we're all discussing here.
Give it a 100,000 mile circumference, it's still over 1000 mph for a human being.
but you do not realise that you can only feel a change of speed not the speed directly.
it does not matter how fast you go if there is no change.
as soon there is a change in speed you feel a force that is a result of the speed change, this change is called acceleration.
at circular motion the acceleration is generated by the change of direction, and the change of this direction has a simple relation to the radius of the direction change.
for a very big radius the change of the direction is very little therefor the acting force is very little.
a easy comparison is a car that drives in a circle, if it turns in a big radius, it car go up to a certain speed. the car could not drive with the same speed in a smaller radius. the tires could not transfer the force from the tires to the street.
basic is: speed does not matter, only the change of speed in a certain time matters.
another example: drive your car 50km/h and than brake a little, you speedchange in small therefor it is comfortable.
drive with the same speed into a wall, we all know that this very high speedchange is very uncomfortable.
all that means all this talking about speed is meaningless because the speedchange is always very small.
-
Absolutely at 1000 mph, yep, no doubt about it and not only that but, unless we were bolted to the ground, we would be sliding along it until we go off level, which would be fairly instant and then back to the deck again.
You people really do need to wake up.
Thinking atmosphere drags you along with the solid floor of Earth is not just laughable, it's scary to think people actually believe it after being told about it.
Yeah but gravity. Yeah but centripetal force. Yeah but it's a reference frame. Yeah but atmosphere and solid, plus water all follow a set pattern.
Yeah but magic is real even though we can never ever witness it, unless we accept men feigning it.
Absolutely ridiculous and no amount of so called scientific jargon will change that FACT.
the simple basic is that you do not understand basic physics. 99% other people do understand it. should that not give you a clue that you are maybe wrong.
the only way you could convince the 99% that they are wrong is if you present testable evidence.
but you never do that. like you show lots of times before.
-
The difference between velocity and acceleration and their respective effects seems a little too difficult for some people to comprehend.
I'll try again.
We don't notice the movement of the earth because, even though it is around 1000 MPH it is a nearly constant velocity and the atmosphere moves with us. If that 1000 MPH were in a straight line it would be a constant velocity and would be undetectable. Because we are turning, the velocity is constantly changing. (only in direction though not in speed)It is this turn which we should technically be able to detect but since we are only turning 15 degrees an hour we can't really detect it.
Of course we can't detect it. It's because it is absolutely not spinning at all.
If it was turning at 15 degrees per hour do you think you would be able to detect it?
Absolutely at 1000 mph, yep, no doubt about it
Now we're just going in circles.
Please refer to my earlier post.
Also, please entertain the idea for, a second or two, that it is you that is not comprehending reality instead of just assuming the rest of us are swallowing a big huge fallacy.
-
The difference between velocity and acceleration and their respective effects seems a little too difficult for some people to comprehend.
I'll try again.
We don't notice the movement of the earth because, even though it is around 1000 MPH it is a nearly constant velocity and the atmosphere moves with us. If that 1000 MPH were in a straight line it would be a constant velocity and would be undetectable. Because we are turning, the velocity is constantly changing. (only in direction though not in speed)It is this turn which we should technically be able to detect but since we are only turning 15 degrees an hour we can't really detect it.
Of course we can't detect it. It's because it is absolutely not spinning at all.
If it was turning at 15 degrees per hour do you think you would be able to detect it?
Absolutely at 1000 mph, yep, no doubt about it
Now we're just going in circles.
Please refer to my earlier post.
Also, please entertain the idea for, a second or two, that it is you that is not comprehending reality instead of just assuming the rest of us are swallowing a big huge fallacy.
I spent a lot of my life entertaining the idea you still stick with. No more. I at least know, 100% that we are certainly not dealing with any 1000+ MPH spinning Earth in so called space vacuum as we are told.
It's you and the rest like you that need to wake up...or don't. Your choice.
-
MPH can only be measured with respect to what's happening on Earth.
A speed of over 1000 mph is simply what it says. It's a speed of 1000 mph.
All we have to do is to find out how many things go at 1000 mph, or more and then understand that we, as humans should be moving at that speed.
It doesn't matter whether it's told that the Earth spins only once in 24 hours and that makes its rotation very slow. The fact we are told about MPH means exactly what it says...to us....so therefore we expect to move at that speed with feet firmly planted on the deck.
The argument of the atmosphere moving in unison with the supposed ball rendering us unable to feel the motion, is total and utter nonsensical clap trap but most people are duped into believing it actually makes sense.
They believe it makes sense because of no other reason than being told about riding in cars, trains, or planes, in supposed sealed units that saunter through atmosphere and yet we supposedly do not feel the motion.
The reality is, if we were spinning on a ball we would be under what's known as centrifugal force, or would have except that the laws have changed on that and it's basically became a fictional force, where the real force is now, centripetal force, or an inward force.
The changes are due to people using common sense and realising that this outward slinging force should be slinging us off this supposed planet and yet it doesn't because it's changed to centripetal force. An inward force that stops us being slung into so called space.
People are all too willing to abandon basic common sense and clear and observable, repeatable experiments proving a physical,w here this rotation occurs and also the MPH which we all observe as a man made speed.
So instead of adhering to a thought process of a car, train, bus or plane going in a near straight direction, think of it doing a turn around a circular road, track or sky, because we all know that even the slightest movement away from centre results in a force in the same direction for anyone being part of that scenario.
Ok, so the silly arguments are us being spun with atmosphere and also solid ground, as well as water.
We physically know that water and atmosphere do not follow the example of the so called spin rotation but apparently, this is an atmosphere within an atmosphere, if you can get your head around it.
Take us outside of the so called ball into so called space with so called satellites being slung around the Earth and following the exact MPH of the Earth spin, as we are told. These so called satellites being around 23,000 miles away from Earth, as we are told. In geo-sync with Earth and yet under no influence of the atmosphere of Earth and yet they are still on the inward centripetal force, or the inward force, or to put it more simpler....they are held by the magical string attached from Earth into so called space orbit of it.
To make it even easier, we have to believe that a satellite like this, is like a person holding a hammer in the Olympics and swinging it around as he/she follows it around.
The magical string. The invisible nonsense that is battered into people's brains as realistic.
Nobody gives any thought to how they tell us that space crafts that get sent to so called moons and mars do this speed/acceleration around the Earth and then sling shots onto a trajectory towards whatever planet they tell us.
The issue is, has anyone ever thought about the sling shot?
We can see it work on Earth with the hammer thrower. We can see when he/she lets go, it takes a set direction.
What is a rocket doing after being released from the solid deck into the atmosphere and then supposedly through it at an angle?
It's accelerating around a supposed globe and held on by this imaginary string force. It circles the Earth however many times and gains speed.
From this point on it has to snap the imaginary string force keeping it attached to Earth, only this time it's not acting like the hammer thrower and his/her hammer, because it isn't in geo-sync.
It's actually moving many many times faster than the supposed Earth's rotation, as if it's string was attached to Earth in a groove like a so called malfunctioning yo-yo that allows the string to keep circling without being wound in or out.
The issue is, how does the string snap to set the rocket into motion away from Earth?
Does someone tap the brake pedal?
A quick puff of aerosol?
A quick side blast of super fire thrust?
How does this happen that can be thought of as anything even remotely looking like realistic.
Observable it is not. Repeatable it is obviously not.
The story tellers of sci-fi that fools the gullible of which we all are.
Sometimes being gullible is the easiest option, but it's not an option that a person takes willingly, because nobody likes to think they are gullible, although deep down they know they do succumb to it many times, which does go for all people.
The strongest people are those that are willing to eradicate some of their naivety for sucker stories.
The way to do that is to actually go through each story told and look for potential flaws in it.
All people have to remember is, the magical stuff that we see in so called space and what not, were all the imagination of sci-fi writers/story tellers and brought to life by the special effects teams and narrators.
To find out the difference between star trek and star wars, or Apollo to the moon or spaceX to mars, you need to re-read the story-lines and you need to look into your own mind to actually set it to a comfortable stance of seeing the bigger picture after every re-read.
The radius of the Earth is about 6,371 km, the angular velocity is about 73 microhertz, this gives a centrifugal force at the equator of about 3.4 cm/s2,or about 0.35% of gravity. Farther from the equator it's smaller. This is nowhere near strong enough to make things fly off the surface.
-
I spent a lot of my life entertaining the idea you still stick with. No more. I at least know, 100% that we are certainly not dealing with any 1000+ MPH spinning Earth in so called space vacuum as we are told.
It's you and the rest like you that need to wake up...or don't. Your choice.
how do you know?
what are the evidence that make you believe what you believe?
-
The difference between velocity and acceleration and their respective effects seems a little too difficult for some people to comprehend.
I'll try again.
We don't notice the movement of the earth because, even though it is around 1000 MPH it is a nearly constant velocity and the atmosphere moves with us. If that 1000 MPH were in a straight line it would be a constant velocity and would be undetectable. Because we are turning, the velocity is constantly changing. (only in direction though not in speed)It is this turn which we should technically be able to detect but since we are only turning 15 degrees an hour we can't really detect it.
Of course we can't detect it. It's because it is absolutely not spinning at all.
If it was turning at 15 degrees per hour do you think you would be able to detect it?
Absolutely at 1000 mph, yep, no doubt about it and not only that but, unless we were bolted to the ground, we would be sliding along it until we go off level, which would be fairly instant and then back to the deck again.
You people really do need to wake up.
Thinking atmosphere drags you along with the solid floor of Earth is not just laughable, it's scary to think people actually believe it after being told about it.
Yeah but gravity. Yeah but centripetal force. Yeah but it's a reference frame. Yeah but atmosphere and solid, plus water all follow a set pattern.
Yeah but magic is real even though we can never ever witness it, unless we accept men feigning it.
Absolutely ridiculous and no amount of so called scientific jargon will change that FACT.
Have you ever flown in a plane? Were you able to get up and walk around without sliding everywhere even though you weren't bolted down?
And you don't need atmosphere to drag you along. You're already moving at the Earth's rotational speed so no force is needed to keep you moving that speed, except a force to pull you down (gravity) and to cancel out the coriolis forces (which are so small that you don't even notice their contribution to the shear stress on your shoes when you walk around).
-
Save your typing, shills. I have no time for you.
-
Save your typing, shills. I have no time for you.
do you talk to me or to to itsatorus?
if you invest the time to learn basic physics its good.
-
MPH can only be measured with respect to what's happening on Earth.
A speed of over 1000 mph is simply what it says. It's a speed of 1000 mph.
All we have to do is to find out how many things go at 1000 mph, or more and then understand that we, as humans should be moving at that speed.
It doesn't matter whether it's told that the Earth spins only once in 24 hours and that makes its rotation very slow. The fact we are told about MPH means exactly what it says...to us....so therefore we expect to move at that speed with feet firmly planted on the deck.
The argument of the atmosphere moving in unison with the supposed ball rendering us unable to feel the motion, is total and utter nonsensical clap trap but most people are duped into believing it actually makes sense.
They believe it makes sense because of no other reason than being told about riding in cars, trains, or planes, in supposed sealed units that saunter through atmosphere and yet we supposedly do not feel the motion.
The reality is, if we were spinning on a ball we would be under what's known as centrifugal force, or would have except that the laws have changed on that and it's basically became a fictional force, where the real force is now, centripetal force, or an inward force.
The changes are due to people using common sense and realising that this outward slinging force should be slinging us off this supposed planet and yet it doesn't because it's changed to centripetal force. An inward force that stops us being slung into so called space.
People are all too willing to abandon basic common sense and clear and observable, repeatable experiments proving a physical,w here this rotation occurs and also the MPH which we all observe as a man made speed.
So instead of adhering to a thought process of a car, train, bus or plane going in a near straight direction, think of it doing a turn around a circular road, track or sky, because we all know that even the slightest movement away from centre results in a force in the same direction for anyone being part of that scenario.
Ok, so the silly arguments are us being spun with atmosphere and also solid ground, as well as water.
We physically know that water and atmosphere do not follow the example of the so called spin rotation but apparently, this is an atmosphere within an atmosphere, if you can get your head around it.
Take us outside of the so called ball into so called space with so called satellites being slung around the Earth and following the exact MPH of the Earth spin, as we are told. These so called satellites being around 23,000 miles away from Earth, as we are told. In geo-sync with Earth and yet under no influence of the atmosphere of Earth and yet they are still on the inward centripetal force, or the inward force, or to put it more simpler....they are held by the magical string attached from Earth into so called space orbit of it.
To make it even easier, we have to believe that a satellite like this, is like a person holding a hammer in the Olympics and swinging it around as he/she follows it around.
The magical string. The invisible nonsense that is battered into people's brains as realistic.
Nobody gives any thought to how they tell us that space crafts that get sent to so called moons and mars do this speed/acceleration around the Earth and then sling shots onto a trajectory towards whatever planet they tell us.
The issue is, has anyone ever thought about the sling shot?
We can see it work on Earth with the hammer thrower. We can see when he/she lets go, it takes a set direction.
What is a rocket doing after being released from the solid deck into the atmosphere and then supposedly through it at an angle?
It's accelerating around a supposed globe and held on by this imaginary string force. It circles the Earth however many times and gains speed.
From this point on it has to snap the imaginary string force keeping it attached to Earth, only this time it's not acting like the hammer thrower and his/her hammer, because it isn't in geo-sync.
It's actually moving many many times faster than the supposed Earth's rotation, as if it's string was attached to Earth in a groove like a so called malfunctioning yo-yo that allows the string to keep circling without being wound in or out.
The issue is, how does the string snap to set the rocket into motion away from Earth?
Does someone tap the brake pedal?
A quick puff of aerosol?
A quick side blast of super fire thrust?
How does this happen that can be thought of as anything even remotely looking like realistic.
Observable it is not. Repeatable it is obviously not.
The story tellers of sci-fi that fools the gullible of which we all are.
Sometimes being gullible is the easiest option, but it's not an option that a person takes willingly, because nobody likes to think they are gullible, although deep down they know they do succumb to it many times, which does go for all people.
The strongest people are those that are willing to eradicate some of their naivety for sucker stories.
The way to do that is to actually go through each story told and look for potential flaws in it.
All people have to remember is, the magical stuff that we see in so called space and what not, were all the imagination of sci-fi writers/story tellers and brought to life by the special effects teams and narrators.
To find out the difference between star trek and star wars, or Apollo to the moon or spaceX to mars, you need to re-read the story-lines and you need to look into your own mind to actually set it to a comfortable stance of seeing the bigger picture after every re-read.
The radius of the Earth is about 6,371 km, the angular velocity is about 73 microhertz, this gives a centrifugal force at the equator of about 3.4 cm/s2,or about 0.35% of gravity. Farther from the equator it's smaller. This is nowhere near strong enough to make things fly off the surface.
How about trying to prove that with some real evidence! Before you spew, make sure your evidence comes from earth's natural physical condition.
"Farther from the equator it's smaller."
They even claim it is 0 MPH at the poles. That would have made a great laugh track in Rowan and Martin's Laugh In.
-
Save your typing, shills. I have no time for you.
do you talk to me or to to itsatorus?
if you invest the time to learn basic physics its good.
If the physics is based on a spinning speeding earth, then it is a fabrication. Why don't you try being honest about the physics of water, for a change!
-
The difference between velocity and acceleration and their respective effects seems a little too difficult for some people to comprehend.
I'll try again.
We don't notice the movement of the earth because, even though it is around 1000 MPH it is a nearly constant velocity and the atmosphere moves with us. If that 1000 MPH were in a straight line it would be a constant velocity and would be undetectable. Because we are turning, the velocity is constantly changing. (only in direction though not in speed)It is this turn which we should technically be able to detect but since we are only turning 15 degrees an hour we can't really detect it.
Of course we can't detect it. It's because it is absolutely not spinning at all.
If it was turning at 15 degrees per hour do you think you would be able to detect it?
Absolutely at 1000 mph, yep, no doubt about it and not only that but, unless we were bolted to the ground, we would be sliding along it until we go off level, which would be fairly instant and then back to the deck again.
You people really do need to wake up.
Thinking atmosphere drags you along with the solid floor of Earth is not just laughable, it's scary to think people actually believe it after being told about it.
Yeah but gravity. Yeah but centripetal force. Yeah but it's a reference frame. Yeah but atmosphere and solid, plus water all follow a set pattern.
Yeah but magic is real even though we can never ever witness it, unless we accept men feigning it.
Absolutely ridiculous and no amount of so called scientific jargon will change that FACT.
Have you ever flown in a plane? Were you able to get up and walk around without sliding everywhere even though you weren't bolted down?
And you don't need atmosphere to drag you along. You're already moving at the Earth's rotational speed so no force is needed to keep you moving that speed, except a force to pull you down (gravity) and to cancel out the coriolis forces (which are so small that you don't even notice their contribution to the shear stress on your shoes when you walk around).
"Have you ever flown in a plane? Were you able to get up and walk around without sliding everywhere even though you weren't bolted down?"
Oh please, I destroyed that claim weeks ago! Standing on earth, we are not encased in a solid shell/skin, like being in a plane. The atmosphere, thick or thin, is not going to provide the protection from the forces of moving at 1.8 million MPH, and it will not alter the effects of the ground moving at 1,000 MPH.
If the aircraft you are speeding in starts rotating, you are screwed! It is a weak, non-effect argument, come up with something better! Keep that garbage excuse out of my thread!
-
Save your typing, shills. I have no time for you.
do you talk to me or to to itsatorus?
if you invest the time to learn basic physics its good.
If the physics is based on a spinning speeding earth, then it is a fabrication. Why don't you try being honest about the physics of water, for a change!
why don't you try to be honest and let us do the test, come to Ontario to Niagara on the Lake and we to the test together and see if we can see the building of Toronto.
how about that, to the real test.
-
He didn't watch the video. Too much of a coward.
-
The difference between velocity and acceleration and their respective effects seems a little too difficult for some people to comprehend.
I'll try again.
We don't notice the movement of the earth because, even though it is around 1000 MPH it is a nearly constant velocity and the atmosphere moves with us. If that 1000 MPH were in a straight line it would be a constant velocity and would be undetectable. Because we are turning, the velocity is constantly changing. (only in direction though not in speed)It is this turn which we should technically be able to detect but since we are only turning 15 degrees an hour we can't really detect it.
Of course we can't detect it. It's because it is absolutely not spinning at all.
If it was turning at 15 degrees per hour do you think you would be able to detect it?
Absolutely at 1000 mph, yep, no doubt about it and not only that but, unless we were bolted to the ground, we would be sliding along it until we go off level, which would be fairly instant and then back to the deck again.
You people really do need to wake up.
Thinking atmosphere drags you along with the solid floor of Earth is not just laughable, it's scary to think people actually believe it after being told about it.
Yeah but gravity. Yeah but centripetal force. Yeah but it's a reference frame. Yeah but atmosphere and solid, plus water all follow a set pattern.
Yeah but magic is real even though we can never ever witness it, unless we accept men feigning it.
Absolutely ridiculous and no amount of so called scientific jargon will change that FACT.
Have you ever flown in a plane? Were you able to get up and walk around without sliding everywhere even though you weren't bolted down?
And you don't need atmosphere to drag you along. You're already moving at the Earth's rotational speed so no force is needed to keep you moving that speed, except a force to pull you down (gravity) and to cancel out the coriolis forces (which are so small that you don't even notice their contribution to the shear stress on your shoes when you walk around).
"You're already moving at the Earth's rotational speed..."
Then why does the ground feel motionless? If the atmosphere is being dragged along by earth's surface by friction, where are the physical clues/signs/evidence from earth's physical condition that supports that claim? If the atmosphere is being dragged along by friction, then the atmosphere cannot be at the same speed as the surface of earth, it would always drag behind.
If a wing-walker has issues with navigating a 100 MPH platform, then why don't we have issues with navigating a 1,000 MPH platform? Support your fffing claims with some real evidence, FOR ONCE!
-
The difference between velocity and acceleration and their respective effects seems a little too difficult for some people to comprehend.
I'll try again.
We don't notice the movement of the earth because, even though it is around 1000 MPH it is a nearly constant velocity and the atmosphere moves with us. If that 1000 MPH were in a straight line it would be a constant velocity and would be undetectable. Because we are turning, the velocity is constantly changing. (only in direction though not in speed)It is this turn which we should technically be able to detect but since we are only turning 15 degrees an hour we can't really detect it.
Of course we can't detect it. It's because it is absolutely not spinning at all.
If it was turning at 15 degrees per hour do you think you would be able to detect it?
Absolutely at 1000 mph, yep, no doubt about it and not only that but, unless we were bolted to the ground, we would be sliding along it until we go off level, which would be fairly instant and then back to the deck again.
You people really do need to wake up.
Thinking atmosphere drags you along with the solid floor of Earth is not just laughable, it's scary to think people actually believe it after being told about it.
Yeah but gravity. Yeah but centripetal force. Yeah but it's a reference frame. Yeah but atmosphere and solid, plus water all follow a set pattern.
Yeah but magic is real even though we can never ever witness it, unless we accept men feigning it.
Absolutely ridiculous and no amount of so called scientific jargon will change that FACT.
Have you ever flown in a plane? Were you able to get up and walk around without sliding everywhere even though you weren't bolted down?
And you don't need atmosphere to drag you along. You're already moving at the Earth's rotational speed so no force is needed to keep you moving that speed, except a force to pull you down (gravity) and to cancel out the coriolis forces (which are so small that you don't even notice their contribution to the shear stress on your shoes when you walk around).
"Have you ever flown in a plane? Were you able to get up and walk around without sliding everywhere even though you weren't bolted down?"
Oh please, I destroyed that claim weeks ago! Standing on earth, we are not encased in a solid shell/skin, like being in a plane. The atmosphere, thick or thin, is not going to provide the protection from the forces of moving at 1.8 million MPH, and it will not alter the effects of the ground moving at 1,000 MPH.
If the aircraft you are speeding in starts rotating, you are screwed! It is a weak, non-effect argument, come up with something better! Keep that garbage excuse out of my thread!
No you did not. We are encased in the atmosphere which is moving with the earth. You simply claimed that wasn't enough to protect us but you never showed what we need protection from.
-
If the aircraft you are speeding in starts rotating, you are screwed! It is a weak, non-effect argument, come up with something better! Keep that garbage excuse out of my thread!
if you rotate with a speed of 1000 mph in a circle with a radius of 6370km the force that acts on you is very little
centrifugal force is F=m*(v^2)/r
F is the force
m is your mass of 100kg
v is your speed of 1000mph or 1600 km/h or 444 m/s
r is the radius 6370 km (earth radius) or 6370000 m
F=100kg *(444^2m^2/s^2)/6370000m
F=3.09 kg*m^2/(s^2 m)
F=3.09 kg*m/s^2
kg*m/s^2 is commonly known as Newton
Than means you experience a force of 3 Newton on you. that is really not much.
but i think you do not understand that anyway.
-
The difference between velocity and acceleration and their respective effects seems a little too difficult for some people to comprehend.
I'll try again.
We don't notice the movement of the earth because, even though it is around 1000 MPH it is a nearly constant velocity and the atmosphere moves with us. If that 1000 MPH were in a straight line it would be a constant velocity and would be undetectable. Because we are turning, the velocity is constantly changing. (only in direction though not in speed)It is this turn which we should technically be able to detect but since we are only turning 15 degrees an hour we can't really detect it.
Of course we can't detect it. It's because it is absolutely not spinning at all.
If it was turning at 15 degrees per hour do you think you would be able to detect it?
Absolutely at 1000 mph, yep, no doubt about it and not only that but, unless we were bolted to the ground, we would be sliding along it until we go off level, which would be fairly instant and then back to the deck again.
You people really do need to wake up.
Thinking atmosphere drags you along with the solid floor of Earth is not just laughable, it's scary to think people actually believe it after being told about it.
Yeah but gravity. Yeah but centripetal force. Yeah but it's a reference frame. Yeah but atmosphere and solid, plus water all follow a set pattern.
Yeah but magic is real even though we can never ever witness it, unless we accept men feigning it.
Absolutely ridiculous and no amount of so called scientific jargon will change that FACT.
Have you ever flown in a plane? Were you able to get up and walk around without sliding everywhere even though you weren't bolted down?
And you don't need atmosphere to drag you along. You're already moving at the Earth's rotational speed so no force is needed to keep you moving that speed, except a force to pull you down (gravity) and to cancel out the coriolis forces (which are so small that you don't even notice their contribution to the shear stress on your shoes when you walk around).
"Have you ever flown in a plane? Were you able to get up and walk around without sliding everywhere even though you weren't bolted down?"
Oh please, I destroyed that claim weeks ago! Standing on earth, we are not encased in a solid shell/skin, like being in a plane. The atmosphere, thick or thin, is not going to provide the protection from the forces of moving at 1.8 million MPH, and it will not alter the effects of the ground moving at 1,000 MPH.
If the aircraft you are speeding in starts rotating, you are screwed! It is a weak, non-effect argument, come up with something better! Keep that garbage excuse out of my thread!
What magnitude of forces should we be feeling from moving at 1.8 mph? Give your answer as a specific number in some common unit system, please.
-
The difference between velocity and acceleration and their respective effects seems a little too difficult for some people to comprehend.
I'll try again.
We don't notice the movement of the earth because, even though it is around 1000 MPH it is a nearly constant velocity and the atmosphere moves with us. If that 1000 MPH were in a straight line it would be a constant velocity and would be undetectable. Because we are turning, the velocity is constantly changing. (only in direction though not in speed)It is this turn which we should technically be able to detect but since we are only turning 15 degrees an hour we can't really detect it.
Of course we can't detect it. It's because it is absolutely not spinning at all.
If it was turning at 15 degrees per hour do you think you would be able to detect it?
Absolutely at 1000 mph, yep, no doubt about it and not only that but, unless we were bolted to the ground, we would be sliding along it until we go off level, which would be fairly instant and then back to the deck again.
You people really do need to wake up.
Thinking atmosphere drags you along with the solid floor of Earth is not just laughable, it's scary to think people actually believe it after being told about it.
Yeah but gravity. Yeah but centripetal force. Yeah but it's a reference frame. Yeah but atmosphere and solid, plus water all follow a set pattern.
Yeah but magic is real even though we can never ever witness it, unless we accept men feigning it.
Absolutely ridiculous and no amount of so called scientific jargon will change that FACT.
Have you ever flown in a plane? Were you able to get up and walk around without sliding everywhere even though you weren't bolted down?
And you don't need atmosphere to drag you along. You're already moving at the Earth's rotational speed so no force is needed to keep you moving that speed, except a force to pull you down (gravity) and to cancel out the coriolis forces (which are so small that you don't even notice their contribution to the shear stress on your shoes when you walk around).
"Have you ever flown in a plane? Were you able to get up and walk around without sliding everywhere even though you weren't bolted down?"
Oh please, I destroyed that claim weeks ago! Standing on earth, we are not encased in a solid shell/skin, like being in a plane. The atmosphere, thick or thin, is not going to provide the protection from the forces of moving at 1.8 million MPH, and it will not alter the effects of the ground moving at 1,000 MPH.
If the aircraft you are speeding in starts rotating, you are screwed! It is a weak, non-effect argument, come up with something better! Keep that garbage excuse out of my thread!
No you did not. We are encased in the atmosphere which is moving with the earth. You simply claimed that wasn't enough to protect us but you never showed what we need protection from.
"We are encased in the atmosphere..."
Oh PLEASE! I can walk through the atmosphere, it ain't strong enough to protect us from the forces associated with standing on the outside of a speeding vessel. It is a weak, non-logical excuse, not a factual statement.
Bucky, you are encased in the atmosphere inside the speeding vessel, right? I guess you can then remove the skin of the speeding aircraft, because after all, the atmosphere inside the speeding vessel, that you are encased in, is going to protect you, right?
-
The difference between velocity and acceleration and their respective effects seems a little too difficult for some people to comprehend.
I'll try again.
We don't notice the movement of the earth because, even though it is around 1000 MPH it is a nearly constant velocity and the atmosphere moves with us. If that 1000 MPH were in a straight line it would be a constant velocity and would be undetectable. Because we are turning, the velocity is constantly changing. (only in direction though not in speed)It is this turn which we should technically be able to detect but since we are only turning 15 degrees an hour we can't really detect it.
Of course we can't detect it. It's because it is absolutely not spinning at all.
If it was turning at 15 degrees per hour do you think you would be able to detect it?
Absolutely at 1000 mph, yep, no doubt about it and not only that but, unless we were bolted to the ground, we would be sliding along it until we go off level, which would be fairly instant and then back to the deck again.
You people really do need to wake up.
Thinking atmosphere drags you along with the solid floor of Earth is not just laughable, it's scary to think people actually believe it after being told about it.
Yeah but gravity. Yeah but centripetal force. Yeah but it's a reference frame. Yeah but atmosphere and solid, plus water all follow a set pattern.
Yeah but magic is real even though we can never ever witness it, unless we accept men feigning it.
Absolutely ridiculous and no amount of so called scientific jargon will change that FACT.
Have you ever flown in a plane? Were you able to get up and walk around without sliding everywhere even though you weren't bolted down?
And you don't need atmosphere to drag you along. You're already moving at the Earth's rotational speed so no force is needed to keep you moving that speed, except a force to pull you down (gravity) and to cancel out the coriolis forces (which are so small that you don't even notice their contribution to the shear stress on your shoes when you walk around).
"Have you ever flown in a plane? Were you able to get up and walk around without sliding everywhere even though you weren't bolted down?"
Oh please, I destroyed that claim weeks ago! Standing on earth, we are not encased in a solid shell/skin, like being in a plane. The atmosphere, thick or thin, is not going to provide the protection from the forces of moving at 1.8 million MPH, and it will not alter the effects of the ground moving at 1,000 MPH.
If the aircraft you are speeding in starts rotating, you are screwed! It is a weak, non-effect argument, come up with something better! Keep that garbage excuse out of my thread!
What magnitude of forces should we be feeling from moving at 1.8 mph? Give your answer as a specific number in some common unit system, please.
Go take a ride at 1,000 MPH on a motorcycle, you'll understand what forces I'm talking about! Stop diverting with senseless side-arguments. Stick to the thread topic, prove, using earth's physical condition, we are on a spinning speeding ball, BET YOU CAN'T DO IT!!!!!!!
-
The difference between velocity and acceleration and their respective effects seems a little too difficult for some people to comprehend.
I'll try again.
We don't notice the movement of the earth because, even though it is around 1000 MPH it is a nearly constant velocity and the atmosphere moves with us. If that 1000 MPH were in a straight line it would be a constant velocity and would be undetectable. Because we are turning, the velocity is constantly changing. (only in direction though not in speed)It is this turn which we should technically be able to detect but since we are only turning 15 degrees an hour we can't really detect it.
Of course we can't detect it. It's because it is absolutely not spinning at all.
If it was turning at 15 degrees per hour do you think you would be able to detect it?
Absolutely at 1000 mph, yep, no doubt about it and not only that but, unless we were bolted to the ground, we would be sliding along it until we go off level, which would be fairly instant and then back to the deck again.
You people really do need to wake up.
Thinking atmosphere drags you along with the solid floor of Earth is not just laughable, it's scary to think people actually believe it after being told about it.
Yeah but gravity. Yeah but centripetal force. Yeah but it's a reference frame. Yeah but atmosphere and solid, plus water all follow a set pattern.
Yeah but magic is real even though we can never ever witness it, unless we accept men feigning it.
Absolutely ridiculous and no amount of so called scientific jargon will change that FACT.
Have you ever flown in a plane? Were you able to get up and walk around without sliding everywhere even though you weren't bolted down?
And you don't need atmosphere to drag you along. You're already moving at the Earth's rotational speed so no force is needed to keep you moving that speed, except a force to pull you down (gravity) and to cancel out the coriolis forces (which are so small that you don't even notice their contribution to the shear stress on your shoes when you walk around).
"Have you ever flown in a plane? Were you able to get up and walk around without sliding everywhere even though you weren't bolted down?"
Oh please, I destroyed that claim weeks ago! Standing on earth, we are not encased in a solid shell/skin, like being in a plane. The atmosphere, thick or thin, is not going to provide the protection from the forces of moving at 1.8 million MPH, and it will not alter the effects of the ground moving at 1,000 MPH.
If the aircraft you are speeding in starts rotating, you are screwed! It is a weak, non-effect argument, come up with something better! Keep that garbage excuse out of my thread!
No you did not. We are encased in the atmosphere which is moving with the earth. You simply claimed that wasn't enough to protect us but you never showed what we need protection from.
"We are encased in the atmosphere..."
Oh PLEASE! I can walk through the atmosphere, it ain't strong enough to protect us from the forces associated with standing on the outside of a speeding vessel. It is a weak, non-logical excuse, not a factual statement.
Bucky, you are encased in the atmosphere inside the speeding vessel, right? I guess you can then remove the skin of the speeding aircraft, because after all, the atmosphere inside the speeding vessel, that you are encased in, is going to protect you, right?
If you took the skin off the airplane, the most significant force would be the wind resistance that results from your high speed relative to the atmosphere.
In space, the most analogous force is the force resulting from the pressure from the solar wind, which is tiny, only a few nanopascals. Not only is the atmosphere thick enough to protect us from it, we wouldn't be able to feel the resulting pressure even without an atmosphere.
-
"Master!"
"Yes, Grasshopper?"
"Master, today someone asked me a question, and I was not sure how to answer."
"Grasshopper, stand in the courtyard and tell me what you feel."
Grasshopper moves out into courtyard
"I don't not feel anything, the ground feels motionless."
"So your senses do not feel motion. What does your intuition tell you?"
"My intuition tells me the ground is motionless."
"Correct Grasshopper, you are now wiser than the fools that search in the darkness of clever books and imaginary math."
Grasshopper thinks for a minute......
"Grasshopper!"
Yes, Master?"
"Trust always, your senses and intuition, they are the path of true understanding."
-
The difference between velocity and acceleration and their respective effects seems a little too difficult for some people to comprehend.
I'll try again.
We don't notice the movement of the earth because, even though it is around 1000 MPH it is a nearly constant velocity and the atmosphere moves with us. If that 1000 MPH were in a straight line it would be a constant velocity and would be undetectable. Because we are turning, the velocity is constantly changing. (only in direction though not in speed)It is this turn which we should technically be able to detect but since we are only turning 15 degrees an hour we can't really detect it.
Of course we can't detect it. It's because it is absolutely not spinning at all.
If it was turning at 15 degrees per hour do you think you would be able to detect it?
Absolutely at 1000 mph, yep, no doubt about it and not only that but, unless we were bolted to the ground, we would be sliding along it until we go off level, which would be fairly instant and then back to the deck again.
You people really do need to wake up.
Thinking atmosphere drags you along with the solid floor of Earth is not just laughable, it's scary to think people actually believe it after being told about it.
Yeah but gravity. Yeah but centripetal force. Yeah but it's a reference frame. Yeah but atmosphere and solid, plus water all follow a set pattern.
Yeah but magic is real even though we can never ever witness it, unless we accept men feigning it.
Absolutely ridiculous and no amount of so called scientific jargon will change that FACT.
Have you ever flown in a plane? Were you able to get up and walk around without sliding everywhere even though you weren't bolted down?
And you don't need atmosphere to drag you along. You're already moving at the Earth's rotational speed so no force is needed to keep you moving that speed, except a force to pull you down (gravity) and to cancel out the coriolis forces (which are so small that you don't even notice their contribution to the shear stress on your shoes when you walk around).
"Have you ever flown in a plane? Were you able to get up and walk around without sliding everywhere even though you weren't bolted down?"
Oh please, I destroyed that claim weeks ago! Standing on earth, we are not encased in a solid shell/skin, like being in a plane. The atmosphere, thick or thin, is not going to provide the protection from the forces of moving at 1.8 million MPH, and it will not alter the effects of the ground moving at 1,000 MPH.
If the aircraft you are speeding in starts rotating, you are screwed! It is a weak, non-effect argument, come up with something better! Keep that garbage excuse out of my thread!
No you did not. We are encased in the atmosphere which is moving with the earth. You simply claimed that wasn't enough to protect us but you never showed what we need protection from.
"We are encased in the atmosphere..."
Oh PLEASE! I can walk through the atmosphere, it ain't strong enough to protect us from the forces associated with standing on the outside of a speeding vessel. It is a weak, non-logical excuse, not a factual statement.
Bucky, you are encased in the atmosphere inside the speeding vessel, right? I guess you can then remove the skin of the speeding aircraft, because after all, the atmosphere inside the speeding vessel, that you are encased in, is going to protect you, right?
If you took the skin off the airplane, the most significant force would be the wind resistance that results from your high speed relative to the atmosphere.
In space, the most analogous force is the force resulting from the pressure from the solar wind, which is tiny, only a few nanopascals. Not only is the atmosphere thick enough to protect us from it, we wouldn't be able to feel the resulting pressure even without an atmosphere.
"the most significant force would be the wind resistance that results from your high speed relative to the atmosphere."
Yeah, but you claimed the atmosphere is strong enough to protect us from the forces of earth speeding along through the "almost vacuum of space", yet it is the atmosphere on the skinless aircraft that is kicking your @$$! You were encased in the inside atmosphere of the skinned aircraft, right? That atmosphere should protect you once the skin of the aircraft is removed, right? I mean, after all, that is what you claim is protecting us as we navigate the outside of the speeding earth vessel through the NON-VACUUM of space! Your counter-argument is a bogus pile of feces!
-
"Master!"
"Yes, Grasshopper?"
"Master, today someone asked me a question, and I was not sure how to answer."
"Grasshopper, stand in the courtyard and tell me what you feel."
Grasshopper moves out into courtyard
"I don't not feel anything, the ground feels motionless."
"So your senses do not feel motion. What does your intuition tell you?"
"My intuition tells me the ground is motionless."
"Correct Grasshopper, you are now wiser than the fools that search in the darkness of clever books and imaginary math."
Grasshopper thinks for a minute......
"Grasshopper!"
Yes, Master?"
"Trust always, your senses and intuition, they are the path of true understanding."
ok i trust my sense of vision:
i stand at the beach at Niagara at the Lakes
i look in the direction of Toronto across the lake.
i see only the top of the high buildings and not one of the lower buildings.
i even look thru a binocular and see the same
therefor the earth can not be flat, because i know that there are buildings that i can not see.
-
The difference between velocity and acceleration and their respective effects seems a little too difficult for some people to comprehend.
I'll try again.
We don't notice the movement of the earth because, even though it is around 1000 MPH it is a nearly constant velocity and the atmosphere moves with us. If that 1000 MPH were in a straight line it would be a constant velocity and would be undetectable. Because we are turning, the velocity is constantly changing. (only in direction though not in speed)It is this turn which we should technically be able to detect but since we are only turning 15 degrees an hour we can't really detect it.
Of course we can't detect it. It's because it is absolutely not spinning at all.
If it was turning at 15 degrees per hour do you think you would be able to detect it?
Absolutely at 1000 mph, yep, no doubt about it and not only that but, unless we were bolted to the ground, we would be sliding along it until we go off level, which would be fairly instant and then back to the deck again.
You people really do need to wake up.
Thinking atmosphere drags you along with the solid floor of Earth is not just laughable, it's scary to think people actually believe it after being told about it.
Yeah but gravity. Yeah but centripetal force. Yeah but it's a reference frame. Yeah but atmosphere and solid, plus water all follow a set pattern.
Yeah but magic is real even though we can never ever witness it, unless we accept men feigning it.
Absolutely ridiculous and no amount of so called scientific jargon will change that FACT.
Have you ever flown in a plane? Were you able to get up and walk around without sliding everywhere even though you weren't bolted down?
And you don't need atmosphere to drag you along. You're already moving at the Earth's rotational speed so no force is needed to keep you moving that speed, except a force to pull you down (gravity) and to cancel out the coriolis forces (which are so small that you don't even notice their contribution to the shear stress on your shoes when you walk around).
"Have you ever flown in a plane? Were you able to get up and walk around without sliding everywhere even though you weren't bolted down?"
Oh please, I destroyed that claim weeks ago! Standing on earth, we are not encased in a solid shell/skin, like being in a plane. The atmosphere, thick or thin, is not going to provide the protection from the forces of moving at 1.8 million MPH, and it will not alter the effects of the ground moving at 1,000 MPH.
If the aircraft you are speeding in starts rotating, you are screwed! It is a weak, non-effect argument, come up with something better! Keep that garbage excuse out of my thread!
No you did not. We are encased in the atmosphere which is moving with the earth. You simply claimed that wasn't enough to protect us but you never showed what we need protection from.
"We are encased in the atmosphere..."
Oh PLEASE! I can walk through the atmosphere, it ain't strong enough to protect us from the forces associated with standing on the outside of a speeding vessel. It is a weak, non-logical excuse, not a factual statement.
Bucky, you are encased in the atmosphere inside the speeding vessel, right? I guess you can then remove the skin of the speeding aircraft, because after all, the atmosphere inside the speeding vessel, that you are encased in, is going to protect you, right?
If you took the skin off the airplane, the most significant force would be the wind resistance that results from your high speed relative to the atmosphere.
In space, the most analogous force is the force resulting from the pressure from the solar wind, which is tiny, only a few nanopascals. Not only is the atmosphere thick enough to protect us from it, we wouldn't be able to feel the resulting pressure even without an atmosphere.
"the most significant force would be the wind resistance that results from your high speed relative to the atmosphere."
Yeah, but you claimed the atmosphere is strong enough to protect us from the forces of earth speeding along through the "almost vacuum of space", yet it is the atmosphere on the skinless aircraft that is kicking your @$$! You were encased in the inside atmosphere of the skinned aircraft, right? That atmosphere should protect you once the skin of the aircraft is removed, right? I mean, after all, that is what you claim is protecting us as we navigate the outside of the speeding earth vessel through the NON-VACUUM of space! Your counter-argument is a bogus pile of feces!
If the skin of the aircraft were suddenly removed, the air inside the plane that was previously moving at your speed would quickly depressurize and be blown away by the air outside the plane, which is moving at hundreds of miles per hour relative to the plane. The solar wind doesn't blow away earth's atmosphere because the pressure exerted by the solar wind is tiny, like I said, only a few nanopascals.
-
"Master!"
"Yes, Grasshopper?"
"Master, today someone asked me a question, and I was not sure how to answer."
"Grasshopper, stand in the courtyard and tell me what you feel."
Grasshopper moves out into courtyard
"I don't not feel anything, the ground feels motionless."
"So your senses do not feel motion. What does your intuition tell you?"
"My intuition tells me the ground is motionless."
"Correct Grasshopper, you are now wiser than the fools that search in the darkness of clever books and imaginary math."
Grasshopper thinks for a minute......
"Grasshopper!"
Yes, Master?"
"Trust always, your senses and intuition, they are the path of true understanding."
ok i trust my sense of vision:
i stand at the beach at Niagara at the Lakes
i look in the direction of Toronto across the lake.
i see only the top of the high buildings and not one of the lower buildings.
i even look thru a binocular and see the same
therefor the earth can not be flat, because i know that there are buildings that i can not see.
If you can see the curve away from you, then why can't you see the curve in the horizon left to right? You'll claim to see this drastic curve going away, but see none going left to right. Maybe we live on a rolling pin?
Watch a train leaving a station on a known flat level straight track on a hot day. You'll see the bottom half of the train become obscure from refraction, before the top half finally disappears from perspective. On the water, you are dealing with refraction, and a few other phenomena.
Since when did water convex once it fills a void?
-
The difference between velocity and acceleration and their respective effects seems a little too difficult for some people to comprehend.
I'll try again.
We don't notice the movement of the earth because, even though it is around 1000 MPH it is a nearly constant velocity and the atmosphere moves with us. If that 1000 MPH were in a straight line it would be a constant velocity and would be undetectable. Because we are turning, the velocity is constantly changing. (only in direction though not in speed)It is this turn which we should technically be able to detect but since we are only turning 15 degrees an hour we can't really detect it.
Of course we can't detect it. It's because it is absolutely not spinning at all.
If it was turning at 15 degrees per hour do you think you would be able to detect it?
Absolutely at 1000 mph, yep, no doubt about it and not only that but, unless we were bolted to the ground, we would be sliding along it until we go off level, which would be fairly instant and then back to the deck again.
You people really do need to wake up.
Thinking atmosphere drags you along with the solid floor of Earth is not just laughable, it's scary to think people actually believe it after being told about it.
Yeah but gravity. Yeah but centripetal force. Yeah but it's a reference frame. Yeah but atmosphere and solid, plus water all follow a set pattern.
Yeah but magic is real even though we can never ever witness it, unless we accept men feigning it.
Absolutely ridiculous and no amount of so called scientific jargon will change that FACT.
Have you ever flown in a plane? Were you able to get up and walk around without sliding everywhere even though you weren't bolted down?
And you don't need atmosphere to drag you along. You're already moving at the Earth's rotational speed so no force is needed to keep you moving that speed, except a force to pull you down (gravity) and to cancel out the coriolis forces (which are so small that you don't even notice their contribution to the shear stress on your shoes when you walk around).
"Have you ever flown in a plane? Were you able to get up and walk around without sliding everywhere even though you weren't bolted down?"
Oh please, I destroyed that claim weeks ago! Standing on earth, we are not encased in a solid shell/skin, like being in a plane. The atmosphere, thick or thin, is not going to provide the protection from the forces of moving at 1.8 million MPH, and it will not alter the effects of the ground moving at 1,000 MPH.
If the aircraft you are speeding in starts rotating, you are screwed! It is a weak, non-effect argument, come up with something better! Keep that garbage excuse out of my thread!
No you did not. We are encased in the atmosphere which is moving with the earth. You simply claimed that wasn't enough to protect us but you never showed what we need protection from.
"We are encased in the atmosphere..."
Oh PLEASE! I can walk through the atmosphere, it ain't strong enough to protect us from the forces associated with standing on the outside of a speeding vessel. It is a weak, non-logical excuse, not a factual statement.
Bucky, you are encased in the atmosphere inside the speeding vessel, right? I guess you can then remove the skin of the speeding aircraft, because after all, the atmosphere inside the speeding vessel, that you are encased in, is going to protect you, right?
If you took the skin off the airplane, the most significant force would be the wind resistance that results from your high speed relative to the atmosphere.
In space, the most analogous force is the force resulting from the pressure from the solar wind, which is tiny, only a few nanopascals. Not only is the atmosphere thick enough to protect us from it, we wouldn't be able to feel the resulting pressure even without an atmosphere.
"the most significant force would be the wind resistance that results from your high speed relative to the atmosphere."
Yeah, but you claimed the atmosphere is strong enough to protect us from the forces of earth speeding along through the "almost vacuum of space", yet it is the atmosphere on the skinless aircraft that is kicking your @$$! You were encased in the inside atmosphere of the skinned aircraft, right? That atmosphere should protect you once the skin of the aircraft is removed, right? I mean, after all, that is what you claim is protecting us as we navigate the outside of the speeding earth vessel through the NON-VACUUM of space! Your counter-argument is a bogus pile of feces!
If the skin of the aircraft were suddenly removed, the air inside the plane that was previously moving at your speed would quickly depressurize and be blown away by the air outside the plane, which is moving at hundreds of miles per hour relative to the plane. The solar wind doesn't blow away earth's atmosphere because the pressure exerted by the solar wind is tiny, like I said, only a few nanopascals.
The solar wind, came blowing in, in the nick of time.
What, had to abandon the "vacuum of space" claim? Now you come up with the solar wind? My. my, my, you sure are reaching for the stars! Maybe what you need is a little aether?
-
The difference between velocity and acceleration and their respective effects seems a little too difficult for some people to comprehend.
I'll try again.
We don't notice the movement of the earth because, even though it is around 1000 MPH it is a nearly constant velocity and the atmosphere moves with us. If that 1000 MPH were in a straight line it would be a constant velocity and would be undetectable. Because we are turning, the velocity is constantly changing. (only in direction though not in speed)It is this turn which we should technically be able to detect but since we are only turning 15 degrees an hour we can't really detect it.
Of course we can't detect it. It's because it is absolutely not spinning at all.
If it was turning at 15 degrees per hour do you think you would be able to detect it?
Absolutely at 1000 mph, yep, no doubt about it and not only that but, unless we were bolted to the ground, we would be sliding along it until we go off level, which would be fairly instant and then back to the deck again.
You people really do need to wake up.
Thinking atmosphere drags you along with the solid floor of Earth is not just laughable, it's scary to think people actually believe it after being told about it.
Yeah but gravity. Yeah but centripetal force. Yeah but it's a reference frame. Yeah but atmosphere and solid, plus water all follow a set pattern.
Yeah but magic is real even though we can never ever witness it, unless we accept men feigning it.
Absolutely ridiculous and no amount of so called scientific jargon will change that FACT.
Have you ever flown in a plane? Were you able to get up and walk around without sliding everywhere even though you weren't bolted down?
And you don't need atmosphere to drag you along. You're already moving at the Earth's rotational speed so no force is needed to keep you moving that speed, except a force to pull you down (gravity) and to cancel out the coriolis forces (which are so small that you don't even notice their contribution to the shear stress on your shoes when you walk around).
"Have you ever flown in a plane? Were you able to get up and walk around without sliding everywhere even though you weren't bolted down?"
Oh please, I destroyed that claim weeks ago! Standing on earth, we are not encased in a solid shell/skin, like being in a plane. The atmosphere, thick or thin, is not going to provide the protection from the forces of moving at 1.8 million MPH, and it will not alter the effects of the ground moving at 1,000 MPH.
If the aircraft you are speeding in starts rotating, you are screwed! It is a weak, non-effect argument, come up with something better! Keep that garbage excuse out of my thread!
No you did not. We are encased in the atmosphere which is moving with the earth. You simply claimed that wasn't enough to protect us but you never showed what we need protection from.
"We are encased in the atmosphere..."
Oh PLEASE! I can walk through the atmosphere, it ain't strong enough to protect us from the forces associated with standing on the outside of a speeding vessel. It is a weak, non-logical excuse, not a factual statement.
Bucky, you are encased in the atmosphere inside the speeding vessel, right? I guess you can then remove the skin of the speeding aircraft, because after all, the atmosphere inside the speeding vessel, that you are encased in, is going to protect you, right?
If you took the skin off the airplane, the most significant force would be the wind resistance that results from your high speed relative to the atmosphere.
In space, the most analogous force is the force resulting from the pressure from the solar wind, which is tiny, only a few nanopascals. Not only is the atmosphere thick enough to protect us from it, we wouldn't be able to feel the resulting pressure even without an atmosphere.
"the most significant force would be the wind resistance that results from your high speed relative to the atmosphere."
Yeah, but you claimed the atmosphere is strong enough to protect us from the forces of earth speeding along through the "almost vacuum of space", yet it is the atmosphere on the skinless aircraft that is kicking your @$$! You were encased in the inside atmosphere of the skinned aircraft, right? That atmosphere should protect you once the skin of the aircraft is removed, right? I mean, after all, that is what you claim is protecting us as we navigate the outside of the speeding earth vessel through the NON-VACUUM of space! Your counter-argument is a bogus pile of feces!
If the skin of the aircraft were suddenly removed, the air inside the plane that was previously moving at your speed would quickly depressurize and be blown away by the air outside the plane, which is moving at hundreds of miles per hour relative to the plane. The solar wind doesn't blow away earth's atmosphere because the pressure exerted by the solar wind is tiny, like I said, only a few nanopascals.
"because the pressure exerted by the solar wind is tiny,"
Yeah, it has to be "tiny", it just has to be. Never mind the bulk of the earth slamming into the "solar wind" at 1.8 million MPH, hey? Just like NASA admits their globe is photoshopped, "because, it, it has to be!" Oh yeah, and don't mention the Magnus Force when a solid sphere is spinning inside earth's atmosphere, naw, well save those for my next thread.
I'm just waiting for you'll to finally realize......................{naw, I'll just see how long it takes them to figure it out.........}
-
If you can see the curve away from you, then why can't you see the curve in the horizon left to right? You'll claim to see this drastic curve going away, but see none going left to right. Maybe we live on a rolling pin?
There is no "drastic curve going" any way.
In the horizontal direction from near sea level, the horizon is exactly the same distance from and exactly the same distance below eye level.
So the horizon looks exactly the same all the way around and only about 0.04° below eye level all 360° around.
So there is no curvature to be seen. When you get very high you are looking down on this horizon circle, so there is a very slight curve.
Watch a train leaving a station on a known flat level straight track on a hot day. You'll see the bottom half of the train become obscure from refraction, before the top half finally disappears from perspective. On the water, you are dealing with refraction, and a few other phenomena.
Does it?, but whether it does or not, so what?
Ships disappear behind the horizon under most conditions, except when there is enough refraction of reflection to cause a mirage.
Since when did water convex once it fills a void?
Since there were oceans and gravitation.
-
I don't think I've called space a vacuum in this discussion, so I can't be fairly accused of abandong that position unless my memory is faulty. Although space can be regarded as a vacuum for the relevant purposes here. The density of the solar wind is pretty negligible.
Do you acknowledge that if the solar wind is the most substantial effect on earth in space similar in nature to the air resistance experienced by moving objects in the atmosphere, and that if the solar wind has the properties attributed to it, then there is no reason we should expect the Earth's movement to be reflected in substantial forces at the surface?
-
Observer, what is in space that our atmosphere would no protect us from? You keep saying step outside the vehicle. When you do that you hit the atmosphere. That's what you are feeling. So what kind of atmosphere is there in space that we should feel?
-
If you can see the curve away from you, then why can't you see the curve in the horizon left to right? You'll claim to see this drastic curve going away, but see none going left to right. Maybe we live on a rolling pin?
There is no "drastic curve going" any way.
In the horizontal direction from near sea level, the horizon is exactly the same distance from and exactly the same distance below eye level.
So the horizon looks exactly the same all the way around and only about 0.04° below eye level all 360° around.
So there is no curvature to be seen. When you get very high you are looking down on this horizon circle, so there is a very slight curve.
Watch a train leaving a station on a known flat level straight track on a hot day. You'll see the bottom half of the train become obscure from refraction, before the top half finally disappears from perspective. On the water, you are dealing with refraction, and a few other phenomena.
Does it?, but whether it does or not, so what?
Ships disappear behind the horizon under most conditions, except when there is enough refraction of reflection to cause a mirage.
Since when did water convex once it fills a void?
Since there were oceans and gravitation.
Show me a body of water on earth that is convex, once it fills a void. There are three huge lakes, one in Siberia, and one on the African Continent, and one in North America. Show me an aerial view of the convex water surface in those bodies of water, after all, you are dealing with hundreds of miles of water surface. By the way, the lake in Siberia, once it freezes over, it is known as the largest flat horizontal surface in the world. A flat horizontal surface is not convex.
Lake Baikal
Lake Victoria
Lake Superior
-
Observer, what is in space that our atmosphere would no protect us from? You keep saying step outside the vehicle. When you do that you hit the atmosphere. That's what you are feeling. So what kind of atmosphere is there in space that we should feel?
I gave you'll a hint, I knew you wouldn't get it! The answer involves a few experiments. This thread is not about experiments. You'll have to wait till my next thread.
-
If you can see the curve away from you, then why can't you see the curve in the horizon left to right? You'll claim to see this drastic curve going away, but see none going left to right. Maybe we live on a rolling pin?
There is no "drastic curve going" any way.
In the horizontal direction from near sea level, the horizon is exactly the same distance from and exactly the same distance below eye level.
So the horizon looks exactly the same all the way around and only about 0.04° below eye level all 360° around.
So there is no curvature to be seen. When you get very high you are looking down on this horizon circle, so there is a very slight curve.
Watch a train leaving a station on a known flat level straight track on a hot day. You'll see the bottom half of the train become obscure from refraction, before the top half finally disappears from perspective. On the water, you are dealing with refraction, and a few other phenomena.
Does it?, but whether it does or not, so what?
Ships disappear behind the horizon under most conditions, except when there is enough refraction of reflection to cause a mirage.
Since when did water convex once it fills a void?
Since there were oceans and gravitation.
Show me a body of water on earth that is convex, once it fills a void. There are three huge lakes, one in Siberia, and one on the African Continent, and one in North America. Show me an aerial view of the convex water surface in those bodies of water, after all, you are dealing with hundreds of miles of water surface. By the way, the lake in Siberia, once it freezes over, it is known as the largest flat horizontal surface in the world. A flat horizontal surface is not convex.
Lake Baikal
Lake Victoria
Lake Superior
1st 15 minutes of the following video. But since you ignored it the last time I've no doubt you'll do the same this time.
-
Yeah, take 24 hours driving at 1000 mph. You neglect to mention this.
I've already mentioned the dishonesty you people use with the one rotation in a day bag of crap.
Yep, the best one would be to take 24 hours driving at 1000 miles per hour. That is the only honest comparison using 1000 miles per hour.
If you are taking less than one day, while driving at 1000 miles per hour, then you are not providing an honest comparison, instead you are significantly increasing the apparent centrifugal force.
Yes, using 1 rotation per day doesn't work, but guess what? Neither does 1000 miles per hour.
You are being just as dishonest.
The acceleration for uniform circular motion can be expressed in many ways.
a=omega^2*r=omega*v=v^2/r.
If you change r you cannot keep omega or v constant.
So if you use a smaller track, you cannot keep the velocity being 1000 miles per hour.
So don't act like you aren't being dishonest with your 1000 miles per hour bag of crap.
How about you cut out all the dishonest bullshit and instead express it as the acceleration. That way it will work regardless of what size track you use and regardless of speed.
The acceleration required to follow Earth's rotation rather than flying off into space due to your own inertia is a mere 0.03 m/s^2.
To give you an idea of that force, for a 1 kg weight, that would correspond to roughly 0.003 kg, or 3 g.
Give it a 100,000 mile circumference, it's still over 1000 mph for a human being.
And guess what? There is nothing wrong with that.
What part are you objecting to, the rotation or the linear motion?
If it is the linear motion, then it doesn't matter what speed it is. You can be travelling at 99% of the speed of light and there still wouldn't be an issue as it is an inertial refference frame.
The only issue comes from acceleration. That requires the circular motion, which is only ever possible to express as either an acceleration, or a combination of omega, v and/or r (you need 2).
With 100 000 mile circumference, 1000 miles per hour would be far too slow to replicate the acceleration for Earth.
Again, the important issue is the acceleration. For Earth, it is 0.03 m/s^2.
Of course we can't detect it. It's because it is absolutely not spinning at all.
No. We can't detect it ourselves because it is only an acceleration of 0.03 m/s^2, which we have grown up being used to, which is nothing compared to the acceleration of gravity (or whatever bullshit you want to use instead) of 9.8 m/s^2.
But don't worry, we can still detect Earth turning, such as by using a Foucault's pendulum, or by observing large scale weather patterns.
Absolutely at 1000 mph, yep, no doubt about it and not only that but, unless we were bolted to the ground, we would be sliding along it until we go off level, which would be fairly instant and then back to the deck again.
Complete nonsense.
The acceleration is 0.03 m/s^2. You would not feel that.
We are already moving with the ground, so we don't need to be bolted too it.
We wouldn't go flying up or slam into the ground.
If you wish to claim such nonsense do the math to prove it.
Show how you are coming to these conclusions, because they are pure nonsense.
You people really do need to wake up.
Thinking atmosphere drags you along with the solid floor of Earth is not just laughable, it's scary to think people actually believe it after being told about it.
We have woken up, while you are still fast asleep.
No one thinks the atmosphere drags us along.
Your inertia and gravity (or whatever bullshit you want to use instead) keeps you moving with Earth.
Absolutely ridiculous and no amount of so called scientific jargon will change that FACT.
Yes, your claims are absolutely ridiculous with no grounding in reality and no amount of scientific jargon will change that fact, or the fact that the acceleration required to keep us moving with Earth is a mere 0.03 m/s^2, at the equator, which is nothing compared to gravity or the fact that you cannot feel or percieve absolute motion and instead only perceive relative motion or relative acceleration/forces or feel unbalanced forces where your body needs to transmit that force.
I spent a lot of my life entertaining the idea you still stick with. No more. I at least know, 100% that we are certainly not dealing with any 1000+ MPH spinning Earth in so called space vacuum as we are told.
It's you and the rest like you that need to wake up...or don't. Your choice.
No. You don't know, not even 1%. You foolishly believe it based on childish garbage that no rational person would ever accept.
You have no rational basis for any of your claims and you are completely unable to refute our arguments.
If you know anything, then you 100% know that what you are claiming is pure childish nonsense with no bearing in reality.
If you truly knew you would be proving it rather than continually spouting childish nonsense and ignoring refutations.
We aren't the ones who don't understand or need to wake up.
Save your typing, shills. I have no time for you.
If that is the case, why did you come here and spout such childish garbage?
-
If you can see the curve away from you, then why can't you see the curve in the horizon left to right? You'll claim to see this drastic curve going away, but see none going left to right. Maybe we live on a rolling pin?
There is no "drastic curve going" any way.
In the horizontal direction from near sea level, the horizon is exactly the same distance from and exactly the same distance below eye level.
So the horizon looks exactly the same all the way around and only about 0.04° below eye level all 360° around.
So there is no curvature to be seen. When you get very high you are looking down on this horizon circle, so there is a very slight curve.
Watch a train leaving a station on a known flat level straight track on a hot day. You'll see the bottom half of the train become obscure from refraction, before the top half finally disappears from perspective. On the water, you are dealing with refraction, and a few other phenomena.
Does it?, but whether it does or not, so what?
Ships disappear behind the horizon under most conditions, except when there is enough refraction of reflection to cause a mirage.
Since when did water convex once it fills a void?
Since there were oceans and gravitation.
Show me a body of water on earth that is convex, once it fills a void. There are three huge lakes, one in Siberia, and one on the African Continent, and one in North America. Show me an aerial view of the convex water surface in those bodies of water, after all, you are dealing with hundreds of miles of water surface. By the way, the lake in Siberia, once it freezes over, it is known as the largest flat horizontal surface in the world. A flat horizontal surface is not convex.
Lake Baikal
Lake Victoria
Lake Superior
look up the 3d geometric on a globe.
the distance from the viewpoint to the visible horizon does not change if you turn around yourself, therefor the horizon appears flat.
-
If you can see the curve away from you, then why can't you see the curve in the horizon left to right? You'll claim to see this drastic curve going away, but see none going left to right. Maybe we live on a rolling pin?
There is no "drastic curve going" any way.
In the horizontal direction from near sea level, the horizon is exactly the same distance from and exactly the same distance below eye level.
So the horizon looks exactly the same all the way around and only about 0.04° below eye level all 360° around.
So there is no curvature to be seen. When you get very high you are looking down on this horizon circle, so there is a very slight curve.
Watch a train leaving a station on a known flat level straight track on a hot day. You'll see the bottom half of the train become obscure from refraction, before the top half finally disappears from perspective. On the water, you are dealing with refraction, and a few other phenomena.
Does it?, but whether it does or not, so what?
Ships disappear behind the horizon under most conditions, except when there is enough refraction of reflection to cause a mirage.
Since when did water convex once it fills a void?
Since there were oceans and gravitation.
"There is no "drastic curve going" any way."
But you'll claim ships disappear over a curvature at what, 10/15 miles, our range of vision, right? I mean, that sounds like a drastic curvature to me! That is about 67 feet of curvature. At 10 miles, a 30' high ship should be completely out-of-view. Yet, when we look at the horizon left to right, we are seeing way more than 10 miles across. There has to be 50/75 miles of water surface way out on he horizon, left to right. Yet it is always horizontally flat, ALWAYS! Why do none of you spherical earthers ever consider that?
If I'm standing at 6 o'clock, and I'm watching a ship sailing away to 12 o'clock, what will an observer at 3 o'clock, and 9 o'clock observe? Will they see the ship go over a curvature, like you'll claim I will see standing at 6 o'clock, or will they see a ship sailing perpendicular to them along a flat horizontal horizon? Hmmm, horizontal/horizon, maybe there is a connection, you think?
-
If you can see the curve away from you, then why can't you see the curve in the horizon left to right? You'll claim to see this drastic curve going away, but see none going left to right. Maybe we live on a rolling pin?
There is no "drastic curve going" any way.
In the horizontal direction from near sea level, the horizon is exactly the same distance from and exactly the same distance below eye level.
So the horizon looks exactly the same all the way around and only about 0.04° below eye level all 360° around.
So there is no curvature to be seen. When you get very high you are looking down on this horizon circle, so there is a very slight curve.
Watch a train leaving a station on a known flat level straight track on a hot day. You'll see the bottom half of the train become obscure from refraction, before the top half finally disappears from perspective. On the water, you are dealing with refraction, and a few other phenomena.
Does it?, but whether it does or not, so what?
Ships disappear behind the horizon under most conditions, except when there is enough refraction of reflection to cause a mirage.
Since when did water convex once it fills a void?
Since there were oceans and gravitation.
Show me a body of water on earth that is convex, once it fills a void. There are three huge lakes, one in Siberia, and one on the African Continent, and one in North America. Show me an aerial view of the convex water surface in those bodies of water, after all, you are dealing with hundreds of miles of water surface. By the way, the lake in Siberia, once it freezes over, it is known as the largest flat horizontal surface in the world. A flat horizontal surface is not convex.
Lake Baikal
Lake Victoria
Lake Superior
look up the 3d geometric on a globe.
the distance from the viewpoint to the visible horizon does not change if you turn around yourself, therefor the horizon appears flat.
Please, what does looking at a fabricated globe prove? Take me out into earth's nature, and let's look at what the physical condition, the physical state of earth shows us, or does that scare you too much?
-
If I'm standing at 6 o'clock, and I'm watching a ship sailing away to 12 o'clock, what will an observer at 3 o'clock, and 9 o'clock observe? Will they see the ship go over a curvature, like you'll claim I will see standing at 6 o'clock, or will they see a ship sailing perpendicular to them along a flat horizontal horizon? Hmmm, horizontal/horizon, maybe there is a connection, you think?
If you are at 6, and the ship is halfway behind the horizon (to you) at 12, then the person at 3 should be able to see it fine. It's about 30 percent closer to them than it is to you.
If they face the ship they will see it from the starboard stern side and it will be chugging away from them at 45 degrees from their line of sight. If they look directly to their left they should be able to see you, at the same distance from them as the ship.
-
How about trying to prove that with some real evidence! Before you spew, make sure your evidence comes from earth's natural physical condition.
You mean like large scale weather patterns, which you continue to ignore?
But they still won't give you exact numbers, you need more precise things, man made instruments like Foucault's pendulum, laser ring gyroscopes, etc.
They even claim it is 0 MPH at the poles. That would have made a great laugh track in Rowan and Martin's Laugh In.
And do you know why? If you turn around a point, what is your linear/tangential velocity? 0, because you go no where. You stand in the same spot.
You repeatedly acting like it shouldn't be 0 shows you are either a complete imbecile or you know you are full of shit.
What do you think it should be at the poles. Please explain in detail how you arrived at your horribly wrong conclusion.
If the physics is based on a spinning speeding earth, then it is a fabrication. Why don't you try being honest about the physics of water, for a change!
No. The fabrications are based upon a flat stationary Earth.
A spinning speeding Earth matches reality.
Why don't you try being honest for once?
The physics of water means it will follow the surface of a spinning massive sphere.
It won't just magically be flat.
What do you think determines which way it becomes flat?
If you are going to appeal to Earth being down, and it should be perpendicular to that, then guess what? For a round Earth it would follow the curve.
If you wish to appeal to something else, you need to explain what it is and where it is.
"Have you ever flown in a plane? Were you able to get up and walk around without sliding everywhere even though you weren't bolted down?"
Oh please, I destroyed that claim weeks ago! Standing on earth, we are not encased in a solid shell/skin, like being in a plane. The atmosphere, thick or thin, is not going to provide the protection from the forces of moving at 1.8 million MPH, and it will not alter the effects of the ground moving at 1,000 MPH.
No. You didn't destroy anything except any respect people had for you.
It isn't being encased in a solid shell/skin that is the issue.
In the plane, the air inside it is moving at the same speed as you, so you don't feel any force from it.
If you were standing outside the plane, moving through the atmosphere, then that is moving relative to you and you feel force from it.
On Earth, the atmosphere is moving with us, so we don't feel force from it.
There is no atmosphere that Earth is moving through to generate a force.
There is no magic force associated with movement. If there was, you would feel it in a plane as well.
There is nothing to be protected from.
Just exactly what do you think you should feel from moving at some speed (without appealing to anything external to you like the air)?
And we pointed out all this bullshit before, and you have provided no refutation.
We are the ones destroying your crap, not the other way around.
If the aircraft you are speeding in starts rotating, you are screwed! It is a weak, non-effect argument, come up with something better! Keep that garbage excuse out of my thread!
That depends how quickly it starts rotating. If it starts rotating such that it is accelerating at a rate of 0.03 m/s^2, you wouldn't even notice.
You are the one providing a weak-non-effect non-argument, not us.
You are the one who needs to come up with something better to defend your delusional nonsense.
We will keep pointing out your bullshit.
Then why does the ground feel motionless?
That was already explained, repeatedly.
You and the ground are moving at the same speed.
As such, relative to you, it is motionless.
Just like if you were on a plane.
If the atmosphere is being dragged along by earth's surface by friction
No one gives a shit. It isn't, at least not to the scale required for Earth's rotation.
It is being moved along by its own inertia.
The only time friction comes into it is for large scale weather patterns where it is moving at a small relative speed.
where are the physical clues/signs/evidence from earth's physical condition that supports that claim? If the atmosphere is being dragged along by friction, then the atmosphere cannot be at the same speed as the surface of earth, it would always drag behind.
No it wouldn't. The friction would result in it speeding up, until it eventually was at the same speed. It wouldn't always drag behind.
If a wing-walker has issues with navigating a 100 MPH platform, then why don't we have issues with navigating a 1,000 MPH platform? Support your fffing claims with some real evidence, FOR ONCE!
Because our platform isn't moving around jerkily like the plane is, and more importantly, the air we are moving through is moving at the same speed, while the wing-walker is moving through the air at 100 miles per hour.
How about you try supporting your claims with some real evidence which actually matches the claims you are trying to make or even just a rational explanation?
You are yet to do any of it.
Oh PLEASE! I can walk through the atmosphere, it ain't strong enough to protect us from the forces associated with standing on the outside of a speeding vessel. It is a weak, non-logical excuse, not a factual statement.
Bucky, you are encased in the atmosphere inside the speeding vessel, right? I guess you can then remove the skin of the speeding aircraft, because after all, the atmosphere inside the speeding vessel, that you are encased in, is going to protect you, right?
Again, what forces?
You do not experience forces from standing outside of a speeding vessel.
You experience forces from moving through the air.
If what you were saying is true, and the atmosphere is incapable of providing any kind of protection, then it would also be incapable of making those forces you feel from moving through it.
No, the atmosphere in the moving vessel will not protect you from the equally dense atmosphere outside.
But the atmosphere of Earth is more than capable of protecting us from the vacuum of space, with its virtually 0 density.
Go take a ride at 1,000 MPH on a motorcycle, you'll understand what forces I'm talking about! Stop diverting with senseless side-arguments. Stick to the thread topic, prove, using earth's physical condition, we are on a spinning speeding ball, BET YOU CAN'T DO IT!!!!!!!
With the air moving with us, or with us moving through the air?
If it is us moving through the air, then it doesn't match Earth. If it is with the air moving with us, then while I understand the forces you are talking about, I realise your argument is bullshit and you wouldn't experience these forces.
Why don't you tell us what makes these forces?
How about instead of demanding we prove it you tell us (with an explanation) exactly what it is we should be feeling, because so far all you have done is spouted pure bullshit which doesn't match Earth at all. Or alternatively, prove Earth is flat and stationary. BET YOU CAN'T DO IT!!!!
Human's cannot perceive the effects of Earth's rotation and movement through space, but we can observe them on other things, like stellar parallax and aberration, laser ring gyroscopes, large scale weather patterns and so on.
Yeah, but you claimed the atmosphere is strong enough to protect us from the forces of earth speeding along through the "almost vacuum of space", yet it is the atmosphere on the skinless aircraft that is kicking your @$$!
Yes, that's right.
That is because you are moving relative to it.
It is like the metal skin on the plane. That protects you right? Well get into a human cannon and try flying through the metal skin. It wont work very well, in fact, you could say it is kicking your ass, and it does an even better job than the atmosphere of doing so.
You moving through the atmosphere is like trying to move through the skin of the plane.
Just like the skin of the plane is kicking your ass, the atmosphere will as well.
If the atmosphere was incapable of protecting us from the vacuum of space, then it would be incapable of kicking our ass and making us fall over from the wind or moving too quickly.
"Grasshopper, stand in the courtyard and tell me what you feel."
Grasshopper moves out into courtyard
"I don't not feel anything, the ground feels motionless."
"So your senses do not feel motion. What does your intuition tell you?"
"My intuition tells me the ground is motionless."
I do not feel anything. I do not feel motion, I do not feel stationary. My senses are incapable of distinguishing between these 2.
My intuition, from observing the world around me tells me Earth is a rotating sphere.
This is because the sun must be very far away to be able to rise due East for everyone on the equinox, yet pass directly overhead the equator, thus it makes far more sense for Earth's rotation to be the cause of the day/night cycle than the sun moving so fast.
"Trust always, your senses and intuition, they are the path of true understanding."
Master, you are a complete moron, your senses are one of the most fallible things you have. They will constantly fool you with all sorts of things, and are no where near precise enough to detect so many things it isn't funny.
That is why science uses instruments instead. They are far more reliable.
Test repeatable observations with instruments. If you can't get it on them, it is probably bullshit.
You were encased in the inside atmosphere of the skinned aircraft, right? That atmosphere should protect you once the skin of the aircraft is removed, right?
No.
The atmosphere inside the craft has pretty much the same density (and thus the same mass and takes the same amount of energy to push) as the atmosphere outside.
It would be like flying a plane into a plane. Should the skin on the plane protect you from the other plane? No.
I mean, after all, that is what you claim is protecting us as we navigate the outside of the speeding earth vessel through the NON-VACUUM of space! Your counter-argument is a bogus pile of feces!
And what is the density of the non-vacuum of space? Effectively 0. It is many orders of magnitude less than that of the atmosphere.
As such, the atmosphere can easily protect you.
So no, your counter-argument, using such pathetic examples which in no way compare to what we are saying is a bogus pile of crap. It is a pathetic childish straw-man.
If you can see the curve away from you, then why can't you see the curve in the horizon left to right? You'll claim to see this drastic curve going away, but see none going left to right. Maybe we live on a rolling pin?
That is because it is curved down to the same extent, resulting in the same angle.
If we lived on a rolling pin then the horizon to the left or right would be higher.
Watch a train leaving a station on a known flat level straight track on a hot day. You'll see the bottom half of the train become obscure from refraction, before the top half finally disappears from perspective. On the water, you are dealing with refraction, and a few other phenomena.
A flat track, which is a straight line, or a level track, which follows Earth's curve?
Why a hot day? Why not a cool one where you won't have the issue of refraction?
Guess what, you still see it disappear from the bottom up.
It isn't from refraction, it is from going over the horizon.
Since when did water convex once it fills a void?
I already provided pictures of that, and you just dismissed them as being fake.
Perhaps you would prefer a completely dishonest comparison from nature. Go look at a lotus leaf. The water produces a convex surface.
Go look at water in a test tube, it produces a concave surface.
Where is water flat, across a 12 000 km void?
Yeah, it has to be "tiny", it just has to be.
No, it doesn't have to be, it just is.
Do you have any evidence at all that it isn't?
Never mind the bulk of the earth slamming into the "solar wind" at 1.8 million MPH, hey?
No. Not at 1.8 million MPH.
You really don't understand relative motion at all.
Even if the sun was moving at 1.8 million miles per hours, the solar wind would not be hitting us at a relative speed of 1.8 million miles per hour.
The solar wind and Earth, on average is moving with the sun. The speed of Earth relative to the sun is only 30 km/s, but the gas around us is also moving at approximately that speed, and that gas already has a density of basically 0.
The solar wind is even lower density, but it is moving at some significant speed.
I think I might have found your 1.8 BS number.
The solar wind, near Earth, is moving at a speed of 300-500 km/s. This works out to be 1.8 million km per hour.
But its density and mass is effectively 0.
It exerts a pressure of roughly 1 nPa (nano Pascal). That is 1*10^-9 Pa.
The atmosphere exerts a pressure of 100 000 Pa.
Do you think that 100 000 Pa is more than enough to protect us from the 0.000000001 Pa of the solar wind?
We can also look at how much it would be accelerating Earth.
Earth, with a radius of 6371 km, would have a cross sectional area of roughly 128,000,000,000,000. m^2. Conveinently a Pa is N/m^2.
This means a force of 1 nPa will exert a force of 0.000000001 N for each m^2.
That means Earth will experience a force of 128 000 N.
But Earth has a mass of roughly 6*10^24 kg.
As F=ma (where a N is kg*m/s^2), this means the acceleration resulting from this solar wind will be a mere 2*10^-20 m/s^2
So so tiny it isn't funny.
So yes, the atmosphere will protect us and we will not be able to perceive the tiny acceleration from it.
Similarly, any resulting Magnus force will be tiny.
Just like NASA admits their globe is photoshopped, "because, it, it has to be!" Oh yeah, and don't mention the Magnus Force when a solid sphere is spinning inside earth's atmosphere, naw, well save those for my next thread.
They admit one of their globes is a computer model based upon numerous photographs that are stitched together.
They have plenty of single photos.
I'm just waiting for you'll to finally realize......................{naw, I'll just see how long it takes them to figure it out.........}
Realize that you are a complete imbecile that knows nothing, or a pathetic childish troll? Don't worry, we realise.
I don't refute your bullshit for you, I can tell that would be an impossible goal as you have no interest in the truth.
I do it so no one else would come and read your bullshit and possibly be convinced by it.
Show me a body of water on earth that is convex, once it fills a void. There are three huge lakes, one in Siberia, and one on the African Continent, and one in North America. Show me an aerial view of the convex water surface in those bodies of water, after all, you are dealing with hundreds of miles of water surface. By the way, the lake in Siberia, once it freezes over, it is known as the largest flat horizontal surface in the world. A flat horizontal surface is not convex.
Already provided it. You dismissed it as fake.
Yes, lots of ignorant people, like you will claim a level surface as a flat one.
Can you provide a picture of a large (several thousand km) body of water which is flat?
I gave you'll a hint, I knew you wouldn't get it! The answer involves a few experiments. This thread is not about experiments. You'll have to wait till my next thread.
You mean the thread we have been waiting for you to make for ages?
I think it is because you know it is bullshit and know there is effectively nothing for us to be protected from.
-
But you'll claim ships disappear over a curvature at what, 10/15 miles, our range of vision, right? I mean, that sounds like a drastic curvature to me! That is about 67 feet of curvature. At 10 miles, a 30' high ship should be completely out-of-view. Yet, when we look at the horizon left to right, we are seeing way more than 10 miles across. There has to be 50/75 miles of water surface way out on he horizon, left to right. Yet it is always horizontally flat, ALWAYS! Why do none of you spherical earthers ever consider that?
You aren't seeing a straight line 10 miles across.
You are seeing a line which is the same distance from you, 10 miles across.
As it is the same distance from you, the angle to it is the same, so it appears flat.
If I'm standing at 6 o'clock, and I'm watching a ship sailing away to 12 o'clock, what will an observer at 3 o'clock, and 9 o'clock observe? Will they see the ship go over a curvature, like you'll claim I will see standing at 6 o'clock, or will they see a ship sailing perpendicular to them along a flat horizontal horizon? Hmmm, horizontal/horizon, maybe there is a connection, you think?
Assuming the distances are correct, they will see it rise from below the horizon, go past perpendicular to them, and then go below the horizon.
The horizon for them isn't a straight line from 6 to 12. It would be a circle centred on them.
In order for it to appear to sail perpendicular to them, it would need to follow a circular path, at which point it would remain at the same angle to them.
Would you like me to make an animation to show you what it would be like (ignoring any atmospheric effects)?
Please, what does looking at a fabricated globe prove? Take me out into earth's nature, and let's look at what the physical condition, the physical state of earth shows us, or does that scare you too much?
It shows your argument is bullshit.
It shows that you don't see a great circle as the horizon, and instead the horizon is equally distant all around and thus has the same angle.
We have already pointed out what the physical state of Earth shows, that is a spinning globe.
You just ignored it.
-
If you can see the curve away from you, then why can't you see the curve in the horizon left to right? You'll claim to see this drastic curve going away, but see none going left to right. Maybe we live on a rolling pin?
There is no "drastic curve going" any way.
In the horizontal direction from near sea level, the horizon is exactly the same distance from and exactly the same distance below eye level.
So the horizon looks exactly the same all the way around and only about 0.04° below eye level all 360° around.
So there is no curvature to be seen. When you get very high you are looking down on this horizon circle, so there is a very slight curve.
Watch a train leaving a station on a known flat level straight track on a hot day. You'll see the bottom half of the train become obscure from refraction, before the top half finally disappears from perspective. On the water, you are dealing with refraction, and a few other phenomena.
Does it?, but whether it does or not, so what?
Ships disappear behind the horizon under most conditions, except when there is enough refraction of reflection to cause a mirage.
Since when did water convex once it fills a void?
Since there were oceans and gravitation.
Show me a body of water on earth that is convex, once it fills a void. There are three huge lakes, one in Siberia, and one on the African Continent, and one in North America. Show me an aerial view of the convex water surface in those bodies of water, after all, you are dealing with hundreds of miles of water surface. By the way, the lake in Siberia, once it freezes over, it is known as the largest flat horizontal surface in the world. A flat horizontal surface is not convex.
Lake Baikal
Lake Victoria
Lake Superior
look up the 3d geometric on a globe.
the distance from the viewpoint to the visible horizon does not change if you turn around yourself, therefor the horizon appears flat.
Please, what does looking at a fabricated globe prove? Take me out into earth's nature, and let's look at what the physical condition, the physical state of earth shows us, or does that scare you too much?
As I already offered you let us got out and take a look. It's up to you to follow my invitation.
Or does it scare you to do so.
-
The difference between velocity and acceleration and their respective effects seems a little too difficult for some people to comprehend.
I'll try again.
We don't notice the movement of the earth because, even though it is around 1000 MPH it is a nearly constant velocity and the atmosphere moves with us. If that 1000 MPH were in a straight line it would be a constant velocity and would be undetectable. Because we are turning, the velocity is constantly changing. (only in direction though not in speed)It is this turn which we should technically be able to detect but since we are only turning 15 degrees an hour we can't really detect it.
Of course we can't detect it. It's because it is absolutely not spinning at all.
If it was turning at 15 degrees per hour do you think you would be able to detect it?
Absolutely at 1000 mph, yep, no doubt about it and not only that but, unless we were bolted to the ground, we would be sliding along it until we go off level, which would be fairly instant and then back to the deck again.
You people really do need to wake up.
Thinking atmosphere drags you along with the solid floor of Earth is not just laughable, it's scary to think people actually believe it after being told about it.
Yeah but gravity. Yeah but centripetal force. Yeah but it's a reference frame. Yeah but atmosphere and solid, plus water all follow a set pattern.
Yeah but magic is real even though we can never ever witness it, unless we accept men feigning it.
Absolutely ridiculous and no amount of so called scientific jargon will change that FACT.
Have you ever flown in a plane? Were you able to get up and walk around without sliding everywhere even though you weren't bolted down?
And you don't need atmosphere to drag you along. You're already moving at the Earth's rotational speed so no force is needed to keep you moving that speed, except a force to pull you down (gravity) and to cancel out the coriolis forces (which are so small that you don't even notice their contribution to the shear stress on your shoes when you walk around).
"You're already moving at the Earth's rotational speed..."
Then why does the ground feel motionless? If the atmosphere is being dragged along by earth's surface by friction, where are the physical clues/signs/evidence from earth's physical condition that supports that claim? If the atmosphere is being dragged along by friction, then the atmosphere cannot be at the same speed as the surface of earth, it would always drag behind.
If a wing-walker has issues with navigating a 100 MPH platform, then why don't we have issues with navigating a 1,000 MPH platform? Support your fffing claims with some real evidence, FOR ONCE!
Why is there a clear band where hurricanes don't cross?
(https://3c1703fe8d-site-internapcdn-net.cdn.ampproject.org/ii/w560/s/3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/csz/news/800/2012/iyfkhgvk.jpg)
-
Why is there a clear band where hurricanes don't cross?
(https://3c1703fe8d-site-internapcdn-net.cdn.ampproject.org/ii/w560/s/3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/csz/news/800/2012/iyfkhgvk.jpg)
And why do they spin in opposite direction on either side of that line?
(No, Fiji isn't in the north, and NZ is not Japan).
-
Please, what does looking at a fabricated globe prove?
Take me out into earth's nature, and let's look at what the physical condition, the physical state of earth shows us, or does that scare you too much?
It does not scare me in the slightest.
I've driven long distances around Australia. Enough to know for sure that no pretend flat earth map is anything like correct.
So you can keep harping on what your
"physical condition, the physical state of earth shows us" till the cows come home
it won't affect what I believe and I'm afraid of no great truths that you are likely to bring up.
What I see fits perfectly with what I would expect the see on a huge globe.
- The sun rises from and sets behind the horizon.
- Even the clouds seem to me to disappear behind the horizon, not just fade into the distance.
- The sun stays the same size from rising to setting.
- The constellations are always the same shape and size, wherever there are in the night sky.
- The sea-sky horizon is usually sharp and doesn't simply fade into the distance.
- The distance to the sea-sky horizon changes, even with quite a small change in elevation.
These things I can see myself with little assistance, though a camera helps.
Yes, the earth is certainly a huge Globe, as has been known for over 2,000 years.
It's so funny that you have to pretend that a huge number of people are lying to prop up your fiction.
I think that it is much easier to accept that you are confused, and these people are quite truthful.
After all, they have been saying it for millennia before you came on the scene.
-
Speaking of hurricanes, can you prove the Earth is a motionless disk using only this video?
-
Observer, what is in space that our atmosphere would no protect us from? You keep saying step outside the vehicle. When you do that you hit the atmosphere. That's what you are feeling. So what kind of atmosphere is there in space that we should feel?
I gave you'll a hint, I knew you wouldn't get it! The answer involves a few experiments. This thread is not about experiments. You'll have to wait till my next thread.
So you can't answer. That's what I thought. Until you can answer statement that the atmosphere can't protect us is meaningless.
-
If I'm standing at 6 o'clock, and I'm watching a ship sailing away to 12 o'clock, what will an observer at 3 o'clock, and 9 o'clock observe? Will they see the ship go over a curvature, like you'll claim I will see standing at 6 o'clock, or will they see a ship sailing perpendicular to them along a flat horizontal horizon? Hmmm, horizontal/horizon, maybe there is a connection, you think?
If you are at 6, and the ship is halfway behind the horizon (to you) at 12, then the person at 3 should be able to see it fine. It's about 30 percent closer to them than it is to you.
If they face the ship they will see it from the starboard stern side and it will be chugging away from them at 45 degrees from their line of sight. If they look directly to their left they should be able to see you, at the same distance from them as the ship.
I'm sure those at 3 and 9 o'clock will see the ship just fine, but will they see it sailing along a flat horizon, or going over a curvature? Answer the question, and leave your globbly goop for the weak minded.
-
Observer, what is in space that our atmosphere would no protect us from? You keep saying step outside the vehicle. When you do that you hit the atmosphere. That's what you are feeling. So what kind of atmosphere is there in space that we should feel?
I gave you'll a hint, I knew you wouldn't get it! The answer involves a few experiments. This thread is not about experiments. You'll have to wait till my next thread.
So you can't answer. That's what I thought. Until you can answer statement that the atmosphere can't protect us is meaningless.
The atmosphere protecting us is your claim, prove it!
-
Speaking of hurricanes, can you prove the Earth is a motionless disk using only this video?
Yep, storms will not traveling west in an atmosphere moving east at 1,000 MPH. The moving atmosphere will drag the clouds with it. Start applying some common sense. Oh yeah, that's right, sense is no longer common!
-
Please, what does looking at a fabricated globe prove?
Take me out into earth's nature, and let's look at what the physical condition, the physical state of earth shows us, or does that scare you too much?
It does not scare me in the slightest.
I've driven long distances around Australia. Enough to know for sure that no pretend flat earth map is anything like correct.
So you can keep harping on what your
"physical condition, the physical state of earth shows us" till the cows come home
it won't affect what I believe and I'm afraid of no great truths that you are likely to bring up.
What I see fits perfectly with what I would expect the see on a huge globe.
- The sun rises from and sets behind the horizon.
- Even the clouds seem to me to disappear behind the horizon, not just fade into the distance.
- The sun stays the same size from rising to setting.
- The constellations are always the same shape and size, wherever there are in the night sky.
- The sea-sky horizon is usually sharp and doesn't simply fade into the distance.
- The distance to the sea-sky horizon changes, even with quite a small change in elevation.
These things I can see myself with little assistance, though a camera helps.
Yes, the earth is certainly a huge Globe, as has been known for over 2,000 years.
It's so funny that you have to pretend that a huge number of people are lying to prop up your fiction.
I think that it is much easier to accept that you are confused, and these people are quite truthful.
After all, they have been saying it for millennia before you came on the scene.
"it won't affect what I believe"
Then why are you here protecting your beliefs? The fact is, you cannot support your erroneous beliefs using earth physical condition, so you must invent excuse after excuse after excuse.
"it is much easier to accept that you are confused,"
Yep, much easier than admitting I'm right, right? I'm a troll, I'm confused, I'm a retard, I'm using a logical fallacy, anything, and I mean anything to block out what I have PROVEN! The earth is a motionless plane. You could not refute what I claim the videos show, and you cannot use earth's physical condition to support the defunct claims of a spinning speeding globe. I'm sure the kick in the gut is the fact NASA gives you fakes, they lie to you, and the liver shot is the realization you swallowed it like Jerry Jones' koolaid!
-
Observer, what is in space that our atmosphere would no protect us from? You keep saying step outside the vehicle. When you do that you hit the atmosphere. That's what you are feeling. So what kind of atmosphere is there in space that we should feel?
I gave you'll a hint, I knew you wouldn't get it! The answer involves a few experiments. This thread is not about experiments. You'll have to wait till my next thread.
So you can't answer. That's what I thought. Until you can answer statement that the atmosphere can't protect us is meaningless.
The atmosphere protecting us is your claim, prove it!
Protecting us from what? The idea that we should feel the movement of the earth is your claim. The idea that we need protecting from some kind of space atmosphere is your claim. The idea that the earth is flat, ignoring the evidence of sunrise, sunset, sun and moon staying the same size throughout their cycle, is your claim. Prove it.
My claim is that there is nothing in space we need protecting from, aside from the occasional meteor which mostly burn up in, wait for it, the atmosphere.
So until you can answer what we are supposed to need protecting from, your claim about being outside the vessel is meaningless.
-
Observer, what is in space that our atmosphere would no protect us from? You keep saying step outside the vehicle. When you do that you hit the atmosphere. That's what you are feeling. So what kind of atmosphere is there in space that we should feel?
I gave you'll a hint, I knew you wouldn't get it! The answer involves a few experiments. This thread is not about experiments. You'll have to wait till my next thread.
So you can't answer. That's what I thought. Until you can answer statement that the atmosphere can't protect us is meaningless.
The atmosphere protecting us is your claim, prove it!
Protecting us from what? The idea that we should feel the movement of the earth is your claim. The idea that we need protecting from some kind of space atmosphere is your claim. The idea that the earth is flat, ignoring the evidence of sunrise, sunset, sun and moon staying the same size throughout their cycle, is your claim. Prove it.
My claim is that there is nothing in space we need protecting from, aside from the occasional meteor which mostly burn up in, wait for it, the atmosphere.
So until you can answer what we are supposed to need protecting from, your claim about being outside the vessel is meaningless.
"The idea that we should feel the movement of the earth is your claim."
Yep, sure is.
People on a moving platform:
People standing on earth:
Quite the difference, hey?
Water on a spinning object:
Water on earth:
Water in a rotating container:
Water on earth:
Case closed!
-
Observer, what is in space that our atmosphere would no protect us from? You keep saying step outside the vehicle. When you do that you hit the atmosphere. That's what you are feeling. So what kind of atmosphere is there in space that we should feel?
I gave you'll a hint, I knew you wouldn't get it! The answer involves a few experiments. This thread is not about experiments. You'll have to wait till my next thread.
So you can't answer. That's what I thought. Until you can answer statement that the atmosphere can't protect us is meaningless.
The atmosphere protecting us is your claim, prove it!
Protecting us from what? The idea that we should feel the movement of the earth is your claim. The idea that we need protecting from some kind of space atmosphere is your claim. The idea that the earth is flat, ignoring the evidence of sunrise, sunset, sun and moon staying the same size throughout their cycle, is your claim. Prove it.
My claim is that there is nothing in space we need protecting from, aside from the occasional meteor which mostly burn up in, wait for it, the atmosphere.
So until you can answer what we are supposed to need protecting from, your claim about being outside the vessel is meaningless.
"Protecting us from what?"
My gawd, you'll don't know about the experiments conducted that inspired Einstein to invent his pages of excuses, do you? I have dropped 6 hints in this thread about what my next thread will be about, but none of you have a clue, do ya?
You'll will need some pretty powerful aether when we get done with that thread, I gaa-run-tee ya!
-
And here he goes again.
Ignoring the post that proved him wrong or that Show him ways how to prove him wrong very easy.
Only showing Videos that not even Show that he is right.
They only Show how ignorant and extremly closed minded he is.
All these Videos are already explained that they do absolutely not support his point.
Physical observer: all your claim are disproven .
Case closed.
-
My gawd, you'll don't know about the experiments conducted that inspired Einstein to invent his pages of excuses, do you? I have dropped 6 hints in this thread about what my next thread will be about, but none of you have a clue, do ya?
You'll will need some pretty powerful aether when we get done with that thread, I gaa-run-tee ya!
Get on with that! Looking forward to it!
-
I'm sure those at 3 and 9 o'clock will see the ship just fine, but will they see it sailing along a flat horizon, or going over a curvature? Answer the question, and leave your globbly goop for the weak minded.
Assuming the horizon is around the middle of the clock, and the ship starts at 6 and heads towards 12, they will see it rise up from the horizon, then set on the other side.
The atmosphere protecting us is your claim, prove it!
It needing to protect us is your claim.
It being unable to is your claim.
The burden of proof is on you.
Yep, storms will not traveling west in an atmosphere moving east at 1,000 MPH.
That's right, they just travel less than 1000 MPH east resulting in them appearing to move west.
Regardless, that says nothing about that video.
The moving atmosphere will drag the clouds with it. Start applying some common sense. Oh yeah, that's right, sense is no longer common!
So now you admit the atmosphere moves with it and thus you shouldn't feel it?
The fact is, you cannot support your erroneous beliefs using earth physical condition, so you must invent excuse after excuse after excuse.
Nope. The fact is we can support our correct beliefs using Earth's physical condition and evidence from elsewhere, while you need to invent excuse after excuse for why it can't be right.
Yep, much easier than admitting I'm right, right? I'm a troll, I'm confused, I'm a retard, I'm using a logical fallacy, anything, and I mean anything to block out what I have PROVEN!
You have proven nothing.
What you are claiming goes against observable reality, so yes, it is much easier to claim those things about you than accepting that reality contradicts itself.
The earth is a motionless plane.
Yes, you keep claiming that, but you are yet to prove it.
You could not refute what I claim the videos show
We did, repeatedly. You were unable to deal with our refutations at all except dismiss them as gloobly goop.
and you cannot use earth's physical condition to support the defunct claims of a spinning speeding globe.
No, we can, and have.
You can't use it to support a flat stationary Earth.
"The idea that we should feel the movement of the earth is your claim."
Yep, sure is.
People on a moving platform:
No. People moving relative to the air, on a jerky platform.
Nothing like Earth.
The same applies to the rest of your bullshit.
You are not comparing it to anything like what Earth is meant to be.
Case closed!
Yep, case closed. You are full of shit and completely unable to refute the fact that Earth is a spinning globe, and you know it because you continue to use false comparisons.
My gawd, you'll don't know about the experiments conducted that inspired Einstein to invent his pages of excuses, do you? I have dropped 6 hints in this thread about what my next thread will be about, but none of you have a clue, do ya?
You'll will need some pretty powerful aether when we get done with that thread, I gaa-run-tee ya!
Yes, you have dropped hints that you will be making a next thread, including in the previous thread, about what Earth is supposedly travelling through.
If you are appealing to the aether, then you are wasting your time, as aether is a load of bullshit.
You are also ignoring the alleged properties of aether. One was that it has 0 friction. That means it would exert no force on an object moving through it.
So again, WHAT DOES EARTH NEED PROTECTING FROM?
If you can't answer that, then you have no case for us allegedly needing to be protected or otherwise feeling the force of the motion.
-
Speaking of hurricanes, can you prove the Earth is a motionless disk using only this video?
Yep, storms will not traveling west in an atmosphere moving east at 1,000 MPH. The moving atmosphere will drag the clouds with it. Start applying some common sense. Oh yeah, that's right, sense is no longer common!
Yes, such good advice, you should "Start applying some common sense."
As has been explained to you numerous times, the atmosphere in general moves with the earth.
There is simply nothing to stop it being "dragged" along with the rotating earth, so why do you keep repeating the same rubbish.
Yet you still claim that "storms will not travel west in an atmosphere moving east at 1,000 MPH".
The atmosphere does not move "east at 1,000 MPH" relative to the earth.
And you have shown no reason why the atmosphere would not move with the earth.
Not only that, you seem to be hung up on your magic 1,000 MPH, but in reality, it is:
1040 mph at the equator, 900 mph at 30° latitude and 520 mph at 60° latitude.
So, how do you like them apples?
-
The difference between velocity and acceleration and their respective effects seems a little too difficult for some people to comprehend.
I'll try again.
We don't notice the movement of the earth because, even though it is around 1000 MPH it is a nearly constant velocity and the atmosphere moves with us. If that 1000 MPH were in a straight line it would be a constant velocity and would be undetectable. Because we are turning, the velocity is constantly changing. (only in direction though not in speed)It is this turn which we should technically be able to detect but since we are only turning 15 degrees an hour we can't really detect it.
Of course we can't detect it. It's because it is absolutely not spinning at all.
If it was turning at 15 degrees per hour do you think you would be able to detect it?
Absolutely at 1000 mph, yep, no doubt about it and not only that but, unless we were bolted to the ground, we would be sliding along it until we go off level, which would be fairly instant and then back to the deck again.
You people really do need to wake up.
Thinking atmosphere drags you along with the solid floor of Earth is not just laughable, it's scary to think people actually believe it after being told about it.
Yeah but gravity. Yeah but centripetal force. Yeah but it's a reference frame. Yeah but atmosphere and solid, plus water all follow a set pattern.
Yeah but magic is real even though we can never ever witness it, unless we accept men feigning it.
Absolutely ridiculous and no amount of so called scientific jargon will change that FACT.
Have you ever flown in a plane? Were you able to get up and walk around without sliding everywhere even though you weren't bolted down?
And you don't need atmosphere to drag you along. You're already moving at the Earth's rotational speed so no force is needed to keep you moving that speed, except a force to pull you down (gravity) and to cancel out the coriolis forces (which are so small that you don't even notice their contribution to the shear stress on your shoes when you walk around).
"You're already moving at the Earth's rotational speed..."
Then why does the ground feel motionless? If the atmosphere is being dragged along by earth's surface by friction, where are the physical clues/signs/evidence from earth's physical condition that supports that claim? If the atmosphere is being dragged along by friction, then the atmosphere cannot be at the same speed as the surface of earth, it would always drag behind.
If a wing-walker has issues with navigating a 100 MPH platform, then why don't we have issues with navigating a 1,000 MPH platform? Support your fffing claims with some real evidence, FOR ONCE!
Why is there a clear band where hurricanes don't cross?
(https://3c1703fe8d-site-internapcdn-net.cdn.ampproject.org/ii/w560/s/3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/csz/news/800/2012/iyfkhgvk.jpg)
Storms cross the equator all the time, and I provided a video of a storm hitting New Zealand, and a storm hitting Japan, and both storms were rotating in the same direction. You need to stop getting your information from the Discount Vendor.
-
Speaking of hurricanes, can you prove the Earth is a motionless disk using only this video?
Yep, storms will not traveling west in an atmosphere moving east at 1,000 MPH. The moving atmosphere will drag the clouds with it. Start applying some common sense. Oh yeah, that's right, sense is no longer common!
Yes, such good advice, you should "Start applying some common sense."
As has been explained to you numerous times, the atmosphere in general moves with the earth.
There is simply nothing to stop it being "dragged" along with the rotating earth, so why do you keep repeating the same rubbish.
Yet you still claim that "storms will not travel west in an atmosphere moving east at 1,000 MPH".
The atmosphere does not move "east at 1,000 MPH" relative to the earth.
And you have shown no reason why the atmosphere would not move with the earth.
Not only that, you seem to be hung up on your magic 1,000 MPH, but in reality, it is:
1040 mph at the equator, 900 mph at 30° latitude and 520 mph at 60° latitude.
So, how do you like them apples?
"The atmosphere does not move "east at 1,000 MPH" relative to the earth."
Now the atmosphere is not moving, GOOD GAWD, you'll need to get on the same page!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"So, how do you like them apples?"
You have sour grapes confused with apples!
-
"The atmosphere does not move "east at 1,000 MPH" relative to the earth."
Now the atmosphere is not moving, GOOD GAWD, you'll need to get on the same page!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"So, how do you like them apples?"
You have sour grapes confused with apples!
Learning a bit of reading comprehension would help.
Saying that "The atmosphere does not move 'east at 1,000 MPH' relative to the earth" is not saying that "atmosphere is not moving".
What it says is simply that "The atmosphere does not move east at 1,000 MPH". So please learn to read!
What I said did not preclude the atmosphere moving due to surface winds and storms.
So please go back, read the post again and answer what is says.
-
Why is there a clear band where hurricanes don't cross?
(https://3c1703fe8d-site-internapcdn-net.cdn.ampproject.org/ii/w560/s/3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/csz/news/800/2012/iyfkhgvk.jpg)
Storms cross the equator all the time, and I provided a video of a storm hitting New Zealand, and a storm hitting Japan, and both storms were rotating in the same direction. You need to stop getting your information from the Discount Vendor.
It certainly looks as though "getting . . . . information from the Discount Vendor" is a lot more factual than your source, Mr physical observer!
Tropical "storms" do not "cross the equator all the time".
By "tropical storms" we mean severe storms caused by deep low-pressure weather systems, known as cyclones, hurricanes or typhoons.
Their rotation is caused by the Coriolis Effect, which is extremely small near the equator.
But don't you ever learn? You tried this same misinformation in
Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect. « Reply #129 on: February 23, 2017, 11:44:12 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64533.msg1873198#msg1873198)
and got shot down there.
But, here it is again:
You should have twigged when I said "Get your facts right! No hurricane has ever hit New Zealand!"
I do believe that if you really check up on that picture (say do a Google search) that it is not a photo of any Typhoon hitting New Zealand.
Just right click the image and select "Search Google for image", and you get "Best guess for this image: typhon phanfone"!
(http://cdns.yournewswire.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/new-zealand-biggest-storm-660x372.jpg)
Your photo
Mis-labelled as "New Zealand Biggest Storm" | | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/d6bcv9ctwdbm7gg/Typhoon%20Phanfone%202014-10-03.jpg?dl=1)
Typhoon Phanfone (2014) - Wikipedia
Typhoon Phanfone at peak strength . . . . . . . . on October 3 |
The photo of Typhoon Phanfone is cropped from Phanfone_2014-10-03_0155Z_full.jpg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Phanfone_2014-10-03_0155Z_full.jpg) to match the size of your image. Typhoon Phanfone areas affected were Mariana Islands, Japan, Alaska.
Do they look identical? Clearly your image was of Typhone Phanfone on 2014-10-03 and was no typhoon hitting New Zealand!
I have no idea who CDNS Your News Wire (http://cdns.yournewswire.com/) are but they are 100% wrong with that image!
It's about time that you learnt that the internet contains almost the sum-total of human knowledge and the sum-total of mis-information!
Better luck next time Mr Physical Observer! But, just remember, the rotating Globe works, the Flat Earth does not work.
Sorry about all the emphasis, but I need something to hammer this stuff into your head.
-
Why is there a clear band where hurricanes don't cross?
(https://3c1703fe8d-site-internapcdn-net.cdn.ampproject.org/ii/w560/s/3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/csz/news/800/2012/iyfkhgvk.jpg)
Storms cross the equator all the time, and I provided a video of a storm hitting New Zealand, and a storm hitting Japan, and both storms were rotating in the same direction. You need to stop getting your information from the Discount Vendor.
It certainly looks as though "getting . . . . information from the Discount Vendor" is a lot more factual than your source, Mr physical observer!
Tropical "storms" do not "cross the equator all the time".
By "tropical storms" we mean severe storms caused by deep low-pressure weather systems, known as cyclones, hurricanes or typhoons.
Their rotation is caused by the Coriolis Effect, which is extremely small near the equator.
But don't you ever learn? You tried this same misinformation in
Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect. « Reply #129 on: February 23, 2017, 11:44:12 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64533.msg1873198#msg1873198)
and got shot down there.
But, here it is again:
You should have twigged when I said "Get your facts right! No hurricane has ever hit New Zealand!"
I do believe that if you really check up on that picture (say do a Google search) that it is not a photo of any Typhoon hitting New Zealand.
Just right click the image and select "Search Google for image", and you get "Best guess for this image: typhon phanfone"!
(http://cdns.yournewswire.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/new-zealand-biggest-storm-660x372.jpg)
Your photo
Mis-labelled as "New Zealand Biggest Storm" | | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Earth%20from%20Space/Typhoon%20Phanfone%202014-10-03_zpszatw9rgl.png)
Typhoon Phanfone (2014) - Wikipedia
Typhoon Phanfone at peak strength . . . . . . . . on October 3 |
The photo of Typhoon Phanfone is cropped from Phanfone_2014-10-03_0155Z_full.jpg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Phanfone_2014-10-03_0155Z_full.jpg) to match the size of your image. Typhoon Phanfone areas affected were Mariana Islands, Japan, Alaska.
Do they look identical? Clearly your image was of Typhone Phanfone on 2014-10-03 and was no typhoon hitting New Zealand!
I have no idea who CDNS Your News Wire (http://cdns.yournewswire.com/) are but they are 100% wrong with that image!
It's about time that you learnt that the internet contains almost the sum-total of human knowledge and the sum-total of mis-information!
Better luck next time Mr Physical Observer! But, just remember, the rotating Globe works, the Flat Earth does not work.
Sorry about all the emphasis, but I need something to hammer this stuff into your head.
Bucky, storms rotate in both directions in both south and north of the equator. Besides, rotating of storms does not prove a spinning speeding globe. The rotating is from the heat near the equator and how it affects the jet stream, it has nothing to do with a rotating globe.
This sort of puts a damper in your hamper:
-
The difference between velocity and acceleration and their respective effects seems a little too difficult for some people to comprehend.
I'll try again.
We don't notice the movement of the earth because, even though it is around 1000 MPH it is a nearly constant velocity and the atmosphere moves with us. If that 1000 MPH were in a straight line it would be a constant velocity and would be undetectable. Because we are turning, the velocity is constantly changing. (only in direction though not in speed)It is this turn which we should technically be able to detect but since we are only turning 15 degrees an hour we can't really detect it.
Of course we can't detect it. It's because it is absolutely not spinning at all.
If it was turning at 15 degrees per hour do you think you would be able to detect it?
Absolutely at 1000 mph, yep, no doubt about it and not only that but, unless we were bolted to the ground, we would be sliding along it until we go off level, which would be fairly instant and then back to the deck again.
You people really do need to wake up.
Thinking atmosphere drags you along with the solid floor of Earth is not just laughable, it's scary to think people actually believe it after being told about it.
Yeah but gravity. Yeah but centripetal force. Yeah but it's a reference frame. Yeah but atmosphere and solid, plus water all follow a set pattern.
Yeah but magic is real even though we can never ever witness it, unless we accept men feigning it.
Absolutely ridiculous and no amount of so called scientific jargon will change that FACT.
Have you ever flown in a plane? Were you able to get up and walk around without sliding everywhere even though you weren't bolted down?
And you don't need atmosphere to drag you along. You're already moving at the Earth's rotational speed so no force is needed to keep you moving that speed, except a force to pull you down (gravity) and to cancel out the coriolis forces (which are so small that you don't even notice their contribution to the shear stress on your shoes when you walk around).
"You're already moving at the Earth's rotational speed..."
Then why does the ground feel motionless? If the atmosphere is being dragged along by earth's surface by friction, where are the physical clues/signs/evidence from earth's physical condition that supports that claim? If the atmosphere is being dragged along by friction, then the atmosphere cannot be at the same speed as the surface of earth, it would always drag behind.
If a wing-walker has issues with navigating a 100 MPH platform, then why don't we have issues with navigating a 1,000 MPH platform? Support your fffing claims with some real evidence, FOR ONCE!
Why is there a clear band where hurricanes don't cross?
(https://3c1703fe8d-site-internapcdn-net.cdn.ampproject.org/ii/w560/s/3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/csz/news/800/2012/iyfkhgvk.jpg)
Storms cross the equator all the time, and I provided a video of a storm hitting New Zealand, and a storm hitting Japan, and both storms were rotating in the same direction. You need to stop getting your information from the Discount Vendor.
Are you unable to read the word HURRICANES? And you provided no such video. There was the laughable post where you tried to claim a storm that was over japan was really a storm over New Zealand. You were shown to be wrong multiple times and apparently are proving you didn't read the replies showing you were wrong (big surprise there ::) ).
-
The difference between velocity and acceleration and their respective effects seems a little too difficult for some people to comprehend.
I'll try again.
We don't notice the movement of the earth because, even though it is around 1000 MPH it is a nearly constant velocity and the atmosphere moves with us. If that 1000 MPH were in a straight line it would be a constant velocity and would be undetectable. Because we are turning, the velocity is constantly changing. (only in direction though not in speed)It is this turn which we should technically be able to detect but since we are only turning 15 degrees an hour we can't really detect it.
Of course we can't detect it. It's because it is absolutely not spinning at all.
If it was turning at 15 degrees per hour do you think you would be able to detect it?
Absolutely at 1000 mph, yep, no doubt about it and not only that but, unless we were bolted to the ground, we would be sliding along it until we go off level, which would be fairly instant and then back to the deck again.
You people really do need to wake up.
Thinking atmosphere drags you along with the solid floor of Earth is not just laughable, it's scary to think people actually believe it after being told about it.
Yeah but gravity. Yeah but centripetal force. Yeah but it's a reference frame. Yeah but atmosphere and solid, plus water all follow a set pattern.
Yeah but magic is real even though we can never ever witness it, unless we accept men feigning it.
Absolutely ridiculous and no amount of so called scientific jargon will change that FACT.
Have you ever flown in a plane? Were you able to get up and walk around without sliding everywhere even though you weren't bolted down?
And you don't need atmosphere to drag you along. You're already moving at the Earth's rotational speed so no force is needed to keep you moving that speed, except a force to pull you down (gravity) and to cancel out the coriolis forces (which are so small that you don't even notice their contribution to the shear stress on your shoes when you walk around).
"You're already moving at the Earth's rotational speed..."
Then why does the ground feel motionless? If the atmosphere is being dragged along by earth's surface by friction, where are the physical clues/signs/evidence from earth's physical condition that supports that claim? If the atmosphere is being dragged along by friction, then the atmosphere cannot be at the same speed as the surface of earth, it would always drag behind.
If a wing-walker has issues with navigating a 100 MPH platform, then why don't we have issues with navigating a 1,000 MPH platform? Support your fffing claims with some real evidence, FOR ONCE!
Why is there a clear band where hurricanes don't cross?
(https://3c1703fe8d-site-internapcdn-net.cdn.ampproject.org/ii/w560/s/3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/csz/news/800/2012/iyfkhgvk.jpg)
Storms cross the equator all the time, and I provided a video of a storm hitting New Zealand, and a storm hitting Japan, and both storms were rotating in the same direction. You need to stop getting your information from the Discount Vendor.
Are you unable to read the word HURRICANES? And you provided no such video. There was the laughable post where you tried to claim a storm that was over japan was really a storm over New Zealand. You were shown to be wrong multiple times and apparently are proving you didn't read the replies showing you were wrong (big surprise there ::) ).
If hurricanes are not storms, what are they?
-
The difference between velocity and acceleration and their respective effects seems a little too difficult for some people to comprehend.
I'll try again.
We don't notice the movement of the earth because, even though it is around 1000 MPH it is a nearly constant velocity and the atmosphere moves with us. If that 1000 MPH were in a straight line it would be a constant velocity and would be undetectable. Because we are turning, the velocity is constantly changing. (only in direction though not in speed)It is this turn which we should technically be able to detect but since we are only turning 15 degrees an hour we can't really detect it.
Of course we can't detect it. It's because it is absolutely not spinning at all.
If it was turning at 15 degrees per hour do you think you would be able to detect it?
Absolutely at 1000 mph, yep, no doubt about it and not only that but, unless we were bolted to the ground, we would be sliding along it until we go off level, which would be fairly instant and then back to the deck again.
You people really do need to wake up.
Thinking atmosphere drags you along with the solid floor of Earth is not just laughable, it's scary to think people actually believe it after being told about it.
Yeah but gravity. Yeah but centripetal force. Yeah but it's a reference frame. Yeah but atmosphere and solid, plus water all follow a set pattern.
Yeah but magic is real even though we can never ever witness it, unless we accept men feigning it.
Absolutely ridiculous and no amount of so called scientific jargon will change that FACT.
Have you ever flown in a plane? Were you able to get up and walk around without sliding everywhere even though you weren't bolted down?
And you don't need atmosphere to drag you along. You're already moving at the Earth's rotational speed so no force is needed to keep you moving that speed, except a force to pull you down (gravity) and to cancel out the coriolis forces (which are so small that you don't even notice their contribution to the shear stress on your shoes when you walk around).
"You're already moving at the Earth's rotational speed..."
Then why does the ground feel motionless? If the atmosphere is being dragged along by earth's surface by friction, where are the physical clues/signs/evidence from earth's physical condition that supports that claim? If the atmosphere is being dragged along by friction, then the atmosphere cannot be at the same speed as the surface of earth, it would always drag behind.
If a wing-walker has issues with navigating a 100 MPH platform, then why don't we have issues with navigating a 1,000 MPH platform? Support your fffing claims with some real evidence, FOR ONCE!
Why is there a clear band where hurricanes don't cross?
(https://3c1703fe8d-site-internapcdn-net.cdn.ampproject.org/ii/w560/s/3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/csz/news/800/2012/iyfkhgvk.jpg)
Storms cross the equator all the time, and I provided a video of a storm hitting New Zealand, and a storm hitting Japan, and both storms were rotating in the same direction. You need to stop getting your information from the Discount Vendor.
Are you unable to read the word HURRICANES? And you provided no such video. There was the laughable post where you tried to claim a storm that was over japan was really a storm over New Zealand. You were shown to be wrong multiple times and apparently are proving you didn't read the replies showing you were wrong (big surprise there ::) ).
Gee, the earth must have stopped rotating if the jet stream crossed the equator, hey fellas?
-
The difference between velocity and acceleration and their respective effects seems a little too difficult for some people to comprehend.
I'll try again.
We don't notice the movement of the earth because, even though it is around 1000 MPH it is a nearly constant velocity and the atmosphere moves with us. If that 1000 MPH were in a straight line it would be a constant velocity and would be undetectable. Because we are turning, the velocity is constantly changing. (only in direction though not in speed)It is this turn which we should technically be able to detect but since we are only turning 15 degrees an hour we can't really detect it.
Of course we can't detect it. It's because it is absolutely not spinning at all.
If it was turning at 15 degrees per hour do you think you would be able to detect it?
Absolutely at 1000 mph, yep, no doubt about it and not only that but, unless we were bolted to the ground, we would be sliding along it until we go off level, which would be fairly instant and then back to the deck again.
You people really do need to wake up.
Thinking atmosphere drags you along with the solid floor of Earth is not just laughable, it's scary to think people actually believe it after being told about it.
Yeah but gravity. Yeah but centripetal force. Yeah but it's a reference frame. Yeah but atmosphere and solid, plus water all follow a set pattern.
Yeah but magic is real even though we can never ever witness it, unless we accept men feigning it.
Absolutely ridiculous and no amount of so called scientific jargon will change that FACT.
Have you ever flown in a plane? Were you able to get up and walk around without sliding everywhere even though you weren't bolted down?
And you don't need atmosphere to drag you along. You're already moving at the Earth's rotational speed so no force is needed to keep you moving that speed, except a force to pull you down (gravity) and to cancel out the coriolis forces (which are so small that you don't even notice their contribution to the shear stress on your shoes when you walk around).
"You're already moving at the Earth's rotational speed..."
Then why does the ground feel motionless? If the atmosphere is being dragged along by earth's surface by friction, where are the physical clues/signs/evidence from earth's physical condition that supports that claim? If the atmosphere is being dragged along by friction, then the atmosphere cannot be at the same speed as the surface of earth, it would always drag behind.
If a wing-walker has issues with navigating a 100 MPH platform, then why don't we have issues with navigating a 1,000 MPH platform? Support your fffing claims with some real evidence, FOR ONCE!
Why is there a clear band where hurricanes don't cross?
(https://3c1703fe8d-site-internapcdn-net.cdn.ampproject.org/ii/w560/s/3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/csz/news/800/2012/iyfkhgvk.jpg)
Storms cross the equator all the time, and I provided a video of a storm hitting New Zealand, and a storm hitting Japan, and both storms were rotating in the same direction. You need to stop getting your information from the Discount Vendor.
Are you unable to read the word HURRICANES? And you provided no such video. There was the laughable post where you tried to claim a storm that was over japan was really a storm over New Zealand. You were shown to be wrong multiple times and apparently are proving you didn't read the replies showing you were wrong (big surprise there ::) ).
If hurricanes are not storms, what are they?
That's what you got out of that? Not anything about where you were WRONG? Nobody said Hurricanes weren't storms. Please learn to read what is written and not what you wish was written. They are a special class of large storm and they do not cross the equator. Keep up the humor!
-
The difference between velocity and acceleration and their respective effects seems a little too difficult for some people to comprehend.
I'll try again.
We don't notice the movement of the earth because, even though it is around 1000 MPH it is a nearly constant velocity and the atmosphere moves with us. If that 1000 MPH were in a straight line it would be a constant velocity and would be undetectable. Because we are turning, the velocity is constantly changing. (only in direction though not in speed)It is this turn which we should technically be able to detect but since we are only turning 15 degrees an hour we can't really detect it.
Of course we can't detect it. It's because it is absolutely not spinning at all.
If it was turning at 15 degrees per hour do you think you would be able to detect it?
Absolutely at 1000 mph, yep, no doubt about it and not only that but, unless we were bolted to the ground, we would be sliding along it until we go off level, which would be fairly instant and then back to the deck again.
You people really do need to wake up.
Thinking atmosphere drags you along with the solid floor of Earth is not just laughable, it's scary to think people actually believe it after being told about it.
Yeah but gravity. Yeah but centripetal force. Yeah but it's a reference frame. Yeah but atmosphere and solid, plus water all follow a set pattern.
Yeah but magic is real even though we can never ever witness it, unless we accept men feigning it.
Absolutely ridiculous and no amount of so called scientific jargon will change that FACT.
Have you ever flown in a plane? Were you able to get up and walk around without sliding everywhere even though you weren't bolted down?
And you don't need atmosphere to drag you along. You're already moving at the Earth's rotational speed so no force is needed to keep you moving that speed, except a force to pull you down (gravity) and to cancel out the coriolis forces (which are so small that you don't even notice their contribution to the shear stress on your shoes when you walk around).
"You're already moving at the Earth's rotational speed..."
Then why does the ground feel motionless? If the atmosphere is being dragged along by earth's surface by friction, where are the physical clues/signs/evidence from earth's physical condition that supports that claim? If the atmosphere is being dragged along by friction, then the atmosphere cannot be at the same speed as the surface of earth, it would always drag behind.
If a wing-walker has issues with navigating a 100 MPH platform, then why don't we have issues with navigating a 1,000 MPH platform? Support your fffing claims with some real evidence, FOR ONCE!
Why is there a clear band where hurricanes don't cross?
(https://3c1703fe8d-site-internapcdn-net.cdn.ampproject.org/ii/w560/s/3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/csz/news/800/2012/iyfkhgvk.jpg)
Storms cross the equator all the time, and I provided a video of a storm hitting New Zealand, and a storm hitting Japan, and both storms were rotating in the same direction. You need to stop getting your information from the Discount Vendor.
Are you unable to read the word HURRICANES? And you provided no such video. There was the laughable post where you tried to claim a storm that was over japan was really a storm over New Zealand. You were shown to be wrong multiple times and apparently are proving you didn't read the replies showing you were wrong (big surprise there ::) ).
Gee, the earth must have stopped rotating if the jet stream crossed the equator, hey fellas?
Last I checked the jet stream was not a large rotating storm like a hurricane. Dishonest much? or can you really not see the difference? Either way, keep up the humor!
-
The difference between velocity and acceleration and their respective effects seems a little too difficult for some people to comprehend.
I'll try again.
We don't notice the movement of the earth because, even though it is around 1000 MPH it is a nearly constant velocity and the atmosphere moves with us. If that 1000 MPH were in a straight line it would be a constant velocity and would be undetectable. Because we are turning, the velocity is constantly changing. (only in direction though not in speed)It is this turn which we should technically be able to detect but since we are only turning 15 degrees an hour we can't really detect it.
Of course we can't detect it. It's because it is absolutely not spinning at all.
If it was turning at 15 degrees per hour do you think you would be able to detect it?
Absolutely at 1000 mph, yep, no doubt about it and not only that but, unless we were bolted to the ground, we would be sliding along it until we go off level, which would be fairly instant and then back to the deck again.
You people really do need to wake up.
Thinking atmosphere drags you along with the solid floor of Earth is not just laughable, it's scary to think people actually believe it after being told about it.
Yeah but gravity. Yeah but centripetal force. Yeah but it's a reference frame. Yeah but atmosphere and solid, plus water all follow a set pattern.
Yeah but magic is real even though we can never ever witness it, unless we accept men feigning it.
Absolutely ridiculous and no amount of so called scientific jargon will change that FACT.
Have you ever flown in a plane? Were you able to get up and walk around without sliding everywhere even though you weren't bolted down?
And you don't need atmosphere to drag you along. You're already moving at the Earth's rotational speed so no force is needed to keep you moving that speed, except a force to pull you down (gravity) and to cancel out the coriolis forces (which are so small that you don't even notice their contribution to the shear stress on your shoes when you walk around).
"You're already moving at the Earth's rotational speed..."
Then why does the ground feel motionless? If the atmosphere is being dragged along by earth's surface by friction, where are the physical clues/signs/evidence from earth's physical condition that supports that claim? If the atmosphere is being dragged along by friction, then the atmosphere cannot be at the same speed as the surface of earth, it would always drag behind.
If a wing-walker has issues with navigating a 100 MPH platform, then why don't we have issues with navigating a 1,000 MPH platform? Support your fffing claims with some real evidence, FOR ONCE!
Why is there a clear band where hurricanes don't cross?
(https://3c1703fe8d-site-internapcdn-net.cdn.ampproject.org/ii/w560/s/3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/csz/news/800/2012/iyfkhgvk.jpg)
Storms cross the equator all the time, and I provided a video of a storm hitting New Zealand, and a storm hitting Japan, and both storms were rotating in the same direction. You need to stop getting your information from the Discount Vendor.
Are you unable to read the word HURRICANES? And you provided no such video. There was the laughable post where you tried to claim a storm that was over japan was really a storm over New Zealand. You were shown to be wrong multiple times and apparently are proving you didn't read the replies showing you were wrong (big surprise there ::) ).
Gee, the earth must have stopped rotating if the jet stream crossed the equator, hey fellas?
Last I checked the jet stream was not a large rotating storm like a hurricane. Dishonest much? or can you really not see the difference? Either way, keep up the humor!
What do you think causes storms to rotate?
It is the heat band around the equator that causes storms to stay away. The video I linked shows the heat has dissipated, thus allowing the jet stream to cross over, and that is dragging clouds with it. Thus clearly showing the equator demarcation is from heat, not rotation from the earth. It probably would have helped if you watched it.
Here, here is you're own personally copy:
-
The difference between velocity and acceleration and their respective effects seems a little too difficult for some people to comprehend.
I'll try again.
We don't notice the movement of the earth because, even though it is around 1000 MPH it is a nearly constant velocity and the atmosphere moves with us. If that 1000 MPH were in a straight line it would be a constant velocity and would be undetectable. Because we are turning, the velocity is constantly changing. (only in direction though not in speed)It is this turn which we should technically be able to detect but since we are only turning 15 degrees an hour we can't really detect it.
Of course we can't detect it. It's because it is absolutely not spinning at all.
If it was turning at 15 degrees per hour do you think you would be able to detect it?
Absolutely at 1000 mph, yep, no doubt about it and not only that but, unless we were bolted to the ground, we would be sliding along it until we go off level, which would be fairly instant and then back to the deck again.
You people really do need to wake up.
Thinking atmosphere drags you along with the solid floor of Earth is not just laughable, it's scary to think people actually believe it after being told about it.
Yeah but gravity. Yeah but centripetal force. Yeah but it's a reference frame. Yeah but atmosphere and solid, plus water all follow a set pattern.
Yeah but magic is real even though we can never ever witness it, unless we accept men feigning it.
Absolutely ridiculous and no amount of so called scientific jargon will change that FACT.
Have you ever flown in a plane? Were you able to get up and walk around without sliding everywhere even though you weren't bolted down?
And you don't need atmosphere to drag you along. You're already moving at the Earth's rotational speed so no force is needed to keep you moving that speed, except a force to pull you down (gravity) and to cancel out the coriolis forces (which are so small that you don't even notice their contribution to the shear stress on your shoes when you walk around).
"You're already moving at the Earth's rotational speed..."
Then why does the ground feel motionless? If the atmosphere is being dragged along by earth's surface by friction, where are the physical clues/signs/evidence from earth's physical condition that supports that claim? If the atmosphere is being dragged along by friction, then the atmosphere cannot be at the same speed as the surface of earth, it would always drag behind.
If a wing-walker has issues with navigating a 100 MPH platform, then why don't we have issues with navigating a 1,000 MPH platform? Support your fffing claims with some real evidence, FOR ONCE!
Why is there a clear band where hurricanes don't cross?
(https://3c1703fe8d-site-internapcdn-net.cdn.ampproject.org/ii/w560/s/3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/csz/news/800/2012/iyfkhgvk.jpg)
Storms cross the equator all the time, and I provided a video of a storm hitting New Zealand, and a storm hitting Japan, and both storms were rotating in the same direction. You need to stop getting your information from the Discount Vendor.
Are you unable to read the word HURRICANES? And you provided no such video. There was the laughable post where you tried to claim a storm that was over japan was really a storm over New Zealand. You were shown to be wrong multiple times and apparently are proving you didn't read the replies showing you were wrong (big surprise there ::) ).
Gee, the earth must have stopped rotating if the jet stream crossed the equator, hey fellas?
Last I checked the jet stream was not a large rotating storm like a hurricane. Dishonest much? or can you really not see the difference? Either way, keep up the humor!
What do you think causes storms to rotate?
It is the heat band around the equator that causes storms to stay away. The video I linked shows the heat has dissipated, thus allowing the jet stream to cross over, and that is dragging clouds with it. Thus clearly showing the equator demarcation is from heat, not rotation from the earth. It probably would have helped if you watched it.
Here, here is you're own personally copy:
You already proved you don't read others' posts. You don't have to double down on it. But thanks for the humor!
Your video does NOT say that the jet stream causes hurricanes to rotate. You've not supported that idea at all. But you're no stranger to logical fallacies, are you?
Noted that you're trying to distract from your mistake where you claimed a typhoon hitting japan was actually over New Zealand.
-
Bucky, storms rotate in both directions in both south and north of the equator.
No, they don't.
Besides, rotating of storms does not prove a spinning speeding globe.
The differing direction of cyclone rotation in the northern and southern hemispheres is very strong evidence of a rotating globe.
The rotating is from the heat near the equator and how it affects the jet stream, it has nothing to do with a rotating globe.
Untrue. Storms are generated by heat, yes, but their rotation is unconnected to the jet streams, except in that both are caused by the rotation of the earth. Which leads us to...
This sort of puts a damper in your hamper:
Indeed, the irony. Jet streams are yet further evidence of a rotating globe. They wouldn't occur if the earth wasn't rotating. Jet streams crossing the equator, while hitherto anomalous, do not negate this.
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/global/jet.html (http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/global/jet.html).
You're not very good at this are you? It's almost like you're trying to prove a spinning globe.
-
What I also find astounding is,
We say that the scientist have proven that the earth is round.
He says that that is all lies and the scientists made that up.
But all of sudden he use jet-streams as an argument for his idea.
These jet-stream are found by scientists und they did research of them.
Why does now physical observer use stuff that scientist say to try to prove his point.
That shows that he is a cherry picker that only use what is an advantage to his idea.
Physical observer, you know that you are wrong and we know it, as longer you do not admit it the more you look stupid.
-
"There is no "drastic curve going" any way."
But you'll claim ships disappear over a curvature at what, 10/15 miles, our range of vision, right? I mean, that sounds like a drastic curvature to me! That is about 67 feet of curvature. At 10 miles, a 30' high ship should be completely out-of-view. Yet, when we look at the horizon left to right, we are seeing way more than 10 miles across. There has to be 50/75 miles of water surface way out on he horizon, left to right. Yet it is always horizontally flat, ALWAYS! Why do none of you spherical earthers ever consider that?
If I'm standing at 6 o'clock, and I'm watching a ship sailing away to 12 o'clock, what will an observer at 3 o'clock, and 9 o'clock observe? Will they see the ship go over a curvature, like you'll claim I will see standing at 6 o'clock, or will they see a ship sailing perpendicular to them along a flat horizontal horizon? Hmmm, horizontal/horizon, maybe there is a connection, you think?
Nope. Standing on the shore with a complete 180 degree view left to right and the horizon 3 miles away, you're seeing about 9.4 miles of horizon.
-
Storms cross the equator all the time, and I provided a video of a storm hitting New Zealand, and a storm hitting Japan, and both storms were rotating in the same direction. You need to stop getting your information from the Discount Vendor.
No. Hurricanes, Cylones, etc, crossing the equator is a very rare event.
You should really stop lying, you provided no such thing.
You provided 2 sets of photos.
In one set, you had a photo of NZ, and a photo of Fiji, which you claimed was Fuji and claimed it was in the northern hemisphere.
Fiji is not Fuji and it is not in Japan or the northern hemisphere. It is still well below the equator.
In these photos, both storms were rotating clockwise as you would expect.
In the second set, you provided 2 pictures of storms in or near Japan, both well above the equator, both rotating counterclockwise, as you would expect.
So while you did provide a picture of a storm near NZ and Japan, they were spinning in opposite directions.
You need to stop getting your information from delusional nutcases.
Now the atmosphere is not moving, GOOD GAWD, you'll need to get on the same page!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No. We are on the same page.
You need to understand what relative motion is.
Earth, including the atmosphere, is rotating around 15 degrees an hour.
So at the equator, both the solid Earth and the atmosphere is moving at 1000 MPH.
What this means is that the speed of the atmosphere, relative to Earth, is 0 (from this rotation, it will vary due to wind and perturbations).
Bucky, storms rotate in both directions in both south and north of the equator. Besides, rotating of storms does not prove a spinning speeding globe. The rotating is from the heat near the equator and how it affects the jet stream, it has nothing to do with a rotating globe.
No. Tropical storms, i.e. cylcones, hurricanes, etc, very rarely cross the equator. They always rotate in one direction in the northern hemisphere and another direction in the southern hemisphere. This rotation is what is expected from the Coriolis effect because of Earth's rotation.
Their rotation is not from the heat and how it affects the jet stream. It is entirely to do with a rotating globe.
The heat is what provides the energy for them to form.
[/quote]
If hurricanes are not storms, what are they?
And another logical fallacy.
Just because all A are B, does not mean all B are A.
A better example you might be able to understand.
If I claim no dog has fallen from the roof of a 10 story building and lived, and you then provide me a cat falling from a 10 story building and living and saying I am wrong, animals can fall from the roof of a 10 story building, and back that up with dogs being animals, do you realise why you are a full of shit?
Yes, both dogs and cats are animals.
But cats are not dogs.
Telling me about cats that fall from 10 story buildings doesn't mean that dogs can fall from it and live.
Similarly, telling me about storms which aren't hurricanes that cross the equator doesn't tell me that hurricanes can cross the equator.
Gee, the earth must have stopped rotating if the jet stream crossed the equator, hey fellas?
Is the jet stream a hurricane? No.
As such your claim is just more crap.
What do you think causes storms to rotate?
The Coriolis effect, as has been pointed out to you many times. What do you think does it?
It is the heat band around the equator that causes storms to stay away.
No. That heat, and associated energy is what gives the storms their strength.
It is the lack of a significant Coriolis effect which causes them to stay away as if they go there, there is very little causing them to rotate and thus they die.
The video I linked
Is entirely to do with the jet stream and has nothing at all do with tropical storms, i.e. cyclones, hurricanes, etc.
-
Bucky, storms rotate in both directions in both south and north of the equator. Besides, rotating of storms does not prove a spinning speeding globe. The rotating is from the heat near the equator and how it affects the jet stream, it has nothing to do with a rotating globe.
This sort of puts a damper in your hamper:
Who on earth is "Bucky", and my hamper's doing fine, but you seem to reaching the bottom of the barrel,
;D ;D claiming "Jet Streams" are tropical storms. ;D ;D
Think again! You have shown no evidence that "storms rotate in both directions in both south and north of the equator."
Tropical storms that rotate about low pressure weather systems do rotate
in an anti-clockwise direction the Northern Hemisphere and
in a clockwise direction the Southern Hemisphere.
I know of one exception where a very weak typhoon just crossed the equator and soon petered out.
And if "rotating of storms does not prove a spinning speeding globe", why do they rotate in opposite directions in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres?
Just remember that all the evidence that you have claimed has been proven false.
The "Jet Streams" are not tropical storms! And they are caused by the rotation of the earth.
Just note that they are westerly winds, the opposite direction to your claimed sun's movement.
Every post you make proves more and more just how little real knowledge you have on this subject.
You keep dragging up pictures and videos, but clearly have no idea what they mean.
-
Giving you yet another shot physical observer.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69601.0 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69601.0)
-
Observer, what is in space that our atmosphere would no protect us from? You keep saying step outside the vehicle. When you do that you hit the atmosphere. That's what you are feeling. So what kind of atmosphere is there in space that we should feel?
I gave you'll a hint, I knew you wouldn't get it! The answer involves a few experiments. This thread is not about experiments. You'll have to wait till my next thread.
So you can't answer. That's what I thought. Until you can answer statement that the atmosphere can't protect us is meaningless.
The atmosphere protecting us is your claim, prove it!
Protecting us from what? The idea that we should feel the movement of the earth is your claim. The idea that we need protecting from some kind of space atmosphere is your claim. The idea that the earth is flat, ignoring the evidence of sunrise, sunset, sun and moon staying the same size throughout their cycle, is your claim. Prove it.
My claim is that there is nothing in space we need protecting from, aside from the occasional meteor which mostly burn up in, wait for it, the atmosphere.
So until you can answer what we are supposed to need protecting from, your claim about being outside the vessel is meaningless.
"Protecting us from what?"
My gawd, you'll don't know about the experiments conducted that inspired Einstein to invent his pages of excuses, do you? I have dropped 6 hints in this thread about what my next thread will be about, but none of you have a clue, do ya?
You'll will need some pretty powerful aether when we get done with that thread, I gaa-run-tee ya!
So that's still a no, no idea what we need protecting from. Without that the rest of your arguments makes no sense at all. Space is near enough a vacuum that the atmosphere protects us just fine. This has been proven repeatedly. Case closed.
-
Giving you yet another shot physical observer.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69601.0 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69601.0)
You came into my thread, bucky, and still haven't answered the challenge. Wanna take another shot, or are you comfortable with diverting?
-
Bucky, storms rotate in both directions in both south and north of the equator. Besides, rotating of storms does not prove a spinning speeding globe. The rotating is from the heat near the equator and how it affects the jet stream, it has nothing to do with a rotating globe.
This sort of puts a damper in your hamper:
Who on earth is "Bucky", and my hamper's doing fine, but you seem to reaching the bottom of the barrel,
;D ;D claiming "Jet Streams" are tropical storms. ;D ;D
Think again! You have shown no evidence that "storms rotate in both directions in both south and north of the equator."
Tropical storms that rotate about low pressure weather systems do rotate
in an anti-clockwise direction the Northern Hemisphere and
in a clockwise direction the Southern Hemisphere.
I know of one exception where a very weak typhoon just crossed the equator and soon petered out.
And if "rotating of storms does not prove a spinning speeding globe", why do they rotate in opposite directions in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres?
Just remember that all the evidence that you have claimed has been proven false.
The "Jet Streams" are not tropical storms! And they are caused by the rotation of the earth.
Just note that they are westerly winds, the opposite direction to your claimed sun's movement.
Every post you make proves more and more just how little real knowledge you have on this subject.
You keep dragging up pictures and videos, but clearly have no idea what they mean.
You'll claimed storms cannot cross the equator because of the earth's rotation. But if you watch the video, you'll see it is the heat along the equator that creates the divide between N/S of the equator. When that heat lessens, wind and clouds can cross over. Pick another argument, this one is a failure. But then again, it is typical of spherical earth claims, because they are based on misinformation.
-
Storms cross the equator all the time, and I provided a video of a storm hitting New Zealand, and a storm hitting Japan, and both storms were rotating in the same direction. You need to stop getting your information from the Discount Vendor.
No. Hurricanes, Cylones, etc, crossing the equator is a very rare event.
You should really stop lying, you provided no such thing.
You provided 2 sets of photos.
In one set, you had a photo of NZ, and a photo of Fiji, which you claimed was Fuji and claimed it was in the northern hemisphere.
Fiji is not Fuji and it is not in Japan or the northern hemisphere. It is still well below the equator.
In these photos, both storms were rotating clockwise as you would expect.
In the second set, you provided 2 pictures of storms in or near Japan, both well above the equator, both rotating counterclockwise, as you would expect.
So while you did provide a picture of a storm near NZ and Japan, they were spinning in opposite directions.
You need to stop getting your information from delusional nutcases.
Now the atmosphere is not moving, GOOD GAWD, you'll need to get on the same page!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No. We are on the same page.
You need to understand what relative motion is.
Earth, including the atmosphere, is rotating around 15 degrees an hour.
So at the equator, both the solid Earth and the atmosphere is moving at 1000 MPH.
What this means is that the speed of the atmosphere, relative to Earth, is 0 (from this rotation, it will vary due to wind and perturbations).
Bucky, storms rotate in both directions in both south and north of the equator. Besides, rotating of storms does not prove a spinning speeding globe. The rotating is from the heat near the equator and how it affects the jet stream, it has nothing to do with a rotating globe.
No. Tropical storms, i.e. cylcones, hurricanes, etc, very rarely cross the equator. They always rotate in one direction in the northern hemisphere and another direction in the southern hemisphere. This rotation is what is expected from the Coriolis effect because of Earth's rotation.
Their rotation is not from the heat and how it affects the jet stream. It is entirely to do with a rotating globe.
The heat is what provides the energy for them to form.
If hurricanes are not storms, what are they?
And another logical fallacy.
Just because all A are B, does not mean all B are A.
A better example you might be able to understand.
If I claim no dog has fallen from the roof of a 10 story building and lived, and you then provide me a cat falling from a 10 story building and living and saying I am wrong, animals can fall from the roof of a 10 story building, and back that up with dogs being animals, do you realise why you are a full of shit?
Yes, both dogs and cats are animals.
But cats are not dogs.
Telling me about cats that fall from 10 story buildings doesn't mean that dogs can fall from it and live.
Similarly, telling me about storms which aren't hurricanes that cross the equator doesn't tell me that hurricanes can cross the equator.
Gee, the earth must have stopped rotating if the jet stream crossed the equator, hey fellas?
Is the jet stream a hurricane? No.
As such your claim is just more crap.
What do you think causes storms to rotate?
The Coriolis effect, as has been pointed out to you many times. What do you think does it?
It is the heat band around the equator that causes storms to stay away.
No. That heat, and associated energy is what gives the storms their strength.
It is the lack of a significant Coriolis effect which causes them to stay away as if they go there, there is very little causing them to rotate and thus they die.
The video I linked
Is entirely to do with the jet stream and has nothing at all do with tropical storms, i.e. cyclones, hurricanes, etc.
[/quote]
"Jet streams are the major means of transport for weather systems."
http://climate.ncsu.edu/edu/k12/.JetStreams
I'm beginning to think most of you spherical earth proponents are just plain FLIPPING dumb!
-
Physical observer:
Can you tell me why you only select the information for science that benefits you ideas and say that science lie about anything else?
And how do you select what evidence from science you believe and what you think are lies?
-
Giving you yet another shot physical observer.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69601.0 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69601.0)
You came into my thread, bucky, and still haven't answered the challenge. Wanna take another shot, or are you comfortable with diverting?
I actually have a few times, along with many others in this thread. Not diverting in the least. Again the 1000 mph figure is if you were an outside observer, outside the atmosphere. YOU CANNOT FEEL CONSTANT VELOCITY. What you feel is acceleration. The Earth has been spinning the whole time, it isn't accelerating or decelerating. The atmosphere is moving with the Earth so there is nothing... I repeat nothing to feel that you are going "through". I said in your other thread we are on the Earth inside the atmosphere. Therefore your videos of a localized area also on the Earth while inside the atmosphere cannot be used to prove a spinning or a stationary Earth.
I have asked you, as other have asked you, to use your own videos to prove a stationary Earth. Since this is too hard for you to understand I will try to explain the concept here. The reason we are telling you to use your own videos to support your assertion is that it cannot be done either. This means your videos are not evidence for your claim or counter evidence to reality. I even posted my own video and asked you to use it to prove gravity doesn't exist. I used one from the space station where gravity is not felt due to the orbit. Since it is only showing a small area, only relative to the orbiting station, it is like your videos in the way that it cannot be used alone to show proof or disproof of gravity.
Again, I have answered, explained, others have done the same. I am asking for your answer, not random insulting behavior saying nothing (trolling).
So use your own videos and tell us how that proves a stationary Earth. How do they show anything counter to the Earth spinning? Hint, they absolutely DO NOT go against a 1 revolution per 24 hour day.
Ok so lets work on your problem with the 1000 mph bit. Do you want me to show you the math as to why it doesn't sling you off of it i.e. the acceleration of the spin(centrifugal force) in relation to the acceration of gravity? I can do that for you. this is the formula for acceleration:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/e/9/9e97c67f2a3bf7cf050bcbc08f3d6ab9.png)
is it wrong?
-
Physical observer:
Can you tell me why you only select the information for science that benefits you ideas and say that science lie about anything else?
And how do you select what evidence from science you believe and what you think are lies?
Canadabear, can you use the physical condition of earth to support a spinning speeding ball?
Canadabear, I gave a video of a meteorologist explaining why the jet stream and storms cross over, or don't, over the equator and it had nothing to do with earth's rotation. Why do you reject that, because it does not support a spinning ball?
-
Physical observer:
Can you tell me why you only select the information for science that benefits you ideas and say that science lie about anything else?
And how do you select what evidence from science you believe and what you think are lies?
Canadabear, can you use the physical condition of earth to support a spinning speeding ball?
Canadabear, I gave a video of a meteorologist explaining why the jet stream and storms cross over, or don't, over the equator and it had nothing to do with earth's rotation. Why do you reject that, because it does not support a spinning ball?
And again you understand nothing.
Before it was talked about hurricanes an typhoons that do normaly not cross, not in general about storms.
You always read what you want to read.
But back to my question, that you did not answer: how do you choose the information you believe from the science?
Simply explain your selection, how I select my information does not matter for that answer.
-
Physical observer:
Can you tell me why you only select the information for science that benefits you ideas and say that science lie about anything else?
And how do you select what evidence from science you believe and what you think are lies?
Canadabear, can you use the physical condition of earth to support a spinning speeding ball?
Canadabear, I gave a video of a meteorologist explaining why the jet stream and storms cross over, or don't, over the equator and it had nothing to do with earth's rotation. Why do you reject that, because it does not support a spinning ball?
Ok now why don't hurricanes and cyclones form at the equator or cross it?
-
Physical observer:
Can you tell me why you only select the information for science that benefits you ideas and say that science lie about anything else?
And how do you select what evidence from science you believe and what you think are lies?
Canadabear, can you use the physical condition of earth to support a spinning speeding ball?
Canadabear, I gave a video of a meteorologist explaining why the jet stream and storms cross over, or don't, over the equator and it had nothing to do with earth's rotation. Why do you reject that, because it does not support a spinning ball?
Ok now why don't hurricanes and cyclones form at the equator or cross it?
Heat, from the sun, as the equator is close to the sun's rotational path.
-
Physical observer:
Can you tell me why you only select the information for science that benefits you ideas and say that science lie about anything else?
And how do you select what evidence from science you believe and what you think are lies?
Canadabear, can you use the physical condition of earth to support a spinning speeding ball?
Canadabear, I gave a video of a meteorologist explaining why the jet stream and storms cross over, or don't, over the equator and it had nothing to do with earth's rotation. Why do you reject that, because it does not support a spinning ball?
Ok now why don't hurricanes and cyclones form at the equator or cross it?
Heat, from the sun, as the equator is close to the sun's rotational path.
With an distance of approximately 150million km and the change from the equator to the poles of 6370km can that not the effect. Also it does not change with the position of the sun. Otherwise a hurricane could cross the equator at any different time than at noon.
-
Heat, from the sun, as the equator is close to the sun's rotational path.
In the southern summer, when we have the most cyclones, the sun is not over the equator, but over the Tropic of Capricorn and
in the northern summer, when they have the most hurricanes and typhoons, the sun is not over the equator, but over the Tropic of Cancer.
The dividing line is the equator, not a band extending from the one Tropic to the other.
So, you are clearly quite wrong again and simply guessing at answers, but you don't have any as has been proven over and over.
-
I gave a video of a meteorologist explaining why the jet stream and storms cross over, or don't, over the equator and it had nothing to do with earth's rotation. Why do you reject that, because it does not support a spinning ball?
No, you gave a video "explaining why the jet stream and storms cross over, or don't, over the equator and it had nothing to do with earth's rotation."
Jet streams have nothing to do with cyclones, hurricanes or typhoons.
So, wrong again! As I have said before learn to read and put brain into gear before touching your keyboard.
I am not Canadabear, but I believe that you have questions of mine outstanding too!
Beautiful cloud simulator « Reply #10 on: March 12, 2017, 10:30:18 AM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69666.msg1879899#msg1879899)
Why is the FE Sun not falling down and orbiting? « Reply #18 on: March 10, 2017, 08:50:45 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69647.msg1879517#msg1879517) So, out with it we'd really like to know!
-
You'll claimed storms cannot cross the equator because of the earth's rotation. But if you watch the video, you'll see it is the heat along the equator that creates the divide between N/S of the equator. When that heat lessens, wind and clouds can cross over. Pick another argument, this one is a failure. But then again, it is typical of spherical earth claims, because they are based on misinformation.
No. It was claimed that if tropical storms, e.g. cyclones, were to cross the equator they would die and thus the cannot cross it. Even approaching the equator, due to the significantly reduced Coriolis effect, will result in them weakening and dying.
Even if the heat lessens and the jet stream crosses, these storms still don't cross.
There are also plenty of other arguments which have already been provided, such as the direction of their rotation.
You are the one basing your claims on misinformation and misrepresentation.
"Jet streams are the major means of transport for weather systems."
Which has nothing to do with the rotation direction of large storms like cyclones, and they still haven't crossed the equator.
So what are you trying to claim now?
They they have, or the reason they can't has nothing to do with Earth's rotation?
I'm beginning to think most of you spherical earth proponents are just plain FLIPPING dumb!
Is that because we keep coming up with rational arguments and evidence and refuting your crap while you keep coming up with childish bullshit and you are too arrogant or trolling to admit you are wrong?
Canadabear, can you use the physical condition of earth to support a spinning speeding ball?
You have been provided with plenty. You are yet to refute it.
Canadabear, I gave a video of a meteorologist explaining why the jet stream and storms cross over, or don't, over the equator and it had nothing to do with earth's rotation. Why do you reject that, because it does not support a spinning ball?
We don't reject it. It is irrelevant.
If I gave a video describing the taxonomy of Ligers, would you ignore that/reject that because it doesn't support a flat stationary Earth?
You are yet to bring up anything which refutes Earth being a spinning ball, or that supports Earth being flat and stationary.
Also, as Jet Streams are based upon the rotation of Earth, so any video talking about Jet Streams will inherently be supporting Earth's rotation.
Heat, from the sun, as the equator is close to the sun's rotational path.
Yet it continues to happen while the sun is over the Tropic of Capricorn or the Tropic of Cancer.
Sorry, that excuse is pure bullshit.
In fact, the storms will typically occur far more frequently near the tropic when the sun is directly above.
So that goes completely against your excuse.
-
Observer, what is in space that our atmosphere would no protect us from? You keep saying step outside the vehicle. When you do that you hit the atmosphere. That's what you are feeling. So what kind of atmosphere is there in space that we should feel?
I gave you'll a hint, I knew you wouldn't get it! The answer involves a few experiments. This thread is not about experiments. You'll have to wait till my next thread.
So you can't answer. That's what I thought. Until you can answer statement that the atmosphere can't protect us is meaningless.
The atmosphere protecting us is your claim, prove it!
Have you seen a shutting star, The atmosphere protecting us, at work.
-
Observer, what is in space that our atmosphere would no protect us from? You keep saying step outside the vehicle. When you do that you hit the atmosphere. That's what you are feeling. So what kind of atmosphere is there in space that we should feel?
I gave you'll a hint, I knew you wouldn't get it! The answer involves a few experiments. This thread is not about experiments. You'll have to wait till my next thread.
So you can't answer. That's what I thought. Until you can answer statement that the atmosphere can't protect us is meaningless.
The atmosphere protecting us is your claim, prove it!
Have you seen a shutting star, The atmosphere protecting us, at work.
I've seen a shooting star, but not a shutting star. Besides, we are talking about the forces associated with speeding. Wind velocity, stuff like that.
-
You'll claimed storms cannot cross the equator because of the earth's rotation. But if you watch the video, you'll see it is the heat along the equator that creates the divide between N/S of the equator. When that heat lessens, wind and clouds can cross over. Pick another argument, this one is a failure. But then again, it is typical of spherical earth claims, because they are based on misinformation.
No. It was claimed that if tropical storms, e.g. cyclones, were to cross the equator they would die and thus the cannot cross it. Even approaching the equator, due to the significantly reduced Coriolis effect, will result in them weakening and dying.
Even if the heat lessens and the jet stream crosses, these storms still don't cross.
There are also plenty of other arguments which have already been provided, such as the direction of their rotation.
You are the one basing your claims on misinformation and misrepresentation.
"Jet streams are the major means of transport for weather systems."
Which has nothing to do with the rotation direction of large storms like cyclones, and they still haven't crossed the equator.
So what are you trying to claim now?
They they have, or the reason they can't has nothing to do with Earth's rotation?
I'm beginning to think most of you spherical earth proponents are just plain FLIPPING dumb!
Is that because we keep coming up with rational arguments and evidence and refuting your crap while you keep coming up with childish bullshit and you are too arrogant or trolling to admit you are wrong?
Canadabear, can you use the physical condition of earth to support a spinning speeding ball?
You have been provided with plenty. You are yet to refute it.
Canadabear, I gave a video of a meteorologist explaining why the jet stream and storms cross over, or don't, over the equator and it had nothing to do with earth's rotation. Why do you reject that, because it does not support a spinning ball?
We don't reject it. It is irrelevant.
If I gave a video describing the taxonomy of Ligers, would you ignore that/reject that because it doesn't support a flat stationary Earth?
You are yet to bring up anything which refutes Earth being a spinning ball, or that supports Earth being flat and stationary.
Also, as Jet Streams are based upon the rotation of Earth, so any video talking about Jet Streams will inherently be supporting Earth's rotation.
Heat, from the sun, as the equator is close to the sun's rotational path.
Yet it continues to happen while the sun is over the Tropic of Capricorn or the Tropic of Cancer.
Sorry, that excuse is pure bullshit.
In fact, the storms will typically occur far more frequently near the tropic when the sun is directly above.
So that goes completely against your excuse.
If the rotating earth causes jet streams, then why don't we constantly experience a jet stream at ground level? After all, you'll claim the atmosphere is being dragged along by friction where ground meets air.
Look, the claim was, no storms can cross the equator because of the rotation of earth, a claim easily debunked. Quit trying to save it!
-
I've seen a shooting star, but not a shutting star. Besides, we are talking about the forces associated with speeding. Wind velocity, stuff like that.
Which is based entirely upon your motion through the air/atmosphere/wind.
If the wind and you are both moving at 1000 miles per hour (or even 10 million miles per hour or even 99% of the speed of light) in the same direction, then the velocity of the wind relative to you is 0, and thus the "wind velocity" relative to you is 0, and thus you feel no force.
Meanwhile, the chuck of rock that found its way into our atmosphere is travelling at a significantly different speed to Earth, and isn't travelling with Earth's rotation.
That means it hits the atmosphere at a very significant velocity, and it feels the effect of the wind's relative speed and typically disintegrates.
If our atmosphere was instead replaced by a steel shell or the like, (ignoring the fact we wouldn't be able to breathe) then then rock would simply break through, breaking up a bit in the process, then smash into Earth. So our atmosphere does a pretty good job of protecting us.
If the rotating earth causes jet streams, then why don't we constantly experience a jet stream at ground level? After all, you'll claim the atmosphere is being dragged along by friction where ground meets air.
There are several reasons.
But the most important part is the mechanism of their formation.
It isn't simply Earth rotates->Jet stream.
It is far more complex, with solar heating causing air to rise and circulate and at various points where circulation cells meet, which is often tied into the tropopause (a layer of the atmosphere) the jet streams are produced.
Last I checked, the tropopause was not at ground level, so you don't get jet streams at ground level.
Look, the claim was, no storms can cross the equator because of the rotation of earth, a claim easily debunked. Quit trying to save it!
No. The claim was that no tropical storms, i.e. cyclones, hurricanes, typhoons, etc can cross the equator.
You are yet to debunk that.
As they approach the equator they die because they don't have a strong enough Coriolis effect strengthening them and if they did manage to cross the Coriolis effect would be weakening them.
You are yet to refute that at all.
Your crap about heat doesn't cut it as they will typically form and be more intense while the sun is over the tropics, rather than over the equator.
Your crap about the jet stream doesn't cut it because they can follow paths against the Jet Stream.
So no, it isn't easily debunked.
The claim was also that they spin in a direction based upon Earth's rotation, with a different direction in the southern hemisphere.
Your lie about Fiji being Fuji and being in the northern hemisphere doesn't refute it, nor does you providing a picture near Japan and claiming it is in New Zealand.
You provided 4 pictures of tropical storms/large scale weather systems.
The 2 in the south were rotating in the same direction, the 2 in the north were rotating opposite those in the south.
So all you did was provide evidence that Earth is a rotating ball.
You have also repeatedly ignored everything else.
Would you like to try going through it point by point again?
The first point was on rotation.
Do you admit you shouldn't feel Earth's rotation so we can move on to the next point?
Or can you tell us the force/acceleration you should feel due to it at various points (the equator would probably be easiest), or produce an accurate scale model which accurately reflects the force/acceleration you should feel?
Or can you refute anything I had said about it, especially the derivation of the force/acceleration involved?
Can you at least admit the acceleration required to remain rotating with Earth at the equator is approximately 0.03 m/s^2?
-
Observer, what is in space that our atmosphere would no protect us from? You keep saying step outside the vehicle. When you do that you hit the atmosphere. That's what you are feeling. So what kind of atmosphere is there in space that we should feel?
I gave you'll a hint, I knew you wouldn't get it! The answer involves a few experiments. This thread is not about experiments. You'll have to wait till my next thread.
So you can't answer. That's what I thought. Until you can answer statement that the atmosphere can't protect us is meaningless.
The atmosphere protecting us is your claim, prove it!
Have you seen a shutting star, The atmosphere protecting us, at work.
I've seen a shooting star, but not a shutting star. Besides, we are talking about the forces associated with speeding. Wind velocity, stuff like that.
The wind velocity is approximately equal to the surface velocity, so there shouldn't usually be much force felt.
-
Look, the claim was, no storms can cross the equator because of the rotation of earth, a claim easily debunked. Quit trying to save it!
My claim was that very few tropical storms (the rotating storms, cyclones, hurricanes and typhoons) cross the equator.
I know of only one, a very weakly rotating storm in the Arabian Sea that did cross slightly across the equator, then faded out
You claim "the claim was, . . . . . . easily debunked." So debunk away.
It's not just tropical storms that rotate in opposite directions in the two hemispheres, ordinary high and low pressure weather systems do exactly the same.
The Coriolis effect is the reason for the four distinct situations that are observed for High Pressure Weather systems and Low Pressure Weather systems, including Hurricanes, Typhoons and Cyclones, in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.
| | Northern Hemisphere | | Southern Hemisphere |
Highs | | Clockwise | | Anti-clockwise |
Lows | | Anti-clockwise | | Clockwise |
Just look at weather maps that show highs, lows and wind directions to verify this for yourself,
or are you going to claim that all meteorologists are part of your conspiracy too!
And I will NOT "Quit trying to save it!", because I know that you are completely wrong.
Now, Mr Physical Observer, present you proofs now or admit that you are completely wrong about cyclones and hurricanes.
-
Look, the claim was, no storms can cross the equator because of the rotation of earth, a claim easily debunked. Quit trying to save it!
My claim was that very few tropical storms (the rotating storms, cyclones, hurricanes and typhoons) cross the equator.
I know of only one, a very weakly rotating storm in the Arabian Sea that did cross slightly across the equator, then faded out
You claim "the claim was, . . . . . . easily debunked." So debunk away.
It's not just tropical storms that rotate in opposite directions in the two hemispheres, ordinary high and low pressure weather systems do exactly the same.
The Coriolis effect is the reason for the four distinct situations that are observed for High Pressure Weather systems and Low Pressure Weather systems, including Hurricanes, Typhoons and Cyclones, in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.
| | Northern Hemisphere | | Southern Hemisphere |
Highs | | Clockwise | | Anti-clockwise |
Lows | | Anti-clockwise | | Clockwise |
Just look at weather maps that show highs, lows and wind directions to verify this for yourself,
or are you going to claim that all meteorologists are part of your conspiracy too!
And I will NOT "Quit trying to save it!", because I know that you are completely wrong.
Now, Mr Physical Observer, present you proofs now or admit that you are completely wrong about cyclones and hurricanes.
Oh please, you said there is a clear demarcation where storms DON'T cross over. I proved you wrong, and now you back-pedal. Go get an honest life, the one you have ain't working!
-
Look, the claim was, no storms can cross the equator because of the rotation of earth, a claim easily debunked. Quit trying to save it!
My claim was that very few tropical storms (the rotating storms, cyclones, hurricanes and typhoons) cross the equator.
I know of only one, a very weakly rotating storm in the Arabian Sea that did cross slightly across the equator, then faded out
You claim "the claim was, . . . . . . easily debunked." So debunk away.
It's not just tropical storms that rotate in opposite directions in the two hemispheres, ordinary high and low pressure weather systems do exactly the same.
The Coriolis effect is the reason for the four distinct situations that are observed for High Pressure Weather systems and Low Pressure Weather systems, including Hurricanes, Typhoons and Cyclones, in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.
| | Northern Hemisphere | | Southern Hemisphere |
Highs | | Clockwise | | Anti-clockwise |
Lows | | Anti-clockwise | | Clockwise |
Just look at weather maps that show highs, lows and wind directions to verify this for yourself,
or are you going to claim that all meteorologists are part of your conspiracy too!
And I will NOT "Quit trying to save it!", because I know that you are completely wrong.
Now, Mr Physical Observer, present you proofs now or admit that you are completely wrong about cyclones and hurricanes.
Oh please, you said there is a clear demarcation where storms DON'T cross over. I proved you wrong, and now you back-pedal. Go get an honest life, the one you have ain't working!
Can you not read? He said tropical storms, hurricanes and such. You lied about it and changed it to storms. You have failed to disprove his actual statement.
-
Look, the claim was, no storms can cross the equator because of the rotation of earth, a claim easily debunked. Quit trying to save it!
My claim was that very few tropical storms (the rotating storms, cyclones, hurricanes and typhoons) cross the equator.
I know of only one, a very weakly rotating storm in the Arabian Sea that did cross slightly across the equator, then faded out
You claim "the claim was, . . . . . . easily debunked." So debunk away.
It's not just tropical storms that rotate in opposite directions in the two hemispheres, ordinary high and low pressure weather systems do exactly the same.
The Coriolis effect is the reason for the four distinct situations that are observed for High Pressure Weather systems and Low Pressure Weather systems, including Hurricanes, Typhoons and Cyclones, in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.
| | Northern Hemisphere | | Southern Hemisphere |
Highs | | Clockwise | | Anti-clockwise |
Lows | | Anti-clockwise | | Clockwise |
Just look at weather maps that show highs, lows and wind directions to verify this for yourself,
or are you going to claim that all meteorologists are part of your conspiracy too!
And I will NOT "Quit trying to save it!", because I know that you are completely wrong.
Now, Mr Physical Observer, present you proofs now or admit that you are completely wrong about cyclones and hurricanes.
Oh please, you said there is a clear demarcation where storms DON'T cross over. I proved you wrong, and now you back-pedal. Go get an honest life, the one you have ain't working!
You really are the lowest! You will not provide you own evidence then accuse others of lying.
Please show me that post where I "said there is a clear demarcation where storms DON'T cross over."!
Look, below are all the relavent posts of mine that I can find:
The nearest to the claim you made is There is a clear band near the equator where there are almost no tropical storms (one weak typhoon did cross the equator, just).
If you can find another please do! BUT in the end the vital point is that
there is a line of demarcation at the equator that very few tropical storms cross.
Proving me right or wrong means nothing,
it is the fact that there is such a line that shoots your stupid stationary flat earth right out of the water!
So Mr Physical Observer, present your proof of what you claimed or admit that you are wrong!
Now, maybe you will finally believe this: The Coriolis effect is the reason for the four distinct situations that are observed for High Pressure Weather systems and Low Pressure Weather systems, including Hurricanes, Typhoons and Cyclones, in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.
| | Northern Hemisphere | | Southern Hemisphere |
Highs | | Clockwise | | Anti-clockwise |
Lows | | Anti-clockwise | | Clockwise |
Heat, from the sun, as the equator is close to the sun's rotational path.
In the southern summer, when we have the most cyclones, the sun is not over the equator, but over the Tropic of Capricorn and
in the northern summer, when they have the most hurricanes and typhoons, the sun is not over the equator, but over the Tropic of Cancer.
The dividing line is the equator, not a band extending from the one Tropic to the other.
So, you are clearly quite wrong again and simply guessing at answers, but you don't have any as has been proven over and over.
It certainly looks as though "getting . . . . information from the Discount Vendor" is a lot more factual than your source, Mr physical observer!
Tropical "storms" do not "cross the equator all the time".
By "tropical storms" we mean severe storms caused by deep low-pressure weather systems, known as cyclones, hurricanes or typhoons.
Their rotation is caused by the Coriolis Effect, which is extremely small near the equator.
But don't you ever learn? You tried this same misinformation in
Long Range Snipers & the Coriolis Effect. « Reply #129 on: February 23, 2017, 11:44:12 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64533.msg1873198#msg1873198)
and got shot down there.
Better luck next time Mr Physical Observer! But, just remember, the rotating Globe works, the Flat Earth does not work.
Sorry about all the emphasis, but I need something to hammer this stuff into your head.
. . . . . . . . .
But the Coriolis effect does not cause storms to "move west/south/north" or any other direction.
The Coriolis effect is the reason for the four distinct situations that are observed for High Pressure Weather systems and Low Pressure Weather systems, including Hurricanes, Typhoons and Cyclones, in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.
| ---- | Northern Hemisphere | ---- | Southern Hemisphere |
Highs | ---- | Clockwise | ---- | Anti-clockwise |
Lows | ---- | Anti-clockwise | ---- | Clockwise |
The direction of rotation of tropical storms (hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones) is caused by the Coriolis effect. The Coriolis effect is a very weak effect and is zero near the equator (it depends on sin(Latitude)). See that paths of tropical storms: (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Global_tropical_cyclone_tracks-edit2.jpg/800px-Global_tropical_cyclone_tracks-edit2.jpg)
Map of the cumulative tracks of all tropical cyclones during the 1985–2005 time period.
There is a clear band near the equator where there are almost no tropical storms (one weak typhoon did cross the equator, just).
So for all your sniggering and stupid examples, the Coriolis effect is real!
-
Look, the claim was, no storms can cross the equator because of the rotation of earth, a claim easily debunked. Quit trying to save it!
My claim was that very few tropical storms (the rotating storms, cyclones, hurricanes and typhoons) cross the equator.
I know of only one, a very weakly rotating storm in the Arabian Sea that did cross slightly across the equator, then faded out
You claim "the claim was, . . . . . . easily debunked." So debunk away.
It's not just tropical storms that rotate in opposite directions in the two hemispheres, ordinary high and low pressure weather systems do exactly the same.
The Coriolis effect is the reason for the four distinct situations that are observed for High Pressure Weather systems and Low Pressure Weather systems, including Hurricanes, Typhoons and Cyclones, in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.
| | Northern Hemisphere | | Southern Hemisphere |
Highs | | Clockwise | | Anti-clockwise |
Lows | | Anti-clockwise | | Clockwise |
Just look at weather maps that show highs, lows and wind directions to verify this for yourself,
or are you going to claim that all meteorologists are part of your conspiracy too!
And I will NOT "Quit trying to save it!", because I know that you are completely wrong.
Now, Mr Physical Observer, present you proofs now or admit that you are completely wrong about cyclones and hurricanes.
Oh please, you said there is a clear demarcation where storms DON'T cross over. I proved you wrong, and now you back-pedal. Go get an honest life, the one you have ain't working!
Can you not read? He said tropical storms, hurricanes and such. You lied about it and changed it to storms. You have failed to disprove his actual statement.
Oh gee, are not hurricanes and such, storms? So I went with the generic terminology, what about it? The point of the whole argument is not what terminology is used, but the fact the imagined barrier for storms/hurricanes around the equator is due to heat, not rotation. That was clearly shown in the video I linked. If you didn't bother watching it, then you argue from ignorance.
-
So, just to clarify, although I am sure someone already mentioned it.
You can NOT tell wether or not an object is moving using a video in which everything you see is moving with it. Like, if you are in a car with no windows, you can't tell how fast you are going. You need an EXTERNAL REFERENCE.
Like ... the stars. And you CAN see the earth rotate if you look at time lapses of the stars.
(http://)
-
Look, the claim was, no storms can cross the equator because of the rotation of earth, a claim easily debunked. Quit trying to save it!
My claim was that very few tropical storms (the rotating storms, cyclones, hurricanes and typhoons) cross the equator.
I know of only one, a very weakly rotating storm in the Arabian Sea that did cross slightly across the equator, then faded out
You claim "the claim was, . . . . . . easily debunked." So debunk away.
It's not just tropical storms that rotate in opposite directions in the two hemispheres, ordinary high and low pressure weather systems do exactly the same.
The Coriolis effect is the reason for the four distinct situations that are observed for High Pressure Weather systems and Low Pressure Weather systems, including Hurricanes, Typhoons and Cyclones, in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.
| | Northern Hemisphere | | Southern Hemisphere |
Highs | | Clockwise | | Anti-clockwise |
Lows | | Anti-clockwise | | Clockwise |
Just look at weather maps that show highs, lows and wind directions to verify this for yourself,
or are you going to claim that all meteorologists are part of your conspiracy too!
And I will NOT "Quit trying to save it!", because I know that you are completely wrong.
Now, Mr Physical Observer, present you proofs now or admit that you are completely wrong about cyclones and hurricanes.
Oh please, you said there is a clear demarcation where storms DON'T cross over. I proved you wrong, and now you back-pedal. Go get an honest life, the one you have ain't working!
Can you not read? He said tropical storms, hurricanes and such. You lied about it and changed it to storms. You have failed to disprove his actual statement.
Oh gee, are not hurricanes and such, storms? So I went with the generic terminology, what about it? The point of the whole argument is not what terminology is used, but the fact the imagined barrier for storms/hurricanes around the equator is due to heat, not rotation. That was clearly shown in the video I linked. If you didn't bother watching it, then you argue from ignorance.
Using the right names is important.
Anyways are you referring to the boring 14 min video? Do you have a time stamp where he claims hurricanes don't form or cross the equator due to temperature?
-
Oh gee, are not hurricanes and such, storms? So I went with the generic terminology, what about it?
...
than i we say:
dog can fly because dogs are animals and some animals can fly ( Birds ).
-
Now cut the crap, Mr Physical Observer, I demand a retraction of your accusations and apology.
Oh please, you said there is a clear demarcation where storms DON'T cross over. I proved you wrong, and now you back-pedal. Go get an honest life, the one you have ain't working!
Can you not read? He said tropical storms, hurricanes and such. You lied about it and changed it to storms. You have failed to disprove his actual statement.
Oh gee, are not hurricanes and such, storms? So I went with the generic terminology, what about it? The point of the whole argument is not what terminology is used, but the fact the imagined barrier for storms/hurricanes around the equator is due to heat, not rotation. That was clearly shown in the video I linked. If you didn't bother watching it, then you argue from ignorance.
Mr Physical Observer, you claimed quite clearly
Oh please, you said there is a clear demarcation where storms DON'T cross over. I proved you wrong, and now you back-pedal. Go get an honest life, the one you have ain't working!
And essentially accusing me of lying.
I gave you copies of all relevant posts that I could find that might have said that and the nearest I could find was:
There is a clear band near the equator where there are almost no tropical storms (one weak typhoon did cross the equator, just).
If I missed one, please point it out immediately.
So! Please show me that post where I "said there is a clear demarcation where storms DON'T cross over."!
Then you try to wriggle out with
"Oh gee, are not hurricanes and such, storms? So I went with the generic terminology, what about it?"
and with your completely irrelevant "Jet Stream" video. The "Jet Streams" are high altitude winds and quite unrelated to cyclones.
I have everywhere used the term "tropical storms", which has the clear meaning of cyclones, hurricanes and typhoons.
Yes, cyclones (the generic term) are storms, but not all storms are cyclones.
Thunderstorms are storms but are not cyclones, hurricanes or typhoons.
Now I am challenging YOU, Mr Physical Observer, show me where I said:
"there is a clear demarcation where storms DON'T cross over."
If you cannot do that please immediately apologise and retract your accusation.
Now, as I have demanded before, put up or shut up.
You have already lost all credibility, but at least try to retrieve a little of your dignity.
-
Oh please, you said there is a clear demarcation where storms DON'T cross over. I proved you wrong, and now you back-pedal. Go get an honest life, the one you have ain't working!
Is this the post you are referring to, which started us on this tangent?
Why is there a clear band where hurricanes don't cross?
So not storms, hurricanes.
Now instead of acting like a pathetic child, can you actually respond to the real issue?
Oh gee, are not hurricanes and such, storms? So I went with the generic terminology, what about it? The point of the whole argument is not what terminology is used, but the fact the imagined barrier for storms/hurricanes around the equator is due to heat, not rotation. That was clearly shown in the video I linked. If you didn't bother watching it, then you argue from ignorance.
Again, I explained this. It doesn't matter if hurricanes are storms. That doesn't mean all storms are hurricanes and anything a storm can do a hurricane can.
We have also explained that your excuse is your pure bullshit.
It has nothing to do with heat, as when they are the most intense, the sun is directly above.
The sun doesn't magically heat up the equator the most.
And hurricanes can go against the jet stream, such as travelling west.
The barrier is due to rotation.
The rotation also results in them spinning in a certain direction, something you are still to refute.
So do you have any rational refutation of our arguments, or just pathetic, childish excuses?
-
I see Physical Observer is still continuing with his logical fallacy.
Is that what it is now? ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Here is another chance. Using the video of earth's physical condition, prove the earth is a spinning speeding ball:
Does the fact that the driver of this car isn't thrown from the wheel prove this car isn't moving then?
(http://)
Simple question, I'd love it if you answered it but you literally won't.
-
I see Physical Observer is still continuing with his logical fallacy.
Is that what it is now? ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Here is another chance. Using the video of earth's physical condition, prove the earth is a spinning speeding ball:
Thanks, that's a strong bit of evidence that the earth is really a Globe.
How could the sun clearly rise from behind the horizon if it is always 3000 miles above the earth? - that is simply an impossibility.
I'm waiting with bated breath fir next bit of evidence for the Globe.
-
The sun absolutely proves a flat Earth for those that have a logical reality and not a reliance on pretence of science.
-
The sun absolutely proves a flat Earth for those that have a logical reality and not a reliance on pretence of science.
No. It only does that for people that are completely against logic.
The sun setting, disappearing from the bottom up, proves the sun goes below the plane tangent to the surface of Earth at that point.
There is no other way for it to do that.
So either Earth is tiny (which we know it isn't), or Earth is round.
If you think it proves it is flat, then prove it.
-
The sun absolutely proves a flat Earth for those that have a logical reality and not a reliance on pretence of science.
No. It only does that for people that are completely against logic.
The sun setting, disappearing from the bottom up, proves the sun goes below the plane tangent to the surface of Earth at that point.
There is no other way for it to do that.
So either Earth is tiny (which we know it isn't), or Earth is round.
If you think it proves it is flat, then prove it.
Don't waste your time with me. I have very little time for people like you.
-
The sun absolutely proves a flat Earth for those that have a logical reality and not a reliance on pretence of science.
Don't you mean
" :P The sun absolutely proves a flat Earth for those that have no sense of reality and no knowledge science. :P"?
You are not even prepared to give any evidence for your claim, except to those already brainwashed!
-
The sun absolutely proves a flat Earth for those that have a logical reality and not a reliance on pretence of science.
Don't you mean
" :P The sun absolutely proves a flat Earth for those that have no sense of reality and no knowledge science. :P"?
You are not even prepared to give any evidence for your claim, except to those already brainwashed!
Go away backward boy, I have little time for you. I like to converse with normal people.
-
The sun absolutely proves a flat Earth for those that have a logical reality and not a reliance on pretence of science.
Don't you mean
" :P The sun absolutely proves a flat Earth for those that have no sense of reality and no knowledge science. :P"?
You are not even prepared to give any evidence for your claim, except to those already brainwashed!
Go away backward boy, I have little time for you. I like to converse with normal people.
;D ;D You might be the kiddo around here. I do wonder if you manage to find any normal people to converse with. ;D ;D
And it is just as well that there were plenty who had a reliance on pretence of science
or you would have no internet, no computers, no TV's, no GPS and very much more primitive cars, aircraft and sound systems etc.
Though whether all these are good is a matter of opinion.
So, bye bye, kiddo. Hope you find are few normal people that you might like to converse with.
-
Don't waste your time with me. I have very little time for people like you.
Yes, you do seem to have very little time for rational people that will think about claims and analyse them rather than just accept them.
If you don't want to prove it, stop lying about it.
The sun does not prove a flat Earth.
-
The sun absolutely proves a flat Earth for those that have a logical reality and not a reliance on pretence of science.
I also ask vor the evidence of that claim.
-
I see Physical Observer is still continuing with his logical fallacy.
Is that what it is now? ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Here is another chance. Using the video of earth's physical condition, prove the earth is a spinning speeding ball:
Thanks, that's a strong bit of evidence that the earth is really a Globe.
How could the sun clearly rise from behind the horizon if it is always 3000 miles above the earth? - that is simply an impossibility.
I'm waiting with bated breath fir next bit of evidence for the Globe.
Funny, I was pointing to the physical state of water on earth. I see you need to keep looking at the sky. What, the physical state of earth too much for you to handle?
-
I see Physical Observer is still continuing with his logical fallacy.
Is that what it is now? ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Here is another chance. Using the video of earth's physical condition, prove the earth is a spinning speeding ball:
Thanks, that's a strong bit of evidence that the earth is really a Globe.
How could the sun clearly rise from behind the horizon if it is always 3000 miles above the earth? - that is simply an impossibility.
I'm waiting with bated breath fir next bit of evidence for the Globe.
Funny, I was pointing to the physical state of water on earth. I see you need to keep looking at the sky. What, the physical state of earth too much for you to handle?
and the physical state of the water is that it is curved with an radius of appr. 6370km.
and that can be easily proven, shall i show you?
-
The sun absolutely proves a flat Earth for those that have a logical reality and not a reliance on pretence of science.
Actually it shows, at the very least that, the sun is dropping below the horizon. Given our knowledge of this happening at multiple locations at specific times, it shows us that the earth is a globe and the sun is setting below the horizon. I'm all ears if you have an alternate explanation.
-
The sun absolutely proves a flat Earth for those that have a logical reality and not a reliance on pretence of science.
Actually it shows, at the very least that, the sun is dropping below the horizon. Given our knowledge of this happening at multiple locations at specific times, it shows us that the earth is a globe and the sun is setting below the horizon. I'm all ears if you have an alternate explanation.
The sun disappears into the horizon the same reason trains on straight level tracks disappear into the horizon. Get a clue!
You think it goes below a curve, because that is all you have been taught, and you have not the ability to consider anything else. And you completely ignore perspective.
-
The sun absolutely proves a flat Earth for those that have a logical reality and not a reliance on pretence of science.
Actually it shows, at the very least that, the sun is dropping below the horizon. Given our knowledge of this happening at multiple locations at specific times, it shows us that the earth is a globe and the sun is setting below the horizon. I'm all ears if you have an alternate explanation.
The sun disappears into the horizon the same reason trains on straight level tracks disappear into the horizon. Get a clue!
You think it goes below a curve, because that is all you have been taught, and you have not the ability to consider anything else. And you completely ignore perspective.
why can i see the upper level of the Buildings of Toronto from Niagara on the Lake but can not see the lower level?
-
The sun absolutely proves a flat Earth for those that have a logical reality and not a reliance on pretence of science.
Actually it shows, at the very least that, the sun is dropping below the horizon. Given our knowledge of this happening at multiple locations at specific times, it shows us that the earth is a globe and the sun is setting below the horizon. I'm all ears if you have an alternate explanation.
The sun disappears into the horizon the same reason trains on straight level tracks disappear into the horizon. Get a clue!
You think it goes below a curve, because that is all you have been taught, and you have not the ability to consider anything else. And you completely ignore perspective.
why can i see the upper level of the Buildings of Toronto from Niagara on the Lake but can not see the lower level?
That is a distance of 30 miles+-, across the lake, which would put the foundations of the buildings 600 feet below the alleged curvature. So you tell me, how is it you can see the upper half of the buildings? Could there be a different reason the lower half of the buildings are obscured?
-
The sun absolutely proves a flat Earth for those that have a logical reality and not a reliance on pretence of science.
Actually it shows, at the very least that, the sun is dropping below the horizon. Given our knowledge of this happening at multiple locations at specific times, it shows us that the earth is a globe and the sun is setting below the horizon. I'm all ears if you have an alternate explanation.
The sun disappears into the horizon the same reason trains on straight level tracks disappear into the horizon. Get a clue!
You think it goes below a curve, because that is all you have been taught, and you have not the ability to consider anything else. And you completely ignore perspective.
why can i see the upper level of the Buildings of Toronto from Niagara on the Lake but can not see the lower level?
This is the view you speak of, I assume:
If the city were being obscured by curvature, then the buildings should be tilting back, not sitting straight up, as you see in the zoom.
I bet, if the observer used a powerful telescope, not a limited simple camera, he could zoom in on land.
-
Someone will be in here shortly with the calculations but for right now the tilt is too small to notice.
-
The sun absolutely proves a flat Earth for those that have a logical reality and not a reliance on pretence of science.
Actually it shows, at the very least that, the sun is dropping below the horizon. Given our knowledge of this happening at multiple locations at specific times, it shows us that the earth is a globe and the sun is setting below the horizon. I'm all ears if you have an alternate explanation.
The sun disappears into the horizon the same reason trains on straight level tracks disappear into the horizon. Get a clue!
You think it goes below a curve, because that is all you have been taught, and you have not the ability to consider anything else. And you completely ignore perspective.
why can i see the upper level of the Buildings of Toronto from Niagara on the Lake but can not see the lower level?
This is the view you speak of, I assume:
If the city were being obscured by curvature, then the buildings should be tilting back, not sitting straight up, as you see in the zoom.
I bet, if the observer used a powerful telescope, not a limited simple camera, he could zoom in on land.
the video is from a higher standpoint and not waterlevel therefore you can a bit more of the lower levels.
another prove of the earth curvature.
you mention about something of the building should be tilted back.
do you know how much that "tilt" is and than tell me if you can see that kind of distance over that distance.
-
The sun absolutely proves a flat Earth for those that have a logical reality and not a reliance on pretence of science.
Actually it shows, at the very least that, the sun is dropping below the horizon. Given our knowledge of this happening at multiple locations at specific times, it shows us that the earth is a globe and the sun is setting below the horizon. I'm all ears if you have an alternate explanation.
The sun disappears into the horizon the same reason trains on straight level tracks disappear into the horizon. Get a clue!
You think it goes below a curve, because that is all you have been taught, and you have not the ability to consider anything else. And you completely ignore perspective.
Except the train gets smaller as it disappears. The sun does not. It visibly drops below a horizon. I have studied drawing techniques, perspective perfectly explains a train growing smaller as it approaches a vanishing point. It does not explain a sun setting on a flat earth. Quite the opposite in fact. you don't really seem to understand how perspective works.
-
I bet, if the observer used a powerful telescope, not a limited simple camera, he could zoom in on land.
Here ya go, this should be quite easy then, if the Earth was flat, someone somewhere should be able to do this quite easily. Although I have seen a few do this same thing to show that the you could not in fact zoom in enough to see the bottoms of the buildings.
Here is another camera zooming in, not a telescope but it does a decent job of showing the difference in observer height and the buildings disappearing with the same camera, the same zoom and pretty much the same distance from the buildings (actually the guy gets closer to the buildings so less distance to zoom in). Pretty much proving curvature through "physical observation".
-
Someone will be in here shortly with the calculations but for right now the tilt is too small to notice.
What's the distance, 30 miles or so? Let's be generous and call it 30 nautical miles (55.5km)
1 nautical mile = 1 minute of arc so 30 nm = 30 minutes or half a degree. Yep the buildings are tilted away by HALF A DEGREE.
You can't even detect by sight half a degree of tilt on a wall right in front of you let alone from 30 miles away.
edit: minutes of arc not seconds
-
Someone will be in here shortly with the calculations but for right now the tilt is too small to notice.
What's the distance, 30 miles or so? Let's be generous and call it 30 nautical miles (55.5km)
1 nautical mile = 1 second of arc so 30 nm = 30 sec or half a degree. Yep the buildings are tilted away by HALF A DEGREE.
You can't even detect by sight half a degree of tilt on a wall right in front of you let alone from 30 miles away.
Yep, this post will be ignored now. Please physical observer, prove me wrong, respond to this with a reasonable answer or question.
-
Someone will be in here shortly with the calculations but for right now the tilt is too small to notice.
What's the distance, 30 miles or so? Let's be generous and call it 30 nautical miles (55.5km)
1 nautical mile = 1 second of arc so 30 nm = 30 sec or half a degree. Yep the buildings are tilted away by HALF A DEGREE.
You can't even detect by sight half a degree of tilt on a wall right in front of you let alone from 30 miles away.
Yep, this post will be ignored now. Please physical observer, prove me wrong, respond to this with a reasonable answer or question.
I second this request and also all the other open questions should be answered.
-
Someone will be in here shortly with the calculations but for right now the tilt is too small to notice.
What's the distance, 30 miles or so? Let's be generous and call it 30 nautical miles (55.5km)
1 nautical mile = 1 minute of arc so 30 nm = 30 minutes or half a degree. Yep the buildings are tilted away by HALF A DEGREE.
You can't even detect by sight half a degree of tilt on a wall right in front of you let alone from 30 miles away.
edit: minutes of arc not seconds
I see you left the 600 feet below the curvature alone, then play the, "you can't see it from here" game.
Look at the video again, you should not see any building that is shorter than 600 feet tall, and only a few of the tops that are over 600 feet tall, but that is not the case. At full zoom, 0:16, you can clearly see many small buildings under 300 feet tall. And if you notice the edge of the water where it meets the buildings, you have a lot of visual interference. Here is someone with better equipment on a clearer evening, just from the opposite shore. You can clearly see Skylon Tower at 38 miles, and that should be well over a 1500 feet below the horizon.
Your video does not support curvature, but supports water leveling off across its surface once it filled the container between Niagara and Toronto.
-
I see Physical Observer is still continuing with his logical fallacy.
Is that what it is now? ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Here is another chance. Using the video of earth's physical condition, prove the earth is a spinning speeding ball:
Does the fact that the driver of this car isn't thrown from the wheel prove this car isn't moving then?
(http://)
Simple question, I'd love it if you answered it but you literally won't.
Go on, answer me....
-
Someone will be in here shortly with the calculations but for right now the tilt is too small to notice.
What's the distance, 30 miles or so? Let's be generous and call it 30 nautical miles (55.5km)
1 nautical mile = 1 minute of arc so 30 nm = 30 minutes or half a degree. Yep the buildings are tilted away by HALF A DEGREE.
You can't even detect by sight half a degree of tilt on a wall right in front of you let alone from 30 miles away.
edit: minutes of arc not seconds
I see you left the 600 feet below the curvature alone, then play the, "you can't see it from here" game.
Look at the video again, you should not see any building that is shorter than 600 feet tall, and only a few of the tops that are over 600 feet tall, but that is not the case. At full zoom, 0:16, you can clearly see many small buildings under 300 feet tall. And if you notice the edge of the water where it meets the buildings, you have a lot of visual interference. Here is someone with better equipment on a clearer evening, just from the opposite shore. You can clearly see Skylon Tower at 38 miles, and that should be well over a 1500 feet below the horizon.
Your video does not support curvature, but supports water leveling off across its surface once it filled the container between Niagara and Toronto.
What altitude was the camera at? Your math assumes it's floating on the water.
-
Someone will be in here shortly with the calculations but for right now the tilt is too small to notice.
What's the distance, 30 miles or so? Let's be generous and call it 30 nautical miles (55.5km)
1 nautical mile = 1 minute of arc so 30 nm = 30 minutes or half a degree. Yep the buildings are tilted away by HALF A DEGREE.
You can't even detect by sight half a degree of tilt on a wall right in front of you let alone from 30 miles away.
edit: minutes of arc not seconds
I see you left the 600 feet below the curvature alone, then play the, "you can't see it from here" game.
Look at the video again, you should not see any building that is shorter than 600 feet tall, and only a few of the tops that are over 600 feet tall, but that is not the case. At full zoom, 0:16, you can clearly see many small buildings under 300 feet tall. And if you notice the edge of the water where it meets the buildings, you have a lot of visual interference. Here is someone with better equipment on a clearer evening, just from the opposite shore. You can clearly see Skylon Tower at 38 miles, and that should be well over a 1500 feet below the horizon.
Your video does not support curvature, but supports water leveling off across its surface once it filled the container between Niagara and Toronto.
you like Videos, here my prove:
and:
at this one you even see the change because of the view height above water.
-
Funny, I was pointing to the physical state of water on earth. I see you need to keep looking at the sky. What, the physical state of earth too much for you to handle?
You mean like in the picture I showed you, with it clearly curving around Earth?
At small scales, you cannot determine it accurately enough to determine if it is flat or round.
At large scales (like that provided by EPIC) you can clearly see it is curved.
Additionally, you can observe the effects, like things sinking below the horizon.
The sun disappears into the horizon the same reason trains on straight level tracks disappear into the horizon. Get a clue!
You think it goes below a curve, because that is all you have been taught, and you have not the ability to consider anything else. And you completely ignore perspective.
No. It would be the same reason trains on level tracks drop below the horizon, because Earth is round.
It has nothing to do with perspective.
If perspective was doing it then it would merely shrink as it got further away and get dimmer.
Instead, it remains the same size and disappears from the bottom up.
So no, we don't ignore perspective. Perspective shows the sun to be very far away.
That is a distance of 30 miles+-, across the lake, which would put the foundations of the buildings 600 feet below the alleged curvature. So you tell me, how is it you can see the upper half of the buildings? Could there be a different reason the lower half of the buildings are obscured?
Just ignoring if your math is correct, that is the foundations, not the tops.
Some of the buildings reach heights of roughly 1800 ft. That puts 1200 feet above the curve.
So why wouldn't we expect to see the tops of buildings if only the lower 600 of 1800 feet are obscured?
Do you think hiding the base should magically make the entire building disappear?
If the city were being obscured by curvature, then the buildings should be tilting back, not sitting straight up, as you see in the zoom.
And how would you tell if they were?
Remember, merely looking at a building that is above you results in the same appearance as a building tilting back. That simple fact alone shows that some of these would already appear to be tilting back.
But the real question is how much should it be tilting back?
Lets use your claim of 30 miles.
That is 50 km.
Earth's circumference is roughly 40 000 km.
That means the 50 km is only 0.00125 * Earth's circumference.
That means it would only be tilted 0.00125 * 360 degrees.
That means it would be tilted 0.45 degrees.
Can you really tell that accurately?
If so, explain how, especially considering you can't see the base, which would be the part which isn't tilted.
Also remember that the tops, assuming Earth was flat, would already appear tilted 1.05 degree (so that is more than due to Earth's curve).
If Earth is round, then the extra tilt to the top would only be 0.70 degrees, so the total tilt would be 1.15 degrees. Fat chance telling that at that distance.
I bet, if the observer used a powerful telescope, not a limited simple camera, he could zoom in on land.
I bet he couldn't. Unless by land you mean completely ignore Earth and zoom in on the moon or the like, or just turn it around or look at his feet?
I see you left the 600 feet below the curvature alone, then play the, "you can't see it from here" game.
Don't worry, I didn't.
Look at the video again, you should not see any building that is shorter than 600 feet tall
Says you.
If you keep this up I'm going to check the math.
The 2 locations are Toronto and Niagra.
Measuring the distance between the shore of Naigra and a bit into Toronto gives 50 km so I will stick with that.
Now you claim that it should hide 600 feet. I use rational units for my calculations, not these insane archaic ones, so that is roughly 182 m.
That math holds fairly well.
But what about the observer height?
I can see some kind of plant, which is blowing quite significantly in the wind, and appears to be some sort of tree.
I don't know what height it is, but because there is a tree below it, I will assume 10 m.
That height of 10 m allows him to see 11.3 km to the horizon.
That means to figure out how much should be hidden, you need to subtract that distance from your 10 km.
That cuts it down to 118 m or roughly 387 archaic units. So much less than 600 feet.
and only a few of the tops that are over 600 feet tall
And why should you only see a few of them?
but that is not the case. At full zoom, 0:16, you can clearly see many small buildings under 300 feet tall.
Care to give some examples?
Which buildings?
How tall are they?
How much can you see?
Are they taller than 118 m?
And if you notice the edge of the water where it meets the buildings, you have a lot of visual interference.
But not enough to explain how much is missing.
At most that would obscure a few m or maybe 10 m.
Here is someone with better equipment on a clearer evening, just from the opposite shore. You can clearly see Skylon Tower at 38 miles, and that should be well over a 1500 feet below the horizon.
Again, says you.
How about you start acknowledging your prior mistakes before starting on more and more bullshit?
-
I see you left the 600 feet below the curvature alone, then play the, "you can't see it from here" game.
I see you declined to respond to being proved wrong again, just as predicted. You think that because the surface of the Earth is curved you'd see buildings tilting from just 30 miles away. LOL. Like every other example of the complete and utter nonsense you spew, it just shows how completely out of touch with physical reality you really are.
The buildings are tilted away, just not by enough to detect... around half a degree of tilt at that distance as already explained. The bottoms of the buildings are obscured for the same reason, because the Earths surface is curved between the two locations. Viewing with even the most powerful optics available will not "bring them back into view" just as looking at the horizon with a telescope just after the sun sets will not bring the sun back into view.
Clearly though your head is so far up your arse that the only thing you'll ever "physically observe" is your own insides.
-
I see you left the 600 feet below the curvature alone, then play the, "you can't see it from here" game.
I see you declined to respond to being proved wrong again, just as predicted. You think that because the surface of the Earth is curved you'd see buildings tilting from just 30 miles away. LOL. Like every other example of the complete and utter nonsense you spew, it just shows how completely out of touch with physical reality you really are.
The buildings are tilted away, just not by enough to detect... around half a degree of tilt at that distance as already explained. The bottoms of the buildings are obscured for the same reason, because the Earths surface is curved between the two locations. Viewing with even the most powerful optics available will not "bring them back into view" just as looking at the horizon with a telescope just after the sun sets will not bring the sun back into view.
Clearly though your head is so far up your arse that the only thing you'll ever "physically observe" is your own insides.
"The buildings are tilted away, just not by enough to detect..."
None of the claims of a spinning speeding ball can be detected, I find that very revealing. Meanwhile, I have used earth's nature to support a motionless plane earth.
"Clearly though your head is so far up your arse..."
Did I say something that cut you deep personally? Or must you insult to shake the reality we do not live on a spinning speeding ball out of your head?
You can't detect a spinning speeding ball, and you resort to insults. You're sunk, you're cooked!
CASE CLOSED!
-
"The buildings are tilted away, just not by enough to detect..."
None of the claims of a spinning speeding ball can be detected, I find that very revealing.
Not enough to detect the tilt WITH YOUR NAKED EYE looking across 30 miles of water. Could you look at a wall in your house and determine whether it was exactly vertical, or half a degree off vertical, with your naked eye? No you couldn't.
Meanwhile, I have used earth's nature to support a motionless plane earth.
You've done nothing even remotely close to that, moreover every time it is pointed out to you that you've failed and are wrong, you simply bury that shit filled head of yours even deeper into your arse. I just wish you'd do everyone a favour and suffocate from it. Fucking cretin.
-
"The buildings are tilted away, just not by enough to detect..."
None of the claims of a spinning speeding ball can be detected, I find that very revealing.
Not enough to detect the tilt WITH YOUR NAKED EYE looking across 30 miles of water. Could you look at a wall in your house and determine whether it was exactly vertical, or half a degree off vertical, with your naked eye? No you couldn't.
Meanwhile, I have used earth's nature to support a motionless plane earth.
You've done nothing even remotely close to that, moreover every time it is pointed out to you that you've failed and are wrong, you simply bury that shit filled head of yours even deeper into your arse. I just wish you'd do everyone a favour and suffocate from it. Fucking cretin.
We can't detect any of the spinning speeding spherical earth claims here on earth, can we?
"I just wish you'd do everyone a favour and suffocate from it. Fucking cretin."
Did I say something that cut you deep personally? You know, they say people react this way when they realize their belief system just crumbled. Maybe you should take your anger out on the system that taught you a bunch of lies and crap. I wish you the best in dealing with your anguish!
-
I see you left the 600 feet below the curvature alone, then play the, "you can't see it from here" game.
I see you declined to respond to being proved wrong again, just as predicted. You think that because the surface of the Earth is curved you'd see buildings tilting from just 30 miles away. LOL. Like every other example of the complete and utter nonsense you spew, it just shows how completely out of touch with physical reality you really are.
The buildings are tilted away, just not by enough to detect... around half a degree of tilt at that distance as already explained. The bottoms of the buildings are obscured for the same reason, because the Earths surface is curved between the two locations. Viewing with even the most powerful optics available will not "bring them back into view" just as looking at the horizon with a telescope just after the sun sets will not bring the sun back into view.
Clearly though your head is so far up your arse that the only thing you'll ever "physically observe" is your own insides.
"The buildings are tilted away, just not by enough to detect..."
None of the claims of a spinning speeding ball can be detected, I find that very revealing. Meanwhile, I have used earth's nature to support a motionless plane earth.
"Clearly though your head is so far up your arse..."
Did I say something that cut you deep personally? Or must you insult to shake the reality we do not live on a spinning speeding ball out of your head?
You can't detect a spinning speeding ball, and you resort to insults. You're sunk, you're cooked!
CASE CLOSED!
You quoted a question and it looked like you want to answer it.
But no you write instead again a lie that we already disproven to you.
You can say CASE CLOSED as often as you like, but you proven absolutely nothing.
-
I see you left the 600 feet below the curvature alone, then play the, "you can't see it from here" game.
I see you declined to respond to being proved wrong again, just as predicted. You think that because the surface of the Earth is curved you'd see buildings tilting from just 30 miles away. LOL. Like every other example of the complete and utter nonsense you spew, it just shows how completely out of touch with physical reality you really are.
The buildings are tilted away, just not by enough to detect... around half a degree of tilt at that distance as already explained. The bottoms of the buildings are obscured for the same reason, because the Earths surface is curved between the two locations. Viewing with even the most powerful optics available will not "bring them back into view" just as looking at the horizon with a telescope just after the sun sets will not bring the sun back into view.
Clearly though your head is so far up your arse that the only thing you'll ever "physically observe" is your own insides.
"The buildings are tilted away, just not by enough to detect..."
None of the claims of a spinning speeding ball can be detected, I find that very revealing. Meanwhile, I have used earth's nature to support a motionless plane earth.
"Clearly though your head is so far up your arse..."
Did I say something that cut you deep personally? Or must you insult to shake the reality we do not live on a spinning speeding ball out of your head?
You can't detect a spinning speeding ball, and you resort to insults. You're sunk, you're cooked!
CASE CLOSED!
You quoted a question and it looked like you want to answer it.
But no you write instead again a lie that we already disproven to you.
You can say CASE CLOSED as often as you like, but you proven absolutely nothing.
Empty assertions will get you nowhere. What question did I quote?
-
I see you left the 600 feet below the curvature alone, then play the, "you can't see it from here" game.
I see you declined to respond to being proved wrong again, just as predicted. You think that because the surface of the Earth is curved you'd see buildings tilting from just 30 miles away. LOL. Like every other example of the complete and utter nonsense you spew, it just shows how completely out of touch with physical reality you really are.
The buildings are tilted away, just not by enough to detect... around half a degree of tilt at that distance as already explained. The bottoms of the buildings are obscured for the same reason, because the Earths surface is curved between the two locations. Viewing with even the most powerful optics available will not "bring them back into view" just as looking at the horizon with a telescope just after the sun sets will not bring the sun back into view.
Clearly though your head is so far up your arse that the only thing you'll ever "physically observe" is your own insides.
"The buildings are tilted away, just not by enough to detect..."
None of the claims of a spinning speeding ball can be detected, I find that very revealing. Meanwhile, I have used earth's nature to support a motionless plane earth.
"Clearly though your head is so far up your arse..."
Did I say something that cut you deep personally? Or must you insult to shake the reality we do not live on a spinning speeding ball out of your head?
You can't detect a spinning speeding ball, and you resort to insults. You're sunk, you're cooked!
CASE CLOSED!
You quoted a question and it looked like you want to answer it.
But no you write instead again a lie that we already disproven to you.
You can say CASE CLOSED as often as you like, but you proven absolutely nothing.
Empty assertions will get you nowhere. What question did I quote?
ok it was not a question but a sentence that you quote but than did not say anything to it, why than did you quote that sentence?
see: i was wrong and i admit it, how about you do the same with everything you are wrong with?
-
I see you left the 600 feet below the curvature alone, then play the, "you can't see it from here" game.
I see you declined to respond to being proved wrong again, just as predicted. You think that because the surface of the Earth is curved you'd see buildings tilting from just 30 miles away. LOL. Like every other example of the complete and utter nonsense you spew, it just shows how completely out of touch with physical reality you really are.
The buildings are tilted away, just not by enough to detect... around half a degree of tilt at that distance as already explained. The bottoms of the buildings are obscured for the same reason, because the Earths surface is curved between the two locations. Viewing with even the most powerful optics available will not "bring them back into view" just as looking at the horizon with a telescope just after the sun sets will not bring the sun back into view.
Clearly though your head is so far up your arse that the only thing you'll ever "physically observe" is your own insides.
"The buildings are tilted away, just not by enough to detect..."
None of the claims of a spinning speeding ball can be detected, I find that very revealing. Meanwhile, I have used earth's nature to support a motionless plane earth.
"Clearly though your head is so far up your arse..."
Did I say something that cut you deep personally? Or must you insult to shake the reality we do not live on a spinning speeding ball out of your head?
You can't detect a spinning speeding ball, and you resort to insults. You're sunk, you're cooked!
CASE CLOSED!
You quoted a question and it looked like you want to answer it.
But no you write instead again a lie that we already disproven to you.
You can say CASE CLOSED as often as you like, but you proven absolutely nothing.
Empty assertions will get you nowhere. What question did I quote?
ok it was not a question but a sentence that you quote but than did not say anything to it, why than did you quote that sentence?
see: i was wrong and i admit it, how about you do the same with everything you are wrong with?
Can you give me a little more to work with, what sentence did I quote? What the hell are you talking about?
-
I see you left the 600 feet below the curvature alone, then play the, "you can't see it from here" game.
I see you declined to respond to being proved wrong again, just as predicted. You think that because the surface of the Earth is curved you'd see buildings tilting from just 30 miles away. LOL. Like every other example of the complete and utter nonsense you spew, it just shows how completely out of touch with physical reality you really are.
The buildings are tilted away, just not by enough to detect... around half a degree of tilt at that distance as already explained. The bottoms of the buildings are obscured for the same reason, because the Earths surface is curved between the two locations. Viewing with even the most powerful optics available will not "bring them back into view" just as looking at the horizon with a telescope just after the sun sets will not bring the sun back into view.
Clearly though your head is so far up your arse that the only thing you'll ever "physically observe" is your own insides.
"The buildings are tilted away, just not by enough to detect..."
None of the claims of a spinning speeding ball can be detected, I find that very revealing. Meanwhile, I have used earth's nature to support a motionless plane earth.
"Clearly though your head is so far up your arse..."
Did I say something that cut you deep personally? Or must you insult to shake the reality we do not live on a spinning speeding ball out of your head?
You can't detect a spinning speeding ball, and you resort to insults. You're sunk, you're cooked!
CASE CLOSED!
You quoted a question and it looked like you want to answer it.
But no you write instead again a lie that we already disproven to you.
You can say CASE CLOSED as often as you like, but you proven absolutely nothing.
Empty assertions will get you nowhere. What question did I quote?
ok it was not a question but a sentence that you quote but than did not say anything to it, why than did you quote that sentence?
see: i was wrong and i admit it, how about you do the same with everything you are wrong with?
Can you give me a little more to work with, what sentence did I quote? What the hell are you talking about?
see above
-
I see you left the 600 feet below the curvature alone, then play the, "you can't see it from here" game.
I see you declined to respond to being proved wrong again, just as predicted. You think that because the surface of the Earth is curved you'd see buildings tilting from just 30 miles away. LOL. Like every other example of the complete and utter nonsense you spew, it just shows how completely out of touch with physical reality you really are.
The buildings are tilted away, just not by enough to detect... around half a degree of tilt at that distance as already explained. The bottoms of the buildings are obscured for the same reason, because the Earths surface is curved between the two locations. Viewing with even the most powerful optics available will not "bring them back into view" just as looking at the horizon with a telescope just after the sun sets will not bring the sun back into view.
Clearly though your head is so far up your arse that the only thing you'll ever "physically observe" is your own insides.
"The buildings are tilted away, just not by enough to detect..."
None of the claims of a spinning speeding ball can be detected, I find that very revealing. Meanwhile, I have used earth's nature to support a motionless plane earth.
"Clearly though your head is so far up your arse..."
Did I say something that cut you deep personally? Or must you insult to shake the reality we do not live on a spinning speeding ball out of your head?
You can't detect a spinning speeding ball, and you resort to insults. You're sunk, you're cooked!
CASE CLOSED!
You quoted a question and it looked like you want to answer it.
But no you write instead again a lie that we already disproven to you.
You can say CASE CLOSED as often as you like, but you proven absolutely nothing.
Empty assertions will get you nowhere. What question did I quote?
ok it was not a question but a sentence that you quote but than did not say anything to it, why than did you quote that sentence?
see: i was wrong and i admit it, how about you do the same with everything you are wrong with?
Can you give me a little more to work with, what sentence did I quote? What the hell are you talking about?
see above
I guess it was really nothing.
-
I guess it was really nothing.
ok, that been cleared, back to topic.
how can it be that we do not see the lower levels of the building on a flat earth?
-
So using the physical observations using the video I posted of the guy at the beach showing how the buildings disappear when you get lower, and closer mind you, while zooming in shows a curvature. So this is proof of a spheroid shape. Because it is a spheroid shape, the fact that the Sun travels across the sky in a predictable manner from East to West this shows evidence of either the Sun orbiting Earth or the Earth spinning. Now consider the physical observations of the stars, either they are tiny specks of light, or they are stars like the Sun very far away. Using doppler shift of light and the known speed of light shows us they are far away. For them to move around the Earth at the speed they are observed to, they would have to be moving faster than the speed of light, this is more evidence of a spinning ball.
Another route would be that since we proved it was a sphere of a very large size compared to us, then the Sun must be much farther away than the standard flat Earth models, being further away, means it must be much larger than what the flat Earth notion thinks. Being that it is much farther away, and much larger, and since if the Earth is a sphere then gravity must be real therefore the Earth must be orbiting around this much larger thing in the sky we call the Sun, then The Earth must be spinning.
there Earth's shape proven using physical observations from one videovand a little thought.
-
So using the physical observations using the video I posted of the guy at the beach showing how the buildings disappear when you get lower, and closer mind you, while zooming in shows a curvature. So this is proof of a spheroid shape. Because it is a spheroid shape, the fact that the Sun travels across the sky in a predictable manner from East to West this shows evidence of either the Sun orbiting Earth or the Earth spinning. Now consider the physical observations of the stars, either they are tiny specks of light, or they are stars like the Sun very far away. Using doppler shift of light and the known speed of light shows us they are far away. For them to move around the Earth at the speed they are observed to, they would have to be moving faster than the speed of light, this is more evidence of a spinning ball.
Another route would be that since we proved it was a sphere of a very large size compared to us, then the Sun must be much farther away than the standard flat Earth models, being further away, means it must be much larger than what the flat Earth notion thinks. Being that it is much farther away, and much larger, and since if the Earth is a sphere then gravity must be real therefore the Earth must be orbiting around this much larger thing in the sky we call the Sun, then The Earth must be spinning.
there Earth's shape proven using physical observations from one videovand a little thought.
Water does not convex when it fills a void. You did not show any curvature, because water does not curve/bow, it becomes horizontally flat across its surface when at rest. Go outside and look at a body of water where you can see the entire surface, you will NEVER find a body of water on earth that bows across its surface to create earth's alleged curvature. There is no reason to believe any body of water on earth bows across the surface.
"The Earth must be spinning."
You don't sound secure in your claim. But, but, it, it just has to be, right?
Water on a spinning ball:
Water in a rotating container:
Water in a container on earth:
Big difference, hey?
-
So using the physical observations using the video I posted of the guy at the beach showing how the buildings disappear when you get lower, and closer mind you, while zooming in shows a curvature. So this is proof of a spheroid shape. Because it is a spheroid shape, the fact that the Sun travels across the sky in a predictable manner from East to West this shows evidence of either the Sun orbiting Earth or the Earth spinning. Now consider the physical observations of the stars, either they are tiny specks of light, or they are stars like the Sun very far away. Using doppler shift of light and the known speed of light shows us they are far away. For them to move around the Earth at the speed they are observed to, they would have to be moving faster than the speed of light, this is more evidence of a spinning ball.
Another route would be that since we proved it was a sphere of a very large size compared to us, then the Sun must be much farther away than the standard flat Earth models, being further away, means it must be much larger than what the flat Earth notion thinks. Being that it is much farther away, and much larger, and since if the Earth is a sphere then gravity must be real therefore the Earth must be orbiting around this much larger thing in the sky we call the Sun, then The Earth must be spinning.
there Earth's shape proven using physical observations from one videovand a little thought.
Water does not convex when it fills a void. You did not show any curvature, because water does not curve/bow, it becomes horizontally flat across its surface when at rest. Go outside and look at a body of water where you can see the entire surface, you will NEVER find a body of water on earth that bows across its surface to create earth's alleged curvature. There is no reason to believe any body of water on earth bows across the surface.
"The Earth must be spinning."
You don't sound secure in your claim. But, but, it, it just has to be, right?
Water on a spinning ball:
Water in a rotating container:
Water in a container on earth:
Big difference, hey?
really, your start again with the videos where we already explained to you that they do not prove anything what you claim.
-
"The buildings are tilted away, just not by enough to detect..."
None of the claims of a spinning speeding ball can be detected, I find that very revealing.
No, they can.
You can detect the bottom of objects dissappearing.
You can detect the effect of rotation on a laser ring gyroscope and Foucault's pendulum.
You can detect the curve quite easily when viewed from far enough away.
Meanwhile, I have used earth's nature to support a motionless plane earth.
No, you haven't.
You have repeatedly spouting ignorant crap.
Nothing you have provided so far is capable of distinguishing between a flat and round Earth and indicated it was flat. Some has indicated it was round.
CASE CLOSED!
Yes, case closed, you have nothing to support your claims while we do.
Water does not convex when it fills a void.
Yes it does.
I have provided pictures clearly showing that.
You are yet to refute it.
Remember, you can never say something is perfectly flat, just flat to a certain margin of error, but that error that you have used so far is consistent with the curvature of Earth.
You did not show any curvature, because water does not curve/bow, it becomes horizontally flat across its surface when at rest.
I did. I provided you a picture of a body of water with the surface curving. You just dismissed it.
Like I said, is it perfectly flat, or could it have a tiny buldge?
The bulge you expect to see on that scale for a round Earth is so small you wouldn't detect it with your eyes.
But that is irrelevant. We can see the effects of curvature, such as things disappearing from the bottom up.
Go outside and look at a body of water where you can see the entire surface
So a tiny body of water in comparison to Earth, one in which the expected curvature would be quite small.
you will NEVER find a body of water on earth that bows across its surface to create earth's alleged curvature.
No. You will.
In fact, almost any body of water you look at will match Earth's curvature. Yes, lots will also match being flat, but that is due to the very significant error.
Like I have told you before, go find a body of water 12 000 km across and take a single picture showing the entire body of water and it being perfectly flat, with a small FOV (90 degrees or less).
There is no reason to believe any body of water on earth bows across the surface.
There is plenty. You ignoring them doesn't mean Earth is flat.
Water on a spinning ball:
Correction: Water on a tiny ball spinning much much faster than Earth.
Water in a rotating container:
Correction: Water in a small container rotating much much faster than Earth.
Water in a container on earth:
Yes, water in a massive, slowly rotating container.
Big difference, hey?
Yes, as the speeds of rotation and size is quite different, the effect is quite different.
For example:
People on a merry go round moving slowly:
A CD spinning really quickly:
Big difference, yet both are rotating.
Like I said, you want to make a scale model of Earth, that is fine, but to match the acceleration at the equator, you need a ball with a diameter of 6.371 cm, where the surface is moving at a speed of 0.1 miles per hour.
Otherwise you aren't comparing it to Earth.
So all you have proven is Earth is not a tennis ball spinning really quickly.
But no one claimed that.
The simple fact is, other than by seeing the edge, you cannot confirm that Earth is flat and motionless.
A section of a flat motionless Earth is identical to a section of a massive very slowly spinning Earth as the size approaches infinite and speed (tangential for simplicity) approaches 0.
-
Water does not convex when it fills a void. You did not show any curvature, because water does not curve/bow, it becomes horizontally flat across its surface when at rest. Go outside and look at a body of water where you can see the entire surface, you will NEVER find a body of water on earth that bows across its surface to create earth's alleged curvature. There is no reason to believe any body of water on earth bows across the surface.
"The Earth must be spinning."
You don't sound secure in your claim. But, but, it, it just has to be, right?
Nope, I am sincere in my analysis. Water level is perpendicular to the center of gravity (what is pulling it down. Your spinning water container video shows that pretty well actually. The centrifugal "forces" experienced by the water "pulls" it outward. Being that the water did not remain flat shows that fluid conforms to the forces affecting it. Your spinning sponge ball of water only shows that the ball is spinning at a high enough rpm to break any surface tension and overcome gravitational forces pulling it down until the inertial energy that flung it upwards or sideways finally succumbs to the acceleration of gravity "pulling" it back towards the center of the gravitational "force" (center of the earth.
My video clearly shows that observer height affects how far you can see, and being that the distance to the buildings decreased as he reduced his elevation shows that they were behind the horizon. Just because it looks flat doesn't mean its perfectly flat. The human eye cannot discern the very small amount of curvature that can be measured from the surface. The size of the Earth when compared to the size of you and your field of view would in fact look flat. thank you for sharing videos that clearly show the effects of fluidity and inertia.
Also thank you for providing clear evidence of curvature in the video of the sunset you provided. The sun disappearing behind the horizon while not shrinking in size to a vanishing point is clear proof of curvature.
I have clearly answered your challenge.
So, I say again, are the only observations you will accept your own? If so you show a very closed mindset.
-
Water in a rotating container:
Your video shows water under by both gravity and "centrifugal force".
The following photo shows water under the effect of gravity on a rotating esrth: (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Earth%20from%20Space/fd__trm_0100_zpsyvnym7p5.jpg)
Himawari Real-Time 01:10 UTC 09 March 2017, True Color Reproduction Image.
-
Water in a rotating container:
Your video shows water under by both gravity and "centrifugal force".
The following photo shows water under the effect of gravity on a rotating esrth: (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Earth%20from%20Space/fd__trm_0100_zpsyvnym7p5.jpg)
Himawari Real-Time 01:10 UTC 09 March 2017, True Color Reproduction Image.
Everyone knows that is a NASA CGI image of an imaginary globe. Everyone knows water in a container in motion does not level off across its surface. Everyone knows water in a container on earth becomes horizontally level across its surface, thus showing the earth to be at rest, or stationary, not in motion. Maybe you can show a container of water on earth that bows across its surface when put in motion, then point to a natural state in earth's physical nature that mimics your example. I mean, I can do that, can you?
-
Water in a rotating container:
Your video shows water under by both gravity and "centrifugal force".
The following photo shows water under the effect of gravity on a rotating esrth: (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Earth%20from%20Space/fd__trm_0100_zpsyvnym7p5.jpg)
Himawari Real-Time 01:10 UTC 09 March 2017, True Color Reproduction Image.
Everyone knows that is a NASA CGI image of an imaginary globe. Everyone knows water in a container in motion does not level off across its surface. Everyone knows water in a container on earth becomes horizontally level across its surface, thus showing the earth to be at rest, or stationary, not in motion. Maybe you can show a container of water on earth that bows across its surface when put in motion, then point to a natural state in earth's physical nature that mimics your example. I mean, I can do that, can you?
No, everyone does not know it is fake, that is just your paranoid imagination. Look up videos of ships disappearing over the horizon. That is your proof water reacts to the gravity of a massive body and curves around it.
Then explain how sunsets work. Perspective doesn't cut it. More visual, verifiable proof of a round earth.
-
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Earth%20from%20Space/fd__trm_0100_zpsyvnym7p5.jpg)
Himawari Real-Time 01:10 UTC 09 March 2017, True Color Reproduction Image.[/center]
Everyone knows that is a NASA CGI image of an imaginary globe.
I don't know that. Show me why you think it.
-
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Earth%20from%20Space/fd__trm_0100_zpsyvnym7p5.jpg)
Himawari Real-Time 01:10 UTC 09 March 2017, True Color Reproduction Image.[/center]
Everyone knows that is a NASA CGI image of an imaginary globe.
I don't know that. Show me why you think it.
-
This is how PO cherry picks his claims:
(http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20090830.gif)
-
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Earth%20from%20Space/fd__trm_0100_zpsyvnym7p5.jpg)
Himawari Real-Time 01:10 UTC 09 March 2017, True Color Reproduction Image.[/center]
Everyone knows that is a NASA CGI image of an imaginary globe.
I don't know that. Show me why you think it.
That video doesn't appear to have anything to do with the above photo. Why do you think the photo is a NASA CGI image?
-
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Earth%20from%20Space/fd__trm_0100_zpsyvnym7p5.jpg)
Himawari Real-Time 01:10 UTC 09 March 2017, True Color Reproduction Image.[/center]
Everyone knows that is a NASA CGI image of an imaginary globe.
I don't know that. Show me why you think it.
That video doesn't appear to have anything to do with the above photo. Why do you think the photo is a NASA CGI image?
How about the "reproduction image" claim at the bottom of your alleged globe earth pic? That doesn't mean anything to you? I like to see if you can prove it is a real image.
-
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Earth%20from%20Space/fd__trm_0100_zpsyvnym7p5.jpg)
Himawari Real-Time 01:10 UTC 09 March 2017, True Color Reproduction Image.[/center]
Everyone knows that is a NASA CGI image of an imaginary globe.
I don't know that. Show me why you think it.
That video doesn't appear to have anything to do with the above photo. Why do you think the photo is a NASA CGI image?
How about the "reproduction image" claim at the bottom of your alleged globe earth pic? That doesn't mean anything to you? I like to see if you can prove it is a real image.
Why do you think that means it's a NASA CGI image?
-
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Earth%20from%20Space/fd__trm_0100_zpsyvnym7p5.jpg)
Himawari Real-Time 01:10 UTC 09 March 2017, True Color Reproduction Image.[/center]
Everyone knows that is a NASA CGI image of an imaginary globe.
I don't know that. Show me why you think it.
That video doesn't appear to have anything to do with the above photo. Why do you think the photo is a NASA CGI image?
How about the "reproduction image" claim at the bottom of your alleged globe earth pic? That doesn't mean anything to you? I like to see if you can prove it is a real image.
Why do you think that means it's a NASA CGI image?
If NASA admits their globes are CGI, what makes you think this example is not?
-
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Earth%20from%20Space/fd__trm_0100_zpsyvnym7p5.jpg)
Himawari Real-Time 01:10 UTC 09 March 2017, True Color Reproduction Image.[/center]
Everyone knows that is a NASA CGI image of an imaginary globe.
I don't know that. Show me why you think it.
That video doesn't appear to have anything to do with the above photo. Why do you think the photo is a NASA CGI image?
How about the "reproduction image" claim at the bottom of your alleged globe earth pic? That doesn't mean anything to you? I like to see if you can prove it is a real image.
It's ((true color reproduction) image), not ((true color) (reproduction image)). It's technically impossible for a photograph or a video to emit light that's identical in all conditions (lighting, etc.) to the light a person would see looking at an object in person, but you can try to get as realistic a match as possible.
Physical Observer, I need you to prove that that picture is a fake using only the evidence in this video:
-
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Earth%20from%20Space/fd__trm_0100_zpsyvnym7p5.jpg)
Himawari Real-Time 01:10 UTC 09 March 2017, True Color Reproduction Image.]
Everyone knows that is a NASA CGI image of an imaginary globe.
I don't know that. Show me why you think it.
That video doesn't appear to have anything to do with the above photo. Why do you think the photo is a NASA CGI image?
How about the "reproduction image" claim at the bottom of your alleged globe earth pic? That doesn't mean anything to you? I like to see if you can prove it is a real image.
Why do you think that means it's a NASA CGI image?
If NASA admits their globes are CGI, what makes you think this example is not?
I've nowhere stated any opinion on the photo, other than to say I don't know it to be a NASA CGI image.
I'm asking you why you think it is.
-
Water in a rotating container:
Your video shows water under by both gravity and "centrifugal force".
The following photo shows water under the effect of gravity on a rotating esrth: (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Earth%20from%20Space/fd__trm_0100_zpsyvnym7p5.jpg)
Himawari Real-Time 01:10 UTC 09 March 2017, True Color Reproduction Image.
Everyone knows that is a NASA CGI image of an imaginary globe. Everyone knows water in a container in motion does not level off across its surface. Everyone knows water in a container on earth becomes horizontally level across its surface, thus showing the earth to be at rest, or stationary, not in motion. Maybe you can show a container of water on earth that bows across its surface when put in motion, then point to a natural state in earth's physical nature that mimics your example. I mean, I can do that, can you?
Stop pretending that you know what everyone else knows.
Sentence like that only shows that you have no prove for your claim and you know it.
You think: if I say that everyone knows something than I do not have to prove what I say.
-
Everyone knows that is a NASA CGI image of an imaginary globe.
No. Most people are completely ignorant of it.
It isn't even affiliated with NASA.
It is from Japan.
And it isn't CGI nor of an imaginary globe.
Do you notice how when provided with evidence of the physical nature of Earth, you just dismiss it as fake/CGI?
Do you have any rational reason as to why we should dismiss it as fake?
Everyone knows water in a container in motion does not level off across its surface.
No, only morons/ignorant fools "know" that.
Intelligent people realise that in smooth motion, it would level off and it is the acceleration that causes it to not be level.
It is like a glass of water on a plane. Sitting level, even though the plane is in motion, or pools on cruise ships.
Everyone knows water in a container on earth becomes horizontally level across its surface, thus showing the earth to be at rest, or stationary, not in motion.
No. Showing Earth is not undergoing jerky motion.
How about instead of providing a long video filled with crap you just give us a link from NASA?
We have no evidence the person in the video is from NASA, and more importantly, it doesn't say every one is photo-shopped. Instead it appears to be talking about a single model.
And again, the picture wasn't from NASA.
How about the "reproduction image" claim at the bottom of your alleged globe earth pic? That doesn't mean anything to you? I like to see if you can prove it is a real image.
That means it is a copy, rather than the original.
In reality, this is because of how the satellite takes its pictures, and don't worry, all digital cameras work this way, including all the ones used for your you-tube video.
It doesn't take a single image with all three colours. That is physically impossible.
Instead, it takes several pictures each with a different band of the EM spectrum (with lots in the IR for this kind of satellite as they are interested in weather).
The true colour reproduction is then a combination of the relevant bands, but instead of just combining them as black and white images they combine them coloured, i.e. the red band is given a red colouration, the blue is given blue, etc, and then the colour of each pixel is a combination of those colours.
It is slightly more complex as it also takes in the IR bands to assist. Here is a link to a more complex explanation:
http://www.data.jma.go.jp/mscweb/data/himawari/index.html#TCR
I would link to the original, but they are big images, so I will link to reduced size versions.
You can get the originals here:
http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/jma-eng/satellite/news/himawari89/20170124_himawari9_first_images.html
This is the blue one:
(http://www.jma-net.go.jp/sat/data/web89/parts89/himawari9_first_image/grs_m/B01_m.jpg)
This is green:
(http://www.jma-net.go.jp/sat/data/web89/parts89/himawari9_first_image/grs_m/B02_m.jpg)
This is red:
(http://www.jma-net.go.jp/sat/data/web89/parts89/himawari9_first_image/grs_m/B03_m.jpg)
And this is the reproduction made by combining those:
(http://www.jma-net.go.jp/sat/data/web89/parts89/himawari9_first_image/tcr/tcr_m.jpg)
So no, it isn't CGI, it is just how a digital camera works.
If NASA admits their globes are CGI, what makes you think this example is not?
NASA admits one particular globe, which is a picture of the entire globe, not just one side, allowing you to generate a picture from anywhere, is a model made from stitching together multiple images. They do not admit it is entirely CGI, it is still made from real photos of Earth.
They do not claim the same about single photos of Earth.
So one real kicker for why we have no reason to think this one is is because it is just a single photo, and it doesn't show more than half the globe.
If you want to dismiss it as fake, the burden is on you to explain why it is fake. Otherwise, we will take it as evidence showing water clearly does follow the curve of Earth and that Earth is round.
-
Everyone knows that is a NASA CGI image of an imaginary globe.
No. Most people are completely ignorant of it.
It isn't even affiliated with NASA.
It is from Japan.
And it isn't CGI nor of an imaginary globe.
Do you notice how when provided with evidence of the physical nature of Earth, you just dismiss it as fake/CGI?
Do you have any rational reason as to why we should dismiss it as fake?
Everyone knows water in a container in motion does not level off across its surface.
No, only morons/ignorant fools "know" that.
Intelligent people realise that in smooth motion, it would level off and it is the acceleration that causes it to not be level.
It is like a glass of water on a plane. Sitting level, even though the plane is in motion, or pools on cruise ships.
Everyone knows water in a container on earth becomes horizontally level across its surface, thus showing the earth to be at rest, or stationary, not in motion.
No. Showing Earth is not undergoing jerky motion.
How about instead of providing a long video filled with crap you just give us a link from NASA?
We have no evidence the person in the video is from NASA, and more importantly, it doesn't say every one is photo-shopped. Instead it appears to be talking about a single model.
And again, the picture wasn't from NASA.
How about the "reproduction image" claim at the bottom of your alleged globe earth pic? That doesn't mean anything to you? I like to see if you can prove it is a real image.
That means it is a copy, rather than the original.
In reality, this is because of how the satellite takes its pictures, and don't worry, all digital cameras work this way, including all the ones used for your you-tube video.
It doesn't take a single image with all three colours. That is physically impossible.
Instead, it takes several pictures each with a different band of the EM spectrum (with lots in the IR for this kind of satellite as they are interested in weather).
The true colour reproduction is then a combination of the relevant bands, but instead of just combining them as black and white images they combine them coloured, i.e. the red band is given a red colouration, the blue is given blue, etc, and then the colour of each pixel is a combination of those colours.
It is slightly more complex as it also takes in the IR bands to assist. Here is a link to a more complex explanation:
http://www.data.jma.go.jp/mscweb/data/himawari/index.html#TCR
I would link to the original, but they are big images, so I will link to reduced size versions.
You can get the originals here:
http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/jma-eng/satellite/news/himawari89/20170124_himawari9_first_images.html
This is the blue one:
(http://www.jma-net.go.jp/sat/data/web89/parts89/himawari9_first_image/grs_m/B01_m.jpg)
This is green:
(http://www.jma-net.go.jp/sat/data/web89/parts89/himawari9_first_image/grs_m/B02_m.jpg)
This is red:
(http://www.jma-net.go.jp/sat/data/web89/parts89/himawari9_first_image/grs_m/B03_m.jpg)
And this is the reproduction made by combining those:
(http://www.jma-net.go.jp/sat/data/web89/parts89/himawari9_first_image/tcr/tcr_m.jpg)
So no, it isn't CGI, it is just how a digital camera works.
If NASA admits their globes are CGI, what makes you think this example is not?
NASA admits one particular globe, which is a picture of the entire globe, not just one side, allowing you to generate a picture from anywhere, is a model made from stitching together multiple images. They do not admit it is entirely CGI, it is still made from real photos of Earth.
They do not claim the same about single photos of Earth.
So one real kicker for why we have no reason to think this one is is because it is just a single photo, and it doesn't show more than half the globe.
If you want to dismiss it as fake, the burden is on you to explain why it is fake. Otherwise, we will take it as evidence showing water clearly does follow the curve of Earth and that Earth is round.
"It isn't even affiliated with NASA."
Look at the logos of all the space agencies around the world, they all use the same emblems.
"And it isn't CGI nor of an imaginary globe."
Prove it is real, BET YOU CAN'T!
"And this is the reproduction made by combining those:"
You mean it is not a single shot of earth? It is a combination of shots? And, it is not even a combination of pics, but data collected from different types of instruments, and assembled the way the NASA employee has been taught what the earth allegedly looks like. "It's photoshopped, it, it just has to be!" Do you know why NASA photoshops the globe of earth, because the real earth is not a globe.
"the burden is on you to explain why it is fake."
You claim it is real, the burden is on you to prove it is. I'm just saying, you can't trust NASA to give you the truth. Think, all those innocent people in the world that think the pic of earth NASA gives them is real. And you think it is real too! But you're not innocent, just a blind fool that ignores reality in favor of defunct religious beliefs.
-
You claim it is real, the burden is on you to prove it is. I'm just saying, you can't trust NASA to give you the truth. Think, all those innocent people in the world that think the pic of earth NASA gives them is real. And you think it is real too! But you're not innocent, just a blind fool that ignores reality in favor of defunct religious beliefs.
You claim that NASA admit that all pictures are computer generated.
Prove it. Show us where is that publication.
And than you have also to proven this claim with the Russian space agency and the european.
It is up to you to prove your claims.
-
How about the "reproduction image" claim at the bottom of your alleged globe earth pic? That doesn't mean anything to you? I like to see if you can prove it is a real image.
That means it is a copy, rather than the original.
In reality, this is because of how the satellite takes its pictures, and don't worry, all digital cameras work this way, including all the ones used for your you-tube video.
It doesn't take a single image with all three colours. That is physically impossible.
Instead, it takes several pictures each with a different band of the EM spectrum (with lots in the IR for this kind of satellite as they are interested in weather).
The true colour reproduction is then a combination of the relevant bands, but instead of just combining them as black and white images they combine them coloured, i.e. the red band is given a red colouration, the blue is given blue, etc, and then the colour of each pixel is a combination of those colours.
It is slightly more complex as it also takes in the IR bands to assist. Here is a link to a more complex explanation:
http://www.data.jma.go.jp/mscweb/data/himawari/index.html#TCR
I would link to the original, but they are big images, so I will link to reduced size versions.
You can get the originals here:
http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/jma-eng/satellite/news/himawari89/20170124_himawari9_first_images.html
This is the blue one:
(http://www.jma-net.go.jp/sat/data/web89/parts89/himawari9_first_image/grs_m/B01_m.jpg)
This is green:
(http://www.jma-net.go.jp/sat/data/web89/parts89/himawari9_first_image/grs_m/B02_m.jpg)
This is red:
(http://www.jma-net.go.jp/sat/data/web89/parts89/himawari9_first_image/grs_m/B03_m.jpg)
And this is the reproduction made by combining those:
(http://www.jma-net.go.jp/sat/data/web89/parts89/himawari9_first_image/tcr/tcr_m.jpg)
So no, it isn't CGI, it is just how a digital camera works.
If NASA admits their globes are CGI, what makes you think this example is not?
NASA admits one particular globe, which is a picture of the entire globe, not just one side, allowing you to generate a picture from anywhere, is a model made from stitching together multiple images. They do not admit it is entirely CGI, it is still made from real photos of Earth.
They do not claim the same about single photos of Earth.
So one real kicker for why we have no reason to think this one is is because it is just a single photo, and it doesn't show more than half the globe.
If you want to dismiss it as fake, the burden is on you to explain why it is fake. Otherwise, we will take it as evidence showing water clearly does follow the curve of Earth and that Earth is round.
"It isn't even affiliated with NASA."
Look at the logos of all the space agencies around the world, they all use the same emblems.
"And it isn't CGI nor of an imaginary globe."
Prove it is real, BET YOU CAN'T!
"And this is the reproduction made by combining those:"
You mean it is not a single shot of earth? It is a combination of shots? And, it is not even a combination of pics, but data collected from different types of instruments, and assembled the way the NASA employee has been taught what the earth allegedly looks like. "It's photoshopped, it, it just has to be!" Do you know why NASA photoshops the globe of earth, because the real earth is not a globe.
Those photos are no more "a combination of shots" than photos taken on you own digital camera!
It is NOT "data collected from different types of instruments". It is data collected from 3 (of the 16) sensors in the satellite's camera.
If you have a digital camera it will (almost certainly) have three colours sensors, one red, one green and one blue.
Usually, the output of these three sensors in combined to produce the ".jpg" image file.
But most cameras also have the ability to keep the output from the sensors separate, to be downloaded as a ".raw" image file.
Professional photographers often prefer this because it allows more flexibility in processing.
In the same way, the outputs from various sensors in the satellite can be combined to show say infrared, moisture, clouds, convection storms etc.
"the burden is on you to explain why it is fake."
You claim it is real, the burden is on you to prove it is. I'm just saying, you can't trust NASA to give you the truth. Think, all those innocent people in the world that think the pic of earth NASA gives them is real. And you think it is real too! But you're not innocent, just a blind fool that ignores reality in favor of defunct religious beliefs.
No, Mr Physical Observer we have no need to prove these photos real. They are provided for people to gain what information they want.
If you choose to ignore such a useful source of information, that is your loss.
Nobody is making you believe these things, just showing you what we believe is true.
I don't care less what you and the other dedicated flat earthers believe, I just don't want others polluted with your ideas.
-
You claim it is real, the burden is on you to prove it is. I'm just saying, you can't trust NASA to give you the truth. Think, all those innocent people in the world that think the pic of earth NASA gives them is real. And you think it is real too! But you're not innocent, just a blind fool that ignores reality in favor of defunct religious beliefs.
You claim that NASA admit that all pictures are computer generated.
Prove it. Show us where is that publication.
And than you have also to proven this claim with the Russian space agency and the european.
It is up to you to prove your claims.
Zing, right over your head. Listen carefully; NASA admits their globes are CGI, so really, what can you trust from NASA to be factual reality? I discount everything from NASA. It is up to you to prove it's real, not up to me to prove it's fake. BET YOU CAN'T DO IT!!!!!!!
-
How about the "reproduction image" claim at the bottom of your alleged globe earth pic? That doesn't mean anything to you? I like to see if you can prove it is a real image.
That means it is a copy, rather than the original.
In reality, this is because of how the satellite takes its pictures, and don't worry, all digital cameras work this way, including all the ones used for your you-tube video.
It doesn't take a single image with all three colours. That is physically impossible.
Instead, it takes several pictures each with a different band of the EM spectrum (with lots in the IR for this kind of satellite as they are interested in weather).
The true colour reproduction is then a combination of the relevant bands, but instead of just combining them as black and white images they combine them coloured, i.e. the red band is given a red colouration, the blue is given blue, etc, and then the colour of each pixel is a combination of those colours.
It is slightly more complex as it also takes in the IR bands to assist. Here is a link to a more complex explanation:
http://www.data.jma.go.jp/mscweb/data/himawari/index.html#TCR
I would link to the original, but they are big images, so I will link to reduced size versions.
You can get the originals here:
http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/jma-eng/satellite/news/himawari89/20170124_himawari9_first_images.html
This is the blue one:
(http://www.jma-net.go.jp/sat/data/web89/parts89/himawari9_first_image/grs_m/B01_m.jpg)
This is green:
(http://www.jma-net.go.jp/sat/data/web89/parts89/himawari9_first_image/grs_m/B02_m.jpg)
This is red:
(http://www.jma-net.go.jp/sat/data/web89/parts89/himawari9_first_image/grs_m/B03_m.jpg)
And this is the reproduction made by combining those:
(http://www.jma-net.go.jp/sat/data/web89/parts89/himawari9_first_image/tcr/tcr_m.jpg)
So no, it isn't CGI, it is just how a digital camera works.
If NASA admits their globes are CGI, what makes you think this example is not?
NASA admits one particular globe, which is a picture of the entire globe, not just one side, allowing you to generate a picture from anywhere, is a model made from stitching together multiple images. They do not admit it is entirely CGI, it is still made from real photos of Earth.
They do not claim the same about single photos of Earth.
So one real kicker for why we have no reason to think this one is is because it is just a single photo, and it doesn't show more than half the globe.
If you want to dismiss it as fake, the burden is on you to explain why it is fake. Otherwise, we will take it as evidence showing water clearly does follow the curve of Earth and that Earth is round.
"It isn't even affiliated with NASA."
Look at the logos of all the space agencies around the world, they all use the same emblems.
"And it isn't CGI nor of an imaginary globe."
Prove it is real, BET YOU CAN'T!
"And this is the reproduction made by combining those:"
You mean it is not a single shot of earth? It is a combination of shots? And, it is not even a combination of pics, but data collected from different types of instruments, and assembled the way the NASA employee has been taught what the earth allegedly looks like. "It's photoshopped, it, it just has to be!" Do you know why NASA photoshops the globe of earth, because the real earth is not a globe.
Those photos are no more "a combination of shots" than photos taken on you own digital camera!
It is NOT "data collected from different types of instruments". It is data collected from 3 (of the 16) sensors in the satellite's camera.
If you have a digital camera it will (almost certainly) have three colours sensors, one red, one green and one blue.
Usually, the output of these three sensors in combined to produce the ".jpg" image file.
But most cameras also have the ability to keep the output from the sensors separate, to be downloaded as a ".raw" image file.
Professional photographers often prefer this because it allows more flexibility in processing.
In the same way, the outputs from various sensors in the satellite can be combined to show say infrared, moisture, clouds, convection storms etc.
"the burden is on you to explain why it is fake."
You claim it is real, the burden is on you to prove it is. I'm just saying, you can't trust NASA to give you the truth. Think, all those innocent people in the world that think the pic of earth NASA gives them is real. And you think it is real too! But you're not innocent, just a blind fool that ignores reality in favor of defunct religious beliefs.
No, Mr Physical Observer we have no need to prove these photos real. They are provided for people to gain what information they want.
If you choose to ignore such a useful source of information, that is your loss.
Nobody is making you believe these things, just showing you what we believe is true.
I don't care less what you and the other dedicated flat earthers believe, I just don't want others polluted with your ideas.
"we have no need to prove these photos real."
Of course you don't, because you know you can't, can you?
NASA admits, man never went to moon:
-
NASA admits, man never went to moon:
Not if you actually listen.
The above video is specifically talking about testing the electronics of the new craft which are more sensitive than Apollo. They are also looking at going through the center of the belts where Apollo went around them. They need the option to go through the thicker center because the path around them is not available for interplanetary trips.
Talking about currently. Do you know of a rocket they currently have with the lifting capability necessary? Says nothing about previous.
-
You claim it is real, the burden is on you to prove it is. I'm just saying, you can't trust NASA to give you the truth. Think, all those innocent people in the world that think the pic of earth NASA gives them is real. And you think it is real too! But you're not innocent, just a blind fool that ignores reality in favor of defunct religious beliefs.
You claim that NASA admit that all pictures are computer generated.
Prove it. Show us where is that publication.
And than you have also to proven this claim with the Russian space agency and the european.
It is up to you to prove your claims.
Zing, right over your head. Listen carefully; NASA admits their globes are CGI, so really, what can you trust from NASA to be factual reality? I discount everything from NASA. It is up to you to prove it's real, not up to me to prove it's fake. BET YOU CAN'T DO IT!!!!!!!
No you are calling the agency a liar, the burden of proof is on you. Bet you can't do it.
It's like when you lied about someone saying no storms cross the equator. You were called out on that and they should the quote where, in fact they said hurricanes almost never cross the equator.
They called you a liar and then proved it.
So if you are going to call someone a liar, prove it. Bet you can't.
-
You claim it is real, the burden is on you to prove it is. I'm just saying, you can't trust NASA to give you the truth. Think, all those innocent people in the world that think the pic of earth NASA gives them is real. And you think it is real too! But you're not innocent, just a blind fool that ignores reality in favor of defunct religious beliefs.
You claim that NASA admit that all pictures are computer generated.
Prove it. Show us where is that publication.
And than you have also to proven this claim with the Russian space agency and the european.
It is up to you to prove your claims.
Zing, right over your head. Listen carefully; NASA admits their globes are CGI, so really, what can you trust from NASA to be factual reality? I discount everything from NASA. It is up to you to prove it's real, not up to me to prove it's fake. BET YOU CAN'T DO IT!!!!!!!
You do not understand what CGI is. In this case it is taking data such as multiple images and making an accurate composite picture.
-
You claim it is real, the burden is on you to prove it is. I'm just saying, you can't trust NASA to give you the truth. Think, all those innocent people in the world that think the pic of earth NASA gives them is real. And you think it is real too! But you're not innocent, just a blind fool that ignores reality in favor of defunct religious beliefs.
You claim that NASA admit that all pictures are computer generated.
Prove it. Show us where is that publication.
And than you have also to proven this claim with the Russian space agency and the european.
It is up to you to prove your claims.
Zing, right over your head. Listen carefully; NASA admits their globes are CGI, so really, what can you trust from NASA to be factual reality? I discount everything from NASA. It is up to you to prove it's real, not up to me to prove it's fake. BET YOU CAN'T DO IT!!!!!!!
You still have not shown to us where is the prove of your claim.
It looks like you have problems to understand a simple question.
And yes its up to you that they are fake back use it you claim that they are fake.
-
"It isn't even affiliated with NASA."
Look at the logos of all the space agencies around the world, they all use the same emblems.
No they don't.
Here is NASA:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/NASA_logo.svg/160px-NASA_logo.svg.png)
Here is ESA:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3b/ESA_LOGO.svg/240px-ESA_LOGO.svg.png)
Here is JAXA:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/85/Jaxa_logo.svg/220px-Jaxa_logo.svg.png)
Shall I continue?
Or is that enough for you to accept they aren't all the same.
"And it isn't CGI nor of an imaginary globe."
Prove it is real, BET YOU CAN'T!
No. You want to claim it is fake to dismiss it as an augment, you prove it is fake.
Otherwise you need to prove every single video or picture you have provided is real, and I bet you can't do that.
"And this is the reproduction made by combining those:"
You mean it is not a single shot of earth? It is a combination of shots?
Yes. Just like every single multi-colour digital camera in existence.
But don't worry, I provided the single shot ones as well. Why ignore them?
And, it is not even a combination of pics, but data collected from different types of instruments
No. It is a combination of pictures, collected from the same Instrument.
and assembled the way the NASA employee has been taught what the earth allegedly looks like.
It's not from NASA. All they did was change the colour channels. They didn't change the shape.
"It's photoshopped, it, it just has to be!" Do you know why NASA photoshops the globe of earth, because the real earth is not a globe.
No. They "photoshop" the globe because you cannot take a picture of the entire globe. Instead you can only take a picture of slightly less than half.
So to produce a model of the entire globe, you need to take multiple pictures and stitch them together.
The real Earth is a globe. That is what all the evidence shows (which shows one way or another).
"the burden is on you to explain why it is fake."
You claim it is real, the burden is on you to prove it is. I'm just saying, you can't trust NASA to give you the truth. Think, all those innocent people in the world that think the pic of earth NASA gives them is real. And you think it is real too! But you're not innocent, just a blind fool that ignores reality in favor of defunct religious beliefs.
No. You wanted a picture of water curving. You were provided with one. Because it doesn't fit your delusions, you reject it.
I have no reason to not trust it.
Remember, you started this thread as proof that Earth is flat. But guess what? You failed, repeatedly.
I'm not the blind fool ignoring reality. I'm not the one with defunct delusional beliefs.
That would be you.
You are provided with a picture, and because it doesn't fit your view, you immediately reject it as fake.
It seems that any evidence you are provided with that doesn't fit your delusional beliefs you will immediately reject as fake.
Zing, right over your head. Listen carefully; NASA admits their globes are CGI, so really, what can you trust from NASA to be factual reality? I discount everything from NASA. It is up to you to prove it's real, not up to me to prove it's fake. BET YOU CAN'T DO IT!!!!!!!
Yes, Globes, not pictures. There is a big difference.
The globe is inherently 3D. You cannot have a 3D picture. You cannot take a picture of all of a globe at once. As such, they are "photoshopped" or "CGI". But they take real data from real photos and stitch it together. It isn't just computer generated like you make it out to be.
NASA admits, man never went to moon:
No. They don't.
They admit the Van Allen Radiation belts, when passing straight through the middle (not the path Apollo took) could potentially damage the sensitive electronics, which weren't on the Apollo mission.
How about you stop lying?
-
"we have no need to prove these photos real."
Of course you don't, because you know you can't, can you?
NASA admits, man never went to moon:
NASA engineer admits they can't get past the Van Allen Belts, Hallelujah Girl
Pease show exactly where in that video "NASA admits, they cannot get past the Van Allen Belts".
Give the exact time in the video and the exact words used where you claim "NASA admits, they cannot get past the Van Allen belts".
NASA engineer admits they can't get past the Van Allen Belts, Hallelujah Girl
Again, please show exactly where in that video "NASA admits, man never went to moon".
Give the exact time in the video and the exact words used where you claim "NASA admits, man never went to moon".
Otherwise, give up you continual attempts at deception.
If you really want to learn how the Apollo mission passed the Van Allen Belts, you could read these:
Apollo and the Van Allen Belts, an estimate of the radiation dose received, Robert A. Braeunig (http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm)
CLAVIUS ENVIRONMENT, radiation and the van allen belts (http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html)
Apollo 11's Translunar Trajectory, Robert A. Braeunig (http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm)
Of course, you don't want to learn or find the truth on these matters. All you want to do is ridicule and denigrate others far more worthy than yourself.
All to prop your mistaken idea that the earth is really a huge pepperoni pizza!
One big problem is that you don't even know the shape and location of the bits of pepperoni - the continents!
I do find it so hilarious that you flat earthers all cry it unison that "the earth is flat!", but that is all that they do in unison.
You can't agree on:- A map that works. Wot map? I know of about four maps. Flat earthers can't even decide how to carve up their pathetic pepperoni pizza planet.
- A sun that works. :D :D A piddling little sun levitating above a pizza is hardly an explanation for sunrises, sunsets, etc! ;D ;D
- A moon that works. ;D ;D A similar sized moon, with unknown illumination, playing tag with your tiny sun cannot explain phases and eclipses!
- An explanation for gravity! Some say it's gravitation, some say it's ;D denpressure ;D, some say it's ::) aether ::) etc.
So run away and play in your sand-box and come back when you have a real flat earth model that works.
-
Also, remember that the only reason we know about the Van Allen Belts is because someone told us about them. The same people that told us about them told us that it was possible to pass through them and how to do it.
If they are the liars you accuse them of being, why do you believe them when they say there are Van Allen Belts?
-
Also, remember that the only reason we know about the Van Allen Belts is because someone told us about them. The same people that told us about them told us that it was possible to pass through them and how to do it.
If they are the liars you accuse them of being, why do you believe them when they say there are Van Allen Belts?
So, which NASA shill is telling the truth, we can get through the VA-Belts, or we can't?
-
Also, remember that the only reason we know about the Van Allen Belts is because someone told us about them. The same people that told us about them told us that it was possible to pass through them and how to do it.
If they are the liars you accuse them of being, why do you believe them when they say there are Van Allen Belts?
So, which NASA shill is telling the truth, we can get through the VA-Belts, or we can't?
If you want me to answer your question then you answer mine.
-
"we have no need to prove these photos real."
Of course you don't, because you know you can't, can you?
NASA admits, man never went to moon:
NASA engineer admits they can't get past the Van Allen Belts, Superformance72 (http://)
Pease show exactly where in that video "NASA admits, they cannot get past the Van Allen Belts".
Give the exact time in the video and the exact words used where you claim "NASA admits, they cannot get past the Van Allen belts".
SHOCKING : NASA ADMITS THEY NEVER WENT TO THE MOON, ron johnson (http://)
Again, please show exactly where in that video "NASA admits, man never went to moon".
Give the exact time in the video and the exact words used where you claim "NASA admits, man never went to moon".
Otherwise, give up you continual attempts at deception.
If you really want to learn how the Apollo mission passed the Van Allen Belts, you could read these:
Apollo and the Van Allen Belts, an estimate of the radiation dose received, Robert A. Braeunig (http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm)
CLAVIUS ENVIRONMENT, radiation and the van allen belts (http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html)
Apollo 11's Translunar Trajectory, Robert A. Braeunig (http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm)
Of course, you don't want to learn or find the truth on these matters. All you want to do is ridicule and denigrate others far more worthy than yourself.
All to prop your mistaken idea that the earth is really a huge pepperoni pizza!
One big problem is that you don't even know the shape and location of the bits of pepperoni - the continents!
I do find it so hilarious that you flat earthers all cry it unison that "the earth is flat!", but that is all that they do in unison.
You can't agree on:- A map that works. Wot map? I know of about four maps. Flat earthers can't even decide how to carve up their pathetic pepperoni pizza planet.
- A sun that works. :D :D A piddling little sun levitating above a pizza is hardly an explanation for sunrises, sunsets, etc! ;D ;D
- A moon that works. ;D ;D A similar sized moon, with unknown illumination, playing tag with your tiny sun cannot explain phases and eclipses!
- An explanation for gravity! Some say it's gravitation, some say it's ;D denpressure ;D, some say it's ::) aether ::) etc.
So run away and play in your sand-box and come back when you have a real flat earth model that works.
"Again, please show exactly where in that video "NASA admits, man never went to moon"."
It's called using logically reasoning, you should try to find what happen to your ability. Here goes-
The moon is beyond the Belts, man allegedly sent men to the moon, NASA now admits getting people and computers through the Belt is an unknown proposition. What is your conclusion about moon landings? Did they go, or did they not? If they had no problem then, why is it such a problem now?
-
So, which NASA shill is telling the truth, we can get through the VA-Belts, or we can't?
Or how about you focus on what people actually say?
The electronics today are quite different to the ones used to go to the moon.
The plan today is to be able to go straight through the centre rather than basically around them.
They aren't contradicting each other.
The moon is beyond the Belts, man allegedly sent men to the moon, NASA now admits getting people and computers through the Belt is an unknown proposition. What is your conclusion about moon landings? Did they go, or did they not? If they had no problem then, why is it such a problem now?
No. Getting modern day computers through the belt is unknown.
And going to the moon they didn't really go through the belt, they went around it.
There is a solid wall between me and the next room. I could try to go through it, or I could go around it and through the doorway.
Does me not being able to go through a solid wall mean I can't get to the next room? No.
-
So, which NASA shill is telling the truth, we can get through the VA-Belts, or we can't?
Or how about you focus on what people actually say?
The electronics today are quite different to the ones used to go to the moon.
The plan today is to be able to go straight through the centre rather than basically around them.
They aren't contradicting each other.
The moon is beyond the Belts, man allegedly sent men to the moon, NASA now admits getting people and computers through the Belt is an unknown proposition. What is your conclusion about moon landings? Did they go, or did they not? If they had no problem then, why is it such a problem now?
No. Getting modern day computers through the belt is unknown.
And going to the moon they didn't really go through the belt, they went around it.
There is a solid wall between me and the next room. I could try to go through it, or I could go around it and through the doorway.
Does me not being able to go through a solid wall mean I can't get to the next room? No.
"No. Getting modern day computers through the belt is unknown."
Oh please, you are just playing stupid childish semantic games. What, those old retired engineers didn't pass on their secrets? What a load of hog-wash! They tell you right to your face, and you are too stupid to get it. That is your issue bucky, not mine!
I think you ran into too many solid walls as a child. You seem to be stuck emotionally, and mentally, somewhere in pre-school.
-
Also, remember that the only reason we know about the Van Allen Belts is because someone told us about them. The same people that told us about them told us that it was possible to pass through them and how to do it.
If they are the liars you accuse them of being, why do you believe them when they say there are Van Allen Belts?
So, which NASA shill is telling the truth, we can get through the VA-Belts, or we can't?
You have ignored my post where I asked you you show just where these people actulayy said what was claimed.
So please answer this an least this bit:
NASA admits, man never went to moon:
NASA engineer admits they can't get past the Van Allen Belts, Superformance72 (http://)
Pease show exactly where in that video "NASA admits, they cannot get past the Van Allen Belts".
Give the exact time in the video and the exact words used where you claim "NASA admits, they cannot get past the Van Allen belts".
SHOCKING : NASA ADMITS THEY NEVER WENT TO THE MOON, ron johnson (http://)
Again, please show exactly where in that video "NASA admits, man never went to moon".
Give the exact time in the video and the exact words used where you claim "NASA admits, man never went to moon".
Otherwise, give up you continual attempts at deception.
So Mr Physical Observer, put up or shut up!
-
So, which NASA shill is telling the truth, we can get through the VA-Belts, or we can't?
Or how about you focus on what people actually say?
The electronics today are quite different to the ones used to go to the moon.
The plan today is to be able to go straight through the centre rather than basically around them.
They aren't contradicting each other.
The moon is beyond the Belts, man allegedly sent men to the moon, NASA now admits getting people and computers through the Belt is an unknown proposition. What is your conclusion about moon landings? Did they go, or did they not? If they had no problem then, why is it such a problem now?
No. Getting modern day computers through the belt is unknown.
And going to the moon they didn't really go through the belt, they went around it.
There is a solid wall between me and the next room. I could try to go through it, or I could go around it and through the doorway.
Does me not being able to go through a solid wall mean I can't get to the next room? No.
"No. Getting modern day computers through the belt is unknown."
Oh please, you are just playing stupid childish semantic games. What, those old retired engineers didn't pass on their secrets? What a load of hog-wash! They tell you right to your face, and you are too stupid to get it. That is your issue bucky, not mine!
I think you ran into too many solid walls as a child. You seem to be stuck emotionally, and mentally, somewhere in pre-school.
So they don't actually say they didn't go to the moon like you claimed. Another admission that you lied.
They can and did get to the moon by going around the belt. Going to mars requires a different trajectory. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
-
So, which NASA shill is telling the truth, we can get through the VA-Belts, or we can't?
Or how about you focus on what people actually say?
The electronics today are quite different to the ones used to go to the moon.
The plan today is to be able to go straight through the centre rather than basically around them.
They aren't contradicting each other.
The moon is beyond the Belts, man allegedly sent men to the moon, NASA now admits getting people and computers through the Belt is an unknown proposition. What is your conclusion about moon landings? Did they go, or did they not? If they had no problem then, why is it such a problem now?
No. Getting modern day computers through the belt is unknown.
And going to the moon they didn't really go through the belt, they went around it.
There is a solid wall between me and the next room. I could try to go through it, or I could go around it and through the doorway.
Does me not being able to go through a solid wall mean I can't get to the next room? No.
"No. Getting modern day computers through the belt is unknown."
Oh please, you are just playing stupid childish semantic games. What, those old retired engineers didn't pass on their secrets? What a load of hog-wash! They tell you right to your face, and you are too stupid to get it. That is your issue bucky, not mine!
I think you ran into too many solid walls as a child. You seem to be stuck emotionally, and mentally, somewhere in pre-school.
So they don't actually say they didn't go to the moon like you claimed. Another admission that you lied.
They can and did get to the moon by going around the belt. Going to mars requires a different trajectory. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
Use some freaking common sense, nickel head. If they can't get through the Belts now, what makes you think they got through them before?
-
Use some freaking common sense, nickel head. If they can't get through the Belts now, what makes you think they got through them before?
to say it with your words:
Use your ability to read, penny head. they got not through it they got around it.
-
Use some freaking common sense, nickel head. If they can't get through the Belts now, what makes you think they got through them before?
to say it with your words:
Use your ability to read, penny head. they got not through it they got around it.
"Got around it", what a hoot. Why don't they just get around it again? Just one excuse after another excuse. Man, you are great at that, gotta give it to ya!
-
Use some freaking common sense, nickel head. If they can't get through the Belts now, what makes you think they got through them before?
Here's some common sense for you: If NASA had said they didn't go to moon that would've made a massive news story.
You don't really think your lies through, do you?
-
Use some freaking common sense, nickel head. If they can't get through the Belts now, what makes you think they got through them before?
to say it with your words:
Use your ability to read, penny head. they got not through it they got around it.
"Got around it", what a hoot. Why don't they just get around it again? Just one excuse after another excuse. Man, you are great at that, gotta give it to ya!
You have proved time and time again that you have no answers.
I asked you show just where these people actually said what was claimed.
NASA admits, man never went to moon:
NASA engineer admits they can't get past the Van Allen Belts, Superformance72 (http://)
Pease show exactly where in that video "NASA admits, they cannot get past the Van Allen Belts".
Give the exact time in the video and the exact words used where you claim "NASA admits, they cannot get past the Van Allen belts".
SHOCKING : NASA ADMITS THEY NEVER WENT TO THE MOON, ron johnson (http://)
Again, please show exactly where in that video "NASA admits, man never went to moon".
Give the exact time in the video and the exact words used where you claim "NASA admits, man never went to moon".
Otherwise, give up you continual attempts at deception.
So Mr Physical Observer, put up or shut up!
And I will keep hounding you until answer the questions, because from what I have seen:
- NASA DOES NOT CLAIM THEY NEVER WENT TO THE MOON.
They only say that they do not now have the capability of sending people beyond low earth orbit. - And no NASA engineer claims they did not get past the Van Allen Belts.
If you honestly believe otherwise, show exactly where in these videos what your claim is actually said and the actual words used.
You like many other flat earthers seem to have great difficulty in comprehension.
-
"No. Getting modern day computers through the belt is unknown."
Oh please, you are just playing stupid childish semantic games. What, those old retired engineers didn't pass on their secrets? What a load of hog-wash! They tell you right to your face, and you are too stupid to get it. That is your issue bucky, not mine!
No. I'm playing the "STOP IGNORING WHAT THEY ARE SAYING AND PRETENDING THEY ARE SAYING SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT" game.
Old computers are quite different to modern day ones.
The old ones didn't use sensitive solid state electronics which allows them to be much smaller and much more powerful.
The ECU of modern cars is a more powerful computer than those used on the Apollo missions.
You also seemed to ignore the other, far more important part, that they want to go straight through instead of around.
I think you ran into too many solid walls as a child. You seem to be stuck emotionally, and mentally, somewhere in pre-school.
Projecting again I see.
I'm not the one continually ignoring what other people are saying and pretending they are saying something completely different.
I'm not the one rejecting reality because it doesn't fit my delusional beliefs.
Use some freaking common sense, nickel head. If they can't get through the Belts now, what makes you think they got through them before?
USE YOUR FUCKING EYES AND READ WHAT PEOPLE SAY!
They didn't go straight through them before. They effectively went around them. They are belts, not shells.
"Got around it", what a hoot. Why don't they just get around it again? Just one excuse after another excuse. Man, you are great at that, gotta give it to ya!
Again, use your eyes and read. That was already answered.
The trajectory to get to Mars is quite different to the trajectory to get to the moon.
Going around it for the moon represented no significant cost.
To do so for mars, they would need to enter an orbit to get them on that trajectory, and then use lots of energy getting themselves into a better orbit before heading off to Mars.
You are the one making up excuses, not us.
You are the one claiming that because Orion, which is a craft with delicate solid state electronics, may have issues going straight through the belt, that they couldn't have possibly gone to the moon.
When we point out why that is crap, you just come up with excuse after excuse.
-
Use some freaking common sense, nickel head. If they can't get through the Belts now, what makes you think they got through them before?
Here's some common sense for you: If NASA had said they didn't go to moon that would've made a massive news story.
You don't really think your lies through, do you?
Funny, I have never seen the interviews of the NASA guys on mainstream news. Besides, most of the stupid ignant people in this world care less about NASA, and are barely aware they even exist. Case in point:
I approached a toll plaza, two lanes, side by side, opened for cash customers. Eight people are in the right lane, left lane empty. I used the left lane, while I waited for my receipt, I brought the subject up with the toll collector. She claims she has counted 20 cars in one lane, while her lane is empty, or the other way around. I would say 85% of the people in this world are brain dead sheeples. They get up, eat, go to work, go home and eat, watch TV for 4 hours, then go to bed, only to repeat the boring cycle over and over again. And I doubt they would even make any connections between the VA-Belts and the alleged moon landings. They probably don't even know the moon landing hype existed back when I was 12.
But you know, I do believe they went to the moon, and didn't have to deal with the VA-Belts, because they did it in a movie set. I swear, the undocking of that Starship in one of those Star Trek movies, was so real, I was almost convinced it really happened. And the movie, Independence Day, when Randy Quaid flew that military jet into that mothership's arse, boy, I swear, that was so real! And Alien, man, when I left the theater, I thoroughly inspected my car before I got in!!!!!
-
...
But you know, I do believe they went to the moon, and didn't have to deal with the VA-Belts, because they did it in a movie set. I swear, the undocking of that Starship in one of those Star Trek movies, was so real, I was almost convinced it really happened. And the movie, Independence Day, when Randy Quaid flew that military jet into that mothership's arse, boy, I swear, that was so real! And Alien, man, when I left the theater, I thoroughly inspected my car before I got in!!!!!
ok with that you admit that you can not tell reality from movie.
how do you know that you are right that you believe what other Flat Earth Idea Believers tell you.
-
Use some freaking common sense, nickel head. If they can't get through the Belts now, what makes you think they got through them before?
Here's some common sense for you: If NASA had said they didn't go to moon that would've made a massive news story.
You don't really think your lies through, do you?
Funny, I have never seen the interviews of the NASA guys on mainstream news. Besides, most of the stupid ignant people in this world care less about NASA, and are barely aware they even exist. Case in point:
I approached a toll plaza, two lanes, side by side, opened for cash customers. Eight people are in the right lane, left lane empty. I used the left lane, while I waited for my receipt, I brought the subject up with the toll collector. She claims she has counted 20 cars in one lane, while her lane is empty, or the other way around. I would say 85% of the people in this world are brain dead sheeples. They get up, eat, go to work, go home and eat, watch TV for 4 hours, then go to bed, only to repeat the boring cycle over and over again. And I doubt they would even make any connections between the VA-Belts and the alleged moon landings. They probably don't even know the moon landing hype existed back when I was 12.
But you know, I do believe they went to the moon, and didn't have to deal with the VA-Belts, because they did it in a movie set. I swear, the undocking of that Starship in one of those Star Trek movies, was so real, I was almost convinced it really happened. And the movie, Independence Day, when Randy Quaid flew that military jet into that mothership's arse, boy, I swear, that was so real! And Alien, man, when I left the theater, I thoroughly inspected my car before I got in!!!!!
Are you now suggesting that NASA said they didn't go to the moon and somehow the world's press ignored it?
You appear more stupid with every post you make. Quite an achievement.
-
Use some freaking common sense, nickel head. If they can't get through the Belts now, what makes you think they got through them before?
Here's some common sense for you: If NASA had said they didn't go to moon that would've made a massive news story.
You don't really think your lies through, do you?
Besides, most of the stupid ignant people in this world care less about NASA, and are barely aware they even exist. Case in point:
Yes, we have lots of "stupid ignant people in this world", especially one with a screen name of physical observer.
Any idea who that could be.
You in your "stupid ignance" claim that "If they can't get through the Belts now, what makes you think they got through them before?"
Read learn and inwardly digest! On the Apollo missions, the trajectory to the moon left earth at an angle to the ecliptic and so bypassed the worst of the Van Allen belts.
Have you yet read and understood?
Apollo and the Van Allen Belts, an estimate of the radiation dose received, Robert A. Braeunig (http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm)
CLAVIUS ENVIRONMENT, radiation and the Van Allen Belts (http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html)
Apollo 11's Translunar Trajectory, Robert A. Braeunig (http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm)
If not, put a sock in it till you learn a bit about the subject.
I don't believe I have ever seen such a bigotted pig-headed ignoramus who refuses to learn anything about the topic he's trying to refute!
Of course, this same bigotted pig-headed ignoramus refuses to answer any questions about his own flat earth model
and how fails to explain so many simple observations on the real earth - I do so apologise if I missed one somewhere!
-
Besides, most of the stupid ignant people in this world care less about NASA, and are barely aware they even exist. Case in point:
Yes, we have lots of "stupid ignant people in this world", especially one with a screen name of physical observer.
I don't believe I have ever seen such a bigotted pig-headed ignoramus who refuses to learn anything about the topic he's trying to refute!
Don't you mean bigotted pig-headed ignamus ? ;D
-
"we have no need to prove these photos real."
Of course you don't, because you know you can't, can you?
NASA admits, man never went to moon:
NASA engineer admits they can't get past the Van Allen Belts, Superformance72 (http://)
Pease show exactly where in that video "NASA admits, they cannot get past the Van Allen Belts".
Give the exact time in the video and the exact words used where you claim "NASA admits, they cannot get past the Van Allen belts".
SHOCKING : NASA ADMITS THEY NEVER WENT TO THE MOON, ron johnson (http://)
Again, please show exactly where in that video "NASA admits, man never went to moon".
Give the exact time in the video and the exact words used where you claim "NASA admits, man never went to moon".
Otherwise, give up you continual attempts at deception.
If you really want to learn how the Apollo mission passed the Van Allen Belts, you could read these:
Apollo and the Van Allen Belts, an estimate of the radiation dose received, Robert A. Braeunig (http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm)
CLAVIUS ENVIRONMENT, radiation and the van allen belts (http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html)
Apollo 11's Translunar Trajectory, Robert A. Braeunig (http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm)
Of course, you don't want to learn or find the truth on these matters. All you want to do is ridicule and denigrate others far more worthy than yourself.
All to prop your mistaken idea that the earth is really a huge pepperoni pizza!
One big problem is that you don't even know the shape and location of the bits of pepperoni - the continents!
I do find it so hilarious that you flat earthers all cry it unison that "the earth is flat!", but that is all that they do in unison.
You can't agree on:- A map that works. Wot map? I know of about four maps. Flat earthers can't even decide how to carve up their pathetic pepperoni pizza planet.
- A sun that works. :D :D A piddling little sun levitating above a pizza is hardly an explanation for sunrises, sunsets, etc! ;D ;D
- A moon that works. ;D ;D A similar sized moon, with unknown illumination, playing tag with your tiny sun cannot explain phases and eclipses!
- An explanation for gravity! Some say it's gravitation, some say it's ;D denpressure ;D, some say it's ::) aether ::) etc.
So run away and play in your sand-box and come back when you have a real flat earth model that works.
"Again, please show exactly where in that video "NASA admits, man never went to moon"."
It's called using logically reasoning, you should try to find what happen to your ability. Here goes-
The moon is beyond the Belts, man allegedly sent men to the moon, NASA now admits getting people and computers through the Belt is an unknown proposition. What is your conclusion about moon landings? Did they go, or did they not? If they had no problem then, why is it such a problem now?
If you had bothered to pay attention to previous posts you would have read that Apollo took an inclined path that went AROUND the majority of the belts through the thinner outer edges. That path is not available for interplanetary trips hence the need to test the new craft to go through the center. But that would require you to read.
-
So, which NASA shill is telling the truth, we can get through the VA-Belts, or we can't?
Or how about you focus on what people actually say?
The electronics today are quite different to the ones used to go to the moon.
The plan today is to be able to go straight through the centre rather than basically around them.
They aren't contradicting each other.
The moon is beyond the Belts, man allegedly sent men to the moon, NASA now admits getting people and computers through the Belt is an unknown proposition. What is your conclusion about moon landings? Did they go, or did they not? If they had no problem then, why is it such a problem now?
No. Getting modern day computers through the belt is unknown.
And going to the moon they didn't really go through the belt, they went around it.
There is a solid wall between me and the next room. I could try to go through it, or I could go around it and through the doorway.
Does me not being able to go through a solid wall mean I can't get to the next room? No.
"No. Getting modern day computers through the belt is unknown."
Oh please, you are just playing stupid childish semantic games. What, those old retired engineers didn't pass on their secrets? What a load of hog-wash! They tell you right to your face, and you are too stupid to get it. That is your issue bucky, not mine!
I think you ran into too many solid walls as a child. You seem to be stuck emotionally, and mentally, somewhere in pre-school.
So they don't actually say they didn't go to the moon like you claimed. Another admission that you lied.
They can and did get to the moon by going around the belt. Going to mars requires a different trajectory. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
Use some freaking common sense, nickel head. If they can't get through the Belts now, what makes you think they got through them before?
Middle school insults aside, this has been explained to you, more than once. Why do you insist on continuing to lie about it.
http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/apollo-rocketed-through-van-allen-belts (http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/apollo-rocketed-through-van-allen-belts)
-
"No. Getting modern day computers through the belt is unknown."
Oh please, you are just playing stupid childish semantic games. What, those old retired engineers didn't pass on their secrets? What a load of hog-wash! They tell you right to your face, and you are too stupid to get it. That is your issue bucky, not mine!
I think you ran into too many solid walls as a child. You seem to be stuck emotionally, and mentally, somewhere in pre-school.
As a computer engineer, I feel I am pretty well qualified to answer this for you. No it isn't that the technology of the 50s and 60s was better than today, but EM radiation interference in a vacuum tube is very much a different prospect as EM radiation interference in a silicon based transistor. Transistors are much faster, mush smaller, and have a much smaller power drain. This means we can do much more with them. Relay style computing using vacuum tubes and electromechanical relays are bulkier, not only in thier size individually but in their limited capacity when compared to a integrated chip, that you would need much more of them to do the same operations. Our technology is now based off these chips, for very good reason, yet they are nowhere near as hardy as those standard electromechanical relays and vacuum tubes. Newer computers multiple transistors in such a small area on the chip means that any energy build up due to things like EM radiation can discharge across them much easier doing way more damage with way less energy.
Add to this, there is a much better understanding of how that same radiation can affect the human body than they knew back then and there is vastly safety regulations we rightly impose on this type of mission today. So yeah, it is harder to get new technology through than is was then. We were very much more cavalier then. It isn't that astronauts would die immediately if they passed through them, it is that there is an increased chance of health complications from it later down the road, not to mention the fact that we use more composite materials now to lighten the weight for liftoff, which doesn't block as much radiation as metal. So the challenge is, without increasing weight, still getting the benefits of todays technology, while actually being safer, is it easier or harder? It is harder.
-
"No. Getting modern day computers through the belt is unknown."
Oh please, you are just playing stupid childish semantic games. What, those old retired engineers didn't pass on their secrets? What a load of hog-wash! They tell you right to your face, and you are too stupid to get it. That is your issue bucky, not mine!
I think you ran into too many solid walls as a child. You seem to be stuck emotionally, and mentally, somewhere in pre-school.
As a computer engineer, I feel I am pretty well qualified to answer this for you. No it isn't that the technology of the 50s and 60s was better than today, but EM radiation interference in a vacuum tube is very much a different prospect as EM radiation interference in a silicon based transistor. Transistors are much faster, mush smaller, and have a much smaller power drain. This means we can do much more with them. Relay style computing using vacuum tubes and electromechanical relays are bulkier, not only in thier size individually but in their limited capacity when compared to a integrated chip, that you would need much more of them to do the same operations. Our technology is now based off these chips, for very good reason, yet they are nowhere near as hardy as those standard electromechanical relays and vacuum tubes. Newer computers multiple transistors in such a small area on the chip means that any energy build up due to things like EM radiation can discharge across them much easier doing way more damage with way less energy.
Add to this, there is a much better understanding of how that same radiation can affect the human body than they knew back then and there is vastly safety regulations we rightly impose on this type of mission today. So yeah, it is harder to get new technology through than is was then. We were very much more cavalier then. It isn't that astronauts would die immediately if they passed through them, it is that there is an increased chance of health complications from it later down the road, not to mention the fact that we use more composite materials now to lighten the weight for liftoff, which doesn't block as much radiation as metal. So the challenge is, without increasing weight, still getting the benefits of todays technology, while actually being safer, is it easier or harder? It is harder.
Just to further this point a bit more.
This is a picture of a modern CPU.
(http://photocdn.sohu.com/20111003/Img321249398.jpg)
That tiny shiny crystal part is the silicon chip where all the transistors are. Typically they have over a billion transistors.
The transistors can be smaller than 20 nm.
The chips can have a total power usage of tens of watts.
This is a vacuum tube equivalent.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Scheib3.jpg)
There is a scale for size reference. That is just a single transistor.
They can easily draw a few watts, even for low power ones.
So which do you think is better?
-
Quick reply to OP:
The fact you're posting this challenge suggests that you haven't grasped what people were saying was wrong with your other thread. The velocity of the objects and environment in those videos can only be judged relative to each other or the camera - a bit like a video closeup of a cup of water, which you would have no way of telling was on a plane at 35,000 feet, in a room at ground level, or in a spinning centrifuge experiencing 5G.
To ask anyone to prove a specific velocity from those videos would be to ask us to do what you're doing, which is to wrongly infer anything other than relative motion.