Two questions

  • 11 Replies
  • 708 Views
Two questions
« on: May 24, 2016, 01:25:40 PM »
Only recently started reading about FE ideas/evidence and definitely finding it  interesting.

Two questions I have (I suppose this should be directed at anyone defending the globe).

1) If the astronauts are truly in space on the iss, if they were to have a telescope/camera powerful enough, and they zoomed into populated areas towards the underside of the globe as they are looking at it, is the suggestion that they would see people/buildings coming out of the ground upside down (or starting to veer towards appearing upside down). Following on from this then for the land they are looking directly down on they will see the tops of heads/buildings, while if they zoomed in towards the top of the globe from their positing the people/buildings would appear progressively more "upward"?


2) If I was to drill through the earth and was going feet down head up, if there was some advanced capability to drill the whole way through then Logically I would be popping out the other side feet first (which doesn't actually seem logical).


Apologies if this is the wrong section

*

Blue_Moon

  • 846
  • Defender of NASA
Re: Two questions
« Reply #1 on: May 24, 2016, 02:18:11 PM »
Only recently started reading about FE ideas/evidence and definitely finding it  interesting.

Two questions I have (I suppose this should be directed at anyone defending the globe).

1) If the astronauts are truly in space on the iss, if they were to have a telescope/camera powerful enough, and they zoomed into populated areas towards the underside of the globe as they are looking at it, is the suggestion that they would see people/buildings coming out of the ground upside down (or starting to veer towards appearing upside down). Following on from this then for the land they are looking directly down on they will see the tops of heads/buildings, while if they zoomed in towards the top of the globe from their positing the people/buildings would appear progressively more "upward"?


2) If I was to drill through the earth and was going feet down head up, if there was some advanced capability to drill the whole way through then Logically I would be popping out the other side feet first (which doesn't actually seem logical).


Apologies if this is the wrong section

1) In space there is no up or down, and astronauts orient themselves whichever way is best suited to their needs.  This isn't hypothetical; one of the main jobs of ISS crew members is earth imagery.  But if they need to look at areas far away from the ISS in its orbit, the buildings will still be normal to the surface. 

2) If you somehow had the capability to drill through the entire earth, including the liquid metal of the earth's outer core, you would find that gravity decreases as you approach the center, and once you pass it, gravity starts increasing again toward the center, which is now behind you.  Thus, for the entire second half of your journey, you are upside down. 
Aerospace Engineering Student
NASA Enthusiast
Round Earth Advocate
More qualified to speak for NASA than you are to speak against them

Re: Two questions
« Reply #2 on: May 24, 2016, 02:28:35 PM »


1) In space there is no up or down, and astronauts orient themselves whichever way is best suited to their needs.  This isn't hypothetical; one of the main jobs of ISS crew members is earth imagery.  But if they need to look at areas far away from the ISS in its orbit, the buildings will still be normal to the surface. 

2) If you somehow had the capability to drill through the entire earth, including the liquid metal of the earth's outer core, you would find that gravity decreases as you approach the center, and once you pass it, gravity starts increasing again toward the center, which is now behind you.  Thus, for the entire second half of your journey, you are upside down.


Thanks for the reply.

1) You say there is no up or down in space but when you are looking at the globe you will view areas at the top,middle and bottom from your perspective.

Take this image for example, from the astronauts' perspective, in the section of the globe shown, they are looking at the bottom- Logically if they were zooming in far enough the people/buildings would appear upside down ?

http://www.technobuffalo.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/a-beautiful-planet-4.jpeg

2. How does that get away from the issue that in this hypothetical scenario you physically do not alter your position. How does gravity suddenly make you do a complete 180 degree turn. Imagine this, not moving your position, some sort of "chute" has been drilled through the globe in which there is no room to physically move, straight down through a globe, if you go in feet first you must exit feet first
« Last Edit: May 24, 2016, 02:31:34 PM by bluepantera »

*

Blue_Moon

  • 846
  • Defender of NASA
Re: Two questions
« Reply #3 on: May 24, 2016, 02:46:59 PM »


1) In space there is no up or down, and astronauts orient themselves whichever way is best suited to their needs.  This isn't hypothetical; one of the main jobs of ISS crew members is earth imagery.  But if they need to look at areas far away from the ISS in its orbit, the buildings will still be normal to the surface. 

2) If you somehow had the capability to drill through the entire earth, including the liquid metal of the earth's outer core, you would find that gravity decreases as you approach the center, and once you pass it, gravity starts increasing again toward the center, which is now behind you.  Thus, for the entire second half of your journey, you are upside down.


Thanks for the reply.

1) You say there is no up or down in space but when you are looking at the globe you will view areas at the top,middle and bottom from your perspective.

Take this image for example, from the astronauts' perspective, in the section of the globe shown, they are looking at the bottom- Logically if they were zooming in far enough the people/buildings would appear upside down ?

http://www.technobuffalo.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/a-beautiful-planet-4.jpeg

2. How does that get away from the issue that in this hypothetical scenario you physically do not alter your position. How does gravity suddenly make you do a complete 180 degree turn. Imagine this, not moving your position, some sort of "chute" has been drilled through the globe in which there is no room to physically move, straight down through a globe, if you go in feet first you must exit feet first

1) If they zoomed in, the people and buildings would appear to be upside down.  However, you can rotate the image however you like, and it will be equally valid.  The physical orientation of the camera and the image it takes does not matter in a microgravity environment. 

2) If someone is in front of me, and I walk past them, then they are behind me.  I'm still facing the same way, but they are no longer in front of me.  Same with gravity in this case. 

Your main issue is that you are still thinking in terms of absolute up or down.  In reality, up and down are unique for each point on earth, and based on the pull of gravity, which is effectively pointed at a single point in the center of the earth. 
Aerospace Engineering Student
NASA Enthusiast
Round Earth Advocate
More qualified to speak for NASA than you are to speak against them

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Two questions
« Reply #4 on: May 24, 2016, 08:17:54 PM »
I'll answer your second question OP. since I'm a gun enthusiast I'll use a gun analogy. It's like shooting at a ball object. The head of the bullet would be your feet and the tail would be your head. Nothing has change in your position as you go through the earth, you simply run out of material to drill through. Another analogy would be a train going through a tunnel (I'm also a model railroad enthusiast). Sorry to be rude but this is first grade stuff you're talking about.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

Re: Two questions
« Reply #5 on: May 24, 2016, 08:58:52 PM »
Good grief, why do they try make everything so complicated. According to what they believe:

1) Yes buildings will be upside down from your perspective.
2) Yes you will come out feet first.

They also believe:

The entire atmosphere sticks to the earth and rotates with it at 1000mph at the equator which is faster than the speed of sound.  Wonder if you and I were there right now and I yelled "the earth is flat" in a eastward direction towards you if you would ever hear me.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2016, 09:02:36 PM by Silicon »

*

Blue_Moon

  • 846
  • Defender of NASA
Re: Two questions
« Reply #6 on: May 24, 2016, 09:19:46 PM »
Good grief, why do they try make everything so complicated. According to what they believe:

The entire atmosphere sticks to the earth and rotates with it at 1000mph at the equator which is faster than the speed of sound.  Wonder if you and I were there right now and I yelled "the earth is flat" in a eastward direction towards you if you would ever hear me.

Now you're the one making things complicated.  It's really a simple concept once you realize that you wouldn't know how fast you're going

Quote from: You wouldn't know how fast you're going
Flat-earthers often say that it's unbelievable that we would be moving through space so fast. They say that the earth seems solid and stationary, and we would be able to feel if it was whizzing through space or spinning at 1000 mph. 

However, this is not the case.  Consider for a moment that you are riding in a bus.  While it is moving at a constant speed, you get up and move to the other side.  Why don't you get thrown to the back?  The reason is that you retain momentum, and you can only feel acceleration. 

Now, about that "1000 mph" statistic.  The equation for centripetal/centrifugal acceleration is a=v2/r.  The radius r is 6371 km, or 6371000 m.  THe velocity v is about 1000 mph, or 460 m/s.  So our function is 4602/6371000 which gives us...
.033 m/s2
For comparison, acceleration due to gravity at the poles is 9.83 m/s2.  You certainly wouldn't be flung off by that, but it has been measured. 

So why does the atmosphere stay with the earth's surface?  Well, it too has initial momentum.  This confines it to earth's reference frame. 
This initial momentum also explains the Coriolis effect.  Since the surface is spinning faster at the equator, and slower toward the poles, air that moves away from the equator is deflected to the east relative to the surface.  So, if you have an area of low pressure, air is drawn toward it, but air from the equator is deflected east, and air from the poles is deflected west.  That causes hurricanes to rotate clockwise in the southern hemisphere and counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere.  The deflection is measurable and consistent, and weather forecasters have to take it into account in their simulations.  It is also visible in the bands and storms of Jupiter. 

So what do you, the Flat Earth Society, have to say about that?  Can you find a better explanation that accounts for the weaker gravity at the equator and the Coriolis effect?  Good luck.
Aerospace Engineering Student
NASA Enthusiast
Round Earth Advocate
More qualified to speak for NASA than you are to speak against them

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 1447
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Two questions
« Reply #7 on: May 24, 2016, 09:32:50 PM »
Back to the topic. The earth is a ball in space. There is no up or down in space. Take a uniform ball, like a snooker ball. Which side is the top? Its is all dependant on your perspective, so if you rotate the ball another side becomes the top.
Unlike this snooker ball, the earth is in space, and is in free fall (or zero gravity).

Gravity always pulls you towards the centre of mass. And the center of mass of the earth is the middle. So for everyone on earth everywhere, down is towards the centre of the earth.

I hope that helped

Re: Two questions
« Reply #8 on: May 25, 2016, 08:51:36 AM »
Good grief, why do they try make everything so complicated. According to what they believe:

The entire atmosphere sticks to the earth and rotates with it at 1000mph at the equator which is faster than the speed of sound.  Wonder if you and I were there right now and I yelled "the earth is flat" in a eastward direction towards you if you would ever hear me.

Now you're the one making things complicated.  It's really a simple concept once you realize that you wouldn't know how fast you're going

Quote from: You wouldn't know how fast you're going
Flat-earthers often say that it's unbelievable that we would be moving through space so fast. They say that the earth seems solid and stationary, and we would be able to feel if it was whizzing through space or spinning at 1000 mph. 

However, this is not the case.  Consider for a moment that you are riding in a bus.  While it is moving at a constant speed, you get up and move to the other side.  Why don't you get thrown to the back?  The reason is that you retain momentum, and you can only feel acceleration. 

Now, about that "1000 mph" statistic.  The equation for centripetal/centrifugal acceleration is a=v2/r.  The radius r is 6371 km, or 6371000 m.  THe velocity v is about 1000 mph, or 460 m/s.  So our function is 4602/6371000 which gives us...
.033 m/s2
For comparison, acceleration due to gravity at the poles is 9.83 m/s2.  You certainly wouldn't be flung off by that, but it has been measured. 

So why does the atmosphere stay with the earth's surface?  Well, it too has initial momentum.  This confines it to earth's reference frame. 
This initial momentum also explains the Coriolis effect.  Since the surface is spinning faster at the equator, and slower toward the poles, air that moves away from the equator is deflected to the east relative to the surface.  So, if you have an area of low pressure, air is drawn toward it, but air from the equator is deflected east, and air from the poles is deflected west.  That causes hurricanes to rotate clockwise in the southern hemisphere and counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere.  The deflection is measurable and consistent, and weather forecasters have to take it into account in their simulations.  It is also visible in the bands and storms of Jupiter. 

So what do you, the Flat Earth Society, have to say about that?  Can you find a better explanation that accounts for the weaker gravity at the equator and the Coriolis effect?  Good luck.

Right, of course.  AE map is much better suited for weather patterns and the coriolis effect does not exist. You see OP, once you mess with this long enough you will start to find a very noticeable trend.  We function on a flat earth, and the globe is just an idea unless of course you believe NASA which no one does including people who support the spinning ball idea.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37806
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Two questions
« Reply #9 on: May 25, 2016, 10:07:07 AM »
I failed the test questions.   :'(

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Two questions
« Reply #10 on: May 25, 2016, 10:58:27 AM »
Back to the topic. The earth is a ball in space. There is no up or down in space. Take a uniform ball, like a snooker ball. Which side is the top? Its is all dependant on your perspective, so if you rotate the ball another side becomes the top.
Unlike this snooker ball, the earth is in space, and is in free fall (or zero gravity).

Gravity always pulls you towards the centre of mass. And the center of mass of the earth is the middle. So for everyone on earth everywhere, down is towards the centre of the earth.

I hope that helped
Is a snooker ball is a cue ball that you play pool with?
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Two questions
« Reply #11 on: May 25, 2016, 04:01:40 PM »
Good grief, why do they try make everything so complicated. According to what they believe:

1) Yes buildings will be upside down from your perspective.
2) Yes you will come out feet first.

They also believe:

The entire atmosphere sticks to the earth and rotates with it at 1000mph at the equator which is faster than the speed of sound.  Wonder if you and I were there right now and I yelled "the earth is flat" in a eastward direction towards you if you would ever hear me.
As 1000 mph (mi/hr - not mi/hr2) is velocity, you wouldn't feel anything. You only feel acceleration or velocity differential.

In a car or plane traveling at whatever speed (60 mph, 600 mph or 6000 mph), you won't feel anything because it is  traveling at a constant rate. You do feel something outside when there is a speed differential (going 60 mph when the air/wind outside is 0 mph). But inside, with everything/everyone going at 60 mph, nothing. In a plane 600 mph, nothing. Even a satellite at 6000 mph (I know you all don't believe in them), nothing. If you and the air around you are moving at 1000 mph, nothing. You only feel acceleration or velocity differential.

We are not going 9.83 m/s2 as a velocity but acceleration (notice the s2). That is why we feel gravity (weight). That by the way is what "Universal Acceleration" of a FE is supposed to be - acceleration not velocity. If it was velocity, we would be weightless.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2016, 04:10:39 PM by Jadyyn »
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."