Magic Gravity on a Globe Earth
Gravity is the magic glue that holds the ball earth theory together. Whenever there is any question as to how it works the answer from the scientists is almost invariably “gravity”.
Science informs us: “Gravity is a natural phenomenon by which all things with mass are brought toward (or gravitate toward) one another, including objects ranging from atoms and photons, to planets and stars.
“Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces of physics, still it is the dominant force, and is the cause of the formation, shape and orbit of astronomical bodies. For example, gravity causes the Earth and the other planets to orbit the Sun, it also causes the Moon to orbit the Earth, and causes the formation of tides, the formation and evolution of the Solar System, stars and galaxies.”
In other words, everything that we don’t understand is done automatically and magically by gravity…
Somehow gravity magically and inexplicably drags the entire lower-atmosphere of the Earth in perfect synchronization up to some undetermined height where this progressively faster spinning atmosphere gives way to the non-spinning, non-gravitized, non-atmosphere of infinite vacuum.
Flat earthers say that if this was the case fireworks and rain would behave differently than what we experience. This is perhaps an incorrect assumption as if, in theory, the whole atmosphere and everything in it could spin with the earth at a constant speed gravity could attract the rain, fireworks, etc, to the center of the globe earth.
They question how the atmosphere can exist right next to the void of space and what is stopping the atmosphere from being sucked out into space. If we ask the scientists I am sure they will answer, “Obviously it is gravity…” But this is not a very satisfying or convincing answer.
Flat earthers are also skeptical that gravity can keep all the water in the oceans stuck to the surface of the planet while it is spinning and wobbling its way through the universe. They show the example of putting a wet tennis ball on a drill and spin it and we see the water does not stick to the tennis ball, on the contrary, it flies out everywhere. Of course the answer from science is simply “the oceans are held in their place on the surface of the globe by gravity.” So the natural question would be that if gravity is so strongly holding the oceans in place why does gravity allow little birds, bugs and planes to take of and travel freely in any direction they choose?
Gravity does not exist
Flat earthers contend that gravity does not exist and what when we experience objects falling it is not caused by gravity but rather the simple fact that more dense objects will fall in a less dense atmosphere. Which is exactly what we see happening. If we drop something more dense than air it will fall, but if we drop a helium filled balloon, lighter than air, it will not fall, gravity has no effect on it, instead it will rise up. Also gravity does not have any effect in the water for items that are less dense than water. So flat earthers contend we are seeing density, not gravity acting in these cases.
Gravity has never been proven
Flat earthers contend that although the concept of gravity is based on the theory that all things with mass gravitate or are attracted together we have never seen this. It has never been proven. Scientists say we can’t prove it on earth because earth is so heavy that the gravitational pull of the earth will make it impossible for us to test the theory…
Conclusion: Gravity is certainly a magical mystery and much more research is needed in this area. The flat earthers are raising very interesting questions in this regard.
Supporting Flat Earth Proofs
- 23) Ball-believers often claim “gravity” magically and inexplicably drags the entire lower-atmosphere of the Earth in perfect synchronization up to some undetermined height where this progressively faster spinning atmosphere gives way to the non-spinning, non-gravitized, non-atmosphere of infinite vacuum space. Such non-sensical theories are debunked, however, by rain, fireworks, birds, bugs, clouds, smoke, planes and projectiles all of which would behave very differently if both the ball-Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning Eastwards at 1000mph.
- 157) If “gravity” magically dragged the atmosphere along with the spinning ball Earth, that would mean the atmosphere near the equator would be spinning around at over 1000mph, the atmosphere over the mid-latitudes would be spinning around 500mph, and gradually slower down to the poles where the atmosphere would be unaffected at 0mph. In reality, however, the atmosphere at every point on Earth is equally unaffected by this alleged force, as it has never been measured or calculated and proven non-existent by the ability of airplanes to fly unabated in any direction without experiencing any such atmospheric changes.
- 158) If “gravity” magically dragged the atmosphere along with the spinning ball Earth, that would mean the higher the altitude, the faster the spinning atmosphere would have to be turning around the center of rotation. In reality, however, if this were happening then rain and fireworks would behave entirely differently as they fell down through progressively slower and slower spinning atmosphere. Hot-air balloons would also be forced steadily faster Eastwards as they ascended through the ever increasing atmospheric speeds.
- 159) If there were progressively faster and faster spinning atmosphere the higher the altitude that would mean it would have to abruptly end at some key altitude where the fastest layer of gravitized spinning atmosphere meets the supposed non-gravitized non-spinning non-atmosphere of infinite vacuum space! NASA has never mentioned what altitude this impossible feat allegedly happens, but it is easily philosophically refuted by the simple fact that vacuums cannot exist connected to non-vacuums while maintaining the properties of a vacuum – not to mention, the effect such a transition would have on a rocket “space ship” would be disastrous.
- 32) If “gravity” is credited with being a force strong enough to hold the world’s oceans, buildings, people and atmosphere stuck to the surface of a rapidly spinning ball, then it is impossible for “gravity” to also simultaneously be weak enough to allow little birds, bugs, and planes to take-off and travel freely unabated in any direction.
- 33) If “gravity” is credited with being a force strong enough to curve the massive expanse of oceans around a globular Earth, it would be impossible for fish and other creatures to swim through such forcefully held water.
- 195) Astronomers say the magical magnetism of gravity is what keeps all the oceans of the world stuck to the ball-Earth. They claim that because the Earth is so massive, by virtue of this mass it creates a magic force able to hold people, oceans and atmosphere tightly clung to the underside of the spinning ball. Unfortunately, however, they cannot provide any practical example of this on a scale smaller than the planetary. A spinning wet tennis ball, for instance, has the exact opposite effect of the supposed ball-Earth! Any water poured over it simply falls off the sides, and giving it a spin results in water flying off 360 degrees like a dog shaking after a bath. Astronomers concede the wet tennis ball example displays the opposite effect of their supposed ball-Earth, but claim that at some unknown mass, the magic adhesive properties of gravity suddenly kick in allowing the spinning wet tennis ball-Earth to keep every drop of “gravitized” water stuck to the surface. When such an unproven theory goes against all experiments, experience and common sense, it is high time to drop the theory.
- 115) The existing laws of density and buoyancy perfectly explained the physics of falling objects long before knighted Freemason “Sir” Isaac Newton bestowed his theory of “gravity” upon the world. It is a fact that objects placed in denser mediums rise up while objects placed in less dense mediums sink down. To fit with the heliocentric model which has no up or down, Newton instead claimed objects are attracted to large masses and fall towards the center. Not a single experiment in history, however, has shown an object massive enough to, by virtue of its mass alone, cause other smaller masses to be attracted to it as Newton claims “gravity” does with Earth, the Sun, Moon, Stars and Planets.
- 116) There has also never been a single experiment in history showing an object massive enough to, by virtue of its mass alone, cause another smaller mass to orbit around it. The magic theory of gravity allows for oceans, buildings and people to remain forever stuck to the underside of a spinning ball while simultaneously causing objects like the Moon and satellites to remain locked in perpetual circular orbits around the Earth. If these were both true then people should be able to jump up and start orbiting circles around the Earth, or the Moon should have long ago been sucked into the Earth. Neither of these theories have ever been experimentally verified and their alleged results are mutually exclusive.
- 117) Newton also theorized and it is now commonly taught that the Earth’s ocean tides are caused by gravitational lunar attraction. If the Moon is only 2,160 miles in diameter and the Earth 8,000 miles, however, using their own math and “law,” it follows that the Earth is 87 times more massive and therefore the larger object should attract the smaller to it, and not the other way around. If the Earth’s greater gravity is what keeps the Moon in orbit, it is impossible for the Moon’s lesser gravity to supersede the Earth’s gravity, especially at Earth’s sea-level, where its gravitational attraction would even further out-trump the Moon’s. And if the Moon’s gravity truly did supersede the Earth’s causing the tides to be drawn towards it, there should be nothing to stop them from continuing onwards and upwards towards their great attractor.
- 118) Furthermore, the velocity and path of the Moon are uniform and should therefore exert a uniform influence on the Earth’s tides, when in actuality the Earth’s tides vary greatly and do not follow the Moon. Earth’s lakes, ponds, marshes and other inland bodies of water also inexplicably remain forever outside the Moon’s gravitational grasp! If “gravity” was truly drawing Earth’s oceans up to it, all lakes, ponds and other bodies of standing water should certainly have tides as well.
My dude, that picture you put in isn’t helping you (at least i n my opinion). Gravity pulls the ocean down, or should i say, gravity keeps the ocean down because the ocean does not exert any force against gravity besides the molecules moving into openings( like all liquids do). The bird can fly because it is exerting force against gravity. I’m a seventh grader, if some kid can do this, then I’m pretty sure you (the person who created the picture and who ever supports the message of the picture) can.
Stupid kid in remedial classes
And did you know that even baseballs have a gravitational force?
Hi Tevn
You say gravity keeps the ocean down, and you imply that the ocean does not exert any force on gravity. That is incorrect. If you take a tennis ball and wet it and put it on the end of a drill and spin it around the water will not stay on the tennis ball. It will spread out due to centrifugal force. So if you have a ball spinning in the sky and try and put water on it the water will not stay, it will spin off due to centrifugal force. So if gravity is keeping the ocean down, as you say it is, and as we have to believe it is, if we are on a spinning ball. But there is a force which gravity has to fight against to keep the ocean down. The oceans will spin off the spinning earth due to centrifugal force, if they are not held down by gravity. So if you make a calculation of how much water is in the ocean and work out how heavy all the water in the ocean is you will start to understand what an immense force gravity has to exert on the oceans to keep them from spinning off into space. Then, I think, once you understand this, you will be able to appreciate the picture better.
How can gravity exert such a strong force on the oceans, keeping them from spinning off into space, as we would expect them do to on a spinning ball. And at the same time allow a bird to effortlessly fly in the sky? There is a great contradiction here.
The other problem is there does not really appear to be any force of gravity at all. Really what appears to be happening is caused by density. You know I am sure air is not very dense. So if you hold in your hand an object and let go it will fall to the ground. We have been taught it is falling to the ground because of gravity, and if there was no gravity it would just remain where it was when you let go of it…
But actually the thing falls to the ground because it is more dense than the air. So if you put a more dense object in a less dense medium the more dense object will fall. If, on the other hand, you get a balloon and fill it with helium, a gas that is less dense, lighter, than the air, and you let go of that it will not fall to the ground, gravity will have no effect on your helium balloon, it will float up into the sky…
So this falling down and rising up is caused by density, not gravity. We fall down towards the ground because we are more dense than the air, but if we, like the helium balloon, were less dense than the air, we would float up into the sky. So there is no gravity. It is density.
Centrifugal force does not exist. If it existed, it would have forced the rotating sun out of its rotation above the flat earth. Unless it is attached to the north pole.
Great website and articles, documenting the various theories on the shape of the earth in one place!
Well, I do not think that the point ‘the oceans are held to the earth’s surface, but that birds can still fly’ is a contradiction to the law of gravity, as put forward by scientists.
Scientists do not say that gravity has to hold all objects with equal force. Scientists say that gravity is the phenomenon by which every mass attracts every other mass with a force that is proportional to the product of the masses, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. Mass meaning roughly the amount of substance present in the object.
So, for the oceans, which have a huge mass, have a huge force on them. But the birds have very small mass, so the force of gravity on them is very small. It is not a contradiction of the law of gravity.
Of course, the scientists are still flawed though, because they cannot explain the cause of gravity or what exactly it is or why it is there: that it is the prowess of Sankarsana – the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
The problem is you are talking about Newtonian gravity which has been rejected by Einstein and others because it does not work. If it were true that objects were attracted to each other based on their weights there would be nothing to stop the earth being attracted by the sun. Earth would end up stuck on the sun. But all the planets have their fixed orbits and they do not deviate from their orbits. These orbits of the planets can not be explained at all by Newtonian gravity. So because it does not work Einstein created his insane definition of gravity as the bending of space time, so his idea seems to be that weight bends space time, a totally insane concept as time can not be bent or distorted in any way, and space, according to science, is empty, and you can’t bend nothing… But anyhow, his idea seems to be that this bending of space time creates the orbits around the heavier body. But it is crazy, illogical, insane.
So the point is gravity does not work, Newtonian gravity does not work and Einstein’s gravity is just insane.
However there is obviously some force pulling things down. This force can be counteracted by having a medium like air or water which will hold up things of a lesser density to the medium, counteracting the force of gravity. But take away the medium holding up the lower density items and gravity will act and they will fall to the ground at the 9.8 m/sec gravitational acceleration. That is what they call gravity and that exists. But you can not explain what is happening with the orbits of the planets using gravity.
As far as the birds and the ocean, the reason the birds can fly is they are very light and have big wings and control the air, so they are actually floating on the air, like we can float on water. So the birds are being supported by the air just like we can be supported by the water and float on the water. So you are correct that this flat earth argument against gravity is not valid. But it is not exactly as you say. A 747 airplane is very heavy and it can fly also. But it is all about controlling the air and floating on the air. It is about adjusting the air so you can counteract the force of gravity by floating on the air.
So scientists are flawed, they do describe a cause of the gravity, they say the gravity is caused by the weight of heavy objects, they say the earth’s gravity is caused by the weight of the earth. But they can not explain how it could work, how gravity causes the orbits of the planets for example. So they do have an explanation for the cause of gravity but they can not show this working experimentally and it does not work the way we would expect when we look at the planets for example. That is why Einstein felt it necessary to invent a new replacement for the flawed Newtonian gravity.
Thank you for your reply.
Well, Newtonian gravity has been rejected only because it does not work for objects that are very near the speed of light. It does work reasonably well (at least in theory) for slower objects, but Einsteinian gravity/Physics seeks to explain motions of all objects, even those that are near the speed of light, using relativistic mechanics (but yes, I agree that it is insane to say that matter bends space-time to support this theory). So Einsteinian physics replaced Newtonian physics only because the latter could not explain very fast-moving objects.
Newtonian gravity does explain the motion of the planets around the orbits. In fact, one of the reasons it was developed was to explain the motion of these heavenly bodies, tides, etc.
This is how it explained: Newton’s second law states that a force on an object causes acceleration. Acceleration means a change in velocity (which is speed of object combined with its direction). When a mass revolves around in a circle, there are two types of acceleration, tangential (along direction of motion) and centripetal (along the center). Tangential acceleration increases the speed of the object, and centripetal acceleration only changes its direction to bend it towards the center and prevent it from moving in a straight line (which is Newton’s first law), and thus continue motion in a circular/elliptical path.
So, this centripetal acceleration only changes the direction of motion of the object and not its speed – thus it also changes the velocity (which is speed combined with direction), and for this centripetal acceleration to occur, there must be a force towards the center of the circle (Newton’s second law). This force is provided by the gravitational force between the two masses.
What you said about planets getting stuck up to the sun would be true only if they were stationary. But because of the already occuring motion of the planet in the orbits (we do not know, however what exactly set them in motion), all of the gravitational force gets used up to produce centripetal acceleration to maintain the motion in a circle. That is why the planets do not get stuck up to the sun. If the planets would have somehow stopped, only then they would be pulled to the sun by the gravity. But because they are moving, the gravitational force only changes the direction of motion of the body to maintain its motion in the elliptical shape.
Yes, my point is that this flat earth argument is not very well-informed of the scientific theory. What keeps the objects like birds or planes against gravity are the buoyant force of the air pressure which is greater than the force of gravity at that height, as the gravitational force is very small for these objects, compared to oceans for example, which have more mass.
Yes, scientists do state a superficial cause for the gravity, i.e., mass (not exactly weight though – weight is the force by gravity). I guess I was just thinking in a bigger sense – like what is even the cause of this force, mass, etc., the cause of all causes, which they can’t explain! 🙂
Yes. Of course science has no idea what is the original cause.
Yes. Nice explanation of the scientists idea of Newtonian gravity. The centrifugal force is tending to pull the planet rotating around the sun out and the gravity caused by the sun is pulling the planet towards the sun. The planet is like on a string connected to the sun and spinning around. So the centrufugal force generated by the spinning wants to pull it out in a straight line and sun’s gravity is forcing it to change direction. So the outwards pulling and the sun’s gravitational inwards pulling come to an equilibrium somewhere and that is the orbit of the planet. So it is a nice idea.
So science is like this, they have nice logical ideas, but it does not mean the system actually works according to the scientists ideas.
The same centrifugal force would act on the water of course, on a spinning ball in space, the water would also tend to continue in a straight line out into space, rather than spinning around with the earth. That is the problem of the flat earthers seeing the water sticking to a spinning ball in space. It is not what we would imagine would happen, and not something that scientists have any way of testing or demonstrating.
Gravity certainly does have some mystical powers. How it can hold everything in the same frame of reference, the earth, everything on it, the atmosphere and everything in the atmosphere [like airplanes, birds, etc] and hold it all together in one seamless frame of reference and spin everything so smoothly and seamlessly and consistently, so smoothly that there is no way of detecting the spin. That is magic. It requires a very strong force to hold all these things together in their relative positions and spin them around while at the same time, all these objects can move freely within the frame of reference without feeling the force at all…
The frame of reference is like the moving car or train, so within the car or train you can throw a ball and it acts within the frame of reference. But with a car or a plane you have a solid container for the frame of reference. So it is not difficult to move the frame of reference if it is a car or a plane. But the frame of reference for the earth is not like that. It is everything like the planet the oceans, the atmosphere, and all the other things all not apparently connected but all moving together as one seamless frame of reference. So it does seem like magic.
So you can see why flat earthers would question this.
Thank you. Yes, I see the source of confusion of the flat-earthers, and yes, gravity does have some mystical properties, in the sense that we not seem to know why it works the way it is thought to. We do not even know if the earth actually spins at all, because we do not feel any movement at all (especially at the huge rate scientists say we are moving).
But, again, in theory, the water sticking to a ball can be explained by ‘gravity’ too. Water stuck to a ball does experience a centrifugal force that tends to throw it out into space, but the force of friction between the water and the surface of the ball holds it back to earth, and this force of friction is proportional to the normal reaction force that earth gives to the water.
If the mass of water is high, so is the force of gravity between water and earth, and hence, the water pushes the earth with a huge force. In turn, by Newton’s third law, the earth pushes the water with a reaction force of the same magnitude outward (resulting in an equilibrium in the outward direction). To prevent the centrifugal motion of water leaving the ball sideways, there now remains the friction force between earth and water. Now, because because the reaction force is so high, this frictional force is also high in magnitude. Hence, the water does not go off the ball, due to the high friction, caused by large gravitational force.
You cannot demonstrate this with a small ball with water in a lab because the force of gravity is very, very weak for such small objects. The force of gravity increases in proportion to the mass of the objects. Hence, scientists cannot demonstrate this phenomenon in the labs.
This leaves us to question, if this is indeed what is happening with the earth, or is it stationary. It seems scientists have an explanation but not a demonstration, because of the size of the earth involved, which certainly leaves room for questioning. I guess if they let common people visit the space in rockets to see things with their own eyes, things might be clearer.
Very informative article with flaws in the research that are rarely published. It is very difficult to track the original causes, I think scientist are continuously working on that.
Thank you for listing down the rare findings.
Gravity is a result of all the matter in the universe expanding everywhere. If you shoot a bullet straight up, the expansion of the planet will over take the expansion of the bullet (already a part of the earth) due to it’s size and absorb it again, unless the force is strong enough to outsize the rapid expansion of everything at once. ALL matter doubles in size every xxx minutes. Even the separation of matter in space (lack of matter) expands at the same rate. By the time you are finished reading this post you will be a certain factor of size larger than you were when you began! Expand our thinking.
This is a great discussion it’s more about gravity existents and really it is on very shaky ground, I like the density argument it’s simple and can be proven as for the ocean not flying into space I sometimes think they have to be able to explain everything weather or not they know the answer just guess but call it a theory and that satisfies everyone, but these things need to be talked about and not be a taboo that if you question it you’re a flat earther we’ll never get anywhere
*SIGH*
The reason the water on the tennis ball is flung off is because of the inequalities. The tennis ball has less gravitational force than Earth, so the water would fling off.
If a bird stopped gliding, then it would also fall down. But the air underneath the wings keeps it up. Well, it slows it down at least.
And Mr. Flat Earth Facts, please do not shove every bit of your “evidence” in my face.
Gravity is not magic and no one uses “gravity” as a magic word that wins you a scientific debate. And yet, it helps explain a lot of things.
Claim 1: gravity does not exist. Things fall according to their density.
Well, this is wrong and besides, it explains nothing. There is nothing in the notion of density that could explain things falling. If things fall according to density, you still need to explain why is there a privileged direction. In the presence of gravity there is a preferred direction, which is clear: towards the center of the Earth. But if gravity does not exist, why would anything denser move downwards? Where does this notion of downwards come from? With no gravity, there is no preferred direction.
Claim 2: gravity has never been proven.
Many experiments have been set up to test gravity. Whereas proven/unproven are philosophical questions (ask Popper), I can list a number of experiments / observations that match with our current understanding of gravity:
– Cavendish experiment: A modern version can be seen in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11sLusnVZwM and also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mcg2h–JDv4
– Prediction of eclipses. Not only the fact that eclipses occur, but the fact that we predict eclipses with very good accuracy. This also includes the footprint of the eclipse. We know where the eclipse will be visible. This is credit to the Theory of Gravity. If we are ever to replace the current existing Theory of Gravity we will need to replace it by something which provides at the very least predictions as good as what we have today. One of the many sites where predictions can be checked. https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEdecade/SEdecade2021.html
– Movements of planets around the Sun. Not only these match. Also, it needs to be recalled the fact that Neptune was discovered when astronomers were facing some irregularities in the orbit of Uranus. What caused Uranus orbit to be irregular? It was thought that another body must have influenced Uranus orbit, and the telescopes pointed towards and eventually found Neptune. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_Neptune
– Irregularities in the Gravitational Potential of the Earth. This might account for up to 0.5Kg difference in weight for a person depending on where he or she is taking the measure.
https://www.space.com/11849-earth-gravity-map-geoid.html
https://www.quora.com/What-zones-of-the-Earth-exert-the-most-and-the-least-gravity/answer/Corvi-Zeman
Claim 3: Gravity is certainly a magical mystery and much more research is needed in this area.
Do your research. But do it honestly. If you take the claims about gravity, if you take measures, you will see it works. By the way, Newton’s Law for Gravity is valid in a certain range. Einstein’s General Relativity (more complicated) is preferred in a different range where the simplicity of Newton’s law is not accurate enough.
Very thoughtful response.
1. Yes. There is definitely a downward force, there is a tendency of objects to fall down. And they can be held up by increasing the density of the medium. Like you can float on water, because the water is holding you up, but still there is that downward force acting. Which we call gravity. So no sane person can say there is no downward force.
As far as proving gravity it can not be proven on earth at least because whatever experiments we may propose will be totally swamped and overwhelmed by the gravity of the earth. But we do know there is a downward force. And if you want to call that gravity, then I guess gravity is proven..
2. No one knows how to predict the eclipses except that guy at NASA. You don’t know how. It is a relatively new thing in the West, but in India they have been predicting the eclipses since the beginning of time, with a totally different model of the universe. So your globe earth model is not necessary for predicting eclipses.
Gravity is magic. It is the magic that makes everything work for the globe earth model.
Eclipses were predicted as far back as Thales of Miletus. By looking at Sumerian/Babylonian eclipse tables he saw a pattern in the numbers and he predicted an eclipse.
That shows understanding of patterns but not so much on how celestial bodies move. By contrast now we can predict every eclipse, the zone in which it will be full, the zone in which it will be partial, when will it start, when it will end…
I cannot? That’s true, I cannot. But I could not predict the doppler effect of our antenna on a van while receiving the signal from the Astra TV satellites before I did my final degree thesis eithr. Eventually, I could learn the way to do it and it matched the results we got.
We can learn the physics principles. We can learn the equations. We can learn the particular solutions for a concrete scenario. We can predict it. We do it time and again. I have done it.
Yes. You can not do it, yet you are explaining how it is done. That is called cheating. First learn how to do it. Then you are able to explain how it is done.
In India they have been accurately predicting the exact times for solar and lunar eclipses since the beginning of time. At least historically speaking they were doing it five thousand years again, and long before that also.
And in India they predict using a model of the system, a model of the system that is very different from the model that modern science accepts.
So long, long before the Sumerian and Babylonian times the solar and lunar eclipses were being accurately predicted in India and they had a very clear understanding of the model, how it was working. Different from the model we accept today.
That is my point. Yes. Globe earth is a good model. But we see that the ancient Indians also had a model, quite different, but there model also worked very will in predicting our actual observations, what we see happening around us and in the sky.
So my point is just because we have a model that works quite nicely, the globe earth model, does not necessarily prove that the system is actually working in the same way as our model presumes. The system may actually be quite different from what we imagine.
Man I just wonder what this guy thinks about the sun and moon or satilites for that matter. Science is hard, it’s alright if you don’t understand. Most of us can live perfectly reasonable lives enjoying the awesome technology we have, never understanding things like gravity or physics thanks to the contributions of people who do.
You shouldn’t feel lied to because it doesn’t make sense to you, think about your own brain and body, you don’t understand those either and if they malfunctioned you would just die assuming you were successful in limiting everyone else to your own understanding. Be grateful there are people out there more dedicated than you are to learning and understanding, that can keep you alive like doctors, and provide cool technology with satellites so you can use Google maps
One very simple observation about the atmosphere is what gives me pause about the spinning earth model. It has to do with the clouds. If we are to believe the earth is rotating at around a thousand miles an hour then how does a cloud, with no connection to the earth other than an unstapled atmosphere, manage to stay overhead and ever so slightly drift this way and that? Are we then to “assume” that the atmosphere is likewise spinning at a thousand miles an hour? Because if, in my crude scenario, I notice a steam locomotive travelling in a straight line, the smoke doesn’t simply go up and hover over the engine travelling along with train all the way to its final destination but moves back and is left behind… and thats at about 60 to 80mph. So if the locomotive of the earth is “moving” at 1000mph how in the hell does a water vapor cloud suspended in the air chug along and even surpass it or go off in other directions? How is possible to have air pressure cells? Mysteries indeed.
Yes. This is one of the great mysteries of the spinning ball model. It is a totally unanswerable question by the scientists, all they can do is try to avoid it and change the subject if you bring it up.
There is no mechanism even proposed by science that could keep the atmosphere, the clouds, the birds, the butterflies, the airplanes, all exactly locked with the rotation of the earth, even though they have not got any physical contact with the earth.
So science is unable to answer this question…
In reality the earth acts as if it was stationary, and there is no proof the earth is moving. We have got a movement, we can see the sun, moon, stars and planets rising and setting every 24 hours, so there is a 24 hour rotational movement, and there is also a yearly rotation going on, the scientists presume these two rotations are caused by the earth rotating every 24 hours and orbiting around the sun every year. But these rotations could also be going on around a stationary earth. And many things actually point to the stationary earth possibility being more likely, this is one of those points.
Because we are within the system all we can measure is a relative motion. We know there are these two rotations, but choosing the reference point, from within the system, we can choose any point as stationary and make our calculations from there. So we can choose the sun as the stationary point, as the modern scientists do, or we can choose the earth as the stationary point as the older scientists used to do.
It is not that choosing the sun as the center is any better than choosing the earth as the center, both are possibilities and we have no way of telling actually, which one is true.
So, the downward force of gravity exerts influence on the airplane at a 90 degree angle perpendicular to the sideways momentum imparted by the spin of the earth. These two forces, which can be observed and tested, give the plane a direction to oppose using its powered flight. Until the plane exerts it’s own force on itself or an outside force counters or imparts forces on the planes conserved momentum, the plane will always try to go down and sideways with the earth. Nothing is stopping the plane from continuing its sideways momentum, even when it leaves the ground. Just as the earth has continued sideways momentum, the planes momentum does not disappear, it is conserved in and of itself. It takes a force to counter this momentum, momentum that will continue forever unless it is acted upon by an outside force. The plane goes sideways and down as a preferred direction due to these two forces acting on it simultaneously. Everything on the earth has momentum that has been imparted on it from the moment the earth, and its angular momentum were formed. Falling debris imparted the earths angular momentum when it was being formed. This is not regurgitated crap. I thought deeply about the debate and this is my best explanation of what is going on and why. I have no idea what causes mass to attract mass, what we call gravity, but it is observable and the best we can do is describe what we observe to the best, most accurate and simple explanation we can. Any thing less, we fail to be honest. Anything more we fail to be decisive. To be decisive in that we must accept our current understanding of what we observe until we discover a more accurate description. And even then the major theories we already have will not be thrown out as obsolete, simply they will be added to and refined, the core of its description remaining. Such as in the case of classical mechanics and modern physics, the quantum. So here we have not ignored the mystery magic gravity or changed the subject. Even a mystery can be described, or at least it’s influence can be observed. Why it works this way, we do not know yet.
“Why it works this way, we do not know yet.” Yes. Some honesty at last. When a plane takes off it behaves as if the earth below it is stationary. The actual experience we have is not at all consistent with taking off from a spinning ball. The idea that it will keep spinning in exact synchronisation with the earth after it takes off is totally bogus in the sense that science has never described any system that could accomplish this. And, as we have already established, yes, the plane has got the direction and spin of the earth when it takes off but once it is in the air it is no longer connected to the spin of the earth. So as soon as it leaves the earth it has only one speed and direction and that is the product of what it has got from the spin of the earth plus the effects of its propulsion plus the effects of the wind, air resistance, etc. So it is no longer a part of the spinning earth, no longer connected to it, and no longer being pulled around with the spinning earth.
This idea that you have that something is moving so it will keep on moving forever, that is only in a vacuum and where there are no other forces acting on it to change its direction or slow it down. But in the case of the plane there are so many forces acting on it and all those forces will add to or subtract from the original spinning motion it got from the spinning earth.
So Jerry this is a very strong indication that the earth is stationary and that modern science has got it completely wrong. At least you have to accept the possibility that modern science has got it completely wrong, at least you have to accept the possibility that NASA may have faked the moon missions. There is so much evidence supporting these possibilities, maybe not completely conclusive, but still you have to accept the possibility.
Yes, I completely understand your position. I don’t agree with all of it but your logic makes sense to me.
Of course I accept the possibility of anything. But to my eyes, the probability is low that we have it all wrong. We are not incapable of honest, prudent, and logical observation. I guess for me, we can only go with the most probable, provable theory. We can never stop looking deeper, but I strongly doubt that any future observation will ever overturn our current understanding of the universe.
So if NASA does go to the moon in the next few years, will you believe them, especially if they put something up like lights, the way you suggested? And if you are convinced that they did, will you then accept the globe earth model or will this not be a good enough observation as well?
I don’t mean you personally when i say this but I know some people will never accept that which is in front of them regardless of the proof. This I think is a fault of the ego. We all share it.
Yes Jerry, of course, if NASA proves it I will believe it. My point is so far they have not proven it and there is no evidence they went to the moon in the 1960s, rather all the indications are they did not go, rather they faked it in the 1960s. That is my point. When so much evidence points to the possibility that NASA faked the 1960s and 1970s manned moon landings, and no one ever went back to the moon, even with both the Bush and Trump administrations offering almost unlimited funding for NASA to go back to the moon, NASA had to admit they can’t send men to the moon at the moment as there are a number of technical challenges still to be overcome to send people out of low-earth orbit.
So all the facts strongly point to faked 1960s manned moon landings, so my suggestion is you have to accept this very strong possibility, that NASA faked the men on the moon, at least as a possibility.
And this attitude: “I strongly doubt that any future observation will ever overturn our current understanding of the universe,” means you are strongly biased towards the current understanding and even if evidence is produced to the contrary you will still be inclined to stick to the current model. Which is human nature of course, because we become comfortable with our beliefs and don’t like to change. But a real scientist has to be always open to the possibility that our current understanding is either incomplete or perhaps totally wrong.
I do of course accept your conclusion that the current understanding does have a good solid logical scientific model backing it, and it is the only properly formed scientific model of how the universe is working that we have. So for all practical purposes the general public has no real other option. But we, if we want to contemplate it more deeply, have to consider the other possibilities, like the earth might be stationary, for example.
Certainly if NASA sets up some display on the moon, or the evidence of their presence on the moon becomes easy to observe from earth, and they set up regular transport between the earth and the moon and people can go there, even if just the very rich and scientists, etc, then there is no question, they are able to go to the moon, and we can see it from the earth and we will have the reports of everyone coming back from the moon and the streaming video of their activities on the moon, etc, etc. As long as they do it before Elon Musk’s virtual reality technology gets much more advanced…
So I am very reasonable and not at all opposed to the globe earth model. If the points are proven actually then of course I will accept it.
My point is now, at this point, we have no solid evidence NASA sent men to the moon, for example, and certainly everything points to NASA faking the manned moon landings. I am also seeing indications that it is likely the earth is stationary. As I have pointed out science can not explain the mechanism that keeps the rotating earth, the atmosphere, the airplanes, the butterflies, etc, all fixed in the same plane of reference and all sharing the same rotational motion as the earth even when physically disconnected from the earth. For the earth to be rotating there has to be some force that is spinning all these objects exactly in synchronisation with the rotation of the earth. So this is either done by some force unknown to science, or the earth is stationary.
But yes, if NASA can go to the moon and do stuff there that we can see from earth and separately get far enough away to take pictures of the sun, moon, earth system, then that would be proof if only we could trust NASA to tell the truth. Because NASA have lied about so many things up to now, it is very difficult to believe anything NASA comes out with…
So yes, I am completely reasonable, if science and NASA can prove their points and they can be independently verified and we see the evidence [ie: people start going to the moon and coming back and doing things on the moon that we can observe from earth] then of course I will accept it. But they have not yet proven they are able to send people to the moon and they have not proven they truly, completely and correctly understand the workings of the solar system and the universe.
Flat Earth Facts,
Completely understandable. Your threshold for accepting current evidence both for or against the moon landings differ from mine only slightly in that we both see and comprehend both sides of the argument, only we give credibility to those arguments that seem the most reasonable to our individual reasoning skills. Honestly, I cannot prove anything one way or the other, same as you, I can only accept those claims that I see as the most reasonable. We both share this human attribute along with the rest of humanity. For example, if I say I see proof of the shape of the earth being a sphere because of a lunar eclipse and the shape of the shadow of the earth on the moon being round no matter where or when a lunar eclipse happens, someone else can see proof that there is an unseen planetary body somewhere between earth and the moon causing the round shadow. Both myself and the other viewer are seeing the same thing, only we come to a different conclusion based on our individual experiances and reasoning ability.
Anyway, I completely understand and agree with your conclusions that we can never be 100% sure of anything. From my point of view the indications for a sphere earth outweigh the indications of a flat, stationary earth. This does not mean I am correct in my evaluation of the evidence and it does not mean you are correct to say “as of now all indications point to a stationary earth” either. I think however that a lot of the indications that you refer to are more like questions challenging scientific claims to the contrary, as opposed to actual claims in favor of a stationary earth. Certainly not in every case but quite a few. I also see this pattern of (questioning) scientific claims as opposed to making claims for themselves, with people who are firm flat earthers. I think you are in agreement that most of the FE claims are more like challenges to sciences and it’s claims as opposed to actual testable claims for flat earth. I believe this is where GE people have a hard time accepting FE arguments. FE claims are mostly questions and GE claims are mostly explanations confirming the strength of GE theory.
Anyway, thanks for allowing me a continued voice in your experiment here.
Flat Earth Facts
I think whether or not we ever come to a consensus concerning these very provocative and interesting FE-GE debates, those people who are following our particular debate are learning valuable skills in logic and reasoning. Keep it up, your site surely has given a hell of a lot of people an outlet for their beliefs and concerns surrounding this controversial debate. Thanks for the opportunity to participate in your discussions, I have had quit a learning experience as I’m sure plenty of others have as well.
Hi Jerry. Yes. Please watch my new film:
https://flatearthfacts.com/nasa-really-send-men-moon-decide/
It is a rather unique exploration of the history of NASA putting men on the moon, only 15 minutes, please spend the time to watch it to the end and let me know what you think.
I enjoyed the video. Its is entirely possible that this scenario is exactly what happened. I don’t believe it did but ill give you the benefit of the doubt that it was possible to fool people this way. The tech was there to pull a fake like this off. But I don’t disbelieve this because I think we were able to with 1960s technology, or that I think my gov. Wouldn’t lie to me. I disbelieve it was faked because I don’t see how a lie like this could ever be kept secret. I mean if pres. Clinton cannot even have sex with an ugly woman in the oval office and keep it a secret, how could they keep the biggest lie ever a secret. I’m not sure it could be accomplished. What is your take on how a lie like that could be kept? Where are the disgruntled employees, the con men who would blackmail each other? I do understand that a lack of these things does not guarantee it wasn’t faked but it is sure a nail in the coffin for it in my book.
And I do not agree we only had cave man tech at the time. 25 years earlier we were developing rockets and jet engines, the atom bomb and we unlocked the electromagnetic spectrum. We went from the Wright flyer to jet air craft in 40 years. Jet air craft to first man in orbit in 16 years. Once we learned how to survive in space for days at a time it was only 9 years before we got to the moon. I mean, you have to admit the tech progression is pretty clear. As we developed tech it gets easier, faster, quicker. I think 1969 was the very first time it was possible to go to the moon and so we did.
Like I said, your points make sense, your ideas are logical, just not as logical as the alternative. If you had any thoughts on how a lie like this could be kept, I would love to hear them.
I think it is entirely possible to fool the masses. I’m just not sure it can be done so well, if that is what happened. What do you think?
Hi Jerry
You were not there, in the 1960’s, I was. And I can tell you for absolutely certain that the technology on the 1960s was totally caveman compared to today.
You would be amazed what they did not have if you were transported back there now. They did not have computers, for example. There were big computers in big rooms but they could not do anything except run some short programs, read in from magnetic tape and output to magnetic tape. They had no online storage to speak of. No terminals or displays to interact with the computer. Input was on punched paper tape or paper cards and printed output or output to tape.
You can not imagine how primitive these computers were or how little they could do.
As for NASA, when you see the room with all the controllers in Houston with their screens, not a single computer there, all those screens, they are just televisions…
So they had nothing. No electronics to speak of, no calculators even really. Mostly they were still doing their calculations to build the rockets with slide rules and log tabes in books…
And the ‘flight control computer’. What a beast. Huge power consumption but does practically nothing. A few pre-programmed calculations to work out how long they should burn the rockets for.
You don’t know, but I know, 1960’s technology is cave man technology.
As far as how they faked it, it is very simple, hardly anyone in NASA knew it was faked. You don’t know. That is the problem, you don’t investigate these things, you just blindly believe in NASA. NASA is 99% simulation, so they put so much energy into simulations. So back in the 60s they had very realistic simulations for every single aspect of the Apollo missions. In the room on the floor below where we see all those controllers on their screens there was another room with a similar number of controllers on screens creating simulations (for training).
And no one ever knew if they were running the “real” moon landing or if they were running a simulation. And these simulations continued constantly running with the “real” moon landing, but the operators were always unaware if they were working on a simulation or the “real” thing.
So you see the whole thing was set up so almost no one would know, and also they had the ability to simulate absolutely every aspect of the Apollo missions in such a way that no one could tell if it was the simulation or the real thing.
And all this simulation technology it was built quite out in the open, it was not secret. Because it was used for training, so they had to build all these realistic simulations to train the people.
So if you investigate it you will see that 99.99% of NASA people were convinced, at least at the time, that they were really sending men to the moon.
You just have to realise that all they have is an audio signal and a signal with readings of various instruments on it and occasionally a video signal when they turn the camera on. So to fake it all you have to do is simulate these 3 signals. That’s all. And no one in NASA was able to tell if it was a simulation or the “real” thing.
So the whole setup was designed like this. So they could fake it with practically no one knowing it was faked.
And the few that did know, you know they have wives, children, etc, who they would not like to see dead. And NASA had a history already of killing the disbelievers. So it is not very difficult to silence people or to kill them if they refuse to be silent.
You were there in the 60s, I was not. I was born in 1972. I do believe neither one of us was in that Saturn 5 when that blasted off. You do get to say I do not know. But you do not get to say that I have not researched anything. Of course I have. You may be correct. I cannot say for certain.
A thing that makes me think it was possible is a couple examples of human ingenuity. For example, we travel the ocean blue navigating with GPS and radar, sonar, and radio. Ancient men did this with none of our modern tech. I just have to think we are a capable species and we are able to do so, so much more than you give us credit for.
Also those giant machines, the Saturn 5 rocket, did take off many times. Tens of thousands of people witnessed them. I do believe these great machines were capable of reaching space. We spent billions to developed them and for what.
I did get to see the space shuttle lift off. That was the most awesome sight I ever saw. Absolutly able to reach the heavens. You should have been there, it was breathtaking.
Like I said, I cannot prove it cause I was not there. And you cannot disprove it. There must be a reason that the points you bring up do not convince me. They are certainly provocative and interesting, but lack that special quality of reasonableness. I appreciate your continued effort and you have some strong arguments.
Please fill me in more about these deaths for those who spoke out. In curious as to their credibility. And talking to you is considered research in my book. Thanks
Hi Jerry
Yes. My point is we can’t go to the moon now, but the technology has advanced a thousand times at least since the 1960s, and these advances in technology, if we actually went to the moon in the 1960s and knew how to do it, would make it so much easier to go to the moon now. In so many areas technology is light years ahead, computing and electronics of course, but also materials science has advanced so much, batteries, today’s batteries are so much better than what we had in the 60’s. Solar panels, they did not even exist in the 60s. So you know I think they had no power supply on the moon except for a few truck batteries? And in Apollo 17 they powered all their life support systems, transmissions to earth, cameras, the moon buggy, etc, etc, with a few truck batteries. That is impossible. Just imagine two guys trying to live in a totally hostile environment for 72 hours without any source of power except a few truck batteries. So my point is today they could take one of Elon’s power walls and some solar panels and they could actually have a reliable power supply on the moon.
So the point is because we can’t send people to the moon today, with technology which is so much better than what we had in the 60’s, then we also could not send men to the moon in the 60s.
I am not so interested in talking about all the brutal details of the astronauts that got incinerated, one of them particularly, who did not believe in the mission… You can research it for yourself.
It has been good talking with you and I understand you have a different perspective and position to me, my only point really is that we don’t know for sure these things like if NASA sent men to the moon in the 1960s or if we are really on a spinning ball in space, there are other possibilities.
“if we actually went to the moon in the 1960s and knew how to do it, would make it so much easier to go to the moon now. ”
Yes, they absolutely have. Have you looked at NASA’s budget for the Human Landing System planned to land astronauts to the moon in 2025? Its development is costing far less than what the Apollo Lunar Modules cost to develop in the 1960. Why? Because the knowledge gained from spaceflight then, spaceflight during the Shuttle and ISS eras, materials science, computer modeling and CAD design and computer technology for avionics have all advanced radically since the 1960s. That’s finally put the cost of developing a lunar lander within the realm of what Congress is willing to fund, as opposed to the outrageous costs of the Apollo program that congress was not willing to continue funding into the 1970s.
“So you know I think they had no power supply on the moon except for a few truck batteries? ”
What makes you think this? Information on the equipment used is readily available. The electrical power of the lunar modules came from a bank of very expensive, but power dense (relative to their mass) silver-zinc batteries, while the command module was powered by fuel cells that were fed hydrogen and oxygen from cryogenic storage tanks. Some of this hardware is even still on display in the Smithsonian. It’s not a secret or something that needs to be guessed at.
Here’s a great article that gets into the details of the batteries:
https://www.designnews.com/aerospace/batteries-powered-lunar-module
Hi Tim
Yes. NASA are going to the moon in 2025 now… But what happened to Orion. NASA have been building it since 2006. That is more than 15 years. And no progress. No flights. No nothing. Still no man has ever left low earth orbit? 15 years working on Orion. By 2025v Orion technology will be obsolete and still never used?
You got it right. For NASA it is all about simulations and funding. They simulate space to get funding to pay there huge salaries. That is the story of NASA.
If we went to the moon in the 1960s we would certainly have gone back if we could. Because we have never gone back to the moon means we don’t know how to send men to the moon.
Try to understand. It is not just the moon. No man has been more than a few hundred miles above the earth because we are yet to overcome the challenges of shielding humans from the radiation in the Van Allen belts and in space. And there are other, very serious problems, still unresolved.
Something you may not have considered is we don’t even have a propulsion system that works in space…
I think you science types don’t even think about things. Once your space ship leaves the atmosphere it just keeps going straight in the same direction. You have no propulsion. Maybe tiny little adjustments might be possible. But no propulsion. You aim the rocket at the moon and hope the moon catches it in its orbit. Extremely risky. Then, after the moon, hopefully, catches your rocket in its orbit, it spins around, consuming its momentum, then you somehow blast out of the moon’s orbit at exactly the right moment in exactly the right direction and head back home to earth.
The whole story is like a fairytale.
You should watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGKubZS2P7Q
The story is so crazy only fools can believe in it.
So if you believe NASA’s men on the moon fairy tale, you are a fool, you are incapable of thinking logically.
As I have pointed out you will not find any real scientist, you will not find any official in NASA, who is prepared to state that they sent men to the moon in the 1960s. Even NASA does not believe this story.
So get over it. NASA did not send men to the moon in the 1960s. And they still have no idea how to send men to the moon in 2021.
As far as the batteries. It is four truck batteries. 1960s technology. Nothing compared to the batteries we have today.
Lifesupport for 2 men for 72 hours plus powering their cameras, etc, etc, etc, with four truck batteries.
And if you actually go into the details of the power consumption most of the power in those batteries is used in the landing and takeoff. They need battery power for firing the rockets on the luna lander, both on landing and takeoff.
So your four batteries, really they are not available for power anyhow because mostly whatever power they have is used for landing, takeoff and relining with the luna orbiter.
There is no power left really at all for the two men to survive on for 72 hours on the surface of the moon. So you should actually study the things before talking about it.
Four truck batteries, most of the power in them needed for the landing and takeoff… Leaving practically no power at all for the poor little astronauts to survive for 72 hours in a completely hostile environment.
You know they have to maintain a habitable environment in the Luna lander. They need an atmosphere. They don’t have an airlock, so every time they open the door the vacuum of space sucks out their atmosphere and they have to recreate the atmosphere again from their stored oxygen. It is such a crazy story. And as I say no intelligent person, not even in NASA, believes this story any more.
And you assume too much about me. I do have an education. Is it not obvious I am no idiot. I’m nearly 50 years old, self made. Retired early, own 3 homes, scuba dive and ski dive. I am very well read and have been with the same woman 20 plus years. I got a brain and posses a comprehension level superior to a good majority of your writers. Its just that a majority of these hypothesis fail to convince me. Good try on your part though. And some of your writers are obviously intellegent individuals, as well as yourself. I think we can put this one topic away for now. Thanks for the spirited debate. Ive learned a great deal from them even though you may not believe that. Oh, and try not to get too frustrated just because some people disagree with you. I’m sure you have convinced some as well. Its obvious you are an interesting person and it has been interesting sharing our debates with others. And I must stress this fact, I do not degrade anyone because I disagree with them on any topic, to a point. Proper debate form should always supersede frustration and anger. So, if I have offended anyone, please forgive my lack of culture. Peace for now.
Hi Jerry, yes. I was thinking you were a bit younger, sorry for that, but I know you are a very thoughtful and intelligent person and it has been a very interesting discussion with you and I thank you for that very much.
For a very interesting and thought provoking debate, FLAT EARTH FACTS web forum is a great place to start. The host is extremely insightful and knowledgeable about all things flat-round earth controversy. His ideas and thoughts will get you thinking for sure. Have fun with it and learn a great many things at the same time.
JERRY PAUL OUT.
I agree with Jerry. I take this opportunity to thank the host and ask forgiveness for any offense on my part. This indeed is a great website and resource which has led me to think deeply about at least the shape and motion of our planet Earth from different angles. I wish all the best for what this website wants to achieve, in the pursuit of truth.
i withheld 100% accepting one side or another of the 1960s moon landing for a long time. I did feel the preponderance of evidence, plus circumstantial evidence favored that we did not go to the moon, but it wasn’t until I saw one of the actual ‘spacesuits’ that allegedly went to the moon, that it became 100% clear and obvious to me that we could not have gone. The second I saw it, I locked onto the unavoidable truth. The technology that we were sold on, this thing was nothing more than a halloween costume. Since coming to that realization 15 years ago, I have seen masses of evidence that dispel satellites, deep space travel, and spinning ball earth. You have just brought out the tip of the iceberg with the ‘gravity’ argument.