Eric Dubay’s 200 Proofs the Earth is Not a Spinning Ball Analyzed — Video
A couple of years ago one of the pioneers of the modern-day Flat Earth Movement, Eric Dubay published a booklet “200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball.” Since then flat earthers clam they have more than 200 proofs that the earth is flat.
In this video we will take an impartial look at these 200 flat earth proofs and try to distill the essence of them and work out what, if anything is actually proven or disproven.
In reality many of these 200 proofs are different examples of the same thing, when the duplicated “proofs” are grouped together there it becomes 34 proofs that the earth is flat.
One of the most common proofs given by flat earthers is: “The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude.” But this is exactly what we would expect to see on either a globe or a flat earth. Firstly we have to consider the earth is very large and we can only see a short distance, typically 10-20 miles but sometimes more. So within the small distance we can see the curve of a globe earth would be so slight that it would appear effectively flat. As far as altitude is concerned we can not go very high, looking out an airplane window ten miles above a globe almost eight thousand miles across does not change your view of the horizon significantly at all. Still, even if you were standing on a relatively small globe you may see the horizon drop but it would be flat all the way around 360 degrees. This is because if you are standing on a point on a globe the horizon all around you will be at the same distance and every point on the horizon will have dropped by the same amount. So there is no curve to see, even if you are standing on a small globe. So this is absolutely false to say because the horizon is flat the earth is flat. It is not at all proof that the earth is flat, you would not see a curved horizon even if the earth was a globe much smaller than what we presume it is.
The other most common proof presented by flat earthers is the visibly of distant objects that should be hidden behind the curve of the globe earth. They say, “We can see too far, therefore the earth is flat.” In the 200 proofs the earth is flat more than 40 of the proofs are different examples of being able to see distant objects which, on a globe, would be hidden from view. There is certainly some substance here. Flat earthers have given so many examples of being able to see distant objects which should be hidden behind the curve on a globe with a diameter of 7926 miles. This is an apparent contradiction to the globe model, but not proof that the earth is flat. As we have mentioned in a previous video our view of the stars in the sky is adjusted as we move around the earth in a way which is consistent with us moving around a globe. For example the polestar is directly overhead at the North Pole but at the horizon at the equator and then below the equator it will be hidden behind the curve of the earth. So distant objects are being hidden by what would be reasonable to consider is the curve of the earth. However it does appear that, in some cases at least, distant objects are not hidden quickly enough, according to our current understand of the globe earth. There are also many optical effects that come into play when looking at objects in the distance which do not seem to be currently fully understood, so it may be that some optical effect is causing objects to become visible when they are in reality actually hidden behind the curve of the globe. In any case this is certainly an area for serious research and does point to an apparent contradiction in the globe earth model, but does not prove the earth is flat.
There are ten proofs similar to: “Surveyors, engineers and architects are never required to factor the supposed curvature of the Earth into their projects.” The idea of this flat earth proof is that if the earth was a globe and an engineer was designing a 100 mile stretch of a railway line, for example, he would have to take into account the curvature of the earth. Because the curve of the earth will add about eight feet each mile, so over a hundred miles he will need an extra 800 feet of railway track and will have to take this curve into consideration in his calculations. But seeing engineers never take this into account, that proves the earth is flat. However this is a false argument. If an engineer wants to build a railway track he will measure the actual distance over the land. You can drive your car, for example, over that 100 mile stretch, and check the milage you have covered and that will measure the actual distance around the curve, if it is curved, or along the flat plane, if it is flat. So this is not a proof of the earth being flat, engineers will measure the actual distance, they do not have to consider the curvature of the earth, because if it is curved, they are measuring the distance around the curve.
Flat earthers will always tell you that because the airplane pilots don’t adjust their courses for the curve of the earth that proves the earth is flat. But this is totally incorrect. Airline pilots have an altimeter that measures their distance from the surface of the earth, so they do adjust their course to keep the plane at a fixed altitude, so by adjusting the course to keep the plane at a certain altitude they are adjusting for the curve of the earth. Also this altimeter, also known as a gyroscope, has a horizon indicator which shows the orientation of the plane relative to Earth’s horizon. So to keep on course they adjust the planes direction to keep the horizon indicator in the altimeter horizontal and in the center. So what they are doing is constantly adjusting the course of the plane to keep it at a certain hight above the earth and to keep it pointing at the horizon, meaning if the earth is a globe they will be automatically traveling around the curve. So this is not proof that the earth is flat.
Flat earthers quote numerous scientific experiments that fail to prove the earth is moving including:
“Airy’s Failure” which they claim proves that the stars move relative to a stationary Earth and not the other way around.
And
The Michelson-Morley and Sagnac experiments which attempted to measure the change in speed of light due to Earth’s assumed motion through space. After measuring in every possible different direction in various locations they failed to detect any significant change.
There may be some substance here as it does seem scientists have failed with experiments attempting to measure the movement of the earth. Again this is not proof the earth is flat, but may suggest the possibility of an error in the globe earth model in relation to the motion of the earth.
As well as the 6 proofs of scientific experiments failing to detect the motion of the earth presumed by the globe model they give us five proofs stating that our observations of the stars are not consistent with the different movements of the earth, sun and our galaxy supposed by the globe earth model. For example, in the globe earth model it is presumed the earth will be on the other side of the sun, almost 200 million miles away, in six months time so flat earthers presume if we move 200 million miles our change in location should be measurable by the positions of the stars in the sky. Of course the answer from science would be that the stars are light years away and that 200 million miles is insufficient for us to see any difference. So there are a number of “proofs” similar to this, stating that our view of the stars should be affected by the presumed movements of the earth in space but our view of the stars remains exactly the same, therefore they conclude that the earth is flat. Again this is not actually proof the earth is flat, it may point to a discrepancy in the globe model, but the scientists will say whatever movements the earth is making are insignificant in comparison to the vast distances to the stars.
There are another seventeen different examples of not being able to detect the movement of the earth including: “If Earth were truly constantly spinning Eastwards at over 1000mph, vertically-fired cannonballs and other projectiles should fall significantly due west.” So the flat earthers are presuming that when an object leaves the spinning earth it should stop spinning. Which is false of course. If an object is moving in a particular direction with the spin of the earth and you throw it in the air it will continue moving in the direction it was original moving and also move in the direction you throw it. For example if you are on a train you can throw a ball in the direction the train is moving or you can throw it the other way, you can throw it the same distance in both directions and the movement of the train is irrelevant, because you, the train, the ball and everything else is moving with the train. The movement of the train becomes your frame of reference and everything can move independently in its usual way within the train. So in the globe earth model the earth and the atmosphere and all the objects on the earth are moving with the earth, so this is the frame of reference and within that frame of reference everything will move in the ordinary way we would expect it to move. So all of these flat earth proofs are invalid, not recognizing that objects within a particular frame of reference have movements that are independent and not affected by the movement of the frame of reference itself.
There are eleven “proofs” pointing out the inconsistencies and magic properties believers in the globe invest in gravity. Presumably, According to the globe earth model, the frame of reference including the earth, everything on it, the atmosphere and everything in the atmosphere is being held together and being spun around with the earth by the force of gravity. Flat earthers find this difficult to believe. Examples of flat earth proofs include:
“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.”
And
“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.”
This is explainable again by the train example. You could have little birds flying around, bugs crawling around, you could even fly your drone inside the train carriage traveling at sixty miles an hour, and they could all move around exactly as if the train was stationary due to sharing the frame of reference of the moving train.
Of course this only works if there is no acceleration and with the earth rotating and spinning, that should cause acceleration, which should be measurable but so far it has not been measured.
So it is true that gravity is a somewhat fantastical concept. And flat earthers choose to not believe in this concept, considering gravity a concept invented by globe earthers to magically explain things they can not otherwise explain.
Instead of gravity flat earthers prefer to believe in density and buoyancy, they explain, “It is a fact that objects placed in denser mediums rise up while objects placed in less dense mediums sink down.” So they think the reason we fall to the ground is because our bodies are more dense than the air. On the other hand they believe the reason a balloon filled with helium rises up into the sky is because it is lighter than the air. So scientists will agree that the balloon filled with helium rises up because it is more buoyant than the air but they argue we fall to the ground because of the force of gravity, not because we are heaver than the air.
So there appears to be scope for further research into the nature of gravity and buoyancy. This is again, however, not proof that the earth is flat, whatever is happening, be it caused by gravity or buoyancy, it would happen on both a globe or flat earth. However when one studies gravity there does appear to be a fantastical and arbitrary nature assigned to it by science .
There are thirteen flat earth proofs relating to NASA faking space. All flat earthers at least believe NASA has presented us with fake pictures of the globe earth. NASA only claim to have one real photograph of the earth from space, the famous “Blue Marble” which we have all seen millions of times, plus a couple of ‘earth rising’ pictures from the moon. All other NASA earth photos they openly admit are created in Photoshop by combining images and data from various low earth orbit satellites and pasting it onto a globe. So it is because of these globe earth photos that flat earthers are very keen to prove the fakery of NASA. It is not the purpose of FlatEarthFacts to discuss the fakery of NASA but there is plenty of information available on this elsewhere. But in any case NASA producing fake globe images of the earth does not prove the earth is flat, but it would certainly help to prove that we have no evidence the earth is a globe.
There are eight flat earth proofs stating that distances in the Southern Hemisphere prove the earth is flat. The idea is, if the earth was flat, the distances south of the equator for a particular latitude would be greater than for the corresponding latitude north of the equator. There may be some truth in this, I have done some personal calculations which did seem to indicate distances in the south were greater than in the north and also calculated a circumference of the earth in places in Australia greater than that at the equator. But this is only preliminary, has not been verified and not at all confirmed. But we do have scientists like Neil deGrasse Tyson saying the earth is “Pear Shaped,” which would mean he is confirming that it is actually bigger in the Southern Hemisphere than in the Northern Hemisphere. So it may be true, but from my measurements at least it is not big enough to make it flat, but pear shaped is a possibility. Still it requires research and this is not proof the earth is flat.
There are six proofs claiming the non-existence of direct Southern Hemisphere flights prove the earth is flat. But this is totally incorrect. These Southern Hemisphere flights do exist and I have personally flown between Auckland and Buenos Ares and have another video documenting this.
There are seven proofs claiming differences in climate in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres prove the earth is flat. For example comparing Antartica, the coldest place on earth with virtually no life with Iceland which has a relatively mild climate and many native plants and abundant animal life. So this is interesting, what is the reason for the big difference as if the earth is a globe they should have similar climates. However again, this is not proof the earth is flat.
There are three proofs claiming no midnight sun in Antartica proves the earth is flat. But there is midnight sun in Anatartic as I have proven in a different video. So this is totally incorrect.
They give us many other proofs, none of which actually prove the earth is flat, too many to go through here however I have covered the main ones.
So the summary is out of the list of 200 proofs that the earth is flat there is not a single proof that the earth is flat, there are a few valid questions and challenges to various aspects of the globe earth model, a reasonable questioning of the magic of gravity and many aspects of NASA, but certainly no proof that the earth is flat.
You don’t have a sufficient understanding of science or technology to make valid points of view in either direction. The confused explanation of an aircraft altimeter, thinking it is a gyro rather than a pressure sensing device and believing pilots need to adjust altitude as they move is embarrasing!
Hi James
Yes. That is a problem for most of the Flat Earthers, including Eric Dubay, they don’t understand science. Not that science is always correct, but there is a process, and the scientists do generally have logical and conceivable explanations for their theories which are very often not understood by the flat earthers.
Pilots do adjust their altitude as they fly. Not necessarily because they would fly off into space if they didn’t. Flat earthers can not get their minds around gravity, the idea that there is a force pulling things towards the center of the earth. Now gravity may or may not be exactly as it is imagined by science, but there is some force that is pulling us down. That is undeniable even by the flat earthers. And if one was to imagine that force was towards the center of a globe earth then if you were to fly around that globe earth then if you stay at the same altitude that force will always pull you towards the center of the earth and that will give you an equal force if you stay at the same distance from the earth. But it will pull you down, so you do have to counteract that force of gravity by going up. And sometimes, due to conditions, you will be pushed up also. So certainly the pilots have to keep their altitude constant, but their course will be automatically curved around the earth by gravity.
So flat earthers, when considering the globe model, have to consider gravity, because without gravity, the globe earth model is impossible.
I can see mt hood from just north of Redmond and that is around 100miles away saying you can only see 10-20 miles is nonsense. This is same non sense you just say science this and science that. Anyone who thinks life can just spawn out of puddles when hit by lightning(evolution) is out of their minds. The universe only exits because we are aware of it. “Scientists” say that the stars are still there in the day so if the earth has two sides(round) then how can everyone see the same stars at the same time. And celestial navigation wouldn’t work if the earth was round and everything in the universe was spinning around that would make the stars change all the time as out perspective of space changes and then they would be useless as navigation tools. No one knows what the stars are they flicker and change colour and have been in the same positions senice the beginning of time. They spin in a circle above our heads if the earth was spinning they should appear to rise and set over the horizons not spin in a circle. If the earth was round then people wouldn’t spend so much time trying to remove and cover up information about it. That alone proves its true and they want you to think there are aliens but those gray things are demons from hell not from “space” the fairy tale is true and most people are to weak to handle it.
No scientist has ever seriously said that life or evolution is created from lightning striking a puddle. That’s just simply outrageously ridiculous. The creation of life is still a puzzle with no sure proof.
People do not just see the same starts at the same time, people living in the current south hemisphere see different stars from people in the north. Take the northern dipper as an example. According to the round Earth theory, stars have moved and are moving, just extremely slowly. There’s currently no sure evidence to dispute this claim.
“if the earth was spinning they should appear to rise and set over the horizons not spin in a circle.” I’m sorry, but I don’t exactly know how you are backing this claim.
Could you provide some examples of the cover-ups? People are dumb(including me), so some of them believe wrong things, such as “Theory=Fact”. Covering up anything, making baseless claims about something does not prove in any way that the opposite is right.
“think there are aliens but those gray things are demons from hell not from “space” the fairy tale is true and most people are to weak to handle it.” First of all, by proclaiming that most people are weak you’re essentially assuming flat earther racial superiority. That would never end well. Secondly, there is no reason to believe that there is no good place other than earth for things to survive. Even a lot of flat earthers agree that other livable places exist. Hell has virtually no proof of existing. No one can say for sure that an alien is gray.
The stars in the sky, as well as the the 5 visible planets, the sun, and the moon are altogether the perfect proof of a global earth. Quite literally, the only star in existence that has not changed it’s for our lives and for many before is the north star. It’s only there by happenstance, but it just do happens that the North pole points at it directly. There would be another pointed at by the south pole, but there happens to be no visible star right there. These seemingly unmoving points (only two in the entire world’s sky) are called the North celestial pole, and the south celestial pole. Because our world is a ball (by ALL logical conclusion drawn by actuallly taking the time to observe our night sky – I say night because sunlight poses a very obvious impediment), which rotates quite perfectly from the west to the east, there are precisely these 2 points in the sky (the world over) never appear to move because they spin on the spot. This is due to the fact that our world spins west to east – not willy-nilly (why there are 2 hemispheres, north and south -not east and west) which means that the ecliptic line, east to west, foes all the way around the worls every 24 houts by appearances, while e treme norty north and extreme south only turn upon the spot. The nearer any celestial object is to the poles, the smaller (perfectly round) journey it appears to make in our sky – always equidistant to the pole – and every other star in sky; the nearer to the ecliptic, the larger journey it makes – the largest being all way around the world, much l8ke the sun. All of this is in perfect logical harmony with a global world spinning east to west – if you sit somewhere on the equator for 24 hours, you’ll go all the way around the world by simply sitting still; if you sit on the north or south pole for 24 hours, you’ll simply turn upon the spot. Everything in the sky appears to rise in the east, track through the sky above the earth’s equator, and set in the west ( the sun is the perfect example). This is because as our world slowly turns from west to east, we see ‘the scenery’ going past from east to west. The sky unarguably behaves as an apparent ball around our world, for those who would actually take time to observe it, long enough and often enough.
FYI, the world being round, the sky being round, and the stars moving constantly, other than extreme north and south, ARE the reason navigation works. And calendars. And the zodiac (in any culture)….
There are two equally valid possibilities. The one you mention, a rotating earth and the other valid possibility is there is a rotating field around the earth that all the luminaries are fixed to and moving with and within this rotating field the starts are fixed in their positions but the planets and sun and moon have their own independent movements, ie, while they are rotating with the stars they also have some independent movement that enables them to appear in different parts of the sky at different times.
So either possibility could be true, and it is not possible for us to know one way or the other, from within the system.
However we do have the ancient Vedic literatures from India, they give knowledge from a perspective that is outside and beyond this solar system and universe, and from the Vedas we learn that it is the earth that is stationary and there is a rotating field around the earth. So that is the actual truth and anyone who thinks otherwise is mistaken.
Posted to Eric Dubay at the beginning of Oct 2017 about his so called proof, and many times since on various channels and threads. Still no answer. Although he did delete my posts until I reported him, the pathetic liar. He then deleted his video in an idiotic and failed attempt to get rid of the evidence of him being proved a liar. What a stupid tit.
He categorically stated –
“Surveyors, engineers and architects are never required to factor the supposed curvature of the Earth into their projects”
My post contained the facts.
http://landsurveyorsunited.com/forum/topics/scale-and-earth-curvature-and-refraction
http://flatearthlunacy.com/index.php/2-uncategorised/172-chris-fritz-flat-earth-listen-to-land-surveyors
http://www.aboutcivil.org/surveying-levelling%20II.html
https://www.aboutcivil.org/curvature-and-refraction.html
http://civilengineersforum.com/plane-surveying-and-geodetic-surveying/
http://usacac.army.mil/sites/default/files/misc/doctrine/CDG/cdg_resources/manuals/fm/fm3_34x331.pdf
https://geodesy.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/Geodesy4Layman/TR80003A.HTM#ZZ5
http://cfeds.org/docs/sml/ManualOfSurveyingInstructions2009_060414.pdf
Hi David
I do agree with you 100%. So much of what Eric Dubay says is total rubbish. This idea that surveyors, etc, when building big engineering projects like railway lines and canals, would have to factor in the curvature of the earth, but, according to Eric, because they don’t factor in the curve of the earth, that proves the earth is flat…
Total rubbish of course. I am not sure how you debunked it but the reality is that the drop caused by the curve of the earth is only a few inches per mile. Flat earthers get confused about this. Yes. Because the shape of the earth as a sphere, because of that geometry, if you are standing at a point on the globe and you look one mile in the distance you would only see an impossible to measure 6″ drop. But this apparent drop does increase exponentially as you increase the distance.
But this is only how it appears if you stand in one spot, one mile away will appear to drop only 6″ but two miles away it will be a much greater drop. So it appears to drop a lot more in the second mile. But in reality, from one mile to the next, the drop is always the same insignificant unmeasurable 6″ per mile.
So there is no need for engineers to account for the curve of the earth in building these great projects. Because they build their railway line one mile at a time and the amount of track they use will be only one mile, plus a few inches to cover the extra curve. And that is totally irrelevant. If you need six inches more track after building a mile of railway track. Anyhow they don’t need extra because they measure the distance around the curve…
And it never increases. Every mile the same, only a few inches of extra track to account for the difference between flat and slightly curved…
The flat earthers have the idea that if they build 100 miles of track they will have to account for a huge difference in the calculated amount of track and the actual track. But it is total rubbish.
Anyhow I am sure you have covered it very nicely in your articles.
Here, on Flat Earth Facts, it is not actually a platform for globe earthers to argue with flat earthers.
It is for considering the possibility that maybe we can propose another valid scientific model, that works as well as the globe earth model, using completely different underlying fundamental observations.
Personally I am not as convinced as you that science completely understands the actual workings of the universe we find ourselves in. Sure, they have given us a really good scientific predictive model, the globe earth model, but having a good model that does predict the outcomes we observe to a fair degree of accuracy is not proof that the system is working exactly in accord with the model.
So here we are exploring the possibilities.
So while I very much appreciate your energy and enthusiasm it is another sort of blind fanaticism also, to blindly believe in science.
Anyhow nice to meet you and I wish you well in all your endeavors.
BRUH…
If you have sufficient understanding of Science it will only make you dumber.
All “Moon Landings” are Fake
All Footage in the “Space Shuttle” are Fake and recorded in a 0G airplane.
Everything about the Globe Earth you’re being learned is FAKE, and NO you don’t need to know Science but Logical Thinking dumbass.
Educated doesn’t mean ur smart or shit.
The Bible also proofs the Earth is Flat and Shall never be Moved, more evidence you won’t need.
Damn…
There is certainly truth in the statement that education is a process of dumbing down people.
NASA math has ISS flying an orbit 2,104 miles too short to complete an orbit around Earth at 250 miles high, and 315 miles too short to complete an orbit around the Earth at ground level. Either NASA is lying, or the ISS is actually flying underground, since this is the only way to complete the orbit. Which is it?
Earth:
24,901 mile circumference
8,000 mile diameter
24 hour CCW rotation at 1,037 mph
ISS:
250 mile radius height
250 * 2 + 500 miles ISS diameter
500 ISS + 8000 Earth = 8,500 total diameter miles
17,500 mph ISS CCW orbit speed
CCW 17,500 mph 90 minute = 24,901 mile orbit around Earth
17,500/2 = 8,750 miles in 30 min
17,500 + 8,750 = 26,250 miles
8,500 diameter * 3.14 (pi) = 26,690 ISS circumference needed to circle Earth from 250 miles high
26,690/24 hours = 1,112 mph to maintain lock below onto 1,037 mph Earth.
We must subtract 1,112 mph from 17,500 mph ISS orbit, because this is what’s needed to stay locked at the same rotation, and will not result in an actual orbit.
ISS new speed is 16,388 mph
16,388/2 = 8,194
16,388 + 8,194 = 24,586 mile actual circumference traveled in 90 minutes
ISS necessary circumference of 26,690 miles – 24,586 actual circumference traveled = 2,104 miles short.
ISS is 2,104 miles short of what’s needed to complete orbit from 250 miles up.
Let’s go further.
Can ISS at least make it around Earth by circling at ground level?
24,901 Earth circumference – actual 24,586 ISS circumference miles traveled = 315 miles short.
ISS = 315 miles short of completing 1 Earth orbit.
This means ISS has to travel underground to make 1 Earth orbit.
This isn’t possible.
NASA’s lying.
https://www.wxii12.com/article/nasa-astronaut-tweets-footage-of-northern-lights/10352928
“We must subtract 1,112 mph from 17,500 mph ISS orbit, because this is what’s needed to stay locked at the same rotation, and will not result in an actual orbit.”
Why would you subtract this? It’s either traveling at 17,500 or its not…
ISS moves west to east (which both is, and most people understand to be is, the direction in which our earth rotates)
mike drop…
Even though I have been over 42,000 ft seeing 0 curvature and debunking NASA, here’s NASA lie factory CNN (Conspiracy News Network) showing the ground curvature lie, with Earth curved like a basketball at ground level.
Courtesy fisheye lie lens fakery.
Ground curvature is impossible.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ccCJz3a4kbg
Lol. Way too much curvature. So fake it’s laughable.
Yes. It’s true. Even if the earth is a globe we would not expect to see any curvature. That is because as you go up from a globe, the horizon will always be flat, it will never curve, unless you get high enough to see the whole globe. Because if you are looking down at a globe all the edges you see form a circle and all the points in that circle are the same distance from your eyes, so that circle you see, all the points in the circle they are the same distance away, so it will not curve, it will just go around. So the idea that you should be able to see curvature from a few miles above a globe of 8000 miles in diameter is ridiculous. We would not expect to be able to see any curvature on a globe of 8000 miles from 10 or 20 or even 100 miles up….
So this idea of the flat earthers, that you can’t see curvature, therefore it is flat, is totally bogus. Presuming it is a globe, we don’t expect to see any curvature…
Well said.
In addition, I’d like to pont out that neither flat-earthers nor able-minded people disagree that high-powered telescopes exist. So, how do flat-earthers explain their inability to see the highest point in Europe from the highest point in America?
Obviously the atmosphere blocks your ability to see very far. Flat earthers can present many examples where, in certain atmospheric conditions, things become visible that should be impossible to see on a globe earth. So these things are always there, but it is only a certain condition, like maybe the sun behind it, that makes it visible.
So you can’t see very far through the atmosphere. That is just reality.
On a rotating globe, airlines would find it impossible to maintain approximately equal travel times flying east to west and west to east as is currently evident. For example, Vancouver Canada to London England and return. At the equator, how would it even be possible to fly forward at 500 km/hour if going against global spin of over 1,000 km/hour? We are all electrical beings in an electromagnetic environment. Nikola Tesla understood much of this. Why ignore what is obvious, even Copernicus stated the globe earth was a deception.
It is because everything is spinning with the earth. The planes are also spinning with the earth. The earth is spinning, the plane is spinning with the earth, it takes off, it is still spinning with the earth. Connected like with a stick. That is what the globe earth model presumes. That up to a certain distance everything is fixed to the earth’s rotation. That is called the ‘frame of reference’. So it is like if you have a potters wheel and it is spinning and there are some ants walking around on the wheel, they are spinning with the wheel, so on the wheel they maintain their relative distances and can move around as if the wheel was not spinning and still retain their relative distandces.
So for the globe earth people gravity is the magic ingredient that makes everything possible. It is, according to them, the gravity that is locking the plane to the rotation of the earth, just as the ants on the potter’s wheel are locked to the rotation of the wheel. So that is the frame of reference and any movement of the plane is independent of the rotation of the earth. As the movement of the ants on the potter’s wheel is independent to the movement of the wheel [the frame of reference].
So this is what the globe earth people believe. The magic gravity locks everything, up to some distance, to the rotation of the earth, and everything, atmosphere, planes, birds, clouds, etc, it is all rotating with the earth.
So, you all have it slightly incorrect. If earth is spinning 1000 mph eastward, then so is everything else on earth. When we travel west in a plane, we add the speed of the planet to the planes speed, relative to an arbitrary spot that is stationary outside the system. If we go east we subtract the speed of the plane from earths speed, also relative to an outside stationary spot. No matter which way we travel we are still going with the planets speed. Gravity is constantly pulling us towards the center of the earth, the largest mass near us, and only by speeding up faster than earth or slowing down slower than earth can we escape its gravity well. You really have to maintain 3 locations in the equation, and 3 speeds to understand what is happening. The locations are the earth, yourself, and the arbitrary stationary spot outside the system. The speeds are whatever the three locations are traveling. Now, to remove yourself from inside the system of earth you must either speed up or slow down to match the separate speed and location of the other system, which ever system you choose. Once you are traveling at the same speed as the other system, and if that new system is large enough, you will be gravitationally bound to the new system but you must match that new systems speed and location, that is the key. Its not just that magic gravity has you bound to any system, its also that you are matching speeds with the system you are in. For instance, gravity alone does not make you bound to earth, its that you match it’s speed. Say you find yourself traveling at 10,000 mph in relation to earth coming in from a separate system, You would fly right by earth and earths gravity would only slightly affect your overall direction and speed, unless your on a collision course. You can be well within earths gravitational field but because you are not matching its speed you will not be bound to that system. So it’s not just gravity that affects you and then at some arbitrary distance it stops, you must match all of that systems properties to be considered part of the system. In order for the times to be different in a plane ride going east as opposed to traveling west, your plane would have to magically remove the speed given to it by the speed of earth and suddenly, right after liftoff, match the speed of the arbitrary spot out side the earth, plane, you system. This cannot easily be accomplished, at least not instantaneously because of a well know law of nature we call conservation of momentum. The only way to get around this is to speed up or slow down in relation to our 3 speeds and 3 locations.
I know, sounds like 5th grade all over again but some people maybe missed that week in school so here you go.
You fail to understand that an airplane can fly in either direction, at the same speed either way. How is this possible if the Earth is rotating in one direction only?
Hi Finlay
It has been explained a number of times. The plane is already moving with the earth. So when it takes off it keeps moving with the earth, and the other propulsion from the engines of the plane adds to or subtracts from its existing motion with the earth.
The problem with this of course, is the plane has to remain connected with the earth and it has to keep travelling at the same speed of the earth so the propulsion of the plane is just moving it from one spot on the earth to another, as if the earth were stationary.
I have never really seen a convincing explanation of how this could happen.
The argument is based on the “frame of reference,” that is the earth and the plane share the same frame of reference and because the movement of the plane and the rotation of the earth are locked into this single frame of reference, the rotation of the earth has no effect on the plane because the plane is rotating with the earth, locked in sync with the earth. So if the plane exerts some thrust, as it does from its jet engines, that will simply move it from one place on the earth to another, and as the plane is locked to the rotation of the earth, it won’t make any difference what direction the plane is flying in, the rotation of the earth will have no effect, because the plane is locked to the movement of the earth…
But exactly how the plane is locked to the rotation of the earth? Certainly we can accept that at the moment of takeoff the plane is moving with the earth and after it takes off it will still be moving with the same velocity as the earth. But after it takes off presumably it disconnects from the earth’s rotation and is no longer locked to it?
You can imagine you are spinning around on one of those roundabouts they sometimes have in playgrounds. You are spinning with it and if you try to get off you will still be spinning. But when you get off actually you are in a different frame of reference, and your spinning is no longer locked to the spinning of the roundabout. So actually that should be the situation with the plane as it takes off. Sure, it will be spinning with the earth in the same direction and speed of the earth [minus its own speed] but when it takes off then its movement should become independent of the rotation of the earth.
It is very hard to believe the plane could remain locked in the same frame of reference as the earth when it is no longer connected to the earth, as you do not remain in the same frame of reference as the roundabout when you get off it, although when you get off it you are certainly still spinning at the same speed as the roundabout, once you are off it, you are no longer locked to the same spinning speed as the roundabout.
So this has never been explained satisfactorily as far as I know. It is a mystery, how an airplane can remain locked in the same rotational frame of reference as the earth, making travel in any direction equal over a spinning globe. So for this to be possible on a spinning globe the plane has to be locked to the rotation of the earth, even when it is disconnected from the earth. Gravity is the answer they will give. But if gravity can do this it is truly magic.
There are some gaping holes in your ‘NASA’s Globe Ball’ Conspiracy Theory that need to be address.
#1: Atmosphere.
If Atmosphere does not spin with Earth, sonic booms?
If Atmosphere DOES spin with Earth?
WHAT causes it to ‘spin?’
Cannot be trees, for they snap off +/- 90MPH during hurricanes. We know IF Earth ‘rotates’ it must be +/-1,100MPH. This would completely destroy trees. Along with most forms of life. An object at rest tends to remain so, unless outside force interacts upon. Air doesn’t magically ‘spin itself’ as it were.
Even if it did, air has a self braking quality to it.
Try turning on a fan in your room.
Turn it off.
What happens?
‘Breeze’ halts in seconds.
Why?
Air molecules slam into each other, breaking the forward motion so that it’s halted in a relatively short distance. It’s ludicrous the ‘atmosphere’ (All 60 to 600+ miles, depending who you ask) would spin just because ‘trees spin the air’ & yet, that’s exactly what must be doing the rotating, yes? More-over, the rotating air would simply slam into itself & halt itself (self braking) due to friction with itself. This isn’t exactly a working system. Is it?
#2: Variance impossibilities.
IF atmosphere were ‘spinning with Globe ball’ (Since we know 100% for a fact if Earth is rotating & the atmosphere isn’t, this would result in unmitigated disaster) there is a second problem with multiple layers of differing densities, different thermal barrier/layers that obstruct the ‘spinning atmosphere model.’ Some who believe GE Conspiracy Theory do indeed allege ‘But, we have those multi-layered atmospheric divisions & it works!’ Yes? But, not on the impossi-ball ‘globe’ ball delusion. Only on Flat Earth model,
#3: Inner/outer ring variances.
We know the closer to a ball something is, the smaller the circle, while things much further out have to travel at much higher speeds in order to complete the same 24 trip circle as the much smaller inner rings. With atmosphere from 60 to 600 (+/-) miles away from the surface of Earth, the ridiculous speeds the upper layers would have to travel just to maintain consistency with lower completely decimate the ball globe claims. Not possible.
#4: Spin
Normal jet head/tail wind speeds for trips I have taken range from 30 to 50 mph. Never 1,100 mph. Were the Earth really spinning at those lunatic speeds, the following scenario would have to be true. But, it’s not.
We can, for the purposes of visualization, imagine a jet stationed in outer space perfectly stable & far away from the 1,100 mph ball with its 1,100 mph atmosphere (What does upper layer have to travel at? Much higher?)
Suppose we gradually bring the (avg speeds are normally +/- 550 MPH) jet down to rotating ball, in same direction as the rotating ball. The jet would be slammed with 1,100 mph tailwind, so with engines going 550 mph it can be assumed the trip will finish in 1/3 the time as 1,100 + 550 = 1,650 mph? This never happens, because the Earth is not a ‘ball.’
Additionally, if we were to lower the hovering jet slowly till it was brought into contact with 1,100 mph spinning globe ball (Upper atmosphere how fast to keep up? +/-2,000 mph? 3,000 mph?) jet gets slammed with (minimal) 1,100 mph head wind if traveling in direction directly opposing alleged spin of globe ball.
This would result in the plane (1,100 mph headwind minus 550 mph jet speed = 550 mph in reverse) never able to go anywhere in forward mode, having to land in reverse to reach its destination by traveling backwards because of the legendary & magic jet ball Earth.
This also does not/cannot/never happens because the Earth is not a ball.
Hi James
Yes. When you start thinking of how the atmosphere and everything in it is being pulled around by the rotation of the earth as if it was physically connected but at the same time allowing free and independent movement for everything in the atmosphere it just blows the minds of the globe earth people. Because there is no way to explain this.
They simply have never proposed any force that can do this.
There is no answer to this problem from the globe earth side.
They have to propose some new force that is holding the earth, the atmosphere and everything in the atmosphere in one contiguous rotating field of reference, and allow the free movements of the atmosphere, storm systems, tornados, etc, they have to have free movement but at the same time they have to be also pulled around with the rotation of the earth.
So it is impossible. At least with the forces and systems currently explained by science.
Our observations would indicate that the earth is stationary. Everything is behaving as if the earth is stationary. We can not find any evidence at all that the earth is rotating. We can find evidence that there is rotation in the system. There is a rotation of the stars, planets, sun, moon, etc, in the sky once every 24 hours, and there is another rotation of the sun around the sky once a year. So the rotation is there. The real question is: What is rotating? Is the earth rotating or is it the heavenly bodies rotating above the earth?
And from our observations it appears the earth is stationary and the heavenly bodies are rotating above the earth.
Yes, in order for this theory to have any credibility, they must propose the thing which holds it all in.
Like a train or a bus contains its internal ‘atmosphere’.
So one can agree it would need to be a fairly robust barrier containing the Earth and its environment, separating it from Space. And thus, the likelihood of us breaking through this (impenetrable?) barrier is pretty much zero.
But a Globe Earther will not enter into discussion on this aspect.
“They have to propose some new force that is holding the earth, the atmosphere and everything in the atmosphere in one contiguous rotating field of reference, and allow the free movements of the atmosphere, storm systems, tornados, etc, they have to have free movement but at the same time they have to be also pulled around with the rotation of the earth.
So it is impossible. At least with the forces and systems currently explained by science.”
Curiously several flat earth models and only one geocentric earth model has an answer to this problem and that would be a physical barrier like a dome or firmament above us. Contrary to modern day pop culture delusion it remains a more scientifically sound argument than contemporary ball Earth cosmology.
1. It explains the ability of the ionization layer 350-400km above us to bounce back radio signals to the Earth surface. A few gas molecules just don’t cut it.
2. It explains why the Earth’s outer gas layer does not completely leave the surface into the supposed vacuum of so-called outer space.
3. It explains why the thermoslayer above 100km remains so hot even at night where temperatures remain at least 600 degrees centigrade, again a few gas molecules should quickly dissipate such energy.
4. It explains why NASA can’t get their stories straight when trying to explain why they can’t now get beyond low Earth orbit when they claimed to have done it several times without problem decades ago.
5. It explains why NASA spends enormous sums of money and time trying to develop hardened carbon-carbon shielding to withstand high velocity impacts and high temperatures ( note: space shuttle, X37, Project Orion etc. ) when presumably there exists nothing up there but a few gas molecules in a near vacuum.
6. It explains “Libyan” glass and why high purity silicon dioxide blobs, some the size of footballs, can be found throughout the Libyan desert and other deserts around the Flat Earth.
7. It explains why modern humans who have no explanation for how this material could have formed outside of very expensive and sophisticated modern furnaces remember it being in these regions for as long as anyone has records back to pre-history.
8. It explains anti-crepuscular rays that stretch thousands of miles across the horizon over our heads to the other horizon.
9. It explains why despite modern cosmologies obsession with supposed OUTER SPACE Bill Nye the ( pseudo ) science guy now insists based on his soaring intellectual and academic prowess ( BS in Mechanical Engineering ) that we live in a “closed system”. He’s right about that which puts him above other past pseudo luminaries like Carl Sagan.
10. It can explain how celestial refraction allows for the phenomenon of sunrise/sunset & day/night on a flat Earth.
Of course, it explains so much more as well.
Have a great day!
Yes. But you have missed the point a bit. The problem is to do with if the earth is rotating then it will have to pull the atmosphere and everything in the atmosphere around with it in the same contiguous frame of reference. So from this perspective it is irrelevant if there is a dome or not. If there was a dome presumably that would be rotating and have all the stars fixed on it and the planets, sun and moon would also move with the moving dome and at the same time have their own separate movements on the dome.
It does seem that we are unable to go above a certain point, that there is some kind of barrier stopping them.
Yes Finlay,
I can understand your confusion. It does not seem intuitively that a plane could go in any direction and still match the direction of earth’s rotation. You have to think deeper than intuition. If a plane takes off to the south, which is 90 degrees off the rotational direction of earth spin, the plane is still traveling the same speed as earth, only sideways. No matter which direction it takes off from it maintains it’s momentum in relation to the earth. Only by using some kind of powered thrust can a flying object work against that conserved momentum. Don’t worry if this concept is difficult to wrap your head around, even educated scientist can have a hard time comprehending orbital mechanics.
We are a species of primate who evolved using a set of specific skills to survive in the harsh landscape of the African Savannahs, not to figure out the non intuitive mechanics of orbital momentum. It is difficult to climb out of the trees next to our primate cousins and work our way up to the awsome level we find ourselves at today. Think of it like this, if you are flying in a plane and you toss a ball up towards the ceiling, does the ball fly backwards at the speed the plane is traveling forward? No, it maintains the momentum imparted to it by the speed of the plane. No matter which direction you throw the ball it still maintains it’s original speed, plus or minus what ever speed your throw imparts onto it in relation to the plane. It does not simply fly off opposite the directional travel of the plane. Throw it left, right forward, or back the ball keeps up with the plane because it is bound to the planes reference point, unless some outside force acts upon it, like the wind for instance.
And actually the planet is not rotating very fast compared to it’s size. It does take a whole 24 hours just to make one 360 degree spin. It only seems fast because we are used to the speed of human, which when trying to figure out things like orbital mechanics can be rather sluggish. Keep thinking deeply though.
Jerry Paul you are regurgitating the “official line” without thinking about it. It is you that needs to do some deep thinking.
PS: the earth is spinning at about 1000 miles per hour at the equator, that is way faster than the speed of sound. It is not very slow at all…
The “official line” is flawed. The “official line” is the plane and the earth are linked and movements of the earth move the plane, even after the plane is in the air and no longer connected with the earth.
Yes. Of course it is true, at the time of takeoff the plane and the earth are both spinning and the plane has got the motion of the spinning earth when it takes off. But the problem is, for what we experience to be actually happening, the earth has to spin the plane around in the sky at the same speed as the rotation of the earth, to keep the plane effectively over the same spot on the earth, so the only motion experienced by the travellers on the plane in relation to the earth is that caused by the propulsion system on the plane.
So sure, your idea holds at the time of takeoff. But when there is no longer any physical connection with the earth there should be no more spin exerted on the plane from the rotation of the earth except the original spin it had when it took off. And, as we understand it, that initial spin which matches the spin of the earth, that energy will be gone very quickly due to the resistance of the air the plane faces when moving through the sky.
That is why planes require propulsion. It is not that you can just throw them up and they will keep flying, of course a glider can fly on the wind, but that is a different thing.
So no one can explain how this works Jerry Paul. You have not been able to explain it. Certainly you are correct in stating that at the time of takeoff the plane is spinning with the earth and after it takes off it will still be spinning. But that spinning energy will very soon be dissipated due to the air resistance, etc. There is no mechanism that I have ever heard described that could keep on execrating a force so strong to spin the plane with the rotation of the earth, as if it were tied to the earth, while it is 10 miles up in the sky.
So this is truly a mystery Jerry Paul and if you understand how it works please explain it.
‘
Flat Earth Facts,
Ite really simple physics. A plane continues to spin with the earth because of newtons second law of motion. The planes angular momentum is conserved around the center of axis, which is the center of earth’s gravitational field. I don’t know any other way to explain it than that.
Rubbish. I gave the example, you are on a roundabout, one of those rotating things children sometimes play on in the park. So you are spinning around with the roundabout. You get off, you have go the angular momentum of the roundabout so you are still spinning at the same speed and in the same direction as the roundabout. But once you are disconnected from it you experience other forces, like the force of gravity pushing you down to the ground and the force of the earth when your feet touch it.
So it is the same for the plane taking off, disconnecting from the earth. Yes. At the time of takeoff it has got exactly the same rotation as the earth, but there are forces acting on the plane, Newton’s law, that is for in a perfect vacume when there are no other forces or resistance, not valid for the plane because it is facing forces like the wind for example, which may be in a different direction from the rotation of the earth, gravity, which is forcing the plane back down to the ground, so that inertial force from the spinning earth on the plane, it is very very quickly dissipated.
So these things have never been understood. Science can not explain at all what is happening here. They just ignore it, pretend it does not exist. They believe in the magic invisible rope that connects the earth to the plane and keeps the plane rotating in synchronisation with the earth even though it is not connected….
Due to gravity and conservation of angular momentum the air, the plane , and the birds and bugs all remain spinning with the earth, and the air resistance is nearly negligible although the qind soes have some effect on trust The plane. The only way to counter the angular momentum of the plane is through the propulsion systems. I’m not sure why some people doesn’t realize these questions have been solved along time ago. Its like asking, “why shouldn’t I touch a hot stove?” We don’t need to rehash these fundamentals.
This is total rubbish Jerry. Angular momentum is not conserved by the plane. It is dissipated quite quickly. Otherwise you could just get it put the plane up there and get it up to speed and due to the conservation of angular momentum it would just keep on going in the same direction at the same speed. But no. Gravity will pull it down and the air resistance will slow it down.
So the plane has got the rotational angular momentum of the spinning of the earth at takeoff, for sure, but because it is no longer connected, unless there is some invisible magic connection between the plane and the earth that keeps pulling the plane around in the air in synchronisation with the earth below it, that angular momentum the plane had at the time of takeoff will very quickly dissipate and the plane will gradually no longer have that rotational momentum from the earth.
So it is this invisible magic connection between the plane and the earth which has never been explained by science.
Well, when the plane is disconnected from the ground, there is the gravitational force of course that can slow down the plane, but that is counteracted by the lift forces that are generated by the air around the aircraft and its wings due to pressure differences between the upper and lower points of the wing (Bernoulli principle).
With those 2 forces cancelled, the other force remaining is the air drag in the backward direction that can slow down the plane, for which we use propulsion.
The assumption here is that the air also spins at the same rate the earth is spinning, and so does the plane, and the the air drag in the direction of rotation of earth does not contribute to slowing down the plane. The air drag only slows down the forward direction of the plane, for which propulsion is needed.
You are just stating the obvious: “The assumption here is that the air also spins at the same rate the earth is spinning, and so does the plane,” but not providing any explanation how this could happen. This system is operating exactly like the children spinning on a roundabout. They are all sharing a single rotating frame of reference. Or the ants walking around on a potter’s wheel. But in all cases of this shared frame of reference we have experience with there is actually a shared frame of reference, like the roundabout or the potters wheel.
When the children get off the roundabout or the ants get off the spinning potters wheel, they are no longer sharing the same frame of reference as the roundabout or potters wheel. They are still spinning and initially they do share the same rotational movement of the wheel or roundabout. But that very quickly dissipates as they are no longer in the shared field with the rotating object.
So scientists just say these things, like, “Obviously the plane, the clouds, the atmosphere, obviously it just rotates with the earth. But they have not provided any mechanism which could extend the frame of reference of the rotating earth to seamlessly include the atmosphere and anything that might be in the atmosphere in the same field of reference. It requires a physical connection. Because your plane has to be physically pulled around by the rotation of the earth, long, long, long after it has no physical connection with the earth, and long long after the initial inertia it had from the rotation of the earth has disapated.
So there is no way science can explain this.
It remains a great mystery. And when these scientific people are faced with a mystery they don’t understand and can’t explain they pretend it does not exist, and get angry if you push the point.
But there is some real magic going on here. Because we have no idea of any physical system that can keep the airplane locked into the same field of reference as the rotating earth long long long after it has no physical connection with the earth.
If you forget the airplane and just take something that has no propulsion at all, a balloon. Assuming there is no wind, it will just sit up there, directly above the place where you send it up. That is actually what we would expect on a stationary earth. But on a rotating earth we would expect it to go up and keep on rotating because it was rotating when it left the earth. On the earth it is pulled around because the earth is rotating. But when it goes up in the sky, with the exception of its initial rotation, there is nothing to pull it around with the earth’s rotation, and it will rotate with the earth, but it will face friction with the air and will loose that initial rotational energy sooner rather than later. So it will start to drift in the opposite direction of the rotation of the earth.
Otherwise what is that magical force that keeps the balloon locked with the rotation of the earth even though it has no physical connection with the earth. Mysterious magic!
Hi Flat Earth Facts,
There are various types of forces acknowledged by the scientists. Some are called contact forces, like kicking a ball, and some are non-contact forces, or action-at-a-distance forces like gravity, electromagnetic force, magnetic force, which do not require contact. This is already admitted by science. Of course, they do not know why these forces exist and act like that, or answer deeper questions like origin, etc., but they accept them as natural properties.
Your analogy with ants walking around on a potter’s wheel or children spinning on a roundabout are not exactly suitable with respect to Earth’s rotation. The potter’s wheel and the roundabout do not exert the “action-at-a-distance” force called gravity on the ant after it has left, in a noticeable magnitude, because the mass of the potter’s wheel and the roundabout and the ant are very, very small to exert any significant gravitational force. However, the Earth is a large body, with a noticable gravitational field. And scientists say that gravity is proportional to the mass of the object. Gravity, really, is applicable only to massive objects like the Earth, not to small objects like potter’s wheel, etc.
So gravity pulls the plane even after it has left the Earth. And it is obvious gravity pulls things not connected to Earth anyways, like an apple dropped is pulled downward.
How they explain that the air is spinning with the Earth is that there is viscous/frictional force between the layers of air. Now this force will be proportional to the gravitational force. Since air has a huge mass, it is pushed down toward the Earth with great force, and the layers of air kind of “stick” with each other. The lowest layer of air is firmly stuck to Earth. The next higher layer is stuck less, and so on. This forms the “physical contact” of the Earth with the plane and air.
The problem is especially at high altitude air layers should be more free to move and not necessarily spin at the same rate with the Earth. At that time, we should expect the air slows down the plane eventually as it is not moving in the same direction as the plane.
Yes. Gravity, magic gravity… But gravity is pulling the plane down to the ground, towards the center of the earth. That is always a downwards force. It can not hold the airplane in synchronous orbit with the earth. Yes gravity can cause the apple to fall to the ground from the tree. Although that can also be explained because the density of the apple is much greater than the density of the air, so naturally more dense objects will fall down through a less dense medium [the apple through the air] even without the help of gravity. If apples were filled with hydrogen, for example, they would be less dense that the air, and when the tree let them go they would float up into the sky, gravity would not act on them then.
Anyhow the point is you are just repeating what the scientists say, they can not explain this, they do not understand it, they have no idea why it is happening, it is a great mystery. What is the force that is holding the plane and spinning it around in synchronisation with the rotation of the earth even long after any rotational force the plane initially had from the spinning earth has dissipated? Magic gravity of course, but how???
Gravity can pull things down towards the center of the earth. That is the theory anyhow. But that does not explain what is effectively holding the plane over a fixed point on the earth and spinning it synchronised to the rotation of the earth. That must be happening if the earth is rotating because we can explain all the other movements of the airplane by the propulsion and wind currents, otherwise, minus the propulsion and wind, it is just sitting over a fixed point on the earth, rotating with the rotation of the earth, long long long after the initial rotational energy it had synchronised with the earth’s rotation when it took off, has dissipated.
Hi Flat Earth Facts,
Yes, I totally agree that scientists do not have any idea about the underlying causes of why those forces are acting like the way it is acting. And it is also never proven if “every” object is attracting “every” other object with a force called gravity, as they claim. These things are hard to prove from our point anyway because we are minuscule compared to the sizes of these planets. I understand that. I’m just speaking on the basis of their assumptions and trying to understand reality with respect to those assumptions and see if they make sense or break in any way.
Based on the theory, the downward force of gravity can hold the airplane in synchronous orbit by providing centripetal acceleration, if there is no force that dissipates the initial motion of the plane. You keep on mentioning that the initial motion will be dissipated. But how will that energy be dissipated? Let us assume we have a balloon that is moving up, removing the need for propulsion, and also there are no wind currents. Based on the theory, the air will not dissipate that initial motion because the air is also rotating in the same direction at the same speed. And the gravitational force which already exists between the balloon and the Earth takes care of the spinning by providing a centripetal acceleration, and the buoyant force then keeps it in equilibrium. Of course, I understand this all happens magically and automatically somehow all these forces add up to zero and keep it in equilibrium and the balloon stays where it is! But there are of course other ways also we can make forces add up to zero, like a stationary Earth, but only downward and upward force (buoyant force) exist.
By the way, if apple falling down due to “density”, as you say, why does it fall “down” only and not “up”? Because the apple is also surrounded by less dense air above, but it never falls “up”. It means there is a downward force. Also, things fall down in vacuum also, right?
OK, lets say everything, including the air, the butterflies, the atmosphere, the birds and the airplanes are all joined together in the same effectively physically connected frame of reference, my question remains, what is the magic force that is holding all these things together and spinning them all around in exactly in synchronisation with the rotation of the earth?
You, like the scientists are just trying to change the subject, to divert away from this question, which no one can answer, which is a great mystery, and which can not even be reasonably explained by magic gravity.
My whole question is what is this magic force that is holding everything, the atmosphere, the clouds, the butterflies, the airplanes all locked together rigidly in a single frame of reference?
That is the point and you are trying to avoid this and say, just imagine it is all locked together and all moving with the rotation of the earth… But that is not my question. My question is what is the magic force that could be holding it all together and pulling everything around with the rotating earth. That is the question, that is the point.
I agree, of course, they, the scientists, have come up with a ‘logical’ explanation, presuming it is all in one frame of reference and all rotating with the earth. But my question is what is the force that is holding it all together and pulling everything around with the rotation of the earth.
As far as the apple you have a logical flaw:
“By the way, if apple falling down due to “density”, as you say, why does it fall “down” only and not “up”? Because the apple is also surrounded by less dense air above, but it never falls “up”. It means there is a downward force. Also, things fall down in vacuum also, right?”
An apple can not fall up due to density in the air because it is more dense than the medium it is in, the air. If you put the apple in water, however, it will defy gravity and fall up.
Apple is always more dense than the air. To fall up apple would have to be less dense than the air, like if you filled an empty apple skin with hydrogen, then it would fall up, defying gravity.
PS: Yes. Everything falls down in a vacuum, but that is because a vacuum is, by definition, the least dense medium. If somehow you could find something that was less dense than a vacuum that would also fall up in a vacuum, defying gravity.
Flat Earth Facts,
If gravity is the answer to how the planes angular momentum is conserved and a person simply doesn’t believe gravity exists then what would their answer to why the planes angular momentum IS conserved be? If someone disagrees with the official answers of physics then they should have a competing explanation or hypothesis. If the earth is not rotating on its center of gravity and the conservation of angular momentum is not the reason the plane moves with the earth, then what is the reason? Without a reasonable alternative answer or even a basic idea to explain it then what would the reason be for disregarding the current explanation?
I have a hard time discarding a workable, repeatable, logically functional theory for explaining a particular attribute of this universe’s physical laws without a competing theory to replace the original. Without a better theory that describes these laws in more detail with better experiments that confirm them in the simplest terms available, what is the reason for a lack of belief in the existing model?
I have a hypothesis about the reason, and it all has to do with emotional and mental mistrust in authority. Sometimes a persons own ego will not allow them to accept that they may be wrong about a deeply held belief and thats where confirmation bias and self dilusion take over where logic and the ability to change what they believe based on data that contradicts their prior belief fails them.
I will admit that we all are susceptible to these all too human flaws, myself included, and without an awareness of these mental blocks that allow us to continue deluding ourselves, there is nothing to alter our biases. Is there a possibility that the reason you and others refuse to accept the existing model without a reasonable alternative is because of a deep seated mistrust of science and the scientific method? It is a real thing and it’s called conspiricy mentality.
You keep saying that I have an almost religious belief in NASA and of science in general but does that also mean that you have a religious mistrust of the same things?
I think we all have a hard time admitting that we are not prefect in our reasoning skills and that is at the core of our diagreement. It has less to do with the facts and more to do with how much we trust the findings of modern science.
I keep trying to not degrade anyones beliefs because I believe in the golden rule. It seems I keep irritating you all though and that is not my intention. So please accept my apologies if that seems to be the case. in any case I do not see how we could ever come to an agreement on certain topics but we could at least agree to understand that we all are imperfect beings and none of us has all the answers. I guess it is all about how we see and trust the methods that give us these theories in the first place. Would you agree with that statement?
Jerry your idea is just believe NASA. But the evidence does not support NASA’s story they sent men to the moon in the 1960’s. And even you should be able do to see that.
Science has been wrong so many times in the past and many of the things science preaches today, they are also wrong.
You have to accept this. OK, sure, there are nice theories which may be to some extent mentally satisfying, but how far these theories actually match the reality, that is still open for investigation.
My point is that your blind belief and surrender to NASA and the scientists, even though, for example, there so much evidence NASA did not send men to the moon, is no different from On the Level who blindly believes there are no satellites because Eric Dubay says so, even though there is so much evidence and proof satellites exist.
So the only difference is you believe whatever NASA and the scientists tell you without thinking about it or questioning it and On the Level believes anything Eric Dubey says without thinking about it or questioning it. It is blind faith in science vs. blind faith in flat earth…
Hi Jerry,
Other theories that attempt to explain apparent gravitational phenomenon exist. Nikola Tesla posited the Dynamic theory of gravity. You can read a little intro below:
https://teslaresearch.jimdofree.com/dynamic-theory-of-gravity/
IMO electromagnetic lines of force better explains the motions of celestial bodies than Relativity or resting on Newtonian assumptions. Nikola Tesla thought so and perhaps better followed the relevant physics of Newton, Faraday, and Maxwell.
It’s important to remember our actual knowledge of what is IMO improperly called “outer space” is much less than claimed by NASA and so called experts. You are correct if as you seem to suggest that humility in this regard is needed. The best place to start as usual is with provable, observable facts not conjecture, especially from politically motivated men trying to maintain their government paychecks.
Hi Flat Earth Facts,
Yes, that is a good point against a rotating Earth. Scientists would say that the atmosphere also rotates along with the Earth at the same speed. So the atmosphere would not actually contribute to dragging the plane down, as you say, because the plane is not moving against the direction of the air.
However, it is difficult to see if the air, which is not a rigid body, indeed moves like that. Moreover, at higher altitudes, the air should be more free to move, due to lesser action of gravity. They say viscosity/friction between air layers holds it, but again, air is even “freer” than water… We also can’t do experiments reliably at that altitude, as you pointed earlier.
In addition, as I alluded to in another post, we should be able to feel or measure the forces in a non-inertial frame of reference that should vary in a periodic fashion. For the motion of the frame of reference to be irrelevant, it actually has to be an inertial frame, meaning it is either at rest, or moving with constant speed in a straight line with respect to another inertial frame. Otherwise, if it is not an inertial frame, as the Earth is told to be by scientists, we should be feeling forces at different times of the day, depending on which direction we are accelerating/decelerating, repeatable in a periodic fashion – as day and night is periodic.
PS: I notice Eric Dubay’s book title is really “200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball”, not “200 proofs the Earth is flat”. So they are actually not 200 proofs the Earth is flat. So if flat-earthers are basing their arguments on this book, they are using a book that attempts to disprove the spinning globe Earth model, not particularly proving the Earth is flat.
Sarnaduti
Jerry, it can be a very confusing subject alright, but perhaps the following will better explain my point of view. If you consider the Earth to be a spinning globe, then any object sitting stationary anywhere along the Equator is moving through space eastward at a speed of over 1000 mph. You may call this the object’s inertial momentum. Now also consider a vertical rocket launch. The force (thrust) of the engines must be sufficient to overcome the force (your magic gravity?) keeping the mass of the rocket on the ground, otherwise it will not lift off. By similar logic, an airplane sitting on the ground at the equator can fire up it’s engines, and if flying east can lift off and cruise at roughly 500 mph. Those same engines would not even move the plane, never mind lift it off the ground into the air to fly westward, as they would lack sufficient force (thrust) to overcome the 1000 mph eastward inertial momentum. Movement in any frame of reference is simply a matter of force vectors, and unless this Earth is stationary and flat I have yet to understand how airplanes with fixed size engines are able to fly in any direction at approximately the same speed. Seems to me this would only be possible for masses of zero inertial momentum, only possible on a stationary and motionless Earth. How is that for deep thinking?
Hi Finlay
Try to understand it. The globe earth explanation is valid if you accept their premise. The idea underpinning the globe earth understanding is the plane and the earth are in the same frame of reference even when the plane takes off and is no longer connected to the earth. So, according to their understanding, the plane and the earth are moving together. So it is like you are flying in an airplane and it is going 600 miles per hour forward. But within the plane you can walk towards the front of the plane, with the direction of the plane, and towards the back of the plane, against the direction the plane is travelling, with no difference.
That is because you and the plane share the same frame of reference.
So similarly if a plane taking off the earth shares the same frame of reference as the earth and the atmosphere, everything is locked together, moving together, so the plane can fly in any direction with no concern for the rotation of the earth.
So you have to understand this point. It is a very simple thing to understand. And that is how the globe earthers explain it.
So they have a valid explanation and understanding as to what is happening.
But exactly how the plane and the atmosphere can share the same frame of reference as the earth without being connected to it, that is a mystery. I think they can not explain this part.
Finlay,
Think on this for a moment. Every plane that takes off and flys west is actually still traveling east, unless or until it is a plane that can fly faster than 1000mph. When the plane is on the ground facing west it is already traveling backwards 1000mph to the east. When it gets in the air and flys west, you must subtract the speed of the plane from the speed of the earth spin. If your plane is traveling west at 500 mph, you are still going east at 500 mph only backwards. So relitive to the center of the earth at the equator, a plane going 500 mph west is still traveling east with the planet at 500 mph, but relative to the surface of earth the plane is going 500 mph west. Until your plane reaches 1000 mph going west, it is still traveling east at what ever speed under 1000 mph you are going. Im not sure if this is an easy concept to comprehend but there you go.
Relative to the surface you can travel west as well as any other direction. Relative to the center of the earth or a stationary point outside of the earth system you will still be going east with the spin of earth until you reach the 1000 mph westward. At that speed you will just be stationary relative to east-west travel relative to the center. Only after you surpass 1000 mph westward will you truly be traveling west. If you are going 1010 mph west, then your actually going 10 mph west relative to the center. Crazy thought huh. Lets see how many people comprehend that one. Good luck.
Yes Jerry, you are correct. But the plane is only moving with, being pulled around, by the earth when it is connected to the earth. This is the point you need to understand.
Any object can only be moving in one direction at one speed, at least when it is for in the sky. So the direction and speed of the plane is the product of the rotational force it still has from when it was rotating with the earth and the direction and speed of the engines and the force of the wind, etc. The product of all these forces then becomes the direction and speed of the plane in the air. It is now completely disconnected from the rotation of the earth underneath and the rotating earth now has no power to pull the plane around with it as it rotates.
Please seriously consider this point, it is the great flaw in the theory you are presenting.
Hi Flat Earth Facts,
You are stating that an object always needs to be connected to something else in order to be pulled. Is that just your belief or are you able to prove it? Please remind yourself that magnets pull iron without being materially connected.
Magnetism is not gravity…
I am saying that science has not given any mechanism by which all the objects in the atmosphere up to certain distance are pulled around in synchronization with the rotation of the earth, which would have to be what is happening if the earth is rotating.
You can not have a shared frame of reference, or single frame of reference unless the object is connected to that frame of reference.
If you have ants on a potters wheel walking around and the potters wheel is spinning the ants can go about their business and wander around without considering the rotation of the potter’s wheel. Because they are connected to the potters wheel and so is everything else they are dealing with. But shared frame of reference like this only works if there is a shared frame of reference, once the ants leave the potters wheel it does not work any more. Sure, initially they have got the spin of the wheel but when they are disconnected from it they are no longer being pulled around by it.
So gravity can not do this. Magnetism, that is completely irrelevant? There may be some force that is doing it? Who knows? That is not my point.
My point is that science has not given us any mechanism or explanation as to how this rotation of the earth is pulling around the airplane and the atmosphere and everything else in exact synchronization with it’s rotation.
That is the point. There is no explanation for this, it has never been explained, and it can not be gravity, as I have explained in other postings.
Finlay,
I do understand your analogy between the rocket’s vertical lift off and the planes westward flight. However the two do not compare. You need 100 pounds of lift to lift 100 pounds vertically, right, to counteract the force of gravity. However to push that same 100 pounds westward you only need about 1 pound of trust, if it is on wheels or floating. The same is true to push it in any direction. All you need to do to push a thing horizontally is to overcome friction, and not the entire force of gravity. The plane experiences no friction other than the air resistance. So your analogy does not compare, the two forces required are not equal. If you are driving in a car 100 miles an hour and try to push something in the opposite direction inside the car, you do not need to o push it over 100 miles an hour to overcome its momentum given by the car, you only need what ever force it would take to push it at rest. The speed that you push the object backwards inside the car, subtracted from the speed of the car, is the actual speed of the object to an outside observer compared to their position and frame of reference. I hope this clears up your misunderstanding somewhat. If not you need to go back and figure out which point of fact you have gotten wrong and alter that belief so you need not alter all the facts and beliefs that come after that to make that one belief fit.
Friction has absolutely nothing to do with this. Force is all that matters. To stop a mass of 1 ton moving at 1,000 mph requires tremendous force. To stop that 1 ton mass, and move it in the opposite direction requires even greater force. Just substitute the 1 ton mass with an airplane. That’s exactly the force required to fly an airplane west on a rotating globe.
Finlay,
Nobody said you needed to stop anything. You only need to slow it down to start moving west compared to the surface speed. Realize this. Any force west is only slowing down your easterly speed. To come to a full stop, you would have to reach 1000 mph going west. Think about the planet moving and not as if it were motionless, even if you need to do this only in your imagination. Your points are easily understood, but I’m afraid they are incorrect. Would someone please help me out here, Finlay simply misunderstands movement in multiple directions at once.
Hi Jerry
The plane, once it leaves the earth, it can not be moving in multiple directions at once. That is the problem. While on the ground, the spinning earth, it is spinning with the earth and can move in any other direction it likes and keep spinning with the earth, thus moving in two directions at once. That is possible because it is physically connected to the earth and in the same frame of reference as the earth.
But as soon as the plane takes off from the earth it is no longer connected to the earth and no longer connected to the same spinning frame of reference as the earth so it then only has one speed and direction. And that speed and direction of the plane in the air is the product of the spin it got from the earth and the force it got from the propulsion and direction of takeoff. So now the plane only has one speed and direction. It is now disconnected from the earth, flying freely in the sky. It still has got the spin component from the takeoff but it is no longer being pulled around by the earth as it was when it was physically connected from the earth. So this is the unsolvable problem for the globe earthers they will always try to hide and avoid discussing.
For the globe earth model to be true all the objects in the atmosphere including the plane, the air, the butterflies, the clouds, they have to be moving as if physically connected to the spinning earth, they have to share the same spinning frame of reference with the earth. But science has never given us any mechanism or explanation as to how this could be possible.
When the plane takes off from the spinning earth, that is a very different situation from the plane being on the spinning earth. On the spinning earth it moves with the spin of the earth and has its own independent movements also. So it is moving in two directions and speeds at the same time. But as soon as it takes off it takes off with the speed and direction of the spin of the earth plus or minus the speed and direction it is travelling on the earth. And as soon as it leaves the earth it is no longer connected to the earth, it no longer has two speeds and two directions, it only has one. The product of the speed and direction invested into it by the spin of the earth and the speed and direction it was going when it took off from the earth.
And once it is flying in the sky, there is no explanation as to how it could remain in the same spinning frame of reference as the earth.
So the spinning globe model fails miserably here…
I have a telescope. I can see the planets are not flat.
Is it possible that only the earth is the exception? Hm…
Yes, you are correct of course. Planets are not flat, we can see they are spherical, and quite clearly anyone who denies this has not looked… It is very easy to see there are spherical planets floating up there and some of them even have moons orbiting around them.
This is one of the main “proofs” that the earth is a globe, “as above, so below.” They observe the planets and presume the earth is just like one of those planets we see floating in the sky above us.
It is quite a reasonable, logical assumption.
But yes, there is still a possibility that the earth may be something different to what we see floating above our heads. We can not actually eliminate that possibility. So it is a reasonable, logical assumption that the earth / moon system is something like what we see in the sky when a planet has moons, but we have to remember it is only an assumption and it could be wrong. However the scientists, with the globe earth model, they have really produced a very good model explaining how the earth / moon / sun system works, accepting these assumptions, and their model does quite accurately predict our observations. So the globe earth people, they have got a very solid and scientific basis for their assumptions, but flat earth people have nothing at all…
So without being able to present another working model based on different assumptions it is hard to imagine how any intelligent person could disregard the globe earth model.
Well, we can made a model and predict the future, even without using the physics, just by accumulating prior data. I am not sure how far the scientists actually use the “shape” of the Earth or moon or physics equations rigorously in their calculations to predict the future. Just by accumulating a large number of prior data points about the motion of the earth, moon, we can predict the future occurrences (e.g. using time-series forecasting), and this can occur on both a flat or globe earth.
Problem is the globe earth model, it is a very good model, it very accurately predicts the things we actually observe happening, on the presumption that the earth is a spinning globe. On the other hand the flat earth people don’t have any agreed model. Everyone has a different idea, no one has a working model, they can not predict what we observe happening. Flat earth people, for example, can not even explain exactly how the sunrise and sunset times are working. They don’t even have a working map, they have nothing at all that works, no model, and nothing to predict our observations. Nothing works with the flat earth idea. If you make predictions based on the flat earth model those predictions almost never match what we actually observe, however if you make predictions based on the globe earth model, those predictions are almost always accurage.
Of course globe earth model has been constructed by reverse engineering based on the observations, but the point remains is they have been able to make a believable, logical, working scientific model, whereas the flat earth people don’t have anything that works.
You have to understand, flat earth people, they have no model, they can not explain properly our observations. So it is not a valid scientific proposition if you can’t present a working predictive model.
Yes, I agree. The flat earthers do not currently have a working predictive model. As I see happening, the flat earth people are mostly in the business of questioning/criticizing the current globe earth model rather than coming up with an alternative model that explains things satisfactorily.
First of all, I have personally not visited all parts of the Earth and observed everything to conclude if the spinning globe earth is also really a good model or not – some parts of Earth are even remote and uninhabitable, or not allowed access to. Even for these “observations”, I have to believe what other people (in this case, also mortal human beings!) saw. With photoshop and all, it is also hard to sometimes believe these 3rd-party observations as well.
A model also is relative to what observations we are interested in. Some observations can be better explained by one model and not by another.
But even then, the spinning globe earth model also does not accurately predict some of these “observations”, like lack of perception of measurable periodic forces in a non-inertial reference frame, unexplainable horizontal distances, etc., so it is not a good model to predict reality in these instances. Also, how can you place smooth objects on each other, and they remain on place – friction is much less there and they should move due to earth’s rotation. It may be that earth is stationary, and it is that other bodies are moving.
Yes. Of course, we don’t know if the earth is moving or if everything else is moving around the earth. It is not possible to determine that from within the system because the relative motion of both systems is the same. The only way to really see what is happening is to get outside the solar system and observe it working from a distance, or hear a description of how it works from someone who knows how it works.
However, we do see things that tend to indicate that the earth is stationary. We can’t measure any movement, can’t feel any movement, which is strange, because it is a rotational movement 1000 miles per hour at the equator and zero miles per hour at the poles. And there is an acceleration component to rotational movement. Anyhow the only thing they have got is that Foucault’s pendulum but that only proves there is a rotational movement. If the whole universe is rotating around the earth then that would certainly generate some rotational force which may well be strong enough to cause a pendulum to rotate like it does. After all the moon has got the power to move the oceans, if all the heavenly bodies are rotating around the earth I am sure they have got the power to move a pendulum.
So yes, I think you may be correct, the earth may well be stationary. That would certainly solve our problem with the planes flying but not being in any way effected by the rotation of the earth…
Well, I can see live images from ISS. Fake ??
There is obviously something up there in the sky with a camera on it taking the pictures…
Flat Earth Facts,
That magic connection of the plane and the planet is gravity. If gravity is not real then what better explains how mass attracts mass? Mass that has momentum conserves that momentum indefinitely until acted upon by an outside force. Basic, already been figured out. And we know the planet is round because we have spacecraft that orbit a round earth. The evidence is unquestionably solid. If you all refuse to accept these scientifically sound kinds of evidence and refuses to accept that the scientific method is sound then why do you not question all the other discoveries made by that same method, such as medical science and mechanical sciences? Do you only question the science that allows us to reach and explore space and accept all the other proofs developed using that same method? How do you differentiate between real science and made up science? They are all connected using the same methods. We are able to explore space because all the other discoveries made by science works as well. There are far more reasons to accept that we have and are currently in space then there are reasons to discard the evidence. We have to compare the plus’ and mind’s and when we do the evidence for it are much more convincing. There are literally thosands of data points for believing then the few inconsistencies that lead you to disbelieve.
Yes. Of course. The scientists always fall back on magic gravity. But the gravity is just pulling the plane down to the center of the earth. That is not going to help. Gravity is not capable of holding the plane in a fixed position above the earth and spinning it with the earth, which is what it would have to do, if the earth was rotating.
So don’t be under the illusion that the scientists have worked it all out. They have not. There are many mysteries still. And this is a great mystery, what is the incredibly strong force that is holding the atmosphere and everything in the atmosphere in the same frame of reference as the rotating earth and spinning it all around with the rotation of the earth.
The scientists have no idea and will just try to avoid discussing it or considering it. It’s not gravity. Gravity is only capable of pulling everything down to the center of the earth. Gravity can’t hold something in a fixed positon above the earth and pull it around with the rotation of the earth. There is no force we are aware of that could do this.
It is gravity. Once you realize this one aspect of your belief system is incorrect, all the other questions you have about what is going on, what shape our planet is, and if it is spinning will fall into place. If one belief is incorrect then all the reasoning that comes after that will be flawed to try and make that one belief fit. I think this one aspect of your belief system, not believing that gravity exists, is creating all the other contradictions about the reality of the physical laws of our universe. That and the moon shot.
You completely misunderstand Jerry, it has absolutely nothing to do with if I believe in gravity or not. For this exercise I am presuming gravity exists, as described by science. I am pointing out that gravity, as it is described to us by the scientists, is not at all capable of pulling the things in the sky around in synchronization with a rotating earth. Something must be doing this if the earth is rotating, and it can not be gravity, and science has not given us any explanation as to how this could happen. That is my point.
Magic gravity is your belief system, Jerry Paul, everything you can not understand, everything that is impossible, it is gravity. Anything impossible, unexplainable, illogical, it is gravity of course. That is your faith, that is your belief. You believe in gravity. You believe gravity can do the impossible, the illogical, the unbelievable.
It certainly can not be done by the gravity that science describes. Science describes gravity as force pulling objects towards the center of other objects. The earth is a very big object, it has a big gravitation field, which is so great compared to the gravitational field produced by any other object in our experience, that we can not test gravity or experiment with it to prove it or disprove it.
But anyhow Jerry, this is not my point. My point is science has not even proposed any theory that would enable every atom, which is physically disconnected from the spinning earth, but only up to a certain distance, to be somehow effectively physically connected to the same frame of reference as the spinning earth.
You have to concentrate on this point, the system you describe requires everything, the air, the butterflies, the airplanes, the clouds, the winds, everything, every atom has to be pulled around by the rotation of the earth. Otherwise the system you propose, rotating earth, that is not possible.
So there is a possibility the earth is not rotating. You need to consider that possibility also.
That is science. We don’t know if the earth is rotating or if the things we see in the sky are rotating. We see a rotational movement, we know there is a rotation, we can’t detect any rotation of the earth, it is just a theory, we have proposed the earth may be rotating, but we don’t know for sure.
There are two possibilities. One is the earth is rotating once a day, causing the day and night, and the other rotation is caused by the earth rotating around the sun at an angle. Earth always points north pole to to north polestar and south pole to southern celestial pole, so it is rotating at an angle compared to the sun and that gives the seasons as the earth rotates around the sun.
It is a very beautiful concept, it has been explained and explored very elaborately by many great thinkers over the ages, and it is truely well developed predictive scientific model.
But it has flaws. And one glaring flaw is we can not detect the rotation of the earth and we can not explain how, if the earth was rotating, every atom in the atmosphere, up to some point, is locked in the same frame of reference as the rotating earth. Every atom is somehow connected to the rotation of the earth and being pulled around as the earth rotates.
You can not say “this is gravity.” That is cheating. Because gravity is a force attracting all those atoms to the centre of the earth. That center of the earth does not rotate. It is always in the same position, even though the earth rotates the center of the earth, the point everything is attracted to due to the force of gravity, is stationary. So gravity does not have the power to hold all these atoms in their respective places and pull them around in synchronization with the rotation of the earth.
So yes, of course they have made a very elaborate model based on a rotating earth. But there is another, equally valid model based on a stationary earth with the same two rotational movements we experience invested, not in the earth, but in the objects around the earth.
Hard for us to imagine of course, because we have only been exposed to one of the two possibilities and have been brainwashed to believe a rotating earth is the only possibility. It is not. There is another possibility, with an equally valid scientific model, that is a stationary earth with the same rotational movements we experience invested in the objects that we actually see rotating in the sky. It may be actually that the reality is in accord with our actual physical experience. We don’t have any experience of the earth rotating, no one would ever imagine the earth was rotating, that is not what we experience. We experience a stationary earth and we see the sun, moon, stars, planets, etc, rotating above our heads. That is also a possibility, a very valid scientific possibility.
Flat earth facts,
Ok, I do understand your point. It just does not fit with the way I see reality. When you state that we cannot determine if the earth is rotating or if everything is going around the earth. I know the earth is spinning and round because of the spacecraft we have sent up and looked back at the earth. If everything were spinning around earth those objects would have to be going extremely fast to travel all the way around us in 24 hours. But because you think all the photos from space are fake we can never agree that the earth is spinning and not the other way around. If it is just an exercise in thought then it is futile to imagine ‘what if’ when the premise does not fit reality. But I do comprehend your ideas and conclusions using the ‘what if’ analogy. There are some on this site who fail to see reality completely. And sorry, I do not see evidence of the Devine in anything. I do understand about insite and inspiration but think that the human ability to think and contemplate about our exsistance is actually the universe contemplating itself. The ultimate outcome of life caused by the strange and not understood reason behind the laws of our physical universe. So we can agree on some things.
Very good Jerry. The thing is if the earth was stationary and everything was spinning around the earth, if you fly up there in space and start spinning around the earth you will think the earth is spinning and you are stationary.
So my point is that from within the system we can certainly determine that there is spinning, but what is spinning, from out point of view, that depends on what we take as our frame of reference.
So we don’t know, can’t know, from within the system, because the relative effect of the earth spinning or everything spinning around the earth is the same.
And this is also postulated by some great scientist. So it is a valid scientific idea also.
Why is it so difficult for some to understand force and momentum? My point is quite simple. An object stationary on the equator of a supposed spinning globe (the Earth) is moving through space eastward at roughly 1,000 mph. If an airplane is to fly forward west it must have sufficient thrust to overcome that eastward speed, or in other words must have approximately triple the thrust as is required to fly eastward at 500 mph. Has absolutely nothing to do with gravity. Mass in motion in one direction can only move in opposite direction if sufficient energy provided to overcome and exceed force of initial motion and direction. Ask Newton. Tesla’s Dynamic Theory of Gravity can provide further insight into areas of exploration yet to be fully understood. For all we know we create the illusion called reality subconsciously, and are all just separate dimensions trying to communicate from parallel universes in one cosmic consciousness. Time is the puzzle.
Hi Finlay
Yes, you are correct, this issue has got nothing at all to do with gravity. All gravity can do is pull things down towards the center of the earth. So there is no way gravity can hold an airplane in the sky over a fixed point on the earth and pull that airplane around with the rotation of the earth.
So all this talk of gravity in relation to this problem is totally irrelevant. But for the scientists gravity is their magic force. Whenever they are stumped they just say “gravity.” And that’s it, “It’s gravity. Now can we change the subject. It’s gravity idiot. Shut up.”
But you are correct. Gravity can not help the scientists with this problem.
But you also do not understand their argument I think. Mostly the scientists, the globe earthers, etc, they have got a logical explanation for things, so their logical explaination for the whole atmosphere and everything in it moving in exact synchronisation with the rotation of the earth is that it is all a part of the same system, it is all in the same frame of reference, or in simple terms it is all joined together and the whole thing is moving, rotating as one unit. And so because the whole system is moving as one connected unit, the movement of the whole system becomes irrelevant to anything within the system.
So this part is very logical and it explains everything. So it answers all your questions. But the real problem with their theory is they have no explanation as to how it is actually all one connected system. For this theory to work everything has to be physically connected. The atmosphere, the airplane, the birds, the insects, the clouds, etc, they have to be all physically connected to the earth so when the earth rotates all these things move exactly with the rotation of the earth.
And it is a great mystery. No one can understand or imagine or propose any system which can take all these disconnected elements [earth, atmosphere, airplanes, birds, insects, etc] and effectively physically link them with the rotation of the earth.
What the scientists say is the plane is rotating with the earth when it takes off and so it continues to rotate with the earth after it takes off. That is true also, for a few seconds after it takes off, but it is no longer connected to the earth after it takes off, so that rotational energy it had from the spinning earth is very soon dissipated an there is no longer any connection with the rotating earth…
So then your point becomes valid.
So yes. There is a big mystery here that the scientists can not understand or explain, presuming the earth is rotating. Actually what we experience in this regard is totally consistent with what we would expect on a stationary earth and totally inconsistent with what we would expect on a rotating earth.
You know, the moon is not that far away, and the moon is, apparently rotating around the earth due to gravity, so why does the moon not rotate with the earth also? If gravity can pull the planes around the earth at the same speed of the rotation of the earth why not pull the moon around also at the same speed as the earth, and keep the moon permanently over one spot on the earth?
But their gravity is magic, it works magically to explain anything they can not understand…
Flat Earth Facts,
If science is so wrong all the time tell me how you are reading your computer rigbt now? Or how did you drive to work or where ever you go if you own vehicle? Or how the hospital saves lives every day? All these things are possible because science is a powerful thing. Sure, science get things wrong just like any endeavor but that is the power of the scientific method, to keep at it until it is correct. I know of no other method that is as powerful as that. What else would you suggest to figure things out with? If you have a better method we would love to hear about it and how it is you come to your conclusions if not by way of the scientific method?
Hi Jerry
Science does not make technology. They discover it. It is already there, the potential in the silicon for example, to make the computers.
It is all there in nature already. Science just discovers it and use it.
if science doesn’t make technology it certainly allows us to figure it out. Without science then technology would not exist in fact, not even in thoughts because once it is thought that is science.
Yes. Of course I respect that that is your understanding. But I have a slightly different understanding. And that is the inspiration of man is divinely inspired. So it is not really science that develops anything. The developments come from some individual’s inspiration. That I think you can agree with. Every real advance in science, something completely new, it is the result of the inspiration of a particular person. You can take Nikola Telsa for example. He was able to conceive completely new things and introduce them and we are still using them today, AC power for example, invented by Nicola Tesla. But he was inspired, and that inspiration came from somewhere.
So I believe, actually I know, that there is divine inspiration. So as we have already established science is not making anything, they are discovering things, and properties of elements, metals, etc, that already exist. And some individual is divinely inspired at right time and he “discovers” something that leads to and an advance in science.
Then the technicians work on it and develop it and perfect it, etc.
So my information is this technology is not really new. The universe goes through cycles, it just so happens we are in the technological cycle, so this this technology is automatically coming out, by divine inspiration in the hearts and minds of some empowered scientists.
You may or may not believe in the divine part, but I think you can appreciate the inspiration part. Every true advance in science is a result of some individual’s inspiration.
Flat Earth Facts,
Your 03-27-21 post posits that once the plane lifts off the earth, the earth no longer has an influence on its trajectory. You ask me to seriously consider this. I have but it reminds me of gravitational assists in speeding up or changing the trajectory of vehicles that we have sent to the other planets. When a vehicle or an object with mass passes close enough to a planetary body, that vehicle’s trajectory will curve towards that planet’s well of gravity, effectively changing its direction of travel. This can also be witnessed when we see star light bend around a large gravitational well in between the starlight and the observer. Einstein’s theory of relativity was confirmed some 100 years ago during an eclipse of the sun where this gravitational lensing was witness for the first time and many times since. So if a large enough mass can bend the direction of light then a planet surely can effect an aircraft up close. If this is not what is happening then why do aircraft keep their momentum as if this is what is happening? I think these effects are not intuitive and I think your thinking style is more intuitive than logical.
I have never said gravity has no effect on the airplane or the other other objects in the sky, rather I have pointed out that gravity is simply a force which attracts objects to the center of mass of other objects. So earth is a very heavy object and gravity is simply a force that is attracting all the objects on the earth and the objects floating around in the sky to the center of the earth. That is all gravity can do. Sure if something flys past a planet then the gravity of the planet can change the trajectory of the object. But it is just pulling the object towards the center of the planet, that is all gravity can do.
So we are dealing with a completely different issue here. Gravity is certainly pulling the airplane down towards the center of the earth and this force has to be overcome by the lift and propulsion of the plane. That is gravity. We all agree.
However gravity only has the power to pull things towards the center of mass of the earth, the center of the earth. OK?
Gravity has no rotational component. Because the center of the earth remains in the the same position even as the earth rotates. OK?
So science has not given us any mechanism to explain how the objects in the sky, which are physically disconnected from the rotation of the earth are still being pulled around with the rotation of the earth. This is impossible. We don’t have any way of understand how this could happen. Science can not give us any explaination for this.
So that tends to suggest the other option, a stationary earth, is more likely than a rotating earth. Both are possibilities. We just have to work out what is actually happening.
Flat Earth Facts,
Is it not reasonable to think as above, so below. Why should the earth be the center of the entire universe. Is this not an example of the very human quality of self centered narsasism. To think we are so special that everything revolves around us is the way human beings behave and we know that this is an all too human flaw. Even inside the system it appears that we spin. I do not think it is reasonable to believe otherwise. If you take away the human flaws would not an outside observer see that the earth spins and is not the center of anything except the human ego. Once we remove humans, it looks this way. We are guilty of selfish egoism. That is why the s scientific method is the best method to try and overcome these human shortcomings. At least this is they way I see it.
Hi Jerry
Firstly yes, it is quite reasonable to propose “as above, so below,” that is a logical consistent theory. But it is not actual proof. It is a presumption based on a good logical premise. But there is still a chance that what is below, the earth, is something quite different from what is above, the planets. So yes, the proposition is reasonable, but there is still a chance it is not correct.
As far as deciding if the solar system is geocentric [rotating around the earth] or heliocentric [rotating around the sun], that is much more difficult. Because, as I have been trying to explain, we are inside this system, so all the movements, rotations, we observe happening, we have to chose a point of reference to measure them from. It means we have to consider some point stationary and calculate other movements in the system relative to that reference point. So it is equally valid to choose the sun as the stationary point and calculate everything based on that or we can choose the earth as the stationary point and calculate the other movements based on that.
Both systems work quite OK, heliocentric and geocentric, really it is just choosing the reference point and calculating on the basis of that. The only slight advantage that the heliocentric model has is they have developed a really neat way of explaining the retrograde motion of the planets, based on the sun being in the center, however this retrograde motion of the planets was also explained in older geocentric models.
So for us, inside the system, we have no way of knowing actually if the earth is in the center or if the sun is in the center. That is, more or less, an arbitrary choice.
I think you have uncovered the reason they have chosen to go with the heliocentric model. Their philosophy is to minimize the earth, to minimize the importance of humanity, so they can not have the earth in the center. So they have only chosen the heliocentric model on the basis of their philosophical beliefs. It is equally valid to choose the earth as the center, but for the reasons you outline, they don’t want to have the earth in the center. Even if the earth was in the center they would say it was not, because they don’t want earth to have any special significance. They could not bear earth to be in the center…
Flat Earth Facts,
I guess one of the major reasons to place our star at the center is because it holds 99 % of the matter in our solar system so it would be illogical to believe the massive object revolves around the tiny object. You cannot give the two equal validity. The other star systems we see in our telescopes show us that stars are the main players in our universe, or at the top with things like black holes, star clusters, and galactic groups. I think you want the earth centered hypothesis and the sol centered theory to have equal plausibility but how can they. It does not fit with the rest of our observations. Plus the vast distances that are involved would mean that the matter on the outside of an earth centered universe would have to be traveling at speeds that don’t fit with any observations. I mean at millions of light years out they would have to traveling hundreds of times faster than the speed of light to orbit our earth in 24 hours. There are dozens of examples like this that favor the sol centered solar system. I can think of none that would favor the earth centered system other than the need of the human emotion to feel special. So to posit that they are on equal terms is, in my opinion, not only unlikly it is also impossible, if we are comparing it with all of our observations. I do not like to say anything is impossible but you really must draw the line some where. I think maybe it is rather hard for you personally to commit to one side or the other, not sure why, but as a logical, reasonable observer we must choose the most plausible over the most inplausible otherwise how can we ever blaze our way foward in our quest for factual knowledge over conjecture and undesidedness, if that is a word.
I admit it is not good policy to choose one idea over another without excruciating and solid evidence in its favor, even then I do not like to say anything is 100% sure but like I said before, 99.99% is as good as it gets.
I do have a challenge. Other than just stating that the earth centered universe is as plausible, and it would look the same if you flew out and started rotating with everything else, can you give me some logical reasons to believe it to be so. I have given you some like the travel speed discrepancies, the photos qnd videos from robotic vehicles we have sent into space, the larger mass over smaller mass idea, the other star system appear to be centered idea, the planetary retrograde example, and now we can see in our Hubble view, some planetary nebula that appear to be stars with proto planets circling their central star, all these little star systems that do not appear to have an entire universe rotating around them. Where do you yourself draw the line, if at all? And if the universe circled the earth, there would be a line traveling through the planet from top to bottom all the way to the end of the universe because the pole stars that travel in circles over both poles. I happen to live in the north eastern United States of America and up here the stars make a large circle around the pole star. If I lived on the equator, I would see the stars traveling from east to west in a line, and the same in the south, a circle. For us to be in the center of all this would be incredible. Do you not agree. Can you make a choice or are you going to continue to give validity to the two sides being of equal plausibility? If so please give me some examples of evidentiary value that I can wrap my mind around because to say, “we just cannot tell from within the system,” is not good enough. If it looks like, tastes like, smells like, clucks like, walks like, and tells you its a chicken, I’m going to guarantee its a chicken.
Those people who say things like, “we could be a simulation,” are simply failing to accept reality. Sure anything is possible, but what is actually plausible?
Hi Jerry
Yes, of course, sun centered model has been thought out well and has got good justifications, on the basis of our current understanding of things. My point is it is all more-or-less a mental exercise. Things may not be actually as we imagine them to be. Things which are very basic and fundamental to our understanding may in reality be different from what we imagine them to be, thus changing everything. For example you mention the extraordinary distances to the stars, for example. The only reason we put the stars so extraordinarily far away is because they remain in the same positions and configurations in the sky even when the earth moves almost 2 million miles to the other side of the sun. So using this distance the earth moves around the sun you have got the base of a triangle 2 million miles across to measure parallax on the stars, but we don’t find any parallax to speak of in reality. So that is why we have to put the stars light years away. So you see everything is like this. All adjusted to make sense of our observations within the model we believe in.
In the future I will most likely present an alternative model that is based on different assumptions to the ones taken for granted by the believes in the globe earth model. So you can stay tuned for that.
If nothing else it is an interesting mental exercise. And it would certainly be a step forward for mankind and science if we could accept the possibility that some of our beliefs may not be 100% correct.
Flat Earth Facts,
It has been a pleasure debating you these past weeks. Your keen on all the facts from all sides. You have a true scientific mind and I will give you credit where credit is due. Great job on mediating the outliers and some of the more strange minds out there. I once again tip my hat to you. Can you please tell me where you are from or at least what country so I can applaud the education system where you gained your logical skills? If not, its all good. I’m somewhere in idaho, USA but raised in California. Peace to you and your valiant efforts.
My education comes from the books of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada! You will find them very interesting I suspect:
https://PrabhupadaBooks.com
I was born in Australia and have travelled quite a bit also. Spent a few years in California also around Topanga Canyon in LA.
Flat Earth Facts,
Of course none of ours or anyone’s beliefs are 100% correct. It is not possible to be human and be 100% correct. I think all can agree to this.
Yes. So in that case you realize that the “facts” presented to us by science may not be 100% correct. Which any real scientist will of course agree with, but that is not how they are presented to the general public. These ideas are presented as facts, not theories.
Flat Earth Facts,
You said this site was for people who are willing to see an opposing or alternative to the globe model. Ive seen plenty of other ideas but not one single plausible, provable, repeatable example that has any evidentiary value proposed by any of your responders. All they keep showing is that the globe earth is the only answer to the question. Whats up with that?
Hi Jerry
Yes. I agree with you. I do not find any serious competition to the globe model at all among the flat earthers. As I think you can understand if you read the articles on the site. You will find most of them prove the various points the flat earthers propose do not prove the earth is flat at all.
Yes. As far as I can see and perceive the globe earth model is really doing quite a satisfactory job of explaining our observations to quite a significant degree. However there are unexplained aspects of it, like how it could be possible that somehow with the rotation of the earth the whole atmosphere and everything in it is also rotating with it as if it were one contagious unit. This is a great mystery the globe earthers can not explain, and of course there is the mystery of in many cases being able to see too far in the distance objects that should be hidden by the curve of the globe, if the earth was a globe. However, the flat earthers are not able to put forward any working alternative to the globe earth model and apart from these two mysteries with the globe model, it is a very good model.
So yes, at the time being, if I had to make a decision, I would have to say, on the basis of what we can observe and test, the proposal that the earth is a spinning globe is a very reasonable one and would seem to have a good chance of being true whereas the proposition put forward by the flat earthers is obviously totally false and has no possibility whatsoever of being true, at least as they present it. And you can see so many aspects of why the arguments put forward by the flat earth people are false on this website.
Still we will continue with this investigation and see where it leads. I am not satisfied with the flat earth presentation of course, but I am also not completely satisfied with the globe earth model, and it is my suspicion that we do not fully understand the actual situation and I would not be at all surprised if the reality is considerably different from what we imagine it to be.
Flat Earth Facts,
Thank you, that was the response I was expecting seeing as it is obvious that you have the capacity to see logic and a great mind for factual observations. Thanks for that, my work here is done. Your a great mediator by the way. I tip my hat to you. Great job.
Proof of curvature. Sextant corrections, long distance navigation, spherical trig, the fact that land slowly goes below the horizon when you sail away from it and slowly rises from the horizon when you sail towards it, the fact that you can see further with increasing height, celestial navigation and so on.
Observed proof of rotation. Trade winds, TRS, gyroscopes and gyrocompasses, ocean currents, weather patterns and so on.
I agree David, globe earth model is very persuasive and logical and scientific, and may well be actually a correct explanation of the system we find ourselves in. It is a logical, plausible, scientific explanation that scientifically minded people can believe in.
Flat earth, on the other hand, they have no model actually. Every flat earther believes something different and none of their models actually work. None of their models explain what we see happening in the sky or can explain how we can navigate around the planet.
As you point out globe earthers are able to produce a globe that is consistent with our actual experience, flat earthers, they can’t even draw a plausible map of their flat earth which “works.”
So really there is no competition, actually there is not even any working flat earth model. But if there was a model, a working predictive scientific model, that explained our experiences and observations, based on different assumptions to the globe earth model, then you would have to seriously consider that also.
So I am just wondering if it is possible to construct such a model.
So I am just wondering, why are you so frightened of facts that you have to delete them?
This is not a site for people who blindly and fanatically believe in either side. The purpose of this site is to consider the possibility that things could be different in some ways to the currently accepted model. So we are trying to look outside the box. Therefore we have no interest in hearing the rantings and ravings of someone completely locked up in the box.
You blindly believe science. You have beliefs based on observation, but your ability to observe is very limited. That you do not realize. So the theories you have made based on many assumptions may not actually correctly describe the system you are observing. The way you have assumed the system is working, actually it may be working in a different way.
So we are not interested in the rantings and ravings of the blind followers of science or the blind followers of flat earth.
It is the same thing, following a doctrine, a religion. I admit your doctrine is far more logical and you have a working scientific predictive model to back it up.
However your model, although it does quite a good job of predicting the outcomes of the system, it may not accurately describe how the system works.
So you seem incapable of thinking ‘outside the box’ of modern science. So we have no interest in your rantings and ravings, just like we have no interest in the illogical rantings and ravings of the flat earthers.
In your rants you are not posting ‘facts’. You are posting the currently accepted scientific dogma. That is a very different thing to ‘facts’.
Flat Earth Facts,
I must apologize to those that I may have offended in my responses. Not my intention. Only that they may be better educated to the Facts of this exsistance.
The distance when travelling 10˚ due east or west parallel to the equator.
At 60˚N or S the distance is 300 nm or 555.8 km. Personal experience.
At 30˚N or S the distance is 520 nm or 962.3 km. Personal experience.
On the Equator the distance is 600 nm or 1111.2 km. Personal experience.
For correcting sextant altitudes for the Earth’s curvature the formulae are;
Dip = 0.97 x Square Root (Ht of Eye in feet). Personal experience.
Dip = 1.76 x Square Root (Ht of Eye in metres). Personal experience.
Also magnetic compasses only function because of the earth’s magnetic field, which only exists as it is because the earth is spherical. There is no such thing as a mono-pole magnet in nature. Only people who have actually worked with them or studied their development know this. I have done both. Not a single FE cultist has done either. Not a single one. Never. Not a one. Personal experience.
Gyrocompasses only work because the Earth is slowly rotating and gravity is a fact. Only people who have actually worked with them or studied their development know this. I have done both. Not a single FE cultist has done either. Not a single one. Never. Not a one. Personal experience.
I can understand the walking on an aeroplane example, or on a bus, although I have some doubts as we can still perceive motion. I wonder what a toy helicopter would do, presumably it would be free to fly around the interior of an aeroplane and does not feel the forces of the aeroplane’s motion?
However. If this idea is true, then it is only true if the interior ‘atmosphere’ is contained. The little toy helicopter would not fly easily anywhere within the plane if there was a huge hole in the side.
So given that containment is necessary, what contains the Earth?
I have always thought there would have to be a barrier separating Earth and its atmosphere, and space. Because you could not just have the atmosphere being subject to the Earth’s forces (‘gravity’ and rotation), and then space, with nothing in between. One could not simply merge into the other. We accept the Earth is pulling everything towards it, but only to a point because after that point is space. So what is the ‘point’? Don’t say the air simply gradually thins and then there’s space, that cannot explain it. A greater force will always win, so this would be Earth or space. So like an argon-filled double glazed window is sealed to prevent argon escaping to the atmosphere, the Earth must be sealed if we accept the idea it is rotating and so is everything else within its atmosphere.
And so then the idea that humans could go into space, breaking through this tremendous barrier capable of separating the Earth and its atmosphere from space… is laughable.
The official explanation is the atmosphere is held to the earth by magic gravity and spins with the earth. And there is no containment. It gets thinner and thinner as you go up until the point when it gradually fades into the vacuum. So there is no ‘edge’, just gradually fades into the vacuum…
This is treated by scientists like the “word of God” and questioning it is not permitted. Even though, really, it is not logical, and as you point out, does not make any sense at all.
This gravity is one of the great failings of the globe earth model. They have no explanation as to how the gravity could possible grab hold of the atmosphere and everything in the atmosphere, like the airplanes, birds, clouds, etc, and spin it in exact synchronization with the rotation of the earth… Gravity is only able to pull things towards the center of the earth. There is no spinning component to gravity because as the earth spins the center of the earth remains in the same place… So gravity has not got any power to grab the atmosphere and pull it around with the spinning earth…
These are the types of questions you are not supposed to ask, the questions science can not answer, but they won’t admit they don’t know, they can’t answer, they will change the subject and yell and scream and have a tantrum if you push the point…
Yes Flat Earth Facts it’s very frustrating talking to smart people that have been brainwashed with this doctrine. I just wish they would think for themselves, not have science be their go to for all knowledge. Not when most of science is run by the elites for their own lies. When your aware of all the lies, the truth is so obvious.
Blessings Brother
The flimsy thin layer of the atmosphere has mass, so it is attracted by gravity. And also the air mass has inertia. And there is friction between the surface and the lower bound of the atmosphere and between adjacent layers of the atmosphere. Those three things keep the atmosphere rotating, clung to the massive Earth. Then why don’t all air molecules fall to the surface? Because their temperature movement keeps them apart (in the gaseous state). There is no point beyond which the gravitational force of the Earth stops and “outer” space begins. The gravitational force (per unit mass) decreases with the inverse square of the distance (with respect to the center of mass) For instance, at the distance of the moon it has become about 3,500 x as weak compared with its strenght at the Earth’s surface, but still exactly enough to deliver the centripetal force needed to keep the Moon in its orbit with this orbital velocity.
Neither is there a sharp boundary beyond which there is no atmosphere. The density (and pressure) decreases exponentially with altitude. It halves about every 5 km. This follows from teh laws of physics and is confirmed by measurements. Rather arbitrarily we talk about “outer space” beyond 100 km, but at that altitude there is still some air left, with a density of about one millionth of the density at sea level. And even the ISS at an altitude of 420 km still experiences a tiny bit of friction and has to reboost roughly every month a little bit in order to regain altitude. I don’t see what “greater force” space could exert on anything. Or perhaps you think that the vacuüm sucks the molecules up, which it doesn’t. Every single molecule is bound to the Earth by its own tiny gravitational force and will fall down, until it collides with another molecule . Only when its temperature velocity would exceed the escape velocity it could escape, but the typical molecular speed is much smaller than that.
Its a theory of course. I can give you that. But it is not fact. Not for sure. It is a story you are telling to try and make sense of it. But it makes no sense.
All the words you are pouring out are just a feeble attempt to cover over the fact that science can not explain how it could be possible that the spinning earth can spin the atmosphere and everything in the atmosphere as if it were part of the same physical system. You claim the rotation of the earth is imparted into the atmosphere by friction. Which is rubbish. There is no friction. It’s completely rubbish. Insane. Almost as crazy as a flat earther.
There is no explanation for this. All you can do is write volumes of stuff to try and avoid facing the facts.
And the facts are, if your spinning globe model is correct, then you have to provide the explanation for the mechanism which joins the atmosphere and the earth and the butterflies and the airplanes and the clouds and the wind, and everything else in the atmosphere into one unit which is absolutely locked to the rotation of the earth.
And there is no such force, there is no such system.
It is a mystery.
The system acts as if the earth was stationary. We can not detect any rotation of the earth by leaving the earth, because we presume when we leave the earth we are still locked into the same frame of reference as the earth, still spinning with the earth, therefore we can not detect the spin of the earth.
But we can not explain what is the force that locks us to the rotation of the earth and pulls us around in the sky, totally disconnected from the earth, but still locked to the rotation of the earth?
You can not explain this. Science can not explain this. In this regard the system behaves as if the earth was stationary.
There is no evidence the earth is rotating.
For the earth to be rotating you have to explain the force that is merging the atmosphere and everything in the atmosphere into the same rigid connected frame of reference so it can all move together as a unit.
But you can not explain any such force. Therefore, this part at least, of the globe earth model, is incorrect.
The spin of the Earth can directly be detected with ring lasers and via the diurnal doppler shift in stellar spectra
STOP TRYING TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT.
Subject is you can not explain any force that can hold the earth, the atmosphere and everything in the atmosphere in one rigid contiguous frame of reference that all moves as if it was physically connected, moving as one unit.
You have suggested it is friction. It is not friction. Yes of course there is friction. But there is no friction in a contiguous frame of reference. There is no question of friction. The whole system has to move together as one unit. Friction implies that there are two different frames of reference and they are moving at different speeds, thus creating friction. Friction is not the force that holds the spinning earth and the atmosphere in one contiguous unit.
It does behave in the way we would expect a stationary earth to behave. As far as your ring lasers, they can not detect the rotation of the earth unless you can get them outside the rotating field. That is your whole point. Everything is rotating together as if it were one solid fixed unit. So unless you can get your ring laser out of this rotating field, you can not detect the rotation. Because your laser is also rotating with the whole frame of reference. That is the whole point of the frame of reference. You can not detect the movement of the frame of reference while you are inside it.
So concentrate on the point. What is the force that joining the atmosphere and everything in the atmosphere into the same contiguous fixed frame of reference as the earth, what is pulling it around, exactly synchronized with the rotation of the earth?
That you can not explain. I know you can write tens of thousands of words, trying to evade the point. But you can not explain how this could be possible. Thus indicating that the earth may be stationary.
Thanks for responding.
Yes, this is what happens when you start asking the difficult questions. I was turned off science very early at school because of this very thing. I concluded it was full of shit and did barely any work. It’s a shame because i was a smart kid and I could have got too grades had I been like most other kids, ie didn’t question too much, accepted what I was being told. But I’m such a non conformist, i rejected it outright – what can I do, its who I am.
I knew then that science shouldn’t be getting cross with me for asking awkward questions. Science should be excited by my questions. Wow, someone’s asking valid questions against our hypothesis!!
But no, it’s “someone is daring to question our dogma, he must be punished”.
I have carried this scepticism throughout my life and although I’m not outwardly successful, I have to say it has served me well.
Anyway enough of my life story..
I do wish a scientific mind would address some of these burning questions. But as a number of celebrated physicists have said, the more you study science the more you believe in God. Of course the leading scientists (ie those in the public eye) today will never admit this, because the ruling class is pushing an anti God narrative.
I find globe vs flat earth discussion to be closely related to atheist vs theist.
“I find globe vs flat earth discussion to be closely related to atheist vs theist.” Not really, it is biblical literalism vs observable reality. The present FE cult in the “west” is basically a Christian cult, plus the usual loony hangers on, based on the biblical claims of the Brit, Sam. “Parallax” Rowbotham made in the mid 19th.C. He is the one who dreamt up the ice wall etc. without even leaving the UK. All of the stuff the FE cultists accept as factual is part of Christianity as written in his “Earth Not a Globe”, published in 1881. OK? Then :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Carpenter_(flat_Earth_theorist)
This was followed up by the publication of “Zetetic Cosmogeny” in 1899 by Thomas “Rectangle” Winship, and so on up to today.
Similarly with Islam.
And there is a common thread of biblical literalism which comprises and runs thrpugh but is not limited to the FE, ID, Creationist and YEC cults, many anti-vaxxers. most AGW & ACC deniers and now Covid-19 deniers.
Quick question – if the earth is a globe and the sun is 93 million miles away – how does one explain the sun and the moon appearing in front of the clouds. I have observed this over the past few days on several occasions both with and without a camera and also I have saw it appearing on occasions when its setting to have clouds behind it and in front of it i.e. its passing in between clouds?
QueationEverything
Many photos and videos exist of just that visual phenomenon, where it appears as if clouds are behind sun or moon. This proves apparent only and relates to the brightness of the sun and moon relative to surroundings. Photographers know that intensely bright objects appear closer and often in front of non-luminous ephemeral objects like clouds. The sun in the daylight or moon at night are much brighter than their surroundings and this phenomenon can occur. However, the moon seldom appears in front of clouds during the day when upper atmosphere noble gasses prove more luminous and subsequently the moon can easily be obscured by clouds which are made luminous by the sun.
“how does one explain the sun and the moon appearing in front of the clouds. ” Quite simply, that isn’t what you actually saw. It is what you wanted to see. End of.
I have observed the skies for decades and no-one I know has ever seen what you claim to have seen.
Why do you choose to believe Earth is not a slowly rotating terrestrial spheroid? Have you studied basic geometry and trig? Physics?
I note you are still deleting my extremely relevant posts. Posts which expose inconsistencies and diversion. That you do so proves me correct, doesn’t it. Just as Dubay, Campanella et al do.
I can not find any of your posts that are anything more than blindly and unthinkingly repeating the globe earth dogma. We all know what the globe earth dogma is and don’t need you to repeat it. You are completely inside the box, but we are trying to explore outside the box.
The point of this site, as I have already mentioned to you, is not to blindly repeat anyone’s dogma, but to actually think. And to consider the possibility that the currently accepted globe earth model may be incorrect, either partially or completely.
Yes. I agree globe earth model is a good model. And we don’t need you to explain its glories to us. At least I have studied it very deeply, much more deeply than you I am sure, and it is a great achievement of many great scientific men and philosophers over the ages. But it is only a model. And I give you the credit that yes, it is very logical, and very good at predicting our observations, and it is the best model that we have.
But it may not be correct. And, ultimately, the purpose of this site is to investigate and maybe propose another model that is equally valid as the globe earth model.
Maybe the globe earth model is correct. I am open to that possibility. And it is the best model we have at the moment. I agree with that.
But science is supposed to be about exploring the possibilities. And, at least in my opinion, there is quite a good possibility that the globe earth model is either completely, or at least partially, incorrect.
So don’t think that you have to educate us about the globe earth model. We know all about it already.
I was raised to question everything – except religion, so therefore that tends to be the very first thing I question.
No one that I’ve thusfar researched has come up with a logical reason as ‘WHY’ NASA lies about the earth being a spinning ball in space.
Claiming it’s so “they can hide God from us” is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.
Is god real, or not? Is god everything the religious and their ‘holy books’ claim it is?
If so, then ‘god’ can’t be hidden from anyone by anyone because ‘god’ is omnicient, omnipotent and omnipresent (according to their own proclamations).
And if god not all they claim, then all of religion – it stands to reason – is just as massive a fraudulent lie as NASA’s spinning ball.
Yes. NASA is not hiding the flat earth, NASA, and all the scientists, etc, they believe the earth is a globe. Globe earth model is the only working predictive model so naturally they believe the earth is a globe.
It appears that can not get high enough to check it for sure however.
If the ‘globe is the model that works’ why doesn’t it have any models that work? Worldwide?
If gravity exists, why can’t any glober (worldwide) tell me what the ‘invisible force’ NASA calls gravity is?
No gravity = no ball.
No baller can prove, nor can they make water, dirt, lego man stay on a rotating ball model.
All fall off.
This only works on Flat Earth.
It’s the only working model.
You are wrong James. Everything stays on the globe because of gravity. That is a completely reasonable theory. Globe earthers have a completely reasonable, logical and scientific theory and they provide a predictive model that works at least in almost all cases, in the sense that their model very nicely predicts the observations we see in the sky and the experiences we have when traveling around the globe.
On the other hand flat earthers have no model, and have no way of explaining what we see happening in the sky and no way to explain how we can travel around the globe. So globe earth model is almost completely consistent with our experiences and observations, while all the flat earth people have is a sentimental religious belief that the earth is flat.
But it could be flat, or it could be a globe, or it could be something else. The point is we have no way of knowing what the earth is unless we can find someone who actually knows what it is and get him to explain it to us.
Our sense perception is so limited, we can only see such a tiny part of the creation that is around us, so because we can not see it, there is no way we can comprehend what it is, using our sense perception and intellectual speculation..
The truth is we don’t know what shape the earth is. And no one wants to accept that. They want to pick team A [globe earth] or team B [flat earth]. They are both stories attempting to explain the tiny perception of reality we have through our five senses. The globe earth story is a very good, reasonable logical scientific story, the flat earth people, they do not even have a commonly agreed on story and whatever stories they tell are very weak and unconvincing.
However, just because the globe people have got a good story, it does not mean their story is correct.
So the truth. We don’t know… And there is no way we can find out by ourselves with our sense perception and logic, intelligence, etc…
‘Gravity.’
The fatal Achilles heel of ‘the ball’ model. Nobody has ever been able to tell me what ‘the invisible force’ NASA claims gravity is
The debunked ball model contains several unfixable fatal flaws killing the lie dead.
Here’s NASA bragging they don’t really know what gravity is. 0 gravity, 0 ball. Nice. Not even NASA knows. Total joke. What a mockery.
NASA: We don’t actually know what gravity is.
https://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question30.html
After talking to thousands of globers worldwide, I have assessed the following fatal ball model deficits.
#1: All cartoon fiction ballers lie about having a working ball model. Not a single one actually does. There isn’t a ball model on the planet that can hold dirt, water, lego people without all of them falling off. They should be able due to mass based gravity automatically directly and proportionately reducing requirements as mass is reduced. The claim is things only need enough gravity to hold their specific mass. No-one (worldwide) has been able to get this to work.
Flat Earth pie tin holds every thing every single time without anything falling off, irrefutably debunking the cartoon ball’s virtual reality only model.
#2: 0 fictooners can tell me what gravity is. All claim to know. None actually do. Again killing the ball.
#3: This is an absolute death blow to the spinning ball model. The claim is Earth rotates beside stationary sun (relative to Earth/moon) causing day/night.
This has a terrible problem. It cannot be fixed. This means ONLY the moon can rotate around spinning ball. Sun is a fixed stationary point relative to sun and moon.
The moon will take 30 days to orbit Earth 360° to return to start point.
On a rotating ball, there is day (typically right), and night (typically left) or ½ ball is day while ½ is night.
With ONLY moon moving around Earth as sun sits dead still stationary relative to Earth, moon has to spend 15 days on day side, 15 days on night side.
This eliminates night moons for at least ½ each month, and at least ½ each year.
This cannot, does not work.
This is unfixable.
0 ball community members have been able to debunk this.
It’s dead.
Flat Earth works.
Ball model does not.
Hi James
You say “Flat earth works” “Ball doesn’t work”
I am not aware of any working flat earth model. So if you have a flat earth model that works, that is just what the world is waiting for. Please explain your working flat earth model.
On the other hand we do have a working ball earth model. Yes, it has some imperfections. There are some small points that seem contradictory to what the ball earth model predicts. But overall globe earth model is a VERY GOOD scientific predictive model that enables us to explain what is happening above us and our experiences here on earth.
It may not be correct, but you have to give the globe earth model credit as being a good valid scientific predictive model. The only working model we have of our solar system.
But no one has ever presented a working flat earth model? No one can even provide a feasible flat earth map???
Hi FEF,
“On the other hand we do have a working ball earth model. Yes, it has some imperfections. There are some small points that seem contradictory to what the ball earth model predicts. But overall globe earth model is a VERY GOOD scientific predictive model that enables us to explain what is happening above us and our experiences here on earth.”
That’s an opinion not a fact based scientific conclusion. The ball Earth contradictions prove numerous and you sometimes just ignore them, like the problem of the celestial equator, or throw major contradictions off as “some imperfections.” No you have major problems and have no clue how to deal with them.
Many seem to know this.
Have a great day!
The point is we have a working ball earth model, we don’t have a working flat earth model. Yes, some imperfections in globe earth model, but overall it is a very good scientific predictive model, compared to flat earthers who have no model, no idea at all how anything could work if the earth was a flat plane.
The ball model doesn’t work. It’s based on a theorised magical force called ‘gravity’ which has never been demonstrated. You are asking us to believe in unprovable magic over more likely explanations of electromagnetism and buoyancy, which are provable truths.
You are calling for a ‘model’ or you won’t believe. You are showing your colours. The truth does not arrive in a neat package from those who rule over us. It has to be pieced together, we can thus base our understanding of earth on what we know (it’s a stationary plane) and admit we know very little overall. Only a child believes in fairy stories.
Yes. Of course. Globe earth model is based on gravity and gravity can not be proven or disproven from earth because all experiments will be overwhelmed by the earth’s gravity. However, the ball earth model, if you accept the idea of gravity, it does work. So you can’t say it does not work. It works fabulously. If you look at the sky, what we see happening in the sky, really looks like what we would see if we were on a rotating ball. And the model they have developed around these premises is a very good scientific predictive model. Compared to flat earth where there is no working model. No feasible map, no explanation for what we see happening in the sky, etc, etc, etc.
So at this time globe earth people are able to present a logical scientific predictive model, which is based on gravity, that can not be proven or disproven, but that is not the point. Their model works, it’s predictions are almost completely consistent with our actual observations.
So globe earth model does work, it is a fabulous model, it has some imperfections, it is based on some assumptions, and gravity, but it does work. Compared to nothing that works from the flat earth side.
I think globe earth model is most likely incorrect. But you can’t say globe earth model doesn’t work. It works very well.
Why would anything fall off a spherical Earth?
All we know from experience about falling, is that things tend to fall towards the Earth’s surface.
Now there are (at least) two possible scenario’s:
A. There is some universal up and down direction, and things fall down. The Earth(‘s surface) just happens to be in the way.
B. Falling has something to do with the Earth(‘s surface). Or, is caused by the Earth(‘s surface). In this scenario the surface may be tilted, hollow, spherical or saddle-shaped, it doesn’t matter, because “up” and “down” curve with the surface.
Neither of the two scenario’s is a priori justified by our limited experience, in which things always fall towards the Earth’s surface.
Only after cosmographical, geographical and other observations clearly have shown that the Earth must be a sphere, we can assume scenario B to be correct.
And after that the question “why don’t things fall off a spherical Earth” has become meaningless.
Of course it remains an interesting question, what causes things to fall towards the Earth, but the answer is irrelevant for the shape of the Earth.
You are not saying anything. Writing words without saying anything is meaningless. Point is we do not have the ability to determine what shape the earth is from our position on the earth.
We can not see what shape the earth is and we have no way of telling for sure what shape it is.
Yes. As you point out, from our astronomical observations particularly, we can make a well-founded proposition that the earth may be a globe, based on what we see happening in the sky. That is a very captivating model for sure.
And we can explain most of the movements we see in the sky by rotating our imaginary globe once every 24 hours and having our imaginary globe orbit the sun once a year. These two imaginary rotations in our globe earth model do quite fabulously predict most of the motions we see happening in the sky above our heads.
However, one could equally validly propose different causes for these two rotational motions we see in the sky. One could equally validly propose that these rotations we see the luminaries in the sky performing are a result of the luminaries themselves moving in the sky above the earth. That is actually what appears to be happening. It appears to us that the moon, sun and stars are moving above a stationary earth. The only reason we imagine we are on a ball rotating and floating in space is because we have been taught that by science.
That is not a natural conclusion, that is not what appears to be happening. We appear to be on a stationary surface with the luminaries in the sky moving above our heads.
But we have no way of actually telling what is moving and what is stationary as we are inside the system and all we can measure are relative movements.
We can not know from within the system how the system is working.
If we want to know actually what is happening we have to find someone who knows the truth and hear the truth from him. There is no other way to determine how the system is working while being stuck in the middle of the system…
I wasn’t talking about the movement, only about the shape. And the argument that gravity prevents us from falling off. It doesn’t. In scenario B there is no “falling off” because outside the Earth there is no falling in itself (independent from the Earth.
About the shape itself: Of course we can determine its shape. The ancient Greeks already pointed out that ships and islands partially disappeared behind the horizon with increasing distance; and that from a higher standpoint you could see them further away. Nowadays we can use wind farms at sea. I myself photographed quite a lot of examples where you can see them partially hidden behind the horizon.
I also made photographs of the horizon together with a bottle spirit level. You can see that the horizon always shows a dip, which increases with your elevation.
The most strongly evidence comes from observations of Polaris and the Sun. The easiest is observing Polaris and measuring the angle above the horizon. This angle is your latitude. Now through the past four centuries surveyors have measured distances between landmarks like church towers and constructed a triangle network of distances. From this we know the distance between two lines of latitude one degree apart. In whole numbers this turns out be 111 km, independent of your particular latitude. Simple goniometry shows, that this cannot be the case on a flat plane with Polaris at some limited height above that plane. Instead it fits perfectly with a spherical surface and Polaris very far away. With a little more trouble you will find the same result with the angular distance of the Sun above the horizon at noon and at the day of the equinox, where your latitude is 90° minus the angular height of the Sun.
And as a bonus you now know also immediately the circumference of the Earth , namely 360° x 111 k; from that it’s radius, and from that you can calculate how far away the horizon should be, what the horizon dip should be, how much of a windmill should be hidden, etc. And these calculations always matched my observations thus far.
Furthermore all celestial objects (sun, moon, planets, stars, comets) appear to move in daily circular paths along the sky all of these paths are parallel and lie on an imaginary sphere that seems to rotate centered at Polaris for northern latitudes and centered at the South Celestial Pole for southern latitudes. Combined with the fact that many celestial objects are at the same time visible from one latitude and invisible (behind the horizon) for another latitude, the inevitable conclusion must be that the Earth is a sphere.
The problem is you don’t see things as they are. You see in perspective. Look in the distance, even if it is flat the ground comes up and the sky comes down and they meet at the horizon, the vanishing point. Things vanish at the horizon, because that is the vanishing point, that is the point where, due to perspective, the sky meets the ground. Things that go past that point disappear, from your point of view. But it is only an optical illusion. Because you can’t see things as they actually are. Therefore all your ideas, based on your sense perceptions, which are incorrect, are faulty…
What do you mean you are not aware of any working flat model? Of course such a model exists.
Do you mean a model which has widespread acceptance? Are you straight up shilling?
Your whole position of ‘show me a model with more credibility and i’ll drop the current accepted model’ is wrong. That just means you’ll side with whoever is telling the best story, in this case the powers that be that are keeping us confused with this greatest of all hoaxes.
A scientific position should be show me the proof. Well there are more proofs of flat earth than of globe. That’s a fact. There is not a single proof of globe earth. That’s a fact.
Also to admit that if we don’t know something, we don’t know it. Whereas the globe model is built on an arrogance that says ‘the flat model has too many unanswered questions so we can’t believe it’. Or ‘we cannot comprehend this or that about flat earth, therefore it’s false’. This is arrogant, akin to saying ‘if it’s not knowable then it’s obviously wrong’. An intelligent human is aware of their limitations.
So we go back to knowing what we feel and see. That the earth is a stationary plane and all else is stories designed to keep us dumbed down and thus easily controllable.
‘They’ know we cannot achieve enlightenment when we are living under a lie.
Please show me the working flat earth model. I have never seen a working flat earth map. And if you can not even provide a working map, then how can you have a model. And no flat earth explanation I have seen can explain what we see happening in the sky.
When I say model I mean valid scientific predictive model. Like the globe earth model. It should be able to explain the system, how we imaging it is working, and that model should be capable of making predictions that are consistent with our actual observations of the real system. And globe earth model does this very well. There is no valid scientific predictive flat earth model, as far as I am aware, if you have one please describe it.
Ya but you still haven’t shown any of us this ‘flat earth modle’ you speak of. That says a great deal about the truthfulness of your words.
Yes JP. That is the problem. There is no flat earth model that works. So it is difficult for thoughtful people to consider the earth might be flat when the flat earth people can’t explain how a flat earth could produce the observations we experience in the sky and our actual experiences travelling around the globe.
On the other hand globe earthers are able to provide us with a working model that does predict almost everything that we observe happening in the sky and which is compatible with our practical experiences travelling around the globe.
So for people who want a logical explanation, at the moment, the globe is the only logical working explanation.
However, as I have stated before, just because you have a working model that does not prove that the system you are modelling is actually working in the same way as your model.
So it is the purpose of this site, actually, it investigate if it is possible to construct a valid working predictive scientific model that works just as well as the globe earth model but has very different initial assumptions…
It may be possible, but at the moment, no one has done it. At the moment the only working model we have is the globe earth model.
Wow, you say globe earth and gravity cannot be proven on earth because of gravity, what the hell kind of circle argument is that. Gravity cannot be proven on earth because of earth’s gravity. How dum are you people.
No. Gravity can not be proven or disprove on earth because any experiment will be overwhelmed by the earth’s gravity. It is a circular argument. I am not saying gravity exists necessarily, in the way they understand it, but we do experience a force that pulls everything down, and that is what they call gravity. So they speculate that that force pulling everything down, gravity, is caused by the mass of the earth. So accepting that it is impossible to prove or disprove gravity. Because you have to show that mass attracts objects and smaller masses can orbit around bigger masses, etc. But we can not do any experiments like this on earth because of the huge mass of the earth that totally overwhelms any other smaller mass attractions.
So the point is that the force pulling everything down is caused by the mass of the earth, gravity, it is just a theory, and it can not be proven or disproven within the gravitational field of the earth.
There is a thing, there is a phenomena, there is a force pulling everything down, there is no argument about that. But the idea that that force is caused by the mass of a globe earth, that is only a theory and can not be proven or disproven, at least not on earth.
As a physics student I did (a modern version of ) the Cavendish experiment. Two masses clearly attracting each other with a force proportional to the inverse square of their distance. What more proof do you demand?
Rubbish. You can not show two masses clearly attracting each other within the earth’s gravity. The earth’s gravity is too strong. It will overwhelm any of your attempts.
Yes. Cavendish. Used two small lead balls to determine the mass of the earth and the gravitational constant… RUBBISH.
If gravity exists the huge force of gravity created by the earth will overwhelm any tiny force between Cavendish’s small lead balls…
This is a case of scientists foolishly and impossibly trying to “prove” their theory.
This is not science. It is stupidity. It is impossible to prove or disprove gravity within the very strong gravitational field of the earth. Cavendish, like so many scientists, is an idiot. And of course so many other idiot scientists follow and worship him…
Science is a society of the cheaters and the cheated. Cavendish is a cheater and the other scientists are cheated by him.
They want to believe. And when someone comes and “proves” their belief in gravity. The want to believe. Even though it is total rubbish.
A DOWNWARD force cannot overwhelm a SIDEWAYS force.
Of course it can. There is a fly flying along and you stand on it. The downward force of your foot stops the fly’s horizontal movement and it is smashed into the ground.
the horizontal movement of the fly will be decelerated by a horizontal force. It may be caused by your foot, perhaps there was a friction between the shoe sole and the fly or perhaps it was slightly tilted.
Simultaneously the fly was accelerated downwards by the downward muscular force.
This is just basic physics.
The point is the downwards force overwhelms the sideways force the fly initially had.
That is the situation with gravity. Any experiment we try on the earth to measure a force between two balls is going to be totally overwhelmed by the force acting between those two balls and the earth.
So this experiment is not valid. It is just scientists clutching at straws.
To make a few concepts clear. The fly did no “have” force, but impulse and energy. Let’s split the situation in two phases: 1. The foot, on its way down makes contact with the fly; in a very short timespan the foot — by its mass, which is enormous compared with the fly’s — will stop the horizontal movement of the fly. In order to do so the foot must exert a tiny decelerating force in the opposite horizontal direction, . The downward movement of the foot has nothing to do with it. The horizontal movement of the fly would also disappear if the foot got in his way from below or from the right or left.
2. Immediately after that, or even during the same short time span, the foot pushes the fly downward, giving it a downward acceleration. 1. and 2. are independent actions.
You are hopeless.
Your two lead balls. Say they weigh 1KG each.
They say the earth weighs roughly 5.972 × 10^24 kg
That is 5927000000000000000000000 KG.
So you have got a 5927000000000000000000000 KG force pulling down on your 1 KG balls. That is going to overwhelm any force that may exist between your two balls.
So my point is it is impossible to measure any gravitational forces between two lead balls on the earth because whatever force is there will be overwhelmed by the immense gravitational force of the earth.
Scientists are stupid. They clutch at straws. They support experiments that they actually know, if they were to be honest, are invalid.
But they are desperate to prove their theories, to substantiate their religion with experimental “proof” even if they know the experiment is stupid.
I see now that somehow you seem to mistrust scientists and the scientific method. I wonder what happened in your life that you cannot come to terms with the power that the scientific method holds. You say rubbish where the rest of the scientific community says evidence. Do you really believe that you somehow have seen through the great big lie that is science? If science is a lie then how do you suppose we are able to speak to each other over wires and satellites? The house you live in, the car you drive, the food you eat every day was produced because the scientific method works and it works fantastically. What say you to that? Huh?
Hi Jerry. Yes. Science, the “scientific method” is rubbish, nonsense, stupid, childish. To much to explain in one paragraph but that is certainly true. It is nothing to do with my life, it is a fact, “Science is Stupid”.
You confuse science with technology. Technology is not the result of science. Technology is born out of divine inspiration given to some individual who discovers how to use something that already exists in nature. If you look in any field, the earth shattering discoveries are not made by scientists with the scientific method. No scientific method ensures they will never discover anything new and science and the “peer review” system ensures the religion of science is protected from any new discoveries. Science is stupid…
The point is anything new will be a challenge to the scientific system. They are very comfortable with their already established principles and laws and they always assert “the science is settled.” They scientists are correct, they know everything already, the science is settled, there can never be any new science. Particularly there can never be any new science that brings there existing beliefs and theories into question. Science is stupid…
So the point is everything is already there in nature. Some divinely inspired individual gets the inspiration to see how some natural element can be used for some purpose. Like someone get the inspiration to see that silicon could be used as a transistor. Someone else got the inspiration that circuits of transistors could be printed and etched on sheets of silicon, and the semiconductor was born.
This is not science. This is a result of the inspiration of individuals discovering how they can use the things that are already provided to us by nature.
These things are already there. The transistors and the circuits are already there, lying dormant in the silicon, just waiting for us to discover them.
This universe runs in cycles. We are currently in Kali-yuga, the age of machines, the age of technology. It repeats. Over and over and over again. And every time this Kali-yuga comes around we reinvent the technology. But it is the same technology we have “invented” over and over and over again.
So all these things are already there, and all this technology, it comes out automatically in the Kali-yuga, through divine inspiration in individuals who “discover” or “invent” things that are already there in nature and that have been discovered and invented unlimited numbers of times before…
So, science is stupid…
So I understand your points about gravity not being proven on the earth, but we do experiments every day in space on the international space station. We have had humans in space continuously for decades. The only way anyone can say we cannot prove these things, like gravity, ball earth, etc. Is to completely ignore all the science that goes into our everyday lives. We could not do much of the things we do today if the science did not work. We do all these modern things, drive cars, preform surgery, go into space, decode DNA, ect. so the science obviously works. If you are still under the impression that we have not shown all these things to be possible then you must admit that you have some sort of delusion about our scientific accomplishments. I do not think you have a firm grasp on logic and its applications when determining the overall picture of modernity, if you continue to question the shape of the earth or that we send people up into space all the time. There is a fundamental misunderstanding happening in the minds of people who continue to show they will never accept the scientific consensus about our modern abilities. And one cannot say, “well everyone believed things that were not true in the past so it could still be happening today the same way.” Because there was no scientific consensus back then. There were very few people doing science then and there are literally tens of millions of people doing it today. It is fundamentally different and we all know that. This website is only going to confuse the easily confused.
Jerry, you are stupid, with all due respects. There is the earth’s gravity in the international space station. It is only a 200 or so miles up. How can you imagine there is no gravity after 200 mles?
The explanation they give is it is falling around the earth. But going forward fast enough so the curve of the earth is dropping below it so it stays at the same height above the earth. Sounds unlikely doesn’t it? I am very doubtful that is really what is happening. However, that is the explanation “science” gives us.
So you can not prove or disprove gravity from the space station either, because the earth’s gravity is still there, no difference really than on earth. And the space station is falling at the same speed as the people in the space station are falling, towards the earth, so everything is falling at the same speed, hence the illusion of weightlessness. Exactly the same illusion as in the vomit comet plane.
Anyhow how the point is gravity is still there in the space station, virtually identical to on the surface, so you can not do any experiment to prove or disprove gravity in the space station.
Jerry, you are saying that because we have automobiles and electronic devices that we must believe in everything the authorities tell us about the earth and is happening in space.
That’s a non sequitur if I ever saw one and quite sadly illustrates the reason why the majority of humans are so easy to control, which perpetuates the master/slave paradigm humanity seems unable to escape.
The whole of this science is an experiment alright. An experiment in mind control.
Yes. Like NASA, they expect that if they could just shoot their rocket up in the sky and have it disappear without exploding, then we have to blindly believe their rocket has gone to the Moon. Then when they drop the landing capsule out of a plane in the ocean we are expected to believe it has come back from the Moon…
It all sounds good on paper.
Computer says, no.
Can you tell me, how the vacuum of space doesn’t pull the air off earth ?
If the moon is so far away, and we can barely make out any detail. We should be able to view the space station from earth in good clarity ! Are there one good picture from here ? Is there one picture from space of a solar or luna eclipse ? One good picture or video even better. And not BLOODY computer generated, like fisheye 💩nasa💩.
Hi Mac
Well they have a theory why the vacuum of space does not pull off the air, they have a theory for everything if you ask them. We can make out quite good detail on the moon. In fact very clear with a decent telescope, down to the crater level. Of course not enough detail to see the tiny bits of trash NASA supposedly left on the moon. But we can get very good imagery of the moon from earth. Meaning that it would be very difficult for NASA to go to the moon because obviously if they were on the moon it would be very easy to do something there that could be seen from the earth. But they never did anything that can be seen from the earth. And if they fake it again, also, they will be unable to do anything on the moon that could be seen from the earth. So that will be the proof of them faking it again, if they try. I am not sure if they are actually stupid enough to fake it again. But if they do they will certainly get caught this time.
Space station is a couple of hundred miles up and about the size of a big bus. So think of trying to look at a bus a couple of hundred miles away. Very small. But we can see the space station, even with the naked eye, and certainly with a telescope you can see the shape of it. Not very great detail, but you can certainly see it and identify it.
In vacuum everything falls towards the Earth(‘s surface).
https://youtu.be/frZ9dN_ATew
Even a single molecule will do so. So all air molecules tend to fall towards the Earth. But they also have their own temperature velocities in random directions, and they collide with each other, just like gas molecules do. This makes the pressure we feel in all directions. There is a balance between the weight of the air mass pushing down and the air pressure pushing back. Therefore the pressure is highest at sea level and decreases with increasing height, with less and less air mass above you. So air pressure and density decreases exponentially (it halves about every 5 km) but never becomes completely zero. An arbitrarily boundary from where outer space begins is 100 km, but even at the height of the ISS (400 km) there is still a tiny bit of drag, for which the ISS needs to use a bit of rocket propulsion in order to regain it’s preferred height every few months.
Speaking of which, you ask why we don’t see the ISS by daylight. That is for the same reason as why we don’t see stars by daylight. The scattered sunlight in the atmosphere, which we call the blue sky, is to bright. At night some amateurs with respectable telescopes are able to film or photograph the ISS with astonishing detail: https://www.skymania.com/wp/amateur-snaps-astronaut-on-spacewalk
There are a lot of pictures of solar eclipses from space. Here is one from the Russian Mir station:
https://www.insider.com/how-eclipse-looks-like-from-space-2016-3
Here is another time lapse from the geostationary GOES satellite of the 2020 solar eclipse https://scitechdaily.com/incredible-satellite-view-of-the-moons-shadow-crossing-the-surface-of-earth-during-the-total-solar-eclipse/amp/
Finally, last year’s solar eclipse in Antarctica from the satellite DISCOVR https://www.space.com/total-solar-eclipse-2021-million-miles-away-photo.
Of a lunar eclipse there are also some photographs from the ISS https://petapixel.com/2022/05/17/astronaut-captures-lunar-eclipse-from-the-international-space-station/
but they don’t look much different from what we see during a lunar eclipse
But from your last remark I’m afraid you will dismiss all of these as CGI beforehand.
I see, you are of the impression that there are gods and some other such nonsense. There are no gods, nor are there cycles as you claim. Your pre-existing belief system disables you from understanding anything in the proper context. You should throw out those presuppositions that hold you back from appreciating science. And you are absolutely incorrect about science and technology being different. There is no Devine. There is only human discovery through the scientific method. These things have not existed before on earth. You my friend are simp,y using semantics to confuse yourself and others. I see now you are religious. That is what is stupid. You say find someone who knows and hear it from them. Well no one knows and the Vegas are simp,y trash.
Open your eyes Jerry. There are cycles. Have you ever noticed: summer, autumn, winter and spring? This is a regular cycle that is synchronized with the movement of the sun through the signs of the zodiac in the sky. There are so many cycles. And there is a very big cycle, one that takes 4,327,000 years instead of the 12 months it takes for the seasons to go through their cycle. So that big cycle has four seasons also: satya-yuga, treta-yuga, dwarpa-yuga and kali-yuga. And the situation on this and other planets in our universe is quite different in these cycles. And at some point everything is destroyed and the cycles start again and everything is reset.
These things you have no way of knowing, because you can only know about things beyond the power of your sense perception if you hear about them from someone who knows. There is no way you can imagine the truth or approach the truth by your “scientific” process. Because the truth is completely beyond the perception of your senses and beyond the ability of your mind to conceive.
You are stupid because you believe in stupid science which is limited to matter.
Stupid science tries to explain everything without considering the spiritual aspect, which is the cause and sustenance of everything. We are all spiritual entities. We are trapped within and controlling these material bodies, but we are not these material bodies. Anything we see moving, breathing, growing, producing offspring, etc, these are all spiritual living entities in material bodies. So stupid science is attempting to explain everything while not acknowledging the existence of the spiritual force that is everything.
Science is very stupid!
Stupid science denies the existence of anything we can not perceive with our five senses: sight, smell, touch, sound, etc. Stupid science has been able to extend our sense perception a little with devices that can detect things beyond the power of our senses, but they are still completely limited to physical things constructed of earth, water, fire, air and they don’t even believe in ether, which of course exists, it is the medium which we exist in and through which sound and all other frequencies are transmitted.
But there is a whole universe outside what the scientists believe in.
Scientists are like stupid children. They can not understand anything, so they invent stories.
The “scientific” creation story is that first there was nothing, then there was a big bang, caused by nothing, and it was, of course, nothing that exploded. And this big bang caused by nothing with nothing to explode and no one to explode it instantly created everything…
And why did the creation happen? What is the purpose of the creation? Of course your stupid science tells us that it all happened by random chance and that there is no purpose for this creation…
That is your science. It is stupid. Only an idiot could accept such a story.
The real purpose of science is to try to present a “logical” explanation to say that man is the topmost creature in the universe. Scientists do not want to believe there is anyone more powerful than them. They want to believe they are the most powerful, they want to become gods.
So the purpose of science is to establish a lie. The purpose of science is to “prove” there is only matter, nothing else, and that mankind is the highest, most powerful species existing…
That is your science. It is stupid. The whole system is set up to “prove” a lie.
Yes, mankind does have a problem. We believe we are the topmost entity in the universe….
NO! Mankind does not have a problem. Mankind, at least 90% of them, have some knowledge of a higher force. The vast majority of people are aware of some force greater then them.
IT IS SCIENCE THAT HAS A PROBLEM!!!
It is science that asserts man is the most powerful, the most evolved creature in the universe and there is nothing higher than us, nothing above us, nothing that can control us.
That is the religion of science. It is only a religion. Nothing else. Science is a religion formed for atheists who want an alternative creation story.
That’s all science is. A bogus religion trying to counter the truth. The truth is there are higher forces and we are under the authority of those higher forces. While we are given a limited amount pf freedom to play god in this material world, ultimately we are all subordinate to the real God, the real controller, the real power.
Science is simply trying to deny this reality. That is its only purpose.
If the truth is beyond my mind and senses to perceive then how the he’ll do you claim to know anything about it? Are you a superior being? Do you possess certain knowledge that I am unable to comprehend? If so, show me how I may perceive them as well.
I know the truth because I have heard it from someone who knows the truth. That is the only way to find out about something that is beyond the ability of our senses to perceive. There is nothing special about me, you can also hear about things that you can not perceive with your senses and which are beyond the ability of your mind to imagine, you just have to find someone who knows and hear about it from him. That is the way, the only way.
Great response.
Science does not say that everything was created out of nothing. Do your homework before you spew nonsense. The big bang theory states that everything was at one time condensed into a single spot of infinite density and all matter sprang from that spot. It already existed before the expansion. Of course we do not know what caused it or where the matter comes from. To say that science states that everything came from nothing is a lie. You are lying to me and everyone else if you say that. Also, you lie when you say someone told you a truth. What is your truth and what can it do? Nothing at all. On the other hand stupid science allows you to live. Your an idiot if you belive you know any kind of truth that science has not discovered. Your a lier. You don’t know shit, just like the rest of us. You should admit that, but no, your ego won’t let you because you are controlled by your ego. Stupid ass lies. I don’t care how these lies make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, they are still lies dude.
It is just semantics. The basic idea of science is there was nothing, then there was a big bang, and because of that big bang, caused by no one and nothing, everything was automatically and magically created.
So scientists, as you say, “don’t know shit”. So much so that for their creation story they have to resort to magic. Even you admit you don’t know where that super heavy atom you talk about came from and why it exploded, etc, etc.
The reality is that science is just a story to try and paint God out of the picture.
An the reality is God is real, and everything is created by God, a higher intelligence.
So the scientists are not able to come up with any other logical creation story, but they can not admit the truth, God created it, so science says “A magic big bang created the universe.” Atheistic idiots…
You have yet to show me anything at all. Empty words. I ask again, what is your evidence that these people who know the truth are telling you the truth. If you cannot produce the truth or show me then you actually know nothing. I have yet to hear anything of value. Your correct in that you are not special. Once again, what has this truth you speak of ever done to better mankind. Why will you not answer my very simple question?
You have to understand, there are only two creation stories. One, the scientists, they say it all happened by random chance with no cause and no reason. It was all created instantly from nothing by no one. Now that is insane. You have to agree on that.
The only other creation story is the one accepted by every civilization on the planet since the beginning of time. That is that this world, this universe was created by and is being supervised by, some higher intelligence.
Now that makes sense.
Things work in this universe on different scales. Something we see happening on a small scale also happens in the same way on a bigger scale. So we see that if there is any mechanical system working in our experience it is designed by someone, built by someone and operated by someone.
This universe is just a big machine. So if we were to extend our practical experience to the universal scale then we would have to presume that the universal machinery was built by some higher intelligence and is being maintained also by some higher intelligence.
This is a completely reasonable and logical idea. And this is the idea every civilization has had since the beginning of time.
It is only in the last couple of hundred years the scientists have tried to introduce their religion. But it has not been successful. Still 80% of the population on the planet at least accept there is some higher power that is ultimately in control.
So the scientists have lost their battle.
Exactly. Nothing as beautiful and perfect could have happened by chance, and come from nothing.
You might think the world isn’t beautiful and perfect, but that’s only because those trying to deny creation are doing their best to ruin it.
Nothing that works brilliantly is random. The evidence of creation is everywhere. Even our own consciousness, something intangible, is proof. The ‘scientists’ want us to believe consciousness came from random exploding gases?
Look at a snowflake close up and tell me this world wasn’t designed. You see, they have to have you believing that sheer beauty, symmetry and perfection is ‘random’.
What a hoot.
Humans are all powerful, we are a small fragment of the God that created us. Obviously the powers that be can’t have us knowing that. Because then they’d be screwed.
Fascinating discussion above on a fascinating topic. I admit just 2 week ago I would not have questioned the statement that we are living on a spinning sphere. On the other hand, I’d never given it anything other than occasional passing thoughts. Had someone just 2 weeks ago said to me the earth was flat, I would have written them off as extremely naive (but harmless) and not given it further thought. But given the vast lies that have been rammed down our throats over the last 200 years at least, and given I had a few spare days to look into the flat earth theory to see if it has any basis to it, I stumbled across Eric Dubay’s site, and then this one, FEF. Very thought provoking. I love the way you covered Dubay’s 200 proofs against a spinning globe. Your site is providing an excellent public service. I’d love to donate but I lost my job due to the pandemic and mandatory vaxes, so I need to watch my pennies closely. (what an insane time, but a very important case study, where our rulers showed through their policies and actions that our lovely “western democracies” are a total sham, that rather than being pro science, pro human rights, and pro-democratic, they are exactly the opposite. In normal times this is kept quite well hidden but the mask came off in 2020 (while putting it on everyone else!)
Your explanations to flat-earthers and ball-earthers were very simple and clear, to me at least, from the outset (although I did appreciate the repetition to reinforce those points) , but the number of times you had to restate your points over and over again before they were understood by your debaters on either side shows how hard it is to get through to someone with a prior-stance and often an axe to grind. One of the tragedies of the human condition. Plato commented on this problem very well with his parable of the cave. Reinforced by the likes of former KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov who fled to Canada in the 1980s. He said that the power of propaganda is so powerful that no amount of contrary evidence is going to change most people’s minds. And simply asking contrary questions is going to piss most normal people off, again, as shown in Plato’s parable. Let alone people with an agenda. Question them and you are going to get outright hostility back. A sign that you are probably dealing with someone with an agenda.
Thank you again for helping people to think further, including myself, on this topic.
PS If my post has gone too far off topic, I’m fine if you want to edit part (or all) of it out.
Isn’t this moving the goalposts? You can’t say that 100,000 feet is not high enough to see curvature, but yet say that you can see ships disappearing over the Earth’s curvature at ground level. That’s highly inconsistent. Just one of many inconsistencies in the globe model. I’m not saying the earth is flat, just saying that both models have many problems, and that one model is not the clear cut winner here.