North and South Hemispheres not Symetrical?
The geometry of a globe and a flat plane are quite different. If we live on a globe we expect to find two symmetrical halves, one in the north and the other in the south. If the earth is a flat plane with the north pole in the center and Antarctica as a ring around the circumference and the equator a circle dividing the central and outer portions then the central portion [northern hemisphere] would be quite different to the outer portion [southern hemisphere].
So flat earthers attempt to show distances in the south covering the same degree of latitude as comparable latitudes in the north are greater.
Any hint that the earth is not symmetrical is taken as proof that the earth is flat.
51 Replies to “North and South Hemispheres not Symetrical?”
What about the Stars?
When I was in Brazil, there were MANY more Stars visible AND different Stars.
How could that be explained with a flat earth?
I am in Australia. So for my whole life I am seeing the Southern Stars. So many elements of the flat earth model fail in the Southern Hemisphere. We have a southern celestial pole which the stars rotate around in the south, the opposite way the stars rotate around the Polestar in the north. This is consistent with what you would expect to see on a rotating globe, not what you would expect to see on a flat earth. And I went down to the Southern most tip of South America last Christmas, the middle of summer down there. And saw the sun going around me 360 degrees. Where I was it did set for a few hours in the south. But it set in the south and just went down and disappeared for a few hours and came up again, still in the south a bit further along the horizon as you would expect. And then the sun went all the way around, 360 degrees. I have a video of this I will post soon. So this also is what you would expect to see on a globe, it would be impossible on a flat earth with Antarctica around the edges…
Quite easily, though who’s to say the current flat earth map is accurate? Based on the science I think it needs to be revised (though I am certain that earth is a ‘plane’)
As for the stars … All the stars in the sky revolve around ‘Polaris’ which is stationary, and lay directly above magnetic North. The stars, and wandering stars (planets) all follow concentric courses at specific radial distances from Polaris. All circling in the same direction.
The stars North of the ecliptic all rotate quicker than the stars South of the ecliptic because they are closer to ‘stationary’ Polaris. The stars that are closest to Polaris (circumpolar) never fall below the horizon, while the stars further away, sink below the horizon during their circular 24 hour revolutions around the North Star.
In essence, the ‘alleged’ southern celestial ‘rotation point’ as you called it; is non-existent; though the stars do appear to circle … Odue to their concentric movement around Polaris.
It should be further noted that there is no definitive South Pole Star. The Southern Cross was used by all ancient mariners as a guide; merely because it is a pointer that indicates where south is; just like the Black Horse does. Nor is the Southern Cross visible from all places in the Southern Hemisphere at all times, the way ‘Ursa Major” is from every point in the northern hemisphere. Crux is only visible all year round from below 30 degrees south latitude; which is to say it cannot be seen from locations North of (approximately) Sydney, Australia in the late spring. Though Crux is visible in the Southern Hemisphere practically any time of the year; In tropical latitudes, below the equator, it is only visible for a few hours during the Northern winter and spring.
The fact that crux (which supposedly circles the geographical South Pole) is not visible all the time to people as far south as Northern Australia; should raise some questions for the critical thinker when noting that Polaris is always visible to anyone in the northern hemisphere.
The pole star is not over magnetic north. The magnetic north pole wanders considerably and the correction when using maps is constantly updated. Why would observatories below the equator not be able to see what is hovering over a flat disc to the “north”?
Yes. Very good point Dave. Flat earthers can not explain why you can’t see the polestar from every location on the flat plan. What makes everything sink down towards the horizon one degree as you move one degree away from the North Pole? This is exactly what we would expect to experience if we were traveling around the curve of a sphere. Then when we get to the equator, 90 degrees, Polestar has moved down 90 degrees to horizon, then South of the equator Polestar is below the horizon.
This is exactly what we would expect to see happening in the sky if we were on a globe and traveling on the surface of the globe. Flat earthers are not able to explain what we observe happening in the sky, presuming we are on a flat plane, that is why I say “Flat earthers don’t look at the sky.”
Though there are a number of devastating proofs against flat earth, what you just mentioned is not one of them. Flat earthers say the whole universe is inside a dome, the same roughly 10000 mile width as the flat earth disk. The sun and moon are 30-40 miles in diameter and the stars are only a mile or so. As a result if you get far enough out on the disk, due to perspective you will not see the stars over inner part of the disk (the equivalent to the northern hemisphere).
As madhudvisa states…. There is a group of stars that indicate the south pole, like the north star. Ships, before GPS, used the north pole to navigate in the northern hemisphere. While in the southern hemisphere they used the southern cross as navigation.
If the world was a disc as put forward by the flat earthers then navigation would be by the north star only. The southern cross would be meaningless. In fact it could not be a group of stars that indicate anything except the edge of the disc (pointless). There would literally be no south pole as it would be the edge of the disc. So navigation by southern stars would have to be different for every southern hemisphere place to sail toward. And one could find the southern cross and travel east or west on a given parallel and have the southern cross fall below the horizon behind the ship.
Where navigation in the southern hemisphere (on this planet, being a sphere) if one chose to leave the south tip of south America, he may choose to go west. He would travel westward and night after night check that the southern cross is staying consistently to the left of the ship. If it began to fall behind, as it most certainly would on the flat earth, that would mean he has turned north and is no longer going west.
According to the Flat Earth model, the distance around Antarctica would have to be huge. The circumference of the Earth at the equator is about 25,000 miles, so the distance around Antarctica would have to be about 50,000 miles. This would be easy enough to check by taking a boat around Antarctica: first in one direction, then the other to account for ocean currents. I’m betting it’s closer to 10,000 miles including the peninsula. Average speed X time = distance.
Looking at the Flat Earth model, Australia is on the opposite side of the Earth from Argentina. This should be easy enough to check. A flight from Los Angeles to Buenos Aires takes about 14 hours of flight time. A flight from LA to Sydney should take about twice that time. Instead, it only takes about 15 hours. And a flight from Sydney to Buenos Aires that should take about 45 hours, only takes about 15 hours. You can check this by actually taking the flights. LA, Sydney, and Buenos Aires are points on a triangle, not points on a line with LA in the middle as the Flat Earth model would predict. So unless the entire continent of Australia is a conspiracy against Flat Earthers, the Flat Earth model is wrong.
I checked. Non-stop flights are anywhere from 33 to 37 hrs.
Rubbish. I have flown from Sydney, Australia to Bunes Ares in Argentina in 10 hours. Impossible on the flat earth map, but totally consistent with the globe earth map.
show me a 10 hr. flight
I went on a 10 hour flight and returned from Auckland to Argentina. Watch the video:
You can also go on one of those 9 or 10 hour flights.
This totally proves that the flat earth map is completely incorrect, rubbish, does not at all line up with our actual physical experiences.’
Did you take into account the change in time zones?
You flew west – so you got there “earlier”.
Yes. Of course. Elapsed time. Not considering the change of time zone.
North, South, East, And West still exist with a flat earth … they’re directions… stop looking up for north and down for south.
Neil degrasse tyson said the earth is pear shaped and wider south of the equator (southern hemisphere) so this actually does work on a FE map.
Neil degrasse Tyson is a pear shaped man. NEVER trust a pear-shaped man.
I wish I could add a picture. The picture was regular school paper with lines, and someone held a round glass where the edges beveled with a slight downward edge. Holding it over the paper, the lines divided and left a mirror effect.
If it spins ,how come centrifugal force doesn’t effect continents? They should all be around equator and therewould be differences between rotation speed. That anomaly should be noticeable but it’s not.
Nobody knows reall shape off our home called earth…but a pear shaped projectile …hm, don’t think so
It is a bit strange, almost all the land is in the Northern Hemisphere but almost no land in Southern Hemisphere. So it seems completely non-symetrical. Somehow almost all the land is clustered around the North Pole with no land to speak of around the South Pole. So it seems the spin of the earth effects the northern half different to the southern half, which is not what you would expect with a spinning ball. If there is any clustering at all it is around the North Pole, not the Equator.
Because of its spin, the diameter of the Earth is greatest at the equator, the difference between the equator and the poles being about 43 miles . However, that also means that every direction away from the equator is downhill. So any landmass being slung toward the equator is also sliding toward a pole. the two forces balance, which is why everything stays put.
Not sure if it’s flat orba globe, but I have seen things which make me question a globe earth. The best example of what I mean is a commercial airline flight which flies at 500. If the earth is spinning at 1,000 mph, and the plane flies in the same direction the earth spins, but at half the speed of the spin at 500 mph, then how does the flight ever reach it’s destination??? Simple math indicates that the destination should come up behind it because it’s traveling at twice the speed of the flight.
And also if a plane is flying in a northerly or southernly direction to land on a runway that runs N to S wouldn’t that create a huge problem for landing as the airport soun away at 1,000 mph???
Yes. As if you want to believe in the globe earth you have to believe the stars are light years away, or it breaks the model, if you want to believe in the globe earth you have to believe in some mystical force not yet explained by or comprehended by science that holds everything, including the Airplane in the sky in synchronization with the rotation of the earth. Then the propulsion of the airplane moves relevant to the spot it is over on the earth, but the plane is still somehow mystically linked to the rotation of the earth. So the effect is the rotation of the earth becomes irrelevant. Because everything is moving, synchronized with the rotation of the earth, so this is a “frame of reference”, and within this frame of reference things can move around, without considering the motion of the frame of reference itself. Like if you are flying in a plane you can walk to the front or walk to the back just as easily because the plane and everything in it is moving forward at 500 MPH, say, but to you, inside the plane, that motion is irrelevant. You can throw a ball from the back of the plane to the front and it will behave exactly the same way as if you throw a ball from the front to the back.
So globe earthers believe in this magic force that keeps everything, even the plane when it is no longer connected to the earth, rotating in synchronization with the earth…
Friction and wind resistance.
You’ve seen trees being blown around by the wind. That friction with the surface keeps the atmosphere rotating with the Earth. Trees, mountains, grassy hills, waves, all contribute to that friction.
A helicopter trying to go against the rotation of the Earth would be fighting wind resistance. A helicopter, if it could attain a little over 1000 miles per hour, wouldn’t be hovering, it would be flying through the atmosphere. As soon as that helicopter ran out of fuel, friction with the atmosphere would slow it until it was in sync with the surface and landed. Or crashed because it was out of fuel.
The atmosphere is a fluid that can move in different directions, but westward movement is resisted by friction with the Earth, while eastward movement is assisted. Meanwhile, the Coriolis effect produces storms on a rotating sphere.
Nothing about any of this is contrary to the physics of a rotating sphere. On the other hand, there are numerous aspects of the flat Earth theory that violate, not only physics, but common sense.
You have not understood the situation. You need to think about it a bit more deeply. It is quite difficult for someone who believes science can explain everything, to realize that in some cases science is completely unable to explain even very basic points. You can not comprehend this, but it is true.
Science has no way to explain how the earth could be rotating, because the only way the earth could be rotating is if there is a contiguous rotating frame of reference including the earth, the atmosphere, the storm systems, and everything else in the atmosphere. And the whole thing has to act as one single rotating unit and everything has to move together without exerting any friction and without creating any wind. It has to rotate everything seamlessly so the relative positions and forces of everything in the system are unchanged and free to act independently of the rotation. In fact the wind has to be rotated with the earth… You have to get your mind around it. The whole system, including the wind, has to rotate.
If you try and get a scientist to explain it, they don’t know the answer. Because there is no answer in the literature. There is no “correct” answer that you can look up on google… The answer to what is this mystery force that makes it possible to combine the earth, the atmosphere and everything else into one contiguous rotating unit, it does not exist… But without this force the earth can not be rotating.
So the explanation given by science in regard to explaining the rotation of the earth is incomplete and illogical. You yourself are confused, and so is everyone else who tries to explain it. Generally science does have a “logical” explanation for most things. But in this case they have no explanation at all. You can ask all the big scientists and read all their books and you will still be confused.
You are writing insane things. The atmosphere is not fixed to the earth. The atmosphere is free to move independently from the surface of the earth. That is what storm systems are. The atmosphere is nothing more than the air floating above the earth, and that air floating above the earth does not move with the earth, it is not at all fixed to the earth by friction as you assert. It moves in its own systems in different directions with no regard to the rotation of the earth.
So if we can observe the atmosphere moving freely in every direction in relation to the surface of the earth, it is obviously not fixed to the earth by friction. That is a ridiculous idea. It can not be fixed by friction and free to move in any direction at the same time.
We are not talking about flat earth here. We are just pointing out that science is completely unable to explain how the earth could be rotating.
So the atmosphere DOES NOT move with the rotation of the earth. Atmosphere moves independently to the surface of the earth in its own way.
There can be no “wind” caused by the rotation of the earth, if it is rotating. There is no difference for us walking in a westerly direction and walking in an easterly direction. No. It is identical. We can not detect any rotation, we can not detect any movement of the earth. To us the earth appears to be stationary.
So that is the actual situation. There is no wind caused by the rotation of the earth and there is no difference in traveling east or west. That is our practical experience. There is wind, of course, but that can be in any direction and it has nothing to do with the rotation of the earth.
So there is no indication to us that the earth is rotating, it appears stationary to our sense perception and to all our instruments and measurements.
So the only way the earth could be rotating is if everything: the earth, the atmosphere and everything in it including the wind, the atmosphere with its storm systems, your helicopter, etc, etc, is in the same rotating frame of reference as the earth. So then because everything is moving together, everything is rotating at 1000mph, so that rotation becomes irrelevant within the rotating frame of reference.
This can not be “wind” or friction. The wind, storm systems are there already in relation to the surface of the earth.
So there is no wind or friction created by this rotation. Somehow you have to construct a contiguous frame of reference that everything is connected to and rotate it with the earth.
The wind, and the storm systems, and everything, they also have to rotate with the earth. Because everything behaves as if the earth was stationary.
So the only way this could be is if there was some magical, so far undiscovered, force that can hold everything together seamlessly and allow the whole thing to be rotated together.
Friction? You kidding? Gravity!
The plane is travelling at 500mph relative to what? We don’t measure speed of an object in the air relative to an external reference. We measure it relative to the surface of the earth.
I hadn’t thought of that before, thanks for that illustration. The more I research, the more a globe earth raises questions no one is answering.
Angular momentum. A helicopter sitting on the surface of the Earth has angular momentum. When the helicopter rises off the surface of the Earth, it still has that angular momentum. The only way to change that angular momentum is to apply a force. No force; no change in angular momentum.
Of course, we accept that. But all you have to do is fly in the opposite direction of the spin of the earth and you can counteract that angular momentum that it got from the spin of the earth.
What you are saying is the helicopter is spinning with the earth [if it is spinning] when it is on the earth, then when it takes off it will still have that same spin [angular momentum]. That is true, however that does not solve the problem because the thing can only be going in one direction, so its actual speed and direction will be changed by its propulsion and by the wind resistance, the force of the wind, etc, etc. So while it will have the spin of the earth as it takes off there is no mechanism to keep it moving synchronized with the spin of the earth.
If the earth is spinning 1000 MPH for example all it has to do is fly in the opposite direction for a while to counteract this, as it is no longer physically connected with the earth, then it can remain stationary over a rotating earth, once it has counteracted that initial angular momentum it got from the spin of the earth.
The point is science has not proposed any force or mechanism that could grab the helicopter and pull it around in exact synchronization with the earth, while still allowing it free movement in every direction.
The example to understand the situation that needs to be created for a spinning earth is ants walking on a potters wheel. In that case you have got a contiguous spinning frame of reference which everything on the potter’s wheel is physically connected to, so when the wheel spins everything on the wheel, including the ants walking around on the wheel, spins. So if you are one of those ants you can walk around on the spinning frame of reference that you are physically connected to [the potters wheel] without regard to the spinning wheel, because you and the other ants and your whole environment is physically connected to the spinning wheel.
So without some physically connected spinning frame of reference that is pulling the atmosphere, the storm systems, the cyclones, the hurricanes, the airplanes, the birds, the insects, etc around in exact synchronization with the spin of the earth while at the same time allowing everything to move completely freely in any direction without being influenced by that spinning force, the earth can not be rotating.
So, as it has currently been presented by science, a spinning earth is not possible, because they can not explain how the atmosphere and everything in the atmosphere is being pulled around in exact synchronization with the spin of the earth, while simultaneously allowing free movement.
So currently, according to what has been given to us by science, we have to presume the earth is stationary and the movements we see in the sky are not a result of a rotating earth, but rather, are a result of the luminaries in the sky rotating around the earth.
The earth’s spin is imparted to the plane, adding to its engine speed. Also, the atmosphere, being attracted by gravity is moving along with the solid earth, carrying the plane along with it.
RUBBISH!!! Of course when you take off the plane has got the spin of the earth, if the earth is spinning. But there is nothing to keep it spinning with the earth. In the sky it is free from any connection with the earth. Atmosphere is NOT moving with the spin of the earth, winds in the atmosphere can be blowing in any direction. And the plane does not have to be moved by the wind. Plane can fly in any direction, regardless of the wind. Wind of course, provides an advantage if it is a tail wind and a disadvantage if it is a head wind, but plan is not moving with the wind.
So this is all rubbish. There is no explanation from science how everything can be connected to and spinning with the earth and at the same time everything has freedom to move effortlessly in any direction.
Proving actually that the earth is stationary and what we see rotating in the sky, is actually, as it appears to be, rotating in the sky.
RUBBISH. Open your eyes. The plane can only move in one direction. So in every post I acknowledge that the plane is moving with the earth, but once it leaves the earth it can move in any direction irrespective of the rotation of the earth. So according to the current scientific understand there is nothing holding the plane to the earth and pulling it around with the earth. Plane is disconnected from the rotation of the earth. Yes. It is still moving with the earth when it takes off, but it has its own propulsion and can move in any direction. So if the earth was rotating it could move in the reverse direction and counteract the initial rotation it got form the earth. So now your rotation from the earth is gone and plane is stationary above the rotating earth.
But this does not work. Proving the earth is stationary.
Everything we observe and test points to a stationary earth. There is nothing, except for the stars moving in the sky, that would give us the impression the earth is rotating. Actually the earth is not rotating, the luminaries in the sky are, as they appear to be, moving in the sky above a stationary earth.
Science has no way of explaining this and you have not provided any explanation of course. How can the plane be held by the earth and rotated by the earth at the same time giving it freedom to move in any direction? Not possible. So earth is stationary.
Gravity locks the plane to the earth!
Gravity is a force pulling the plane to the center of the earth. It does not have a rotational component. It is just pulling the plane down to the center of the earth, which is not rotating, not moving.
You should think before you write.
Scientists have gone to such extreme lengths to continue the round earth lie that they’ve developed special atom converters to alter water’s chemical bond to ensure it rotates counterclockwise in the Southern Hemisphere!! Don’t believe me??? Just try to sneak a bottle of water below the equator and see what happens! I dare you! Authorities will be notified immediately and use a neuralyzer on you.
Ever seen a fly flying around the inside of a car while the car travels at 100mph? Ever wondered why the fly doesn’t hit the windshield? Atmosphere moves with the earth.
That is the whole point. Science needs to come up with an explanation as to how the atmosphere and everything in in moves with the rotation of the earth, is pulled around in exact synchronization with the rotation of the earth.
The car is a very good example of a moving field of reference which the fly can move around in without any consideration as to the movement of the field.
That is because every part of the car and the air in the car is moving exactly with the car because it is all contained within the car. It does not work if you wind down the windows, for example, your fly will be blown out. Everything has to be connected to the moving frame of reference and move with it.
So this is the whole point. There is no force or system given to us by science to explain how the whole atmosphere and everything in it is able to be pulled around by the rotation of the earth, as the air in the car is pulled along with the car, as long as you keep the windows up.
Some have suggested everything is stuck together and moves as one unit because of friction. But that fails because if everything is stuck together by friction with enough force to hold it and spin it in synchronization with the earth, it can not be free to move effortlessly in any direction it pleases. You can’t hold everything in place and spin it with friction and at the same time have it completely free to move in the spinning frame of reference.
Others have suggested that atmosphere is just spinning and just keeps spinning, but that would imply no direct connection with the spin of the earth and you would get atmosphere spinning at different speed from the spin of the earth. So this is not possible. For the earth to be spinning there has to be a contiguous spinning frame of reference that includes the earth, the atmosphere and everything in the atmosphere.
So you can say of course, “atmosphere spins with the earth”, but there is no mechanism postulated by science that could actually do this. Connect the atmosphere and the earth and everything in the atmosphere into one physical unit and spin it, and at the same time allow the butterflies to fly freely in any direction they may choose.
So yes, if the earth is a spinning globe, atmosphere has to spin with the earth, but we have no idea how it could possibly do that.
The other quite valid alternative is the earth is not spinning.
Yes, you are right. If the atmosphere were rotating in unison with the earth, it would require more effort to move “against” the direction of the rotation of Earth/atmosphere compared to the direction “of” the Earth/atmosphere, even in a “windless” day. But since that is not the case, it seems that the Earth is stationary.
One thing I would like to point out is that static friction does have the ability to adapt to its external forces, to make the relative motion between the surfaces zero. Consider a box on the table. If we give it a small force, static friction comes back with an equal and opposite, small force. If we give a little larger force, static friction adapts and gives us back our same larger force to counteract it, until there is a limit for this.
So while it is “physically possible” for some parts of the atmosphere to spin in unison with the earth due to friction, because friction it will adapt itself in such a way that the the relative motion between the object and the earth is zero, it would also require more effort for an object in that reference to move in one direction compared to another. And I think that is the reason why the Earth is more likely to be stationary, since this is not observed.
Another problem is that friction cannot be strong enough to hold the atmosphere for all its different layers. While it may be true that the lowest layers of the atmosphere are moving in unison with the earth, the higher layers should be freer to move.
You have not really grasped the problem: “If the atmosphere were rotating in unison with the earth, it would require more effort to move “against” the direction of the rotation of Earth/atmosphere compared to the direction “of” the Earth/atmosphere, even in a “windless” day. But since that is not the case, it seems that the Earth is stationary.”
This is not correct, if you could get the atmosphere rotating in unison with the earth and you were also rotating in unison with the earth in your plane and if you could move freely then you could move in any direction without considering the rotating field because everything would be in that same rotating frame of reference.
If you could extend the rotating earth and connect the atmosphere and everything in the atmosphere to the same contagious rotation, and if you can move freely on this rotating field, then it’s fine. You could move any direction and ignore the rotation, as you can ignore the movement of an airplane when you are inside it or ignore the rotation of the earth when you are walking on the ground.
My point is science has failed to give us any mechanism that could extend this rotational frame of reference from the earth and include the atmosphere and everything in the atmosphere in that same contiguous rotating field. Rotating earth has to be connected to and pull around the atmosphere and everything in it.
The point is there is no explanation from science as to how this can happen. They just assume everything rotates with the earth, without giving us any plausible mechanism that could make it possible.
So if it can be explained, how the rotation of the earth can be extended to rotate the atmosphere and everything in it, then their theory is OK. But they have not explained it, at least not to my knowledge, so, at least as I understand it, this spinning globe model is seriously flawed.
If you are in the atmosphere then you are not fighting against it in any direction. The fly doesn’t find it more difficult to fly forward to the windscreen than it does to fly to the rear window. If the atmosphere stood still while the land mass moved, then that presents a whole different scenario. If that were the case we would only need in hover in place and our destination would come to us. But true, I do not know why the atmosphere moves with the earth. I don’t understand the role that gravity plays because I don’t understand gravity. It seems to me to be best explained through mass being attracted to mass, but science is all about questioning the narrative, so I do my duty.
Yes Troy. It is a mystery. Science does not know, can not explain, how the atmosphere and everything in it is being pulled around as if it was physically connected to the earth, but at the same time allow free movement with relation to the surface of the earth.
It is impossible. We can not conceive how this could be. The only logical explanation would be that the earth is stationary. But they want to believe the earth is rotating. They are attached to that idea…
The aircraft is already moving at the angular moment when it takes off. That’s why rockets are usually launched to the east. You already have the rotational momentum as a boost. If you stick your hand out a stationary car window on the equator, you don’t feel a 1000mph wind do you?
You misunderstand Dave. You don’t have the rotational movement of the earth as a boost at all. Maybe for the rocket, when it actually leaves the rotating atmosphere. But your example of not feeing the 1000 MPH wind at the equator, it is the same as when you are in the atmosphere, because, according to globe earth model, atmosphere is also moving in exact synchronization with the rotation of the earth, and the point of this discussion is there is no mechanism explained to us by science that could pull the atmosphere and everything in it around in exact synchronization with the rotation of the earth and at the same time allow the weather patterns and everything else in the atmosphere freedom to move effortlessly in any direction while still being pulled around by the rotation of the earth.
That is the point. There is no explanation as to how the atmosphere and everything in it is in the same identical frame of reference as the rotating earth and at the same time has freedom to move in any direction on this rotating frame of reference.
That is the point you need to ponder on and come up with a solution to.
What happens when you stick your hand out of a rocket?
“That’s why rockets are usually launched to the east. You already have the rotational momentum as a boost.”
Imo, this remains mere globists myth.
Boeing claimed this nonsense for it’s supposed floating Sea Launch platform that could be moved to different equatorial locations to theoretically exploit Earth’s presumed 1000 mph rotational velocity for commercial satellite space launches.
You don’t hear much about this platform anymore, and with good reason. Can you guess why?
It can not make any difference unless they are going out of the spinning area into the non-spinning area. So if the earth is spinning and atmosphere is also spinning with the earth up to some undetermined distance then when the rocket comes out of the spinning part into the non-spinning part it will still be spinning. So it would get that spinning boost because it would still be spinning when it got out of the spinning bit…
Of course it would only work if the earth was actually spinning. And even then no boost until it gets free from the spinning atmosphere.
Another amazing claim of modern cosmology that despite Earth’s presumed rotation, rapid orbit about the sun’s rapid motion around the theorized galactic center the atmosphere clings to the supposed ball Earth in the vacuum of space defies logic or common sense.
The kinetic energy of Earth’s atmospheric gas molecules far exceed the supposed weak gravitational energy attracting it to the surface. For example, consider the Thermosphere, high temperature & energy ionized gas molecules with extreme velocities far in excess of escape velocity nevertheless hang about in this region despite having only a near complete vacuum all around them. Why?
Imo, there has to be a physical barrier, a dome if you will. The ionization layer that bounces back higher frequency radio waves back to Earth is between 350-400 km above the Earth’s surface. A few gas molecules cannot bounce back radio waves, but a glass ( silicon dioxide ) dome sure could.
BTW, do you know what presumably moves rapidly in this region 350 km above the Earth? The ISS. Seriously doubt anyone resides up there. However, the object drone may play a military role. Indeed NASA’s main purpose apparently is to maintain US supremacy there. Time will reveal more I suppose.
Don’t worry On The Level, its all done by gravity…
For everyone’s information Sea Launch stopped operation in 2014.