Search results

Yes, relative to the earth. Relative to the sun, there's not much difference between our motion and the earth's motion. USING THE EARTH AS A FRAME OF REFERENCE TO DESCRIBE THE EARTH'S MOTION WILL ALWAYS RESULT IN THE EARTH'S MOTION BEING ZERO! By definition, you CANNOT describe motion of an...

NEITHER OF THOSE HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT! You're trying to equivocate, Dave. Why? Saying it doesn't make it so, Dave. WHICH HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT! If you and I are standing on opposite sides of a highway, facing each other...

In other words, DFT_Dave, you can't use nothing as a frame of reference.

How do you know that space itself isn't moving, Dave? This is why the assumption is that there is no "absolute frame of reference."

Space has not been used as a frame of reference at all in this discussion, Dave, because there's nothing to use AS a frame of reference.

Yes, I believe that's what I said. By walking through the atmosphere... The atmosphere is a FLUID, Dave, not a solid. INCORRECT. The speed is 0 mph relative to the earth. The speed is 67,000 mph relative to the sun. Again, motion is always determined using an EXTERNAL Frame of Reference...

It proves EXACTLY THAT, Dave! This a "proof by assertion" fallacy. "The earth is not moving proves the earth is not moving." Your arguments are anything BUT logical. Relativity is logical. You just can't seem to understand it.

Why?

I was going to respond to these, but the conversation is already past these. I may later.

And this just confirms that you're stupid Dave. The fact that there are no 700-1000 mph windspeeds is PROOF that the atmosphere's spin motion relative to the earth's spin is 0 mph

That speed was recorded in 1934. And 700 mph, let alone 1000 mph, is more than triple the speed of the record. So no, it's not an appropriate analogy. Normal wind speeds (relative to the earth, and I can't believe that I have to specify that) don't get anywhere near 231 mph.

Dave!

The fastest recorded surface windspeed was 231 mph on the top of a mountain. Not 700 mph. Not 1000.

To be more precise, the direction is toward the earth's center of mass. Are you asserting that multiple forces cannot act upon objects simultaneously? If I have a hook set in my ceiling, and have a rope tied to that hook, and a cinderblock on the other end of the rope, and then I pull back...

Yes, I am. Dave, if gravity is enough to pull a basketball down to the earth, why do you think that it's not enough to pull air molecules back down to earth?

Dave, what happens when you throw a ball upwards? Does it immediately drop the moment it leaves your hands? Or does it travel upward in the direction you threw it for a bit and then fall back down? Why do you think air molecules are so much differently affected?

You read an article about an arbitrary boundary used by the world. Now read the article I posted. Roughly the same speed as the earth.

Wrong. Gravity is omnidirectional. The more massive an object, the more "pull" it has.

This is what happens when you don't read the article.

That's not how gravity works. Funnily enough, and no, this isn't evidence for a flat earth: the moon is (technically) inside of Earth's atmosphere. https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/the-moon-is-inside-earths-atmosphere-claims-study Which, by the way, supports the hydroplate model of...