The earth is flat and we never went to the moon--Part II

[DFT_Dave]

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?

I didn't say gravity could not pull air molecules back down to earth.

I said that gravity is pulling "all" the molecules of earth's atmosphere and that direction is, as you say downward.

But "all" the molecules in the atmosphere are also supposedly being pulled in the direction of the earth's spin in a different direction.

How can these molecules be pulled in different directions?

The earth also, if spinning, is doing so at 1000 mph at the equator and 700 mph across America.

The earth is also moving through space around the sun at 67000 mph.

At these speeds how is that the molecules of earth's atmosphere are not effected by them?

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

I didn't say gravity could not pull air molecules back down to earth.

I said that gravity is pulling "all" the molecules of earth's atmosphere and that direction is, as you say downward.

To be more precise, the direction is toward the earth's center of mass.

But "all" the molecules in the atmosphere are also supposedly being pulled in the direction of the earth's spin in a different direction.

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 the cinderblock, is not gravity still acting upon the cinderblock, the rope, and the hook, even though I am pulling the cinderblock to one side?

How can these molecules be pulled in different directions?

The same way gravity pulls on the cinderblock and rope while I pull on the cinderblock and rope.

Any movement is the sum of those forces.

The earth also, if spinning, is doing so at 1000 mph at the equator and 700 mph across America.

One rotation per day.

The earth is also moving through space around the sun at 67000 mph.

One orbit per year.

At these speeds how is that the molecules of earth's atmosphere are not effected by them?

What is "them"?

 

[Yorzhik]

You're painting a false picture of reality.

It's not a false picture. It's a hypothetical. Haven't you ever used a hypothetical before?

Isolating one "frame of reference" doesn't give us the whole picture.

Of course. But narrowing to one frame of reference allows us to understand a part of the whole because it would be too complicated otherwise.

"Our faces would be slowing the wind down - agreed?"

No, my face would not slow down the whole force of a global wind.

--Dave

Of course not the while force of the global wind. But only to the extent that it shreds our faces. Obviously that wouldn't be noticeable globally... Until we start adding every blade of grass, hill, building, dirt pile, mountain range, wave, and etc. We'd notice it then, agreed?

And also, what energy got the wind, or ground, going at 1000mph?

 

[The Barbarian]

It's not a false picture. It's a hypothetical. Haven't you ever used a hypothetical before?


Of course. But narrowing to one frame of reference allows us to understand a part of the whole because it would be too complicated otherwise.


Of course not the while force of the global wind. But only to the extent that it shreds our faces. Obviously that wouldn't be noticeable globally... Until we start adding every blade of grass, hill, building, dirt pile, mountain range, wave, and etc. We'd notice it then, agreed?

And also, what energy got the wind, or ground, going at 1000mph?

Conservation of angular momentum.

Angular Momentum

The conserved quantity we are investigating is called angular momentum. The symbol for angular momentum is the letter L. Just as linear momentum is conserved when there is no net external forces, angular momentum is constant or conserved when the net torque is zero. We can see this by considering Newton’s 2nd law for rotational motion:

→τ=d→Ldt
, where τ is the torque. For the situation in which the net torque is zero, d→Ldt=0

.

If the change in angular momentum ΔL is zero, then the angular momentum is constant; therefore,

→L=constant

(when net τ=0).

This is an expression for the law of conservation of angular momentum.

It's informative as to the way the Earth was formed.

 

[Right Divider]

I don't know why you don't see the obvious contradiction.

I see clearly... it is you that is completely blind.

If all particles in the atmosphere were being pulled with the spinning earth then none of them could move in any other direction.

WRONG.... gravity is NOT the ONLY FORCE in the universe. There are MANY forces at work and the end result is the SUM TOTAL of ALL of those forces.

The only way to have the atmosphere act as it does "in" a moving car would be for there to be a "solid" cover surrounding the earth. And that cover would also have to be moving with the earth.

Just wrong again.

 

[Right Divider]

Relative to the earth. Why ask, when that's obvious?

--Dave

It's not.... it's moving with the earth (generally).

 

[DFT_Dave]

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 the cinderblock, is not gravity still acting upon the cinderblock, the rope, and the hook, even though I am pulling the cinderblock to one side?

The same way gravity pulls on the cinderblock and rope while I pull on the cinderblock and rope.

Any movement is the sum of those forces.

One rotation per day.

One orbit per year.

What is "them"?

The idea of a false analogy seems to have never crossed your mind.

The force of pull on "all" particles in the atmosphere that the spinning earth at 1000 mph and an earth rocketing through space at 67,000 mph is far more powerful than my pulling on a cinder block with a rope. Your analogy is absurd.

Is comparing 1000 mph with 1 rotation and 67,000 mph with 1 orbit supposed to subdue the absurdity?

If "all" the particles/molecules in the atmosphere were moving at 1000 to 700 mph with a spinning earth then only a more powerful force could move any single one of them (particles/molecules) in any other direction.

That the force created by the earth rocketing trough space at 67,000 mph absurdly seems to have absolutely no effect on the particles/molecules surrounding it (earth).

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

It's not a false picture. It's a hypothetical. Haven't you ever used a hypothetical before?

Of course. But narrowing to one frame of reference allows us to understand a part of the whole because it would be too complicated otherwise.

Of course not the while force of the global wind. But only to the extent that it shreds our faces. Obviously that wouldn't be noticeable globally... Until we start adding every blade of grass, hill, building, dirt pile, mountain range, wave, and etc. We'd notice it then, agreed?

And also, what energy got the wind, or ground, going at 1000mph?

If the particles/molecules in the atmosphere were moving with the earth they would not be slowed down anymore than the earth itself would be slowed down.

The wind created this this movement would eventually shred everything everywhere.

All I see are inconsistent and unbalanced analogies and examples given to explain that the earth is spinning and moving through space at high speeds even though we never actually experience it.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

I see clearly... it is you that is completely blind.

WRONG.... gravity is NOT the ONLY FORCE in the universe. There are MANY forces at work and the end result is the SUM TOTAL of ALL of those forces.

Just wrong again.

See my last answer to JudgeRightly.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

See my last answer to JudgeRightly.

--Dave

Your comment to JudgeRightly was just a dumb as most of the rest of your comments.

Your knowledge of physics seems to be somewhere near zero.

You are, quite frankly, making a fool out of yourself.

 

[Right Divider]

If the particles/molecules in the atmosphere were moving with the earth they would not be slowed down anymore than the earth itself would be slowed down.

Though the change would be small, it's still there.

The wind created this this movement would eventually shred everything everywhere.

Just another stupid thing to say. The "wind" is small since it's relative speed USING THE EARTH AS THE REFERENCE is small.

All I see are inconsistent and unbalanced analogies and examples given to explain that the earth is spinning and moving through space at high speeds even though we never actually experience it.

--Dave

AGAIN, for the too manyth time you are using the EARTH as your reference and then saying that the earth does not move. That is retarded.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Your comment to JudgeRightly was just a dumb as most of the rest of your comments.

Your knowledge of physics seems to be somewhere near zero.

You are, quite frankly, making a fool out of yourself.

I have knowledge of the physics. The physics are simply incoherent--full of contradictions.

Funny how what I believe is exactly what I, you, and everyone else in the history of the world has experienced--an earth that is not moving.

Physics is turning the world into atheists.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

I have knowledge of the physics. The physics are simply incoherent--full of contradictions.

Funny how what I believe is exactly what I, you, and everyone else in the history of the world has experienced--an earth that is not moving.

Physics is turning the world into atheists.

--Dave

Dave, you're to the point that everything that you say is wrong.

You cannot judge the motion of the earth using the EARTH as your reference But that is EXACTLY what you are trying to do.

Nothing moves when using ITSELF as the reference.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Though the change would be small, it's still there.

Just another stupid thing to say. The "wind" is small since it's relative speed USING THE EARTH AS THE REFERENCE is small.

AGAIN, for the too manyth time you are using the EARTH as your reference and then saying that the earth does not move. That is retarded.

What nonsense to say the speed is small using the earth as reference.

If you're about to get hit with a wind gust of 700 to 1000 mph is it just a small speed using the earth as a reference???

After it hits you will you have slowed it down???

You all have let "physics" completely warp your sense of reality.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

What nonsense to say the speed is small using the earth as reference.

If you're about to get hit with a wind gust of 700 to 1000 mph is it just a small speed using the earth as a reference???

After it hits you will you have slowed it down???

You all have let "physics" completely warp your sense of reality.

--Dave

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

 

[Right Divider]

What nonsense to say the speed is small using the earth as reference.

I did NOT say that.

I was commenting on the wind being affected by hitting a person. It's just simple physics that you do not understand.

If you're about to get hit with a wind gust of 700 to 1000 mph is it just a small speed using the earth as a reference???

Yes, as the earth, the air and the person are ALL moving at approximately the same speed with reference to the outside universe.

After it hits you will you have slowed it down???

Yes, a VERY, VERY, VERY small amount.

Whereas you think that there is no effect whatsoever. Once AGAIN, you are clueless with regards to physics.

You all have let "physics" completely warp your sense of reality.

You're wrong, as per usual.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave, you're to the point that everything that you say is wrong.

You cannot judge the motion of the earth using the EARTH as your reference But that is EXACTLY what you are trying to do.

Nothing moves when using ITSELF as the reference.

You keep making this meaningless statement as if it's a magic want that makes all the contradictions go away.

If you're about to get hit with a wind gust of 700 to 1000 mph is it just a small speed using the earth as a reference???

After it hits you will you have slowed it down???

NO!!!

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

You keep making this meaningless statement as if it's a magic want that makes all the contradictions go away.

If you're about to get hit with a wind gust of 700 to 1000 mph is it just a small speed using the earth as a reference???

After it hits you will you have slowed it down???

NO!!!

--Dave

Dave!

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

 

[Right Divider]

You keep making this meaningless statement as if it's a magic want that makes all the contradictions go away.

If you're about to get hit with a wind gust of 700 to 1000 mph is it just a small speed using the earth as a reference???

After it hits you will you have slowed it down???

NO!!!

--Dave

First of all, since the atmosphere moves with the earth your FAKE 700 - 1000 mph wind does not exist.
Second, ALL forces have an effect no matter how small.

 

[DFT_Dave]

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

Oh really???

We talking about the speed of particles/molecules if they move with the earth. Getting hit with a wind speed of 700 to 1000 mph is an appropriate analogy. Where have you been?

--Dave