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

[JudgeRightly]

Gravity pulls in one direction, downward.

So do all the particles in the atmosphere simply move in one direction?

--Dave

Wrong.

Gravity is omnidirectional.

The more massive an object, the more "pull" it has.

 

[DFT_Dave]

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

The Moon is inside Earth's atmosphere, European researchers say

This is what it says in the article you referenced.

I read an article that said something very different.

If the atmosphere is being pulled with the earth then every particle is traveling pretty fast I'd say, wouldn't you?

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

The Moon is inside Earth's atmosphere, European researchers say

This is what it says in the article you referenced.

I read an article that said something very different.

You read an article about an arbitrary boundary used by the world.

Now read the article I posted.

If the atmosphere is being pulled with the earth then every particle is traveling pretty fast I'd say, wouldn't you?

--Dave

Roughly the same speed as the earth.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Wrong.

Gravity is omnidirectional.

The more massive an object, the more "pull" it has.

The amount of pull can certainly vary but how can the direction of pull be multi-directional?

If the atmosphere is being pulled with the earth then that would be in the direction of earth's spin. If gravity is holding all the particles down ward toward earth then they cannot move upward.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

Gravity pulls in one direction, downward.

Proving AGAIN that you have no idea how gravity works.

I am seriously embarrassed for you Dave.

Gravity attracts objects together Dave, it has NOTHING to do with up or down.

You really need to go back to high school!

So do all the particles in the atmosphere simply move in one direction?

--Dave

All particles react to the SUM of ALL of the forces that affect them. Again, too hard for you to understand?

 

[Right Divider]

If the atmosphere is being pulled with the earth then every particle is traveling pretty fast I'd say, wouldn't you?

--Dave

Relative to WHAT?

 

[DFT_Dave]

Proving AGAIN that you have no idea how gravity works.

I am seriously embarrassed for you Dave.

Gravity attracts objects together Dave, it has NOTHING to do with up or down.

You really need to go back to high school!

All particles react to the SUM of ALL of the forces that affect them. Again, too hard for you to understand?

Why Doesn't The Vacuum Of Space Suck Up Earth's Atmosphere?
"Gravity is the reason we have air pressure in the first place. Gravity pulls on the atmosphere, compressing it, and creating pressure. If we could magically turn off gravity then the atmosphere would be released from that compression and spring away from the Earth. So, at the root of it, gravity is the thing that keeps the atmosphere near the surface. It just isn’t fighting the vacuum of space to do it."

If gravity pulls us down so we don't fly of into space it would seem to do the same thing for all the particles that are being pulled by it in the direction of earth's spin.

You can't have it both ways. If the atmosphere is pulled along the earth's spin that spin is in one direction. If gravity is keeping the atmosphere from flying off into space around earth that direction is downward.

Contradiction after contradiction.

--Dave

 

[Cntrysner]

Spherical..unlike flat. No such thing as zero gravity.

 

[Yorzhik]

I have said many times that there's good evidence for the spinning globe, but, it all comes from looking into outer space and what's out there rather than looking at the earth itself.

I have honestly said I can't counter many good arguments against flat earth, such as you, Clete, and others have presented.

Then say that in reply. But you ignored what I said and then have the gall to demand that we pay attention to what you say.

Flat earth exists as a possibility in my mind because of a number of contradictions that the heliocentric model presents us with.

--Dave

Ok. Your current claimed contradiction that we should be getting hit in the face with 1000mph winds if we look east at the equator on a globe earth is not thought through.

Think about this. Why is getting hit in the face by 1000mph winds bad for you? This isn't a trick question.

 

[Right Divider]

Why Doesn't The Vacuum Of Space Suck Up Earth's Atmosphere?
"Gravity is the reason we have air pressure in the first place. Gravity pulls on the atmosphere, compressing it, and creating pressure. If we could magically turn off gravity then the atmosphere would be released from that compression and spring away from the Earth. So, at the root of it, gravity is the thing that keeps the atmosphere near the surface. It just isn’t fighting the vacuum of space to do it."

If gravity pulls us down so we don't fly of into space it would seem to do the same thing for all the particles that are being pulled by it in the direction of earth's spin.

You can't have it both ways. If the atmosphere is pulled along the earth's spin that spin is in one direction. If gravity is keeping the atmosphere from flying off into space around earth that direction is downward.

Contradiction after contradiction.

--Dave

The only contradiction is in your head.

The particles in the atmosphere react to ALL OF THE FORCES that are applied to them... including MOMENTUM.

Dave, you have literally become dumber than a box of rocks.

 

[DFT_Dave]

The only contradiction is in your head.

The particles in the atmosphere react to ALL OF THE FORCES that are applied to them... including MOMENTUM.

Dave, you have literally become dumber than a box of rocks.

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

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

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.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Relative to WHAT?

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

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Then say that in reply. But you ignored what I said and then have the gall to demand that we pay attention to what you say.


Ok. Your current claimed contradiction that we should be getting hit in the face with 1000mph winds if we look east at the equator on a globe earth is not thought through.

Think about this. Why is getting hit in the face by 1000mph winds bad for you? This isn't a trick question.

I would kill us.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

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

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

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.

--Dave

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?

 

[Yorzhik]

I would kill us.

--Dave

Would you agree it would kill us because it would rip us to shreds? But if air is not affected by things that go through it, then how could it affect our faces?

 

[DFT_Dave]

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're not addressing my point.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Would you agree it would kill us because it would rip us to shreds? But if air is not affected by things that go through it, then how could it affect our faces?

What has this to do with my argument?

--Dave

 

[Yorzhik]

What has this to do with my argument?

--Dave

Because our faces would be affecting the wind as much as the wind would supposedly affect our faces. What would our faces be doing to the wind? Our faces would be slowing the wind down - agreed? And if our faces slow down the wind, then what would speed it up again? Nothing can speed back up once it gets slowed down without energy.




On further reflection... what got the earth moving at 1000mph in the first place? Or, if the frame of reference is between our faces and the earth, what got the wind moving at 1000mph in the first place?

 

[DFT_Dave]

Because our faces would be affecting the wind as much as the wind would supposedly affect our faces. What would our faces be doing to the wind? Our faces would be slowing the wind down - agreed? And if our faces slow down the wind, then what would speed it up again? Nothing can speed back up once it gets slowed down without energy.

On further reflection... what got the earth moving at 1000mph in the first place? Or, if the frame of reference is between our faces and the earth, what got the wind moving at 1000mph in the first place?

You're painting a false picture of reality. Isolating one "frame of reference" doesn't give us the whole picture.

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

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

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

You're not addressing my point.

--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?