But anon, the beer in the glass is under immense pressure from the atmosphere, a better example would be the beer experiencing the vacuum created by your vapid std ridden dick sucking lips nagger homosexual homosexual. As we all know the beer won't be in the glass owing to your mastery of suction.
Hmm... Why do simple honest questions about space cause consistent seething. Unless you're angry about something else and it's just seeping out here anon.
Basic fluid dynamics. This is primary school tier shit.
It actually doesn't, it is more like CO2 sitting in air, there's a lot of dispersion. It does have fluidic behaviour though, however in the way gasses do not liquids.
>irrelevant assumption
You used a glass bulb with a solid barrier to prove you don't need a barrier, how is that irrelevant?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
read the image like i asked you to retard, i'm a ROUND earther.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
you don't need a barrier, you need a FORCE
the glass bulb has normal force, aka a physical barrier, which exerts force on the air outside the bulb keeping it out. the earth has a gravitational force which pulls air in.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>the earth has a gravitational force which pulls air in.
By that logic, gravity would hold in anything with mass. Why does helium rise?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
because of buoyancy. i'm not saying buoyancy doesn't exist. meanwhile gravity still keeps the gasses contained in earths atmosphere. if only buoyancy existed without gravity then where is the downward force coming from? buoyancy alone wouldn't push things down, there would be no down, buoyancy in fact doesn't work outside gravity
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
You're wrong and I already answered your question in a previous post
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
oh yeah, which post? which post explains the downward force?
2 weeks ago
Laser Anon's Biggest Fan
Air is air because is is too small to be affected by gravity. If air was drawn in my gravity, it would accumulate on the ground like dirt or rocks.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
air is air because the individual particles have nothing to hold them together to other particles and don't have enough mass to be condensed by gravity into a solid object
There's a measurable and provable equipotential increase in static charge the higher up you go from earth, which can only be accomplished between two Gaussian surfaces. So there must be another surface up there like a clear dome. It's the only explanation for the equipotential increase in static charge. That static charge creates the downward flow of objects towards earth, aka "gravity". The rest is just density/buoyancy displacing the medium of air. Density/buoyancy is much stronger than the electrostatic charge, which is why helium rises. The electrostatic charge simply gives objects the directional flow toward earth.
>The rest is just density/buoyancy displacing the medium of air. Density/buoyancy is much stronger than the electrostatic charge, which is why helium rises
>buoyancy disappears without gravity
get fucked bozo
>So there must be another surface up there like a clear dome
but a clear dome is inconsistent with observable phenomenon. hence why the flat earth model changes depending on what you're trying to explain away and isn't consistent.
meanwhile explain flat earth moon, you can't. see
LETS TALK ABOUT FLAT EARTH MOON
HOW IS THE FLAT EARTH MOON POSSIBLE?
LOOK HERE, IT'S NOT.
>it just means the moon is flat
that's what a flat earther told me last night
BUT IF THATS THE CASE
then wouldn't the moon look different from the side? hold a plate directly above your head, you see a circle, now move that plate to the right, oops, you don't see a circle anymore do you?
>if we were to go to higher altitudes, we should find less ionization, because the radioactivity is all in the dirt on the ground—in the traces of radium, uranium, potassium, etc. >To test this theory, some physicists carried an experiment up in balloons to measure the ionization of the air and discovered that the opposite was true! >This was a most mysterious result—the most dramatic finding in the entire history of atmospheric electricity. It was so dramatic, in fact, that it required a branching off of an entirely new subject—cosmic rays. Atmospheric electricity itself remained less dramatic. Ionization was evidently being produced by something from outside the earth; the investigation of this source led to the discovery of the cosmic rays. We will not discuss the subject of cosmic rays now, except to say that they maintain the supply of ions. Although the ions are being swept away all the time, new ones are being created by the cosmic-ray particles coming from the outside. >To be precise, we must say that besides the ions made of molecules, there are also other kinds of ions. Tiny pieces of dirt, like extremely fine bits of dust, float in the air and become charged. They are sometimes called “nuclei.” For example, when a wave breaks in the sea, little bits of spray are thrown into the air. When one of these drops evaporates, it leaves an infinitesimal crystal of NaCl floating in the air. These tiny crystals can then pick up charges and become ions; they are called “large ions.” >The small ions—those formed by cosmic rays—are the most mobile. Because they are so small, they move rapidly through the air. The much bigger and heavier ions move much more slowly. It turns out that if there are many “nuclei,” they will pick up the charges from the small ions. Then, since the “large ions” move so slowly in a field, the total conductivity is reduced.
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_09.html
Paraphrased for simplicity
In flat earth model the moon should be smaller when it’s closer to horizon considering that means it’s moving away and furthest away the closer it is the horizon.
Explain this? Pro tip you can’t
daily reminder only israelite spam flat earth in places they cant censor where people talk about their crimes so their media can call anyone talking about their crimes flat earther
>Wikipedia says so, so it must be true
The moon appears bigger at the horizon for two reasons. One, it's an illusion caused by seeing objects near the moon. The other reason, the atmosphere creates a lensing effect, and when you look towards the horizon you are looking through a much greater distance of atmosphere.
In flat earth model the moon should be smaller when it’s closer to horizon considering that means it’s moving away and furthest away the closer it is the horizon.
Explain this? Pro tip you can’t
Okay wikiretard. Why does the sky appear red at dawn and dusk?
Read about refraction. The moon appears bigger around the horizon because the gravitational pull of the Earth bends light rays around the curvature. This means that the light rays coming from the bottom of the moon bend more than the ones from the top that cross with the other light rays, causing the moon to appear stretched and larger in your eye. If you've ever seen a super moon, you'll see that while it's giant it looks less detailed, because the density of light coming from each point of the surface of the moon is smaller. It's like looking through a rifle scope with zoom. The lens is the atmosphere.
Flat earth is a psyop.
I like to say "fuck the ~~*science*~~" just as much as the next guy but light refraction isn't even that advanced of physics.
And I've never seen a flat homosexual explain why summer in Australia Is winter in canada. While making time zones and tides work.
>they can't even explain why the moon appears larger near the horizon.
They use a bunch of (conveniently non reproducible) techno babble about light-bending phenomena for ant and all observable visual evidence of a lack of curvature.
I'm the odd one out though in that I'm not totally convinced it's flat or round. There ARE a few details suggesting it's round which flat earthers cannot debunk in good fair. There ARE some details suggesting it's flat which the globe model cannot debunk in good faith. So from what I can tell where all trapped in some fucked up collective fever dream where physical laws are not consistent and are subject to changing with the collective consciousness or possibly just whenever god/some creator feels like it. This is a far more interesting thought experiment if you ask me, has far more broad-reaching implications, and explains a whole fuck of a lot more than just the whole flat vs round debate.
There is so much shit in this world that does not make any sense when assuming it must operate on some basic foundation of objectivity on some level we can potentially comprehend. It doesn't have to do shit, it doesn't have to make itself easy for us to understand. Mystery and discovery are still alive. We don't know shit and our hubris absolutely WILL be the downfall of this age og humanity.
We can actually, the water molecules work as a sort of lense that alters the appearance
It's called refraction but judging by your meme flag it hasn't come up in your school just yet
this could make sense. what is the force of the endless vacuum of space in newtons? what about gravity? it seems counterintuitive given the way the vacuum is represented and how relatively weak a force gravity is
first you’d have to understand where the air gets it’s force at all. so you know what force causes air to fill a container full of “vacuum”? it’s the weight of the air
exactly. as you go up the air has less weight and density making it so there is less and less force which fills a vacuum. this is why the air doesn’t just rush into space because there isn’t a force where vacuum magically sucks air into itself. the force is the air being pushed by other air. and that can’t happen at space when the force is purely down only not up into space. air can only move “up” due to the weight of the air around it causing pressure. only a brainlet couldn’t imagine this in their head. op is a troll or a genuine retard
yes but even at the very last molecule of air in the atmosphere there would be a pressure differential with the closest thing to a perfect vacuum we have theorized: space. all the way down, domino effect
2 weeks ago
Sage
Not enough to cause movement. It's a gradient around the edge.
this has nothing to do with LULZ my friend. dont be so afraid to question your foundational beliefs buddy, if you're not an NPC you can come out of it just fine
Gravity is not a fucking weak force. Gravity is extremely strong. However i will say that it doesnt make sense now that i think about it that earth would be able to hold this autmosphere but lets says mars isnt able to. But i wonder if thats just because of the area in which we are from the sun. So our air doesnt freeze but mars air would freeze creating no atmosphere.
only into the future. we dont know of a way to go to the past, other than simply reconstructing the exact atom layout of another point in time, which is technically possible 🙂
>what is the force of the endless vacuum of space in newtons?
Zero. Vacuum has no force, the only force comes from pressure high to low. The pressure drops as you go up until it reaches the limit of our ability to measure it and gasses stop acting as a fluid and instead follow ballistic paths.
Well, if we would like to calculate flow towards vacuum then I would do it like that:
1) Calculate pressure of air at threshold level
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_altitude
2) Then from Bernoulli principle calculate velocity of air
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli%27s_principle
3) Knowing mass of air particle and velocity towards vacuum we could calculate acceleration and force
4) Then question is how big are other forces like gravity, cohesion, and radial velocity (I think air is spinning in reference to vacuum of space) and if they are equalizing force from pressure difference between vacuum and air
Most likely those equation won't work because they were derived at ground level experiments and we would get some atrocious math. But this is my honest guess how to calculate this.
There is an easy experiment that anyone can do in their garage to gain insight into this phenomena. You’ll only need a vacuum cleaner with a tube. Turn on the vacuum cleaner and stick your dick in the tube. Does it feel good? Yea? She’s a dirty whore. I fucking love science.
I have a friend who claims that he used an actual vacuum cleaner to make his dick bigger and it worked. I personally think he's full of shit but who knows? Anything is possible. I fucking love science!
you obviously dont even understand the argument
one is a liquid, one is a gas
the whole point of the argument is that gas pressure always tries to equalize throughout the whole physical container it's contained in, liquids dont have such a property
>liquids dont have such a property
Yes they do. I thought russians and related people weren't retarded in science.
Why do you think the submarine imploded the other day?
Gravity is not a fucking weak force. Gravity is extremely strong. However i will say that it doesnt make sense now that i think about it that earth would be able to hold this autmosphere but lets says mars isnt able to. But i wonder if thats just because of the area in which we are from the sun. So our air doesnt freeze but mars air would freeze creating no atmosphere.
Mars has no magnetic field because it's core Is no longer active. The Earth core is active so when sun flares blow through they're diverted into Space. For Mars, they go unopposed and carry the atmosphere away gradually. So it's not just about gravity. The magnetic field plays an important role as well.
if i put 1 liter of water in a container with the volume of 2 liters, the water will stay in the bottom half
if i put 1 liter of gas, lets just say air, it will disperse throughout the whole 2 liter volume of the container
maybe work on your reading comprehension?
Air density is approximately the same for small containers, but it's just an approximation. You can verify it yourself with a 10 meter long pipe and a good barometer. A 400$ barometer can measure air pressure with accuracy of +- 50 pa. A 10 meter pipe, sealed and placed upright, will have a pressure difference between the top and the bottom of around 120 pa, which is measurable by the barometer.
>What is density >Why does oil stay on top of water >Why does methane go up
2 non seqs
amazing
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I responded your question exactly. Not my fault you didn't pay attention in high school.
Water acts the way it does in air because it is heavier than air. If water is being manipulated inside a denser liquid OR gas then it acts like air in normal atmosphere. What's so hard to understand homosexual?
do you smoke? is exhailed smoke a substance similar to gas enough for you?
when yes take a glas and exhale some smoke into it, it will stay down inside a glas touching the air but not mixing
now you will say yes but it can't escape because glas walls... but why is it staying down anon?
because there is something pulling on it, the source of that pulling force is the center of the earth thats why it doesn't need walls to contain gas around it and its pulled down, gradually decreasing in density
i know you will come up with another stupid argument but it is how it is, it always tiresome
Thats only true depending on the container.
Small enough and all we messure is the overall pressure. But if your statement was true no matter the container, then all gasses released into the atmosphere would immediately equalize and disperse into the air. but they dont, depending on their density they even stay in remotely similar regions and heights. We have many intances of trace elements which stick together like veins of ore (carbon dioxide for example). We can also see plainly just from how the atmosphere is layered with different gasses appearing in different levels like ozone.
Simply put it's inaccurate to compare small containers of pressurized gas to the atmosphere of the entire Earth
1. it's not a hard border, it's a gradient. you know already this, air gets thinner with increases in altitude.
2. the air is constantly pulled towards earth by the force of gravity, which is why it doesn't disperse into space.
Also static charges attract atoms and molecules. Plus magnetic fields not only protect the atmosphere from being stripped by solar wind, but they also capture many of the escaping ionized particles, eventually rerouting them back to earth.
fish at the bottom of the ocean: >Air? AIR? Are you high or retarded? Tell me exactly WHERE and HOW this crushing weight of water suddenly turns into magical floating molecules wafting around teensy changes in pressure >airtards are such fucking brainlets holy shit I can't deal with how they make fun of me for believing in aquaman
Space isn't a vacuume in that it has negative pressure. It's a vacuume because it is almost devoid of anything with mass so there is nothing there to pressurize in the first place.
The reason a pressurized vessel violently releases into less pressurized surroundings is just equalization, the lower pressure isn't "pulling" the contents out.
Gravity is the reason put atmosphere has pressure at ground level. The force of gravity on the gases surrounding the planet is strongest there.
As you go further out there is less pressure until you reach the furthest outside edge where minimal force is being exerted. At the outside the atmospheric pressure is so small that it may as well be space, there's is no where for it to equalize too. So there's no suck.
>It's a vacuume because it is almost devoid of anything with mass
Space literally contains everything. How can it be devoid of anything if it surrounds everything?
oh god i didn't know so many people didn't understand vaccums. i'm going to pretend it's just a bunch of shills and bots so i can feel better about humanity
pressure differential is no joke and "a lot of stuff" vs "no stuff" is so stupidly differently i can't even
Earth's atmosphere is very thin compared to its size. Breathable air only goes up to like 35,000ft, and by 100,000ft there's almost no air left and you start going into the vacuum of space.
This is mainly due to gravity which keeps the air close to the surface and relatively contained so it doesn't just fizzle away into space.
Doesnt it have to do with gravity. Isnt the force of gravity stronger then what i presume to be the pull of space? At least thats what would make sense in my mind. "Air" has a higher mass then void so the air gets pulled into the object with greater gravitational field through the void.
Yea you might be right. I feel as though this a question we wont ever be able to answer until the human race can successfully create a gravitational field of their own.
This seems to make sense until you remember that they want you to believe the Sun's gravity is pulling the entire Earth but not the Earth's atmosphere. If you scale things up, you come to the conclusion that the Universe as they describe it can't exist with graviry only. There has to be some other force separating gravity fields. Otherwise instead of having trillions of small spheres in the Universe we'd have a gigantic sphere of plasma, because no matter would have been able to create a gravity pocket. Anyway, this can all be explained if we ditch the big bang theory as it is told right now and realize the desintegration/expansion of the original plasma sphere governed by gravity alone hat existed "before the big bang" happened because a new force, intrinsecally related to matter, with the ability tho desintegrate/separate gravity into pockets emerged and has been working its way into every corner of the Universe since then. It's a somewhat slow process but in the end gravity will cease to exist. The Ancients called this force the Ether. Tesla thought it was related to electricity.
nagger
Big ball make small ball come
Small ball pulls other small ball from big ball
Small ball running laps around big ball
Small ball is fren ball with other small ball
Big ball bad ball, no fren ball
No cap, frfr on god
There. I answered your question. The atmosphere thins until it's almost fucking a vacuum. Wow. Congratulations, you now understand how it works.
Now stop posting this gay and retarded fucking thread over and over and over again. Vacuum is not a fucking force. It doesn't "suck". Vacuum is a fucking lack of things. It's lack of pressure. Pressure tries to equalize, and guess what fucking happens at extreme altitudes? Yes, that's right! Pressure equalizes to NEAR FUCKING ZERO.
>can we honestly try to answer this question without the typical shit slinging?
breddy easy
space is not entirely a perfect vacuum all over
matter clumps together, thank you electrostatics
if you set the density bar for where you draw the line for earth's atmosphere arbitrarily low, technically it extends beyond the moon's orbit.
People think the atmosphere just suddenly stops and then there's a dramatic vacuum. FFS, the moon is still technically inside of part of earths atmosphere. The shit goes out very far. But since gravity drops off oretty quickly as you move away from the earths surface, so does the pressure. Atmosphere gets thinner and thinner, but is mostly clustered near the surface because that's where the gravity is the strongest.
1. It is a vacuum in that it is a mostly empty space, not in that it is a force that sucks up all our air.
2. Gravity is the means by which matter has coalesced here on earth, and it is this force that holds our atmosphere in place, along with a force like electromagnetism that holds charged ions in the stratosphere that encourages cyclical movement of lighter molecules in the atmosphere.
3. This amount of mass collected in one space is more attractive than the vacuum of space in terms of where these air molecules want to go, and they don’t have the velocity to escape our planet without significant help.
Actual answer.
There are two opposing forces at work on each particle of atmosphere. A) The gravitational pull of the earth, pulling the particles towards the earth, and B) the pressure of the atmosphere which pushes particles into space.
These forces are directly oppositional, since as more particles are concentrated towards the earth, the pressure will increase and those particles will push each other back towards space.
This means that there will be the most atmospheric pressure on the earth's surface, which decreases the further you get from the surface.
There's no direct line we can point at where the atmosphere ends and vacuum begins, the pressures just get negligibly small.
That's the simplified version without getting into math. Willing to entertain all questions.
I mean this makes the most sense for sure, I just have a hard time believing gravity makes any meaningful distance at like, 20km? Isn't there an issue with gravity being so weak that it is immeasurably negligible at the atomic level too? I understand that the atmosphere is gaseous but it's super low density. I dunno, I obviously accept your reasonable enough account it just doesn't quite check all the boxes
Gravity is strong enough to kill you if you jump off a roof and it doesn't have to be super strong to hold stuff on earth when there is nothing pulling the stuff away.
It is also depends on mass.
It is strong enough to create 15 psi of atmospheric pressure at sea level.
you're responding to my comments about atomic irrelevance of the weak force of gravity with examples of sufficiently massive objects on a completely different scale. you basically just used an airhorn to respond to my question of where the bathroom is
>I just have a hard time believing gravity makes any meaningful distance at like, 20km?
the earth has a radius of 6,378 kilometers. a 20 km distance is pretty much nothing, gravitational acceleration at that height is only 9.74 m/s^2 >Isn't there an issue with gravity being so weak that it is immeasurably negligible at the atomic level too?
Yes, but it scales with mass. saying gravity is weak when talking about a single electron or proton is irrelevant when we're considering an entire planet. >I understand that the atmosphere is gaseous but it's super low density
The atmosphere doesn't have a single density, its density decreases exponentially as you go above sea level.
Thanks for the replies >The atmosphere doesn't have a single density, its density decreases exponentially as you go above sea level
Right but doesnt that mean it has an exponentially negligible effect as elevation increases (even at such relatively small scales to the earth like 20km)?
>Right but doesnt that mean it has an exponentially negligible effect as elevation increases (even at such relatively small scales to the earth like 20km)?
Yes, and the lower density atmosphere also has lower atmospheric pressure to counteract that gravity. But there's always some effect from gravity holding the air down against weaker and weaker pressures.
>I just have a hard time believing gravity makes any meaningful distance at like, 20km?
For sure, the force of gravity at that altitude is very small, around 0.0003% the strength of gravity at sea level. But the idea is that the force of pressure at that altitude is also very small, around 5% of the air pressure of sea level. And the idea is that those two forces would be equal at that point, since if they're not equal then they would get pushed around until everything does average out to equilibrium.
This is the point where math would be required to prove out actual values, and you'd probably need to use integral calculus (?) to solve the air pressure portion.The gravity side of the equations is easier if you trust newton's gravitational equations.
>it just means the moon is flat
that's what a flat earther told me last night
BUT IF THATS THE CASE
then wouldn't the moon look different from the side? hold a plate directly above your head, you see a circle, now move that plate to the right, oops, you don't see a circle anymore do you?
now that i've proved the flat earth moon is impossible and you can clearly see its not possible. lets talk about the flat earth sun.
you're on a boat, at night, in the distance you see the light of a lighthouse. that lighthouse isn't illuminating the boat, you're still in darkness, but you can see the light off in the distance. a flat earth sun is small and not very high up, flat earthers say light doesn't travel very far. well ok, how come we can't see the sun at night? if i can see a lighhouse off in the distance while still being in the darkness then why can't i see the sun off in the distance at night? flat earth sun is impossible.
the flatter will try and say it's "perspective" they do this by misunderstanding what perspective even in, as they often do. check my response to this post to see an example of flat earth "perspective"
flat earthers will also say the sun shrinks as it gets further away. or that you can zoom in on a setting sun and see it shrink. what they are actually doing is not using a solar filter or at least adjusting for exposure (in camera not in post) so they're just seeing glare.
flat earthers make a lot of arguments that may seem convincing at first glance. but it doesn't take much digging to reveal a perfectly reasonable explanation that explains it away. take any flat earth argument and search for it on flatearth dot ws and you can find a quick and easy debunk. failing that just do a google search using the word debunk.
just because a flat earther showed you something that seemed convincing doesn't mean you should just automatically accept it without at least looking to see if there's a reasonable explanation.
meanwhile the flat earth moon and sun are impossible, and there is a visible dip in the horizon below eye level. they can't explain this without misunderstanding it.
to see how the flat earth moon is impossible see
to see how flat earth sun is impossible see
now that i've proved the flat earth moon is impossible and you can clearly see its not possible. lets talk about the flat earth sun.
you're on a boat, at night, in the distance you see the light of a lighthouse. that lighthouse isn't illuminating the boat, you're still in darkness, but you can see the light off in the distance. a flat earth sun is small and not very high up, flat earthers say light doesn't travel very far. well ok, how come we can't see the sun at night? if i can see a lighhouse off in the distance while still being in the darkness then why can't i see the sun off in the distance at night? flat earth sun is impossible.
the flatter will try and say it's "perspective" they do this by misunderstanding what perspective even in, as they often do. check my response to this post to see an example of flat earth "perspective"
to see how the horizon dips below eye level see
LETS'S TALK ABOUT THE HORIZON
it dips below eye level, yes, the horizon dips below eye level. what does this mean? curvature, this is the earths curve.
all flatters can do to debate this is misunderstand eye level. they say shit like "just move the camera up or down" not understanding the reason the water is shown in these images. the water level is there to prove the camera is at 90 degree eye level.
>They can't explain this without misinterpreting this.
Globers have exclusive rights to optical illusions. If globers couldn't count on optical illusions, or if they let flatters point to something and call it an optical illusion...flat earth would easily be the more compelling argument. Globers can't see this because the globe is taken as fact and anything that doesn't comport can be an optical illusion. They don't allow this luxury to flatters and certainly can't see the bias in logic they are performing when articulating their position.
Optical dip-lensing. The optical dip.always happens at the edge of the point of focus on a curved lens. Better zoom, dip is further out.
What is problem with sun? Moon is reflection and they are much closer than you think. Stars are sonoluminessence.
This is according to flat earth prevailing theory, or at least one. I am neither, I am legit globe agnostic but can argue either in good faith. Can you?
>it just means the moon is flat
that's what a flat earther told me last night
BUT IF THATS THE CASE
then wouldn't the moon look different from the side? hold a plate directly above your head, you see a circle, now move that plate to the right, oops, you don't see a circle anymore do you?
now that i've proved the flat earth moon is impossible and you can clearly see its not possible. lets talk about the flat earth sun.
you're on a boat, at night, in the distance you see the light of a lighthouse. that lighthouse isn't illuminating the boat, you're still in darkness, but you can see the light off in the distance. a flat earth sun is small and not very high up, flat earthers say light doesn't travel very far. well ok, how come we can't see the sun at night? if i can see a lighhouse off in the distance while still being in the darkness then why can't i see the sun off in the distance at night? flat earth sun is impossible.
the flatter will try and say it's "perspective" they do this by misunderstanding what perspective even in, as they often do. check my response to this post to see an example of flat earth "perspective"
nothing you said debunks these posts. flat earth moon and sun don't work
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
You are literally retarded. Why can I see a lighthouse in darkness but not the sun. You can't fag. Their is an optical limit.to light and distance. Eventually the light simply can't manifest to you at all. 2 miles from lighthouse. Of course, 20. Yes. 200. No. Unless you get a brighter lighthouse. Flat earthers are not arguing the sun has enough light to be seen everywhere. Why are you?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
you're missing the point. yes eventually a flat earth sun would go invisible but before it did you would see the sun for quite some time while still in darkness. this doesn't happen
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I think light reflecting off the atmosphere nullifies that consideration.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
so it reflects off the atmosphere at a distance beyond which it can illuminate. that makes no sense
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
It reflects off something, aether, dome I don't know. But it is able to do this because at elevation there are no particles in the atmosphere to get in the way. So sun can produce rays to light moon, that light your night, but you can't see it because a thick blanker of atmosphere is between you.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
but if there's a dome then that brings up other issues regarding observable phenomenon.
see
>So there must be another surface up there like a clear dome
but a clear dome is inconsistent with observable phenomenon. hence why the flat earth model changes depending on what you're trying to explain away and isn't consistent.
meanwhile explain flat earth moon, you can't. see
[...]
so a dome doesn't work
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I think light reflecting off the atmosphere nullifies that consideration.
Imagine doing this between doing this in a room painted black and a room painted white.
speaking of optical lensing. find me a single flat earth model that explains why the sun illuminates the portion of the earth that it does, why sunrays don't converge at a single point, and how the sun sets. using a single model. as seen here, you can't.
>So there must be another surface up there like a clear dome
but a clear dome is inconsistent with observable phenomenon. hence why the flat earth model changes depending on what you're trying to explain away and isn't consistent.
meanwhile explain flat earth moon, you can't. see
[...]
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I do see sun ray convergence and you can calculate a distance of several hundred miles. Globers regard this an optical illusion as the sun manifests itself locally when it hits the atmosphere. Point is, I have already considered and seen past your inability to even go this far. Maybe you should consider how well versed a flatty is.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
i can see that you don't understand perspective effect and don't want to
Light bending seems to just be an artifact of globe earth optical illusions. It only ever manifests when we need to explain things at distance that can't be.
stick your hand in a glass of water, look at your hand, its distorted, because light bends. shocking i know. what light doesn't do is bend in a manner consistent with any flat earth models.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Light refracts it doesn't bend.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
i'm using the word bend to explain what refraction looks like
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
But it is a series of practically infinite refractions for it to curve naturally, measurably, and occuring similarly for different people at different locations. That is bullshit.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
refraction just explains how you can sometimes see objects that should be hidden by the curve. it varies daily depending on atmospheric conditions. the same photo taken on a different day will have a different amount of refraction or often none at all.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Science always does this. Attach bullshit to a real concept to acquire legitimacy. In this case, the measurable concept of refraction, light changing direction through a medium, to Refraction TM. They did the same thing with Gravity. Buoyancy is measurable and works. But it fails when they move to globe science. So Gravity takes over. But gravity gets it's legitimacy from buoyancy and asks us to extend from there.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Buoyancy is measurable and works
both these buckets of water have the exact same density, think about it
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
This is what makes flat earthers. Retard globers. How does this prove gravity. Differing mass is part of the rules of buoyancy. Why would you exclude that? God you are fucking stupid.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Differing mass is part of the rules of buoyancy.
no, it's not
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Things with the same density either rise or fall based on their weight. Obviously, things of differing densities also have weight as a variable. Buoyancy is not binary. Just like you.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>things with the same density either rise or fall based on their weight.
and what is weight? and why do objects have less weight in lower air densities instead of more weight?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
The medium, air, is interacting with you less. The medium is a force that acts to keep you in place. You usually can't exert enough force to bypass the countervailing force the medium exerts in you.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
alright fine, you win
i guess air molecules just slam into things to push them down and that's weight. but why do they always push down and not up or any other direction?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
and what is mass? explain mass to me without invoking gravity
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
mass is energy divided by the speed of light, squared
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Density of a particular element or combination of elements as measured through buoyancy.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
and what is mass? explain mass to me without invoking gravity
That was fun.
Buoyancy in a particular medium as measured relatively to a universally agreed arbitrary baseline.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
A grain of sand = mass
A rock = mass + density increased
A boulder = moar of the 1st two
Magnetism = density and mass combined.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Mass represents an object’s resistance to acceleration when a net force is applied to it. Therefore it’s a measure of inertia. The more mass an object has, the more it’ll resist acceleration (or deceleration). No gravity necessary. And yes it’s different than momentum.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>refraction is bullshit
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
it's about the difference in refractive indexes between differing densities at different levels of atmosphere
the moon is spiritual, it's not a rock up in space circleing the globe
its a spiritual sign put there by our creator, simple as
people all over the world see the same side cause thats whats there, its not rotating
think about reality as a videogame like Zelda BOTW
the creator made a moon, but you only ever see one side, because thats all you need to see to know theres a moon
if you're a midwit you wont get it, but the tail ends of the IQ chart get it
yes, that is the only flat earth explanation of the moon that makes sense. thankyou for providing it so we can all see how completely unhinged this theory is. >the moon is spiritual, so it doesn't have to make any consistent sense at all
well there we go then, can't debunk that can i
air is just fucking water
look at the ocean, "oh it's water"
until it fucking isn't, at the depths where it's submarine-crushing death.
same shit with air. >oh but the ocean is fake
your thread is fake
think of a swimming pool, if you dip your head underwater you don't feel much, but if you swim 8 feet down you feel the pressure on your head. same principle but backwards as you go up.
LETS'S TALK ABOUT THE HORIZON
it dips below eye level, yes, the horizon dips below eye level. what does this mean? curvature, this is the earths curve.
all flatters can do to debate this is misunderstand eye level. they say shit like "just move the camera up or down" not understanding the reason the water is shown in these images. the water level is there to prove the camera is at 90 degree eye level.
the problem is this shit relies on a foundational presupposition and redefinition of the word "measure". you are measuring the result of gravity and not gravity itself
flat earthers will show pictures of the earth where the continents vary in size. in one picture africa looks huge and in another it looks small. what they're not understanding is perspective and field of view, as this quick little animation shows.
flat earthers will show pictures of the earth and moon and say its impossible because in some pics the moon looks very large and in others very small. once again they are not understanding perspective or field of view
air molecule density tapers off almost indefinitely (why the moon is technically in Earth's atmosphere), so basically where Earth's gravity holds dominance there too lies its atmosphere
flat earthers will show pictures of earth at different altitudes not showing a curve (while ignoring the many pictures that do show a curve at those altitudes) what they are doing is not understanding how camera lenses work. they are not understanding the field of view matters.
flat earthers like to show pictures of distant objects that shouldn't be visible if the earths curve was in the way. what they're failing to account for is atmospheric refraction, which varies depending on weather, as varying densities of air at different levels bend light (including the laser lights they like to use)
Oh wait the greek guy who went to babylon and saw 'different constellations'?
Yes, ok, that old greek pedophile is definitely who's being cited here.
Dont act dumb with me mutt - all your supposition about the shape of the earth is based on Einstein's relativity.
flat earthers like to talk about water a lot, how water is always level. and it's true, water is always level. but it's not always flat. they don't know there's a difference. the water in your pool in the backyard has curvature it's just too slight for you to see it.
Gradualism is the god of the gaps in science. Whenever something seems impossible, they tell you to think of it gradually and it will somehow work. It's also how dinos became chickens, the earth was formed, life began, and op became a homosexual. It all happened gradually.
The atmosphere will gradually get less and less "dense", there will be less and less "stuff in it" to fill "space", until the point there is none, very little, per "available space".
Now the just a little shit slinging, this is such a fucking basic, but slightly interesting question, question dude, what the actual fuck are you doing with your life and what's up with that brain of yours?
Told ya.
Gradualism is the god of the gaps in science. Whenever something seems impossible, they tell you to think of it gradually and it will somehow work. It's also how dinos became chickens, the earth was formed, life began, and op became a homosexual. It all happened gradually.
The atmosphere will gradually get less and less "dense", there will be less and less "stuff in it" to fill "space", until the point there is none, very little, per "available space".
Now the just a little shit slinging, this is such a fucking basic, but slightly interesting question, question dude, what the actual fuck are you doing with your life and what's up with that brain of yours?
>find a round object with radius of approximately 1 cm >pick it up >let go of it >observe how it falls down on it's own >now scale that object down by 100000000 times >it's now a size of an atom of oxygen >the same rule of picking it up and it falling down on it's own still applies >if you want for it to move to vacuum of space you'll need to throw it really hard so that it reaches 40,270 km/h or 25,020 mph >typically molecules of gas are unable to reach such speeds and are thus trapped by earths pulling down force observed in previous experiment
well poisoning thread here solely to discredit real 'conspiracy' theories. OP, you are israeli. your fellow shills are israeli. the earth is not flat. you will all be holocausted. thank you.
>The sun is a big ball of gas that burns all day, every day but never gets any smaller. >been burning for a billionty gorrillion trillion years while we “evolved” always the same size.
Why? >because it’s really big
But so is the fire, the fire is ‘big’ on the sane scale. >TRUST THE FUCKING SCIENCE,, RIGHT!!!
We don’t know what the sun is do we? >no
space being called a vacuum is a bit of a misnomer. it was labeled that because if you have empty space in a box on earth, it seems to "vacuum" whatever is around it the moment it can, like a hole appearing in the box. but again, its a misnomer. the empty space does not suck at all, how could it? it has 0 energy to work with. think about it. the force instead comes from the pressure of the air that has finally found a way in via the hole. now, why is the pressure so high? because presumably we're at ground level. if you take the box higher and do the same test over and over, at 1km, 2km, 3km, you will see that the air forces itself into the box more gently with every height increase. this is simply because the air up there is less dense, because gravity is further away. if you want to increase this density at higher heights, you need not to increase gravity, but instead add more air to earth.
so it should be obvious to see now that emptyness has no energy to work with, and so it does not "suck" anything. that said, keep in mind that space itself is also not perfectly empty - it has about 1 atom per cubic cm. so if i opened an actually perfect empty box in space, "space" would "rush" into my box, until it also had the same density of 1 atom per cubic cm.
See, people like you are so retarded, you don't even give "evidence" because you know it's shit. You'll get called out by people who know your globe model better than you.
Take another vaccine you fucking clot coffin.
That's a perspective issue. The horizon doesn't dip. There is no curve whatsoever. That's why the only place it exists is on a MODEL CALCULATION.
You sound vaccinated. If you have the critical thinking to know what EUA, zero liability and informed consent are,
you should be able to go though every globe argument and throw out the ones that aren't based on the scientific method.
LETS'S TALK ABOUT THE HORIZON
it dips below eye level, yes, the horizon dips below eye level. what does this mean? curvature, this is the earths curve.
all flatters can do to debate this is misunderstand eye level. they say shit like "just move the camera up or down" not understanding the reason the water is shown in these images. the water level is there to prove the camera is at 90 degree eye level.
your model of perspective is retarded as shown here
>when a flat earther talks about perspective
critical thinking is more then just contrarianism
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Those images in no way prove a curve, or a globe. You need real empirical, independent and evidence.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
the dip in the horizon proves the curve yes. and there's nothing more independent then having a bottled water on an airplane. using the water to show a 90 degree eye level, and observing that the horizon dips below that eye level. as it would do if the earth was curved, which it is
1) Weight (W) is equal to mass (m) times the local freefall acceleration (g)
W = mg
2) Mass (m) is equal to density (ρ) times volume (V)
m = ρV
3) A volume (V) can be described as an area (A) multiplied by a height (Δz)
V = A Δz
4) A pressure difference (ΔP) is defined a force (F) over an area (A)
ΔP = F/A
5) Archimedes Principle of Buoyancy - The buoyant force (F) exerted by a fluid is equal and opposite to the weight of the fluid displaced (W).
F = -W
6) Ideal gas law - Let the absolute pressure (P) be proportional to the density of a gas (ρ) by some constants (kT/m)
P = ρ kT/m
7) Dimensional analysis indicates kT/mg has dimensions of length. Call this length H.
H = kT/mg
Its a gradient, The higher you get the less dense the atmosphere because most of gas is closer to earth due to gravity. So at some level you still have like 1% of ground atmosphere density but this still would suck you eyes out. Then its get thiner and thiner asymptoticly reaching zero - so for example at some levels in one cubic meter you will end up with one particle for half of the time, the other half you will have perfect vacum
while extremely low pressures can be harmful to humans and can cause conditions like decompression sickness, the phrase "suck your eyes out" is not a scientifically accurate description of what would happen. in reality, exposure to a near-vacuum can cause bodily fluids to vaporize and expand, leading to swelling
Japan's April fake lander impact was so bad, the cgi looks like the back of the box on a PS1 game.
Complete with a friendly "good luck" message from the ISS. Full green screen.
>the curve is harder to see at lower altitude
yes and? >the curve is easy to see with a fisheye lens
yes and?
there are pictures without a fisheye lens. >then how small is the earth?
dumb question because you don't understand perspective or field of view see this for an explanation of why the lake looks so large in that pic
flat earthers will show pictures of the earth where the continents vary in size. in one picture africa looks huge and in another it looks small. what they're not understanding is perspective and field of view, as this quick little animation shows.
imagine begins so stupid that you dont understand that pressure decreases as you climb higher. Never been to the top of a mountain and felt light headed, nagger?
LETS'S TALK ABOUT THE HORIZON
it dips below eye level, yes, the horizon dips below eye level. what does this mean? curvature, this is the earths curve.
all flatters can do to debate this is misunderstand eye level. they say shit like "just move the camera up or down" not understanding the reason the water is shown in these images. the water level is there to prove the camera is at 90 degree eye level.
You have the positive claim. The globe is rejected based on lack of evidence, so you have the burden of proof.
The curve doesn't exist. Models and perspective fallacies don't count.
all i'm showing is that horizon dips below eye level, provably so. there is no model calculation or pseudoscience involved
The flat earth is rejected because there is no evidence. Model calculations, assumption, unproven theories and fallacies. Every fuckin time.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
The dip below eye level is a perspective problem. It's not evidence for a globe.
Assuming the consequent fallacy.
Begging the question.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
no because your understanding of perspective is hilariously flawed, see
>when a flat earther talks about perspective
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Oh look its the leaf with a seemingly unlimited amount of freetime to “deboonk” flat earth and resources to create cringe infographics full of holes constantly.
To anyone else reading this i ask you if flat earth is so provably fake and gay then why is there so muc effort to deboonking it in freespeech spaces?
Why dont you just let us be retarded is were so retarded? Afraid we might see something were not supposed to lol?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
They don't even know their own model properly. That's why they get wrapped up trying to pass of pseudoscience as actual evidence. Blind faith and peer pressure is their scientific method.
none of this matters. the israelites are the chosen ones and will rule over you in heaven and punish you in hell. the book that they wrote wherein they named themselves the protagonists says so.
It's not an independent observation. Density in a medium predicts how objects fall without gravity. >The mechanism of how that works is theoretical >theoretical
You can't use unproven theories to then claim there is a magic ball earth spinning in a "vacuum".
the dip in the horizon proves the curve yes. and there's nothing more independent then having a bottled water on an airplane. using the water to show a 90 degree eye level, and observing that the horizon dips below that eye level. as it would do if the earth was curved, which it is
Bottles of water on airplanes don't prove a ball earth. The experiment you're referring to is based on assumptions and fallacies. Begging the question and straw man fallacies don't count.
>there's nothing more independent then having a bottled water on an airplane
Your example is in a moving plane you donkey.
Your evidence is wrong because you are relying on assumptions and fallacies. You could at least try and claim that pilots require a curve. Even thats a better fake argument for the ball, even though it's wrong too.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
ok what about this
LETS'S TALK ABOUT THE HORIZON
it dips below eye level, yes, the horizon dips below eye level. what does this mean? curvature, this is the earths curve.
all flatters can do to debate this is misunderstand eye level. they say shit like "just move the camera up or down" not understanding the reason the water is shown in these images. the water level is there to prove the camera is at 90 degree eye level.
not on a plane. not that the motion of a plane even matters for this demonstration
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
The dip is a perspective observation only. It's not real. That's why there is no curve regardless if you measure empirically out 2,000 miles.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
oh so now you admit the horizon does dip below eye level. so finally i've made some progress. but your understanding of how perspective works is still flawed
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
This image is just telling you to generate a curve by using a fisheye lense. Edges of horizon in these pics is always below halfway point....... I think (You) don't know shit about lenses? >not sure if these people are well poisoning feds, or just stupid. Prob just stupid
Again with my monarchy argument. Democracy was a mistake.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
thats not what the image is telling you to do
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
No. Your observations are a persective issues. They don't count as evidence for the globe whatsoever. Pseudoscience doesn't count.
>i measured how shit falls through the air >yep gravity is real lads wrap it up
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>bedford level
debunked centuries ago. your flatter bedford level experiment was done too close to the waters surface and got a lot of refraction. accounting for refraction the bedford level experiment was done again
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>michelson
lol again
>Reee look at my infographics >B-b-but muh atmospheric refraction
Every single time kek
The answer is that there is no "hard boundary" because it is a system and not a physical object. Depending on exactly how you define the atmosphere, at this percentage or that percentage of this parameter or that parameter, where the physical behavior crosses the arbitrary boundary you've chosen will vary, because you chose an arbitrary boundary.
If what you're asking is why all gases don't float away into space, the answer is much simpler: the set of all forces acting to keep the gas molecules near earth is greater than the set of all forcee acting to push them away, same as most other objects near the earth's surface.
This experiment is almost surely measuring electromagnetism, or some other force, and not gravity. A 348 lb ball is not nearly big enough for a gravitational constant to be measured, especially with having to overcome all the internal friction of the measurement device. I would be surprised if anyone has recently recreated this device..... for obvious reasons. Don't poison the well with 300 year old bullshit please
Threads like this are the best commercial for monarchy there is. In democracy every literal retard gets an opinion and a vote, and it does not work >the answer to your literally retarded question would be obvious if you had 30 more iq points. Please accept that you are just plain stupid and never post on the Internet again
Here's the answer:
Vacuum does not suck.
Also do you space deniers at least admit that the higher one goes the less air and pressure there is?
Or is that too some conspiracy maintained by NASA or something?
as i keep saying and keep getting ignored, "vacuum" is a bit of a misnomer for space. it is a void. and voids are a stable, low pressure system. so they do not suck.
the term vacuum is not necessarily wrong, as it has more than one meaning: one of which is basically void. but when many people hear the term "vacuum of space," a lot of them think of an actual vacuum effect. they also then combine it in their mind with what they think they know that an empty box with a sudden hole will "pull" air inside, but that's also wrong. there are high pressure systems, and low pressure systems. high wants to rush to low.
so the air on earth WANTS to rush into space (not space wanting to pull air off earth)... but it cant. do you know why? gravity
you were given many good explanations that you ignored
as i keep saying and keep getting ignored, "vacuum" is a bit of a misnomer for space. it is a void. and voids are a stable, low pressure system. so they do not suck.
the term vacuum is not necessarily wrong, as it has more than one meaning: one of which is basically void. but when many people hear the term "vacuum of space," a lot of them think of an actual vacuum effect. they also then combine it in their mind with what they think they know that an empty box with a sudden hole will "pull" air inside, but that's also wrong. there are high pressure systems, and low pressure systems. high wants to rush to low.
so the air on earth WANTS to rush into space (not space wanting to pull air off earth)... but it cant. do you know why? gravity
>as i keep saying and keep getting ignored
i feel your pain
GLOBE EARTH PSEUDOSCIENCE
avoids falsifiability
vagueness in measurement
unproven as false = true
confirmation bias
lack of parsimony
reversed burden of proof
REAL SCIENCE
valorizes falsifiability
accuracy in measurement
unproven as false = false
emphasis on refutation
prioritization of parsimony
burden on claimant, not critic
FLAT EARTH PSEUDOSCIENCE
avoids falsifiability
vagueness in measurement
unproven as false = true
confirmation bias
lack of parsimony
reversed burden of proof
REAL SCIENCE
valorizes falsifiability
accuracy in measurement
unproven as false = false
emphasis on refutation
prioritization of parsimony
burden on claimant, not critic
The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn't help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about. Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn't help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. The flat earth shill had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn't remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day. Sometimes I stood there thunderstruck. I didn't know what to be more amazed at: the agility of their tongues or their virtuosity at lying. Gradually I began to hate them.
you imagine space to be real so much yet you never witnessed it. you deny your own senses that tell you the ground beneath your own feet is not moving, all so you can believe what the israelite told you as a child. imagine having a brain this zogged, and unwilling to grow up and escape the matrix
>you deny your own senses that tell you the ground beneath your own feet is not moving
newtons first law of motion makes perfect sense though
an object in motion will remain at motion unless acted upon by an external force
we're all spinning with the globe. it's hard to feel because everything relative to us including the air is spinning along with us. and will continue to do so unless acted upon by an external force
Space doesnt exist.
good fucking christ your a filthy fucking homosexual retard. it works exactly the same as how the fucking beer in your glass meets the air dipshit.
go to op's house and shit on each other's balls you jizzwhistling bender.
But anon, the beer in the glass is under immense pressure from the atmosphere, a better example would be the beer experiencing the vacuum created by your vapid std ridden dick sucking lips nagger homosexual homosexual. As we all know the beer won't be in the glass owing to your mastery of suction.
I, too, would like to know.
Hmm... Why do simple honest questions about space cause consistent seething. Unless you're angry about something else and it's just seeping out here anon.
>Why do simple honest questions about space cause consistent seething.
NPC brains just ignore them
Flerftards never ask innocent questions.
is my evil agenda shining through?
Yes, you're a dishonest homosexual who's been posting this since 2021.
thanks for the reminder i need to restart /sifagg/
>jizzwhistling bender.
Holy shit, anon. That's hilarious
Basic fluid dynamics. This is primary school tier shit.
It actually doesn't, it is more like CO2 sitting in air, there's a lot of dispersion. It does have fluidic behaviour though, however in the way gasses do not liquids.
>Basic fluid dynamics. This is primary school tier shit.
?
thats the most obvious answer but I'm looking for more of a secular star trekkian basedboy response that at least attempts to make sense
oh boy another flat earth thread
but the glass bulb has a clear dome, so your own example has a barrier
you have to actually read it not just glance at the thumbnail and make a weird irrelevant assumption. don't comment on something you haven't read
>irrelevant assumption
You used a glass bulb with a solid barrier to prove you don't need a barrier, how is that irrelevant?
read the image like i asked you to retard, i'm a ROUND earther.
you don't need a barrier, you need a FORCE
the glass bulb has normal force, aka a physical barrier, which exerts force on the air outside the bulb keeping it out. the earth has a gravitational force which pulls air in.
>the earth has a gravitational force which pulls air in.
By that logic, gravity would hold in anything with mass. Why does helium rise?
because of buoyancy. i'm not saying buoyancy doesn't exist. meanwhile gravity still keeps the gasses contained in earths atmosphere. if only buoyancy existed without gravity then where is the downward force coming from? buoyancy alone wouldn't push things down, there would be no down, buoyancy in fact doesn't work outside gravity
You're wrong and I already answered your question in a previous post
oh yeah, which post? which post explains the downward force?
Air is air because is is too small to be affected by gravity. If air was drawn in my gravity, it would accumulate on the ground like dirt or rocks.
air is air because the individual particles have nothing to hold them together to other particles and don't have enough mass to be condensed by gravity into a solid object
He’s objectively right though. The normal force has nothing to do with the atmosphere-space estuary
a physical barrier exerts force pushing the air out of the lightbulb
gravity exerts force pulling the air in towards the earth
in both cases a force is separating the vaccum from the air. as was explained in the picture he didn't read
There's a measurable and provable equipotential increase in static charge the higher up you go from earth, which can only be accomplished between two Gaussian surfaces. So there must be another surface up there like a clear dome. It's the only explanation for the equipotential increase in static charge. That static charge creates the downward flow of objects towards earth, aka "gravity". The rest is just density/buoyancy displacing the medium of air. Density/buoyancy is much stronger than the electrostatic charge, which is why helium rises. The electrostatic charge simply gives objects the directional flow toward earth.
that actually make sense
No it doesnt
>The rest is just density/buoyancy displacing the medium of air. Density/buoyancy is much stronger than the electrostatic charge, which is why helium rises
>buoyancy disappears without gravity
get fucked bozo
>So there must be another surface up there like a clear dome
but a clear dome is inconsistent with observable phenomenon. hence why the flat earth model changes depending on what you're trying to explain away and isn't consistent.
meanwhile explain flat earth moon, you can't. see
>if we were to go to higher altitudes, we should find less ionization, because the radioactivity is all in the dirt on the ground—in the traces of radium, uranium, potassium, etc.
>To test this theory, some physicists carried an experiment up in balloons to measure the ionization of the air and discovered that the opposite was true!
>This was a most mysterious result—the most dramatic finding in the entire history of atmospheric electricity. It was so dramatic, in fact, that it required a branching off of an entirely new subject—cosmic rays. Atmospheric electricity itself remained less dramatic. Ionization was evidently being produced by something from outside the earth; the investigation of this source led to the discovery of the cosmic rays. We will not discuss the subject of cosmic rays now, except to say that they maintain the supply of ions. Although the ions are being swept away all the time, new ones are being created by the cosmic-ray particles coming from the outside.
>To be precise, we must say that besides the ions made of molecules, there are also other kinds of ions. Tiny pieces of dirt, like extremely fine bits of dust, float in the air and become charged. They are sometimes called “nuclei.” For example, when a wave breaks in the sea, little bits of spray are thrown into the air. When one of these drops evaporates, it leaves an infinitesimal crystal of NaCl floating in the air. These tiny crystals can then pick up charges and become ions; they are called “large ions.”
>The small ions—those formed by cosmic rays—are the most mobile. Because they are so small, they move rapidly through the air. The much bigger and heavier ions move much more slowly. It turns out that if there are many “nuclei,” they will pick up the charges from the small ions. Then, since the “large ions” move so slowly in a field, the total conductivity is reduced.
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_09.html
Paraphrased for simplicity
hi zell
daily reminder only israelite spam flat earth in places they cant censor where people talk about their crimes so their media can call anyone talking about their crimes flat earther
You glow
naggers
it's attracted to the gravity well produced by your mom's gargantuan ass
LMAO vaccume of Space?? they can't even explain why the moon appears larger near the horizon. Science & math is absolute fucking boogie woogie
>Wikipedia says so, so it must be true
The moon appears bigger at the horizon for two reasons. One, it's an illusion caused by seeing objects near the moon. The other reason, the atmosphere creates a lensing effect, and when you look towards the horizon you are looking through a much greater distance of atmosphere.
lets stay on topic plz
In flat earth model the moon should be smaller when it’s closer to horizon considering that means it’s moving away and furthest away the closer it is the horizon.
Explain this? Pro tip you can’t
straw man
Okay wikiretard. Why does the sky appear red at dawn and dusk?
Read about refraction. The moon appears bigger around the horizon because the gravitational pull of the Earth bends light rays around the curvature. This means that the light rays coming from the bottom of the moon bend more than the ones from the top that cross with the other light rays, causing the moon to appear stretched and larger in your eye. If you've ever seen a super moon, you'll see that while it's giant it looks less detailed, because the density of light coming from each point of the surface of the moon is smaller. It's like looking through a rifle scope with zoom. The lens is the atmosphere.
Flat earth is a psyop.
I like to say "fuck the ~~*science*~~" just as much as the next guy but light refraction isn't even that advanced of physics.
And I've never seen a flat homosexual explain why summer in Australia Is winter in canada. While making time zones and tides work.
Forgot pic
>they can't even explain why the moon appears larger near the horizon.
They use a bunch of (conveniently non reproducible) techno babble about light-bending phenomena for ant and all observable visual evidence of a lack of curvature.
I'm the odd one out though in that I'm not totally convinced it's flat or round. There ARE a few details suggesting it's round which flat earthers cannot debunk in good fair. There ARE some details suggesting it's flat which the globe model cannot debunk in good faith. So from what I can tell where all trapped in some fucked up collective fever dream where physical laws are not consistent and are subject to changing with the collective consciousness or possibly just whenever god/some creator feels like it. This is a far more interesting thought experiment if you ask me, has far more broad-reaching implications, and explains a whole fuck of a lot more than just the whole flat vs round debate.
There is so much shit in this world that does not make any sense when assuming it must operate on some basic foundation of objectivity on some level we can potentially comprehend. It doesn't have to do shit, it doesn't have to make itself easy for us to understand. Mystery and discovery are still alive. We don't know shit and our hubris absolutely WILL be the downfall of this age og humanity.
We can actually, the water molecules work as a sort of lense that alters the appearance
It's called refraction but judging by your meme flag it hasn't come up in your school just yet
You're wring lmfao refraction would make the moon appear smaller.
vacuum has less force than gravity. ez pz. you aren’t really a brainlet who doesn’t get it are you? this is a troll or shill post?
this could make sense. what is the force of the endless vacuum of space in newtons? what about gravity? it seems counterintuitive given the way the vacuum is represented and how relatively weak a force gravity is
first you’d have to understand where the air gets it’s force at all. so you know what force causes air to fill a container full of “vacuum”? it’s the weight of the air
a vacuum is not simply a void or lack of matter. it's the result of a pressure differential afaik
exactly. as you go up the air has less weight and density making it so there is less and less force which fills a vacuum. this is why the air doesn’t just rush into space because there isn’t a force where vacuum magically sucks air into itself. the force is the air being pushed by other air. and that can’t happen at space when the force is purely down only not up into space. air can only move “up” due to the weight of the air around it causing pressure. only a brainlet couldn’t imagine this in their head. op is a troll or a genuine retard
yes but even at the very last molecule of air in the atmosphere there would be a pressure differential with the closest thing to a perfect vacuum we have theorized: space. all the way down, domino effect
Not enough to cause movement. It's a gradient around the edge.
>it seems counterintuitive given the dogshit information I gathered on LULZ
wow who would have thought
this has nothing to do with LULZ my friend. dont be so afraid to question your foundational beliefs buddy, if you're not an NPC you can come out of it just fine
Gravity is not a fucking weak force. Gravity is extremely strong. However i will say that it doesnt make sense now that i think about it that earth would be able to hold this autmosphere but lets says mars isnt able to. But i wonder if thats just because of the area in which we are from the sun. So our air doesnt freeze but mars air would freeze creating no atmosphere.
>Gravity is not a fucking weak force.
ayyyy
time travel can be achieved if you control gravity. Tell me again how gravity is not the strongest force in the known universe.
my tiny fridge magnet can defy the gravity of the entire earth.
only into the future. we dont know of a way to go to the past, other than simply reconstructing the exact atom layout of another point in time, which is technically possible 🙂
>muh telephone box can send me to the age of the ~~*dinosaurs*~~
why would you bring something so preposterous and irrelevant up
>what is the force of the endless vacuum of space in newtons?
Zero. Vacuum has no force, the only force comes from pressure high to low. The pressure drops as you go up until it reaches the limit of our ability to measure it and gasses stop acting as a fluid and instead follow ballistic paths.
why did you type vacuum instead of space? baka brother
Well, if we would like to calculate flow towards vacuum then I would do it like that:
1) Calculate pressure of air at threshold level
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_altitude
2) Then from Bernoulli principle calculate velocity of air
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli%27s_principle
3) Knowing mass of air particle and velocity towards vacuum we could calculate acceleration and force
4) Then question is how big are other forces like gravity, cohesion, and radial velocity (I think air is spinning in reference to vacuum of space) and if they are equalizing force from pressure difference between vacuum and air
Most likely those equation won't work because they were derived at ground level experiments and we would get some atrocious math. But this is my honest guess how to calculate this.
Oh, wait Bernoulli would have force from gravity included
>vacuum has less force than the gravity of air and various gasses
i use vacuum at work and it simply isn't true
If SPACE is a VACUUM then how come there’s so much DEBRIS? CHECKMATE
I have never witnessed OP being blown the fuck out as hard as I just seen with my own two eyes. Also checked.
true, i will never recover
vacuums need to be emptied of debris
I keep those here through sheer power of my will, kneel.
There is an easy experiment that anyone can do in their garage to gain insight into this phenomena. You’ll only need a vacuum cleaner with a tube. Turn on the vacuum cleaner and stick your dick in the tube. Does it feel good? Yea? She’s a dirty whore. I fucking love science.
"You're gonna rip your dick off. If you stick your dick in this vacuum cleaner and turn it on it'll rip your dick off"
WHY WOULD I DO THAT??
I have a friend who claims that he used an actual vacuum cleaner to make his dick bigger and it worked. I personally think he's full of shit but who knows? Anything is possible. I fucking love science!
This is what happens to you if you fill your head with fake israeli space logos over God.
This.
We need the camps back. And trade in those modern showers for good old inquisition guillotines.
How does the harmless water pressure at 1m depth meet the lethal water pressure of 200m depth?
Gradually.
yes but this is very intuitively satisfying and requires very little abstract conceptualization
>... And here's why that's a BAD thing
>How does the harmless water pressure at 1m depth meet the lethal water pressure of 200m depth?
Like a fucking homosexual, apparently.
you obviously dont even understand the argument
one is a liquid, one is a gas
the whole point of the argument is that gas pressure always tries to equalize throughout the whole physical container it's contained in, liquids dont have such a property
>liquids dont have such a property
Yes they do. I thought russians and related people weren't retarded in science.
Why do you think the submarine imploded the other day?
Mars has no magnetic field because it's core Is no longer active. The Earth core is active so when sun flares blow through they're diverted into Space. For Mars, they go unopposed and carry the atmosphere away gradually. So it's not just about gravity. The magnetic field plays an important role as well.
if i put 1 liter of water in a container with the volume of 2 liters, the water will stay in the bottom half
if i put 1 liter of gas, lets just say air, it will disperse throughout the whole 2 liter volume of the container
maybe work on your reading comprehension?
>What is density
>Why does oil stay on top of water
>Why does methane go up
Air density is approximately the same for small containers, but it's just an approximation. You can verify it yourself with a 10 meter long pipe and a good barometer. A 400$ barometer can measure air pressure with accuracy of +- 50 pa. A 10 meter pipe, sealed and placed upright, will have a pressure difference between the top and the bottom of around 120 pa, which is measurable by the barometer.
2 non seqs
amazing
I responded your question exactly. Not my fault you didn't pay attention in high school.
Water acts the way it does in air because it is heavier than air. If water is being manipulated inside a denser liquid OR gas then it acts like air in normal atmosphere. What's so hard to understand homosexual?
>he doesn't know liquid can float on dense gas
Lmao nagger, lmao
Also, when your house is on fire you're not supposed to lie down, why?
do you smoke? is exhailed smoke a substance similar to gas enough for you?
when yes take a glas and exhale some smoke into it, it will stay down inside a glas touching the air but not mixing
now you will say yes but it can't escape because glas walls... but why is it staying down anon?
because there is something pulling on it, the source of that pulling force is the center of the earth thats why it doesn't need walls to contain gas around it and its pulled down, gradually decreasing in density
i know you will come up with another stupid argument but it is how it is, it always tiresome
Thats only true depending on the container.
Small enough and all we messure is the overall pressure. But if your statement was true no matter the container, then all gasses released into the atmosphere would immediately equalize and disperse into the air. but they dont, depending on their density they even stay in remotely similar regions and heights. We have many intances of trace elements which stick together like veins of ore (carbon dioxide for example). We can also see plainly just from how the atmosphere is layered with different gasses appearing in different levels like ozone.
Simply put it's inaccurate to compare small containers of pressurized gas to the atmosphere of the entire Earth
yes, actually they do
at -40m the vasectomy begins
1. it's not a hard border, it's a gradient. you know already this, air gets thinner with increases in altitude.
2. the air is constantly pulled towards earth by the force of gravity, which is why it doesn't disperse into space.
Also static charges attract atoms and molecules. Plus magnetic fields not only protect the atmosphere from being stripped by solar wind, but they also capture many of the escaping ionized particles, eventually rerouting them back to earth.
But yeah, mostly gravity.
Why doesn’t the immense pressure under the ocean just explode outward?
Well?
fish at the bottom of the ocean:
>Air? AIR? Are you high or retarded? Tell me exactly WHERE and HOW this crushing weight of water suddenly turns into magical floating molecules wafting around teensy changes in pressure
>airtards are such fucking brainlets holy shit I can't deal with how they make fun of me for believing in aquaman
Space isn't a vacuume in that it has negative pressure. It's a vacuume because it is almost devoid of anything with mass so there is nothing there to pressurize in the first place.
The reason a pressurized vessel violently releases into less pressurized surroundings is just equalization, the lower pressure isn't "pulling" the contents out.
Gravity is the reason put atmosphere has pressure at ground level. The force of gravity on the gases surrounding the planet is strongest there.
As you go further out there is less pressure until you reach the furthest outside edge where minimal force is being exerted. At the outside the atmospheric pressure is so small that it may as well be space, there's is no where for it to equalize too. So there's no suck.
You fucking retard
>It's a vacuume because it is almost devoid of anything with mass
Space literally contains everything. How can it be devoid of anything if it surrounds everything?
I'm talking about the void between. Not the universe as a whole
Earths gravity well
oh god i didn't know so many people didn't understand vaccums. i'm going to pretend it's just a bunch of shills and bots so i can feel better about humanity
pressure differential is no joke and "a lot of stuff" vs "no stuff" is so stupidly differently i can't even
Is this even a serious question?
Earth's atmosphere is very thin compared to its size. Breathable air only goes up to like 35,000ft, and by 100,000ft there's almost no air left and you start going into the vacuum of space.
This is mainly due to gravity which keeps the air close to the surface and relatively contained so it doesn't just fizzle away into space.
>Earth's atmosphere is very thin compared to its size
how does the relativity of the atmosphere vs the earth matter in the slightest?
Just think of atmosphere as water. Pulled down evenly across the planet.
Doesnt it have to do with gravity. Isnt the force of gravity stronger then what i presume to be the pull of space? At least thats what would make sense in my mind. "Air" has a higher mass then void so the air gets pulled into the object with greater gravitational field through the void.
there's no pull of space, only the internal pressure of the gas bellow pushing away from the planet
No one has ever done an experiment of a large vaccume surrounding a pressurized system. Maybe it works differently.
Yea you might be right. I feel as though this a question we wont ever be able to answer until the human race can successfully create a gravitational field of their own.
This seems to make sense until you remember that they want you to believe the Sun's gravity is pulling the entire Earth but not the Earth's atmosphere. If you scale things up, you come to the conclusion that the Universe as they describe it can't exist with graviry only. There has to be some other force separating gravity fields. Otherwise instead of having trillions of small spheres in the Universe we'd have a gigantic sphere of plasma, because no matter would have been able to create a gravity pocket. Anyway, this can all be explained if we ditch the big bang theory as it is told right now and realize the desintegration/expansion of the original plasma sphere governed by gravity alone hat existed "before the big bang" happened because a new force, intrinsecally related to matter, with the ability tho desintegrate/separate gravity into pockets emerged and has been working its way into every corner of the Universe since then. It's a somewhat slow process but in the end gravity will cease to exist. The Ancients called this force the Ether. Tesla thought it was related to electricity.
>can't do physics
>thinks his opinion on physics matters
never stops being funny
nagger
Big ball make small ball come
Small ball pulls other small ball from big ball
Small ball running laps around big ball
Small ball is fren ball with other small ball
Big ball bad ball, no fren ball
No cap, frfr on god
Hope this clears things up for ya
how come gravity was never reproduced if it's that easy?
Jesuits invented space as an expansion pack to their heliocentric lie end of story.
It's a gradient you fucking retard.
There. I answered your question. The atmosphere thins until it's almost fucking a vacuum. Wow. Congratulations, you now understand how it works.
Now stop posting this gay and retarded fucking thread over and over and over again. Vacuum is not a fucking force. It doesn't "suck". Vacuum is a fucking lack of things. It's lack of pressure. Pressure tries to equalize, and guess what fucking happens at extreme altitudes? Yes, that's right! Pressure equalizes to NEAR FUCKING ZERO.
Seriously. If one or the other were to be proven correct today, what would it change in the world?
>can we honestly try to answer this question without the typical shit slinging?
breddy easy
space is not entirely a perfect vacuum all over
matter clumps together, thank you electrostatics
if you set the density bar for where you draw the line for earth's atmosphere arbitrarily low, technically it extends beyond the moon's orbit.
/misc/ - pseudoscience and the retards who believe it
People think the atmosphere just suddenly stops and then there's a dramatic vacuum. FFS, the moon is still technically inside of part of earths atmosphere. The shit goes out very far. But since gravity drops off oretty quickly as you move away from the earths surface, so does the pressure. Atmosphere gets thinner and thinner, but is mostly clustered near the surface because that's where the gravity is the strongest.
1. It is a vacuum in that it is a mostly empty space, not in that it is a force that sucks up all our air.
2. Gravity is the means by which matter has coalesced here on earth, and it is this force that holds our atmosphere in place, along with a force like electromagnetism that holds charged ions in the stratosphere that encourages cyclical movement of lighter molecules in the atmosphere.
3. This amount of mass collected in one space is more attractive than the vacuum of space in terms of where these air molecules want to go, and they don’t have the velocity to escape our planet without significant help.
>t. Nobody
Gravity you stupid homosexual
Why does evaporated water condense into clouds and not just keep going and float off into space? retard
There are three types of flatheads.
Agents
Trolls
and gullible morons.
The last two work for the first one whether they know it or not.
space isnt a vacuum its very low density
>space isnt a vacuum its very low density
so far this is the only truly retarded thing said in this thread
>opens with shit slinging question
let's test it by launching you into phony low orbit
ANOTHER LOW IQ THREAD?
NICE
Actual answer.
There are two opposing forces at work on each particle of atmosphere. A) The gravitational pull of the earth, pulling the particles towards the earth, and B) the pressure of the atmosphere which pushes particles into space.
These forces are directly oppositional, since as more particles are concentrated towards the earth, the pressure will increase and those particles will push each other back towards space.
This means that there will be the most atmospheric pressure on the earth's surface, which decreases the further you get from the surface.
There's no direct line we can point at where the atmosphere ends and vacuum begins, the pressures just get negligibly small.
That's the simplified version without getting into math. Willing to entertain all questions.
I mean this makes the most sense for sure, I just have a hard time believing gravity makes any meaningful distance at like, 20km? Isn't there an issue with gravity being so weak that it is immeasurably negligible at the atomic level too? I understand that the atmosphere is gaseous but it's super low density. I dunno, I obviously accept your reasonable enough account it just doesn't quite check all the boxes
Gravity is strong enough to kill you if you jump off a roof and it doesn't have to be super strong to hold stuff on earth when there is nothing pulling the stuff away.
It is also depends on mass.
It is strong enough to create 15 psi of atmospheric pressure at sea level.
do they not teach physics in Canada?
What did I say wrong?
you're responding to my comments about atomic irrelevance of the weak force of gravity with examples of sufficiently massive objects on a completely different scale. you basically just used an airhorn to respond to my question of where the bathroom is
Gravity doesn't have much effect compared to atomic bonds.. I didn't understand the question because it doesn't make sense.
>I just have a hard time believing gravity makes any meaningful distance at like, 20km?
the earth has a radius of 6,378 kilometers. a 20 km distance is pretty much nothing, gravitational acceleration at that height is only 9.74 m/s^2
>Isn't there an issue with gravity being so weak that it is immeasurably negligible at the atomic level too?
Yes, but it scales with mass. saying gravity is weak when talking about a single electron or proton is irrelevant when we're considering an entire planet.
>I understand that the atmosphere is gaseous but it's super low density
The atmosphere doesn't have a single density, its density decreases exponentially as you go above sea level.
Thanks for the replies
>The atmosphere doesn't have a single density, its density decreases exponentially as you go above sea level
Right but doesnt that mean it has an exponentially negligible effect as elevation increases (even at such relatively small scales to the earth like 20km)?
(it being gravity)
See v
>Right but doesnt that mean it has an exponentially negligible effect as elevation increases (even at such relatively small scales to the earth like 20km)?
Yes, and the lower density atmosphere also has lower atmospheric pressure to counteract that gravity. But there's always some effect from gravity holding the air down against weaker and weaker pressures.
>I just have a hard time believing gravity makes any meaningful distance at like, 20km?
For sure, the force of gravity at that altitude is very small, around 0.0003% the strength of gravity at sea level. But the idea is that the force of pressure at that altitude is also very small, around 5% of the air pressure of sea level. And the idea is that those two forces would be equal at that point, since if they're not equal then they would get pushed around until everything does average out to equilibrium.
This is the point where math would be required to prove out actual values, and you'd probably need to use integral calculus (?) to solve the air pressure portion.The gravity side of the equations is easier if you trust newton's gravitational equations.
LETS TALK ABOUT FLAT EARTH MOON
HOW IS THE FLAT EARTH MOON POSSIBLE?
LOOK HERE, IT'S NOT.
>it just means the moon is flat
that's what a flat earther told me last night
BUT IF THATS THE CASE
then wouldn't the moon look different from the side? hold a plate directly above your head, you see a circle, now move that plate to the right, oops, you don't see a circle anymore do you?
now that i've proved the flat earth moon is impossible and you can clearly see its not possible. lets talk about the flat earth sun.
you're on a boat, at night, in the distance you see the light of a lighthouse. that lighthouse isn't illuminating the boat, you're still in darkness, but you can see the light off in the distance. a flat earth sun is small and not very high up, flat earthers say light doesn't travel very far. well ok, how come we can't see the sun at night? if i can see a lighhouse off in the distance while still being in the darkness then why can't i see the sun off in the distance at night? flat earth sun is impossible.
the flatter will try and say it's "perspective" they do this by misunderstanding what perspective even in, as they often do. check my response to this post to see an example of flat earth "perspective"
>when a flat earther talks about perspective
flat earthers will also say the sun shrinks as it gets further away. or that you can zoom in on a setting sun and see it shrink. what they are actually doing is not using a solar filter or at least adjusting for exposure (in camera not in post) so they're just seeing glare.
flat earthers make a lot of arguments that may seem convincing at first glance. but it doesn't take much digging to reveal a perfectly reasonable explanation that explains it away. take any flat earth argument and search for it on flatearth dot ws and you can find a quick and easy debunk. failing that just do a google search using the word debunk.
just because a flat earther showed you something that seemed convincing doesn't mean you should just automatically accept it without at least looking to see if there's a reasonable explanation.
meanwhile the flat earth moon and sun are impossible, and there is a visible dip in the horizon below eye level. they can't explain this without misunderstanding it.
to see how the flat earth moon is impossible see
to see how flat earth sun is impossible see
to see how the horizon dips below eye level see
>They can't explain this without misinterpreting this.
Globers have exclusive rights to optical illusions. If globers couldn't count on optical illusions, or if they let flatters point to something and call it an optical illusion...flat earth would easily be the more compelling argument. Globers can't see this because the globe is taken as fact and anything that doesn't comport can be an optical illusion. They don't allow this luxury to flatters and certainly can't see the bias in logic they are performing when articulating their position.
explain the flat earth moon then, explain the flat earth sun, explain away the dip of the horizon. you literally can't.
Optical dip-lensing. The optical dip.always happens at the edge of the point of focus on a curved lens. Better zoom, dip is further out.
What is problem with sun? Moon is reflection and they are much closer than you think. Stars are sonoluminessence.
This is according to flat earth prevailing theory, or at least one. I am neither, I am legit globe agnostic but can argue either in good faith. Can you?
did you even look at the posts i made?
nothing you said debunks these posts. flat earth moon and sun don't work
You are literally retarded. Why can I see a lighthouse in darkness but not the sun. You can't fag. Their is an optical limit.to light and distance. Eventually the light simply can't manifest to you at all. 2 miles from lighthouse. Of course, 20. Yes. 200. No. Unless you get a brighter lighthouse. Flat earthers are not arguing the sun has enough light to be seen everywhere. Why are you?
you're missing the point. yes eventually a flat earth sun would go invisible but before it did you would see the sun for quite some time while still in darkness. this doesn't happen
I think light reflecting off the atmosphere nullifies that consideration.
so it reflects off the atmosphere at a distance beyond which it can illuminate. that makes no sense
It reflects off something, aether, dome I don't know. But it is able to do this because at elevation there are no particles in the atmosphere to get in the way. So sun can produce rays to light moon, that light your night, but you can't see it because a thick blanker of atmosphere is between you.
but if there's a dome then that brings up other issues regarding observable phenomenon.
see
so a dome doesn't work
Imagine doing this between doing this in a room painted black and a room painted white.
speaking of optical lensing. find me a single flat earth model that explains why the sun illuminates the portion of the earth that it does, why sunrays don't converge at a single point, and how the sun sets. using a single model. as seen here, you can't.
I do see sun ray convergence and you can calculate a distance of several hundred miles. Globers regard this an optical illusion as the sun manifests itself locally when it hits the atmosphere. Point is, I have already considered and seen past your inability to even go this far. Maybe you should consider how well versed a flatty is.
i can see that you don't understand perspective effect and don't want to
we understand how light bends. for the flat earth models to work they have to make light bend in ways it observably doesn't
Light bending seems to just be an artifact of globe earth optical illusions. It only ever manifests when we need to explain things at distance that can't be.
stick your hand in a glass of water, look at your hand, its distorted, because light bends. shocking i know. what light doesn't do is bend in a manner consistent with any flat earth models.
Light refracts it doesn't bend.
i'm using the word bend to explain what refraction looks like
But it is a series of practically infinite refractions for it to curve naturally, measurably, and occuring similarly for different people at different locations. That is bullshit.
refraction just explains how you can sometimes see objects that should be hidden by the curve. it varies daily depending on atmospheric conditions. the same photo taken on a different day will have a different amount of refraction or often none at all.
Science always does this. Attach bullshit to a real concept to acquire legitimacy. In this case, the measurable concept of refraction, light changing direction through a medium, to Refraction TM. They did the same thing with Gravity. Buoyancy is measurable and works. But it fails when they move to globe science. So Gravity takes over. But gravity gets it's legitimacy from buoyancy and asks us to extend from there.
>Buoyancy is measurable and works
both these buckets of water have the exact same density, think about it
This is what makes flat earthers. Retard globers. How does this prove gravity. Differing mass is part of the rules of buoyancy. Why would you exclude that? God you are fucking stupid.
>Differing mass is part of the rules of buoyancy.
no, it's not
Things with the same density either rise or fall based on their weight. Obviously, things of differing densities also have weight as a variable. Buoyancy is not binary. Just like you.
>things with the same density either rise or fall based on their weight.
and what is weight? and why do objects have less weight in lower air densities instead of more weight?
The medium, air, is interacting with you less. The medium is a force that acts to keep you in place. You usually can't exert enough force to bypass the countervailing force the medium exerts in you.
alright fine, you win
i guess air molecules just slam into things to push them down and that's weight. but why do they always push down and not up or any other direction?
and what is mass? explain mass to me without invoking gravity
mass is energy divided by the speed of light, squared
Density of a particular element or combination of elements as measured through buoyancy.
That was fun.
Buoyancy in a particular medium as measured relatively to a universally agreed arbitrary baseline.
A grain of sand = mass
A rock = mass + density increased
A boulder = moar of the 1st two
Magnetism = density and mass combined.
Mass represents an object’s resistance to acceleration when a net force is applied to it. Therefore it’s a measure of inertia. The more mass an object has, the more it’ll resist acceleration (or deceleration). No gravity necessary. And yes it’s different than momentum.
>refraction is bullshit
it's about the difference in refractive indexes between differing densities at different levels of atmosphere
as always
BEWARE THE PERFIDIOUS LEAF
all fields
the moon is spiritual, it's not a rock up in space circleing the globe
its a spiritual sign put there by our creator, simple as
people all over the world see the same side cause thats whats there, its not rotating
think about reality as a videogame like Zelda BOTW
the creator made a moon, but you only ever see one side, because thats all you need to see to know theres a moon
if you're a midwit you wont get it, but the tail ends of the IQ chart get it
yes, that is the only flat earth explanation of the moon that makes sense. thankyou for providing it so we can all see how completely unhinged this theory is.
>the moon is spiritual, so it doesn't have to make any consistent sense at all
well there we go then, can't debunk that can i
dont feel bad
eventually you will get it, when you are ready, we've all been there right where you are right now
have a great day!
air is just fucking water
look at the ocean, "oh it's water"
until it fucking isn't, at the depths where it's submarine-crushing death.
same shit with air.
>oh but the ocean is fake
your thread is fake
the ocean isnt fake though
shills say space is fake and they're each about as unknown
think of a swimming pool, if you dip your head underwater you don't feel much, but if you swim 8 feet down you feel the pressure on your head. same principle but backwards as you go up.
How high is the firmament located at? I'm going to OOBE and fly there to check, but I need to know how high I should go otherwise I could panic
LETS'S TALK ABOUT THE HORIZON
it dips below eye level, yes, the horizon dips below eye level. what does this mean? curvature, this is the earths curve.
all flatters can do to debate this is misunderstand eye level. they say shit like "just move the camera up or down" not understanding the reason the water is shown in these images. the water level is there to prove the camera is at 90 degree eye level.
the horizon is ALWAYS at eye level no matter your height, you can just see further as you get higher.
if the earth was flat you would see every bit of earth from an airplane and you can't.
IWSYR
>the horizon is ALWAYS at eye level no matter your height
incorrect as my images prove
>if the earth was flat
it's not, it's round. as the dip of the horizon below eye level proves
>if the earth was flat you would see every bit of earth from an airplane
If you extract all water from the air sure.
it isn't like there's some air bubble around the earth or whatever, the air just becomes less dense until the density is about 0.
half of the atmosphere is about 18000 feet, then it slowly fades out from there.
gravity keeps the atmosphere from getting away.
simple as.
I won't see your replies.
gravity attracts particles to objects of significantly greater mass
Hey look, a retard!
gravity = attract things
atmosphere = a thing
therefore atmosphere goes toward earth to fucky fucky
get it now?
How do you measure gravity?
I’ll wait.
a pendulum
Wrong.
Try again.
okay, how do you do it?
the problem is this shit relies on a foundational presupposition and redefinition of the word "measure". you are measuring the result of gravity and not gravity itself
fuck off David Hume, nobody likes you
kek
Gravity does not exist.
It can’t be measured.
Mass
Density
Magnetism
These are measurable.
Measure the acceleration of an object and cancel out the air resistance.
Measure the pressure produced by the atmosphere (or anything) at a known elevation.
Dropped object**
Wrong
Try again.
Is this some kind of "tree falls in a forest" shit?
If gravity isn't real why do you fall if you jump off a bridge?
Please see
You’re welcome
The dominant theory is that the air is being held by the gravitational force of the planet together with the electromagnetic field
Make out of it what you want
Um easily.
Pure hard vacuum is only about 15psi less than pressure on sea level.
Put is this way. Pressure on the surface is exactly 1 atmosphere, pressure in hard vacuum is 0 atmospheres.
So the weight of the atmosphere sort of floats in the middle, hmwith the highest density on the surface and tapering off to zero.
What's so hard to understand about this?
Right very suspicious. How does the earths non vacuum meet with a vacuum cleaners suction though?
Stop questioning things, goy. Just pay your taxes
so this map is accurate then?
Yes
flat earthers will show pictures of the earth where the continents vary in size. in one picture africa looks huge and in another it looks small. what they're not understanding is perspective and field of view, as this quick little animation shows.
flat earthers will show pictures of the earth and moon and say its impossible because in some pics the moon looks very large and in others very small. once again they are not understanding perspective or field of view
Ask Jim Leblanc
https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a24127/nasa-vacuum-exposure/
air molecule density tapers off almost indefinitely (why the moon is technically in Earth's atmosphere), so basically where Earth's gravity holds dominance there too lies its atmosphere
flat earthers will show pictures of earth at different altitudes not showing a curve (while ignoring the many pictures that do show a curve at those altitudes) what they are doing is not understanding how camera lenses work. they are not understanding the field of view matters.
See my realm, shout my name, and take back the Earth you cowards!
flat earthers like to show pictures of distant objects that shouldn't be visible if the earths curve was in the way. what they're failing to account for is atmospheric refraction, which varies depending on weather, as varying densities of air at different levels bend light (including the laser lights they like to use)
So basically ITT:
>because Einstein said so
Lol.
God I hate americans
yes it was all einstein.
nobody else had ever said the earth was round before
Oh wait the greek guy who went to babylon and saw 'different constellations'?
Yes, ok, that old greek pedophile is definitely who's being cited here.
Dont act dumb with me mutt - all your supposition about the shape of the earth is based on Einstein's relativity.
Let’s see
Pythagoras
Ptolemy
Copernicus
Kepler
They had theories.
They too were wrong.
Gravity keeps it together
flat earthers like to talk about water a lot, how water is always level. and it's true, water is always level. but it's not always flat. they don't know there's a difference. the water in your pool in the backyard has curvature it's just too slight for you to see it.
Gradualism is the god of the gaps in science. Whenever something seems impossible, they tell you to think of it gradually and it will somehow work. It's also how dinos became chickens, the earth was formed, life began, and op became a homosexual. It all happened gradually.
>homosexual
allow me to show you this movie on sodomites
Told ya.
The atmosphere will gradually get less and less "dense", there will be less and less "stuff in it" to fill "space", until the point there is none, very little, per "available space".
Now the just a little shit slinging, this is such a fucking basic, but slightly interesting question, question dude, what the actual fuck are you doing with your life and what's up with that brain of yours?
>find a round object with radius of approximately 1 cm
>pick it up
>let go of it
>observe how it falls down on it's own
>now scale that object down by 100000000 times
>it's now a size of an atom of oxygen
>the same rule of picking it up and it falling down on it's own still applies
>if you want for it to move to vacuum of space you'll need to throw it really hard so that it reaches 40,270 km/h or 25,020 mph
>typically molecules of gas are unable to reach such speeds and are thus trapped by earths pulling down force observed in previous experiment
>the same rule of picking it up and it falling down on it's own still applies
except this is categorically false
well poisoning thread here solely to discredit real 'conspiracy' theories. OP, you are israeli. your fellow shills are israeli. the earth is not flat. you will all be holocausted. thank you.
What exact concept do you dipshit downie ass retarded newfags need explained to you this fucking time?
oh look its the retards cope website that doesnt actually contain math or experiments
>The sun is a big ball of gas that burns all day, every day but never gets any smaller.
>been burning for a billionty gorrillion trillion years while we “evolved” always the same size.
Why?
>because it’s really big
But so is the fire, the fire is ‘big’ on the sane scale.
>TRUST THE FUCKING SCIENCE,, RIGHT!!!
We don’t know what the sun is do we?
>no
do you know HOW the ocean meets earths atmosphere?
space being called a vacuum is a bit of a misnomer. it was labeled that because if you have empty space in a box on earth, it seems to "vacuum" whatever is around it the moment it can, like a hole appearing in the box. but again, its a misnomer. the empty space does not suck at all, how could it? it has 0 energy to work with. think about it. the force instead comes from the pressure of the air that has finally found a way in via the hole. now, why is the pressure so high? because presumably we're at ground level. if you take the box higher and do the same test over and over, at 1km, 2km, 3km, you will see that the air forces itself into the box more gently with every height increase. this is simply because the air up there is less dense, because gravity is further away. if you want to increase this density at higher heights, you need not to increase gravity, but instead add more air to earth.
so it should be obvious to see now that emptyness has no energy to work with, and so it does not "suck" anything. that said, keep in mind that space itself is also not perfectly empty - it has about 1 atom per cubic cm. so if i opened an actually perfect empty box in space, "space" would "rush" into my box, until it also had the same density of 1 atom per cubic cm.
any questions?
Love me a flat earth thread. Sonoluminescence homies, ASSEMBLEEEE
The globe is rejected because there is no evidence. Model calculations, assumption, unproven theories and fallacies. Every fuckin time.
The flat earth is rejected because there is no evidence. Model calculations, assumption, unproven theories and fallacies. Every fuckin time.
See, people like you are so retarded, you don't even give "evidence" because you know it's shit. You'll get called out by people who know your globe model better than you.
Take another vaccine you fucking clot coffin.
i'm not vaxxed so fuck off. you don't have to trust "scientists and experts" you just have to trust your eyes and see the horizon dips below eye level
That's a perspective issue. The horizon doesn't dip. There is no curve whatsoever. That's why the only place it exists is on a MODEL CALCULATION.
You sound vaccinated. If you have the critical thinking to know what EUA, zero liability and informed consent are,
you should be able to go though every globe argument and throw out the ones that aren't based on the scientific method.
the horizon does dip as shown here
your model of perspective is retarded as shown here
critical thinking is more then just contrarianism
Those images in no way prove a curve, or a globe. You need real empirical, independent and evidence.
the dip in the horizon proves the curve yes. and there's nothing more independent then having a bottled water on an airplane. using the water to show a 90 degree eye level, and observing that the horizon dips below that eye level. as it would do if the earth was curved, which it is
BILL NYE THE BUTTSTUFF GUY
I will settle all arguments.
None of you know.
Start there.
Gravity keeps the air and shit on earth, bro. Did you ever finish grade school?
>25 pbtid
wow, your autism is strong!
poultry spice
ty
1) Weight (W) is equal to mass (m) times the local freefall acceleration (g)
W = mg
2) Mass (m) is equal to density (ρ) times volume (V)
m = ρV
3) A volume (V) can be described as an area (A) multiplied by a height (Δz)
V = A Δz
4) A pressure difference (ΔP) is defined a force (F) over an area (A)
ΔP = F/A
5) Archimedes Principle of Buoyancy - The buoyant force (F) exerted by a fluid is equal and opposite to the weight of the fluid displaced (W).
F = -W
6) Ideal gas law - Let the absolute pressure (P) be proportional to the density of a gas (ρ) by some constants (kT/m)
P = ρ kT/m
7) Dimensional analysis indicates kT/mg has dimensions of length. Call this length H.
H = kT/mg
ΔP = F/A = -W/A = -mg/A = -ρgV/A = -ρg A Δz/A = -ρgΔz
ΔP = -P (mg/kT) Δz = -P/H Δz
ΔP/P = -(1/H) Δz
Take the limit where Δ goes to 0 and this becomes the differential equation
dP/P = -(1/H) dz
Which, for P(0) = Po, P(inf) = 0, has the solution
P(z) = Po exp(-z/H)
This solution is valid provided the scale of the system is large compared to H.
Its a gradient, The higher you get the less dense the atmosphere because most of gas is closer to earth due to gravity. So at some level you still have like 1% of ground atmosphere density but this still would suck you eyes out. Then its get thiner and thiner asymptoticly reaching zero - so for example at some levels in one cubic meter you will end up with one particle for half of the time, the other half you will have perfect vacum
Told you. Bow to your God.
based gradualist-denier
while extremely low pressures can be harmful to humans and can cause conditions like decompression sickness, the phrase "suck your eyes out" is not a scientifically accurate description of what would happen. in reality, exposure to a near-vacuum can cause bodily fluids to vaporize and expand, leading to swelling
>
Japan's April fake lander impact was so bad, the cgi looks like the back of the box on a PS1 game.
Complete with a friendly "good luck" message from the ISS. Full green screen.
honestly it doesnt matter, i denounce the talmud and hate the anti christ. i am obviously no israelite
magnetospheres are necessary for atmospheric containment
because gravity isn't a thing, only electromagnetism
The ocean has higher pressure than the atmosphere, but you wouldn't expect the ocean to spray upward.
k4d2g
>the curve is harder to see at lower altitude
yes and?
>the curve is easy to see with a fisheye lens
yes and?
there are pictures without a fisheye lens.
>then how small is the earth?
dumb question because you don't understand perspective or field of view see this for an explanation of why the lake looks so large in that pic
imagine begins so stupid that you dont understand that pressure decreases as you climb higher. Never been to the top of a mountain and felt light headed, nagger?
Earth Speed CGI comparison
ISS Hoax - The International Fake Station
SATELLITES SMASHED
CABLES - NOT SATELLITES
SATELLITES ARE FAKE - NOT ONE SINGLE SATELLITE IN SPACE
20 organized proofs of the faked moon landing
https://rumble.com/v1062er-20-organized-proofs-of-the-faked-moon-landing.html
a) prove the pic is taken where you say it was taken
b) atmospheric refraction
you have 4 pictures to prove first.
You have the positive claim. The globe is rejected based on lack of evidence, so you have the burden of proof.
The curve doesn't exist. Models and perspective fallacies don't count.
your attempt at explaining away the dip of the horizon is a misunderstanding of how perspective works, as i've already shown
You can't prove a globe earth by assuming a curve using a model calculation. That's pseudoscience.
Same as I said to start:
The globe is rejected because there is no evidence. Model calculations, assumption, unproven theories and fallacies. Every fuckin time.
>
all i'm showing is that horizon dips below eye level, provably so. there is no model calculation or pseudoscience involved
The flat earth is rejected because there is no evidence. Model calculations, assumption, unproven theories and fallacies. Every fuckin time.
The dip below eye level is a perspective problem. It's not evidence for a globe.
Assuming the consequent fallacy.
Begging the question.
no because your understanding of perspective is hilariously flawed, see
Oh look its the leaf with a seemingly unlimited amount of freetime to “deboonk” flat earth and resources to create cringe infographics full of holes constantly.
To anyone else reading this i ask you if flat earth is so provably fake and gay then why is there so muc effort to deboonking it in freespeech spaces?
Why dont you just let us be retarded is were so retarded? Afraid we might see something were not supposed to lol?
They don't even know their own model properly. That's why they get wrapped up trying to pass of pseudoscience as actual evidence. Blind faith and peer pressure is their scientific method.
none of this matters. the israelites are the chosen ones and will rule over you in heaven and punish you in hell. the book that they wrote wherein they named themselves the protagonists says so.
Gass has mass and is thusly affected by gravity
>yw you can close the thread now
Gravity is a theory. The only thing that ever went into "orbit" was your imagination.
Gravity defines the LAW that things go down. The mechanism of how that works is theoretical. Less so than the existence of your brain though
exactly
It's not an independent observation. Density in a medium predicts how objects fall without gravity.
>The mechanism of how that works is theoretical
>theoretical
You can't use unproven theories to then claim there is a magic ball earth spinning in a "vacuum".
Bottles of water on airplanes don't prove a ball earth. The experiment you're referring to is based on assumptions and fallacies. Begging the question and straw man fallacies don't count.
eye level is 90 degrees
water is level
water at eye level looks like this
and we can see the horizon clearly dipping below eye level
it's all quite shrimple
your dedication to misunderstanding this is impressive
>there's nothing more independent then having a bottled water on an airplane
Your example is in a moving plane you donkey.
Your evidence is wrong because you are relying on assumptions and fallacies. You could at least try and claim that pilots require a curve. Even thats a better fake argument for the ball, even though it's wrong too.
ok what about this
not on a plane. not that the motion of a plane even matters for this demonstration
The dip is a perspective observation only. It's not real. That's why there is no curve regardless if you measure empirically out 2,000 miles.
oh so now you admit the horizon does dip below eye level. so finally i've made some progress. but your understanding of how perspective works is still flawed
This image is just telling you to generate a curve by using a fisheye lense. Edges of horizon in these pics is always below halfway point....... I think (You) don't know shit about lenses?
>not sure if these people are well poisoning feds, or just stupid. Prob just stupid
Again with my monarchy argument. Democracy was a mistake.
thats not what the image is telling you to do
No. Your observations are a persective issues. They don't count as evidence for the globe whatsoever. Pseudoscience doesn't count.
What is the name, and constant of downward acceleration in your arithmetic?
>won't respond
>i measured how shit falls through the air
>yep gravity is real lads wrap it up
>bedford level
debunked centuries ago. your flatter bedford level experiment was done too close to the waters surface and got a lot of refraction. accounting for refraction the bedford level experiment was done again
>Reee look at my infographics
>B-b-but muh atmospheric refraction
Every single time kek
laser light curves with refraction as well
>michelson
lol again
You didn't answer the question
Fish ask the same question about the ocean and the sky but unlike retarded OP they know that gravity holds down the water.
Now, when you realize gravity is just love and love is the universal constant you can become enlightened, like a fish.
Air density gradually decreases to zero
Do people not realise this? Space isn't 100% empty, it's not a binary thing
The answer is that there is no "hard boundary" because it is a system and not a physical object. Depending on exactly how you define the atmosphere, at this percentage or that percentage of this parameter or that parameter, where the physical behavior crosses the arbitrary boundary you've chosen will vary, because you chose an arbitrary boundary.
If what you're asking is why all gases don't float away into space, the answer is much simpler: the set of all forces acting to keep the gas molecules near earth is greater than the set of all forcee acting to push them away, same as most other objects near the earth's surface.
>all these retards without a basic science education
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment
This experiment is almost surely measuring electromagnetism, or some other force, and not gravity. A 348 lb ball is not nearly big enough for a gravitational constant to be measured, especially with having to overcome all the internal friction of the measurement device. I would be surprised if anyone has recently recreated this device..... for obvious reasons. Don't poison the well with 300 year old bullshit please
Threads like this are the best commercial for monarchy there is. In democracy every literal retard gets an opinion and a vote, and it does not work
>the answer to your literally retarded question would be obvious if you had 30 more iq points. Please accept that you are just plain stupid and never post on the Internet again
midwit response
Non-response
>don't hurt yourself thinking too hard. We need factory workers, too
but what if the king is a flat earther?
Then at least the dimwits won't be fighting about it
Here's the answer:
Vacuum does not suck.
Also do you space deniers at least admit that the higher one goes the less air and pressure there is?
Or is that too some conspiracy maintained by NASA or something?
as i keep saying and keep getting ignored, "vacuum" is a bit of a misnomer for space. it is a void. and voids are a stable, low pressure system. so they do not suck.
the term vacuum is not necessarily wrong, as it has more than one meaning: one of which is basically void. but when many people hear the term "vacuum of space," a lot of them think of an actual vacuum effect. they also then combine it in their mind with what they think they know that an empty box with a sudden hole will "pull" air inside, but that's also wrong. there are high pressure systems, and low pressure systems. high wants to rush to low.
so the air on earth WANTS to rush into space (not space wanting to pull air off earth)... but it cant. do you know why? gravity
ok so basically nobody has a good explanation. thanks for coming to my ted talk ya'll, great thread
you were given many good explanations that you ignored
>as i keep saying and keep getting ignored
i feel your pain
GLOBE EARTH PSEUDOSCIENCE
avoids falsifiability
vagueness in measurement
unproven as false = true
confirmation bias
lack of parsimony
reversed burden of proof
REAL SCIENCE
valorizes falsifiability
accuracy in measurement
unproven as false = false
emphasis on refutation
prioritization of parsimony
burden on claimant, not critic
FLAT EARTH PSEUDOSCIENCE
avoids falsifiability
vagueness in measurement
unproven as false = true
confirmation bias
lack of parsimony
reversed burden of proof
REAL SCIENCE
valorizes falsifiability
accuracy in measurement
unproven as false = false
emphasis on refutation
prioritization of parsimony
burden on claimant, not critic
wow look, i can do this meaningless exercise too
The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn't help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about. Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn't help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. The flat earth shill had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn't remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day. Sometimes I stood there thunderstruck. I didn't know what to be more amazed at: the agility of their tongues or their virtuosity at lying. Gradually I began to hate them.
listen here stupid fucking naggers
you imagine space to be real so much yet you never witnessed it. you deny your own senses that tell you the ground beneath your own feet is not moving, all so you can believe what the israelite told you as a child. imagine having a brain this zogged, and unwilling to grow up and escape the matrix
>you deny your own senses that tell you the ground beneath your own feet is not moving
newtons first law of motion makes perfect sense though
an object in motion will remain at motion unless acted upon by an external force
you're dumb
we're all spinning with the globe. it's hard to feel because everything relative to us including the air is spinning along with us. and will continue to do so unless acted upon by an external force