Jump to content
Advertise With Us! Or Sign Up To Remove Ads!

Vechthaan

 Citizen
  • Content count

    44
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

43 Excellent

About Vechthaan

  • Rank
    Member

Personal Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. 2 people holding eachother in space CAN be concidered a single body of mass. Unlike 2 rocks just floating next to eachother with no interaction, people have conciousness, and can conciously hold on to eachother, acting as if they were 1 solid mass. And again, we know NASA fakes all their space shit, but that's doesn't mean the theoretical viability for rocket engines isn't real. Newton's Laws are real, they're just an extreme application of said laws. Wether or not you believe in rocket engines doesn't really matter that much in the grand scheme of things, but I do think you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater on this one. Science is a liar usually, but this time he ain't. As for landing on the Moon: You're again pointing to steering and aerodynamics (or lack thereof in space), and that's fine, but it's not a strong arguement. Just because it's extremely complicated doesn't mean it's impossible, nor is it a solid arguement to convince a normie the Earth isn't a globe. It's just: "U have any idea how complicated it would be to steer in space?" Yeah, people do, like I said before, people look up to NASA for the feats they claim to have achieved. So saying it's "too complex" for them to control only feeds them merit, because the average person already believes they did it. Steering in a vacuum using a reaction-engine (rocket engine) wouldn't be impossible. It would be complicated, and require tremendous amounts of computational power (to control nozzle outputs, angles and stuff), but it is possible. In the same way doctors can operate on a microscale using computer assisted surgery, astronauts could, theoretically, steer in space. You also can't compare a rocket-engine to pulling on your own shoe-laces to try and lift youtself off. A rocket engines expels mass in order to propel itslf, something which isn't there in the shoelaces example. And yes, I'm aware NASA can't go back, I even know the name of the astronaut who claimed it (Don peTITS), and i agree it's absolutely rediculous. The Van Allen belts, them "destroying" technology, ... But believe me, the reason they can't go back isn't because they don't have a working rocket engine, it's because space and whatnot simply doesn't exist.
  2. If the sky (and stars and all day) ever end up "rolling up like a scroll", what happens to the horizon? (Which is currently a byproduct of the sky) If we're living in a concave Earth, the horizon wil scroll upwards with the sky, and the Earth should become visible, like this example. On a flat Earth, the sky rolling up (as described in scripture, I think prophesized for end-times?), I dont know what it would look like. If the stars rolled up, does this mean there would just be a sky of darkness? Like a Lunar Wave going across the sky dragging all the stars with it, leaving darkness behind? I think we need to agree on Newton laws of motion first, that they exist, can be tested and worked with. A rocket-engine applies the second and third law of Newton, there's nothing unproven about this science, and it can be proven quite easily. https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/2013/10/fall_2013_sketcheskey_3.jpg In this image, what happens if the person launches himself off the boat by jumping forward? The person jumps forward and the boat also get pushed backwards, they both move away from eachother. (equal and opposite reaction) F (person)= m (person).a (person) = m (boat). a (boat) = F (boat) (In absolute values, obviously the acceleration and force are opposite for the person and boat) For the forces to be equal in this equation, this means there's an inverse relationship between the mass and the acceleration: If the mass increases, the acceleration will decrease and vice versa. => The person, which has less mass than the boat, will accelerate more than the boat will. These things aren't theoretical, i mean obviously it's theory, but this theory matches reality. Newton's laws of motion are very fundamental in physics, they aren't scientism. Every time you throw a ball, you jump, you run, every time a car crashes, things unfold according to these formulas. They are used in practical science. A rocket-engine is built on these principles: the rocket engine pushes itself off extremely high pressured fuel: the fuel gets shot one way, the engine (and rocket) the other: m (fuel) . a (fuel) = F = m (rocket + engine) . a (rocket + engine). Like the person pushing off the boat, a rocket engine pushes off the fuel. Everything else about space is probably fake as f**k, but rocket science isn't. You keep saying we can't test these things, but we can. Newton's law of motion exist and applicable to the real world. A rocket-engine takes the second and third principle and hypercharges them, no need for atmosphere or anything. I agree with the rockets looking like helium balloons, I obviously agree with all the NASA footage that looks fake as f**k, but solid science is solid science, and the theory behind rocket engines is pretty solid. It makes sense because A) noone has a vacuum environment to work with and B) noone has a rocket engine to work with. And yes, most crafts are designed to work in an atmosphere, they rely on having one, but the same is NOT true for rocket engines. And I again have to point to what I wrote above. U can't compare a rocket engine to an airplane or a helicopter, or not even an air-breathing jet-engine (F16's and whatnot). The wiki on jet-engines even distuinguishes between rocket engines and other types of propulsion. NASA did fake all their shit, most likely cuz space doesn't exist; but if it were to exist, rocket engines would most certainly work (to a certain degree) in space.
  3. I've seen most his videos, ballsout physics, I like most of his stuff. It's just this particular case where I think he's a bit wrong. I liked his video on the thermosphere and satellites, which imo is another really solid arguement against the globe. @grav combustion ain't occuring in a vacuum, it's occuring inside a rocket engine. Oxygen is also stored to burn the fuel, even if you think all this stuff is really far fetched, it makes sense and it's been thought of. Saying they're ejecting fuel into a vacuum is poor choice of words (which i make myself, i know), they're shooting fuel in one direction and recoiling the other direction. I dont know how much fuel they carry, I assume they operate on solar power aswell. If you want to know every single last detail, you'll have to become a rocket scientist, but I suggest you (we) focus on other arguements. I feel like alot of this information is just useless. You can obviously keep reading stuff about it as much as you want, the same goes for anyone who wants to learn about this stuff, but in terms of attacking the establishment (globe earth), I find this a very tiresome way of operating, because scientism can, and will throw ever more complex stuff at you to keep you guessing. Whereas if you just find a clear flaw, or a paradox within the theory, it's a much easier way of conveying the idea the globe is flawed. Not buying rocket-science isn't a strong arguement against the globe. Satellites operating in the thermosphere is; and as a community, I think that's sorta the goal, to seperate wheat from chaff, to organize ourselves by having coherent arguements and ultimately finding ways to test the flat Earth. Was a rectilineator discussed at the flat earth convention, cuz lasers will only get us so far if light is playing tricks on the eye. Like, if I had money and reach, that's probably one of the high profile things I'dd try to get started. Especially with 3d printers these days (they're pretty accurate I would guess with their layer printing), and some clever design, you can make something REALLY robuust. Get some engineers in on it and measure various patches of land across the world, the 2 issues are getting precise enough (rectilineator) and a long enough stretch of land. (several miles) Again, with 3d printing, we have lighter, stronger and more precise materials than UG Morrow ever had. he relied on heavy wooden beams, these days we've got plastics/hybrids carbon fiber and whatnot, superlight, superstrong, super precise to like a micrometer, or smaller even. It would be great if the FE convention throws some money at that, because this is nothing someone people can do in their backyard. Several 10,000 dollars would probably cut it, much less than this fake FE guy spend on building his water rocket. Probably less than it cost to organize the flat earth convention. Measuring the Earth this way outscales any visual observation, imo. Or any theoretical speculation on space, orbital mechanics, rocket engine mechanics etc... get on it americans!
  4. Rocket engines don't need atmosphere to push off, the fuel is carried by the spacecraft (and also the big cilinders, name escapes me). This is the crucial part to understand, they propel themselves forward by ejecting burned up fuel on the back-end. By ejecting fuel in any dirction the engine (and the craft it's attached to) get pushed the other direction, it doesn't matter if this happens under water, in air or in a vacuum, this is a basic principle of matter/reality. (obviously assuming the engine is water proof lol) And if you also control the direction at which you eject the fuel: multiple nozzles or whatever around the craft, you should be able to steer from here to the Moon, as long as you have fuel to burn up/eject. For satellites and stuff in deep-space, I would guess you don't need a whole lot to keep course. The theory of space is that there is no (neglible) friction, so once something is in orbit, it should stay in orbit. (Here starts n body problem but no, we're not gonna deconstruct that far) So little corrections would only take a little amount of fuel. It's not comparable to launching a satellite from Earth. Calculating if the amount of fuel burned checks out with how much was carried, or all these other things take rediculous amounts of times. But I'm just gonna go out on a limb, and say that NASA, despite all shitty releases, DID do the math before they throw out numbers on these things, and that they make sure it checks out. So I don't think it's right area for attack. I've only skimmed over the video, but I think he's wrong, or atleast misunderstanding how exactly a rocket engine propels itself. (he's describing a jet engine, which isn't exactly the same) A rocket engine doesn't push of anything other than the fuel it ejects. That's newtons 3rd principle, which he did mention, but he's talking about a jet, which is not needed. The engine pushes off the fuel... small edit: And to stress: the engine pushing off it's own fuel isn't scientism, but it's solid science. This is stuff we can check and verify ourselves, it's how nature works. So even if the numbers are wrong, or if atoms don't really exist and it's all vibration, or if it's all holographic, this principle would still hold true. By ejecting mass one way, you propel yourself the other, and that's how rocket engines work, no need for atmsophere or anything.
  5. I said a little bit hypocrites* Also my Macbook crashed, and my GFX-Card died within half an hour of posting, so maybe I got a bit of instant karma, lel. Atleast I got it back to work, somewhat, it's not pretty... It's not really about having studied x amount of years in physics or mathematics to have all the anwsers, it's about understanding the (alledged) mechanics behind the arguements. This is the dividing line between shit that makes sense, and shit that doesn't. I've said this before a couple of pages back, and it's the same thing I'm getting at: it doesn't matter how crazy the facts are science throws at us, it matters if they check out. Let's take the rocket engines for example (I could use others, but i'll stick to one that was alrdy covered) The theory is that they propel themselves by ejecting mass. This property of nature is real, testable and repeatable and all that. If you're under water holding a friend and you launch yourself off this friend (using your legs or whatever), you will BOTH move in opposite directions. (Friction may vary depending on your positions in respect to the direction of movement) The concept of a single mass body (you holding your friend is 1 body) ejecting part of it's mass (you launching of your friend, you "ejecting" your friend) will move both masses in opposite directions. This is Newtons 2nd and 3rd law in practicality, though I've tested these more meticulous in an actual lab when I was still in uni. A rocket engine is obviously the creme-de-la-creme, so it's going to take these principles to extremes, but these principles exists. They eject a tiny amount of mass (like you pushed off a friend underwater) at rediculous speeds/pressure (which makes up for the low mass) to propel themselves (and the ship it's attached too) forward, regardless of medium, it doesn't matter if it's in space or not. This is not something that's really up for debate, there's numerous other things in the House of Scientism, but if we're going back to like zetetic science or whatever (shit we can test, repeat, verify), a rocket engine should be concidered solid science, and I'm pretty sure there's mini-jet engines for sale on ebay or Amazon. These things are not a hoax. How far can they go? How high? It doesnt matter, as much as fuel allows, and fuel allows for alot. In the same way you can drive 500 miles off a single tank of fuel, a jet-engine can do even more miraculous things with said fuel. These are not things you can built in your back-yard, but the principles on which they rest, u CAN test in your backyard. (If u have a pool for example) It's the same deal with the ISS orbiting at 250 miles; the notion might sound ridiculous (with orbital mechanics and whatnot), but science-wise it somewhat checks out. The story obviously falls apart after some in-depth inspection (Rothbard's 50 point case for FE for example), but there's wheat and there's chaff in terms of arguements against the globe. Rockets not working in space is a chaff arguement. The Atmosphere wheel is a wheat arguement, ... The hypocricy comes in when at times, people are clinging on to chaff arguements because they either no longer want to entertain science(tism)'s claims, even if they are solid/zetetic science, or because they don't understand it. This is not directed at you personally, this is something that irritates me about many FE'ers (on the conference). It's exactly these people (or the chaff arguements they use, more precisely) the mainstream is baiting in front of the camera, and it's not helping the community overal I think. Or atleast not as much as if they were to use the wheat arguements. Obviously the good arguements are present too down the line, but that's not what the media, and thus the people who aren't into FE will end up seeing. They'll see someone using chaff arguements, and then they'll watch this person laugh at the plebs for buying the whole NASA story. It doesn't really help the cause. And that's why we're all here to learn, cuz we want to get our shit straight, and that's why I keep saying I'm a bit a saddened the attitude VonLud is getting. He's cryptic as f**k, he's constantly balancing the line, not picking a side, but he's a pretty big f**king asset, to either side, which is why I end up white knighting him. I'm jealous at the clearly superious knowedlege he has compared to most of us, compared to me definitely. He's like a canary in the coalmines, the fact he's still interested in this debate tells me I should be to. I agree, but you already know that. And the last sentiment, I agree with too, and it's something along the line of what Anthem said a couple of pages back, when u start deconstructing the whole science story on a basic level (space, spacial coordinates, n-body problem, ...), you enter a bit too funky territory, for now atleast. Such a destructive attitude, towards science, will be counter-productive, because it leads to a "we know nothing"-type of reasoning, which won't convince anyone not already on-board FE. But I agree, eventually, the walls will come crumbling down eventually. I'dd rather have a new wall in place first, though. I dont pity him, I pity us lol. I dont think he's hurt, or he cares that deeply, but I do think he lost interest, for reasons I mentioned earlier. He gets asked his input, he gives his input and then he gets attacked on said input. He oftentimes even gives the disclaimer he's only posting what science(tism) is claiming (so he's schooling us), and then he still takes the heat for said information. In my 1000 MPH, it was more about the notion people had: "how can we go dis fast without... " Insert: flying off into space, not feeling dizzy, ... I think the atmosphere wheel is one of the better arguements against the globe. I'm fine with the air rotating with the Earth on lower altitudes, because friction does exist. (Vortices nd stuff) So the atmosphere moving at 1000 MPH at the equator seems like an acceptable notion, assuming the Earth has been spinning for billions of years (I know...), more than enough time to jump-start the atmosphere (lower altitudes) into spinning along. The way I understand it, science doesn't even have an exact anwser as to how (or when) the atmosphere was formed, but it is indeed all just theory anyways. The point is, I'm fine with an atmosphere spinning along the Earth due to friction. When you move your arms through the air, you "drag" some air along with it (it also happens in planes, cars etc), this is a solid concept. Add to that the fact the Earth is so massive, and gravity is exterting a certain force on the atmosphere to the ground (creating friction), and I can see the atmosphere moving along with Earth. Except not at higher altitude, because the friction comes from the ground, higher altitudes should lagg behind, which they don't, which is where the problem comes in, where science is contradicting itself. As for the Lunar module landing on the Moon, are we talking about orbital speed or rotational speed? The orbital speed (Moon around Earth) shouldn't really matter, because the spacecraft is moving relative to the moon. The rotational speed of the Moon is incredibly slow I think (Like once every 27 days, so 27 times slower than Earth?), so I think landing on it wouldn't have been that much of an issue, even if there was no atmosphere. I dont know the specifics of the Lunar module, but if it used jet-engines, there wouldn't have been a need for an atmosphere to create drag or whatever. Propelling towards the Moon (while moving towards the surface) should slow down the Module, it's back to newton's second and third law. I know you're extremely sceptical about the steering and all that, but NASA ain't claiming it was a walk in the park. They pet themselves on the back on the tremendous achievement it was, so saying: "How the f**k did they steer this thing, or any rocket" is only giving them more credentials, because zomg, they managed to control the nozzles to such a degree, they steered a rocket all the way to the Moon. (The science is solid, in practicality, it requires tremendous computational power, but they did use computers) And again, no worries, I never feel attacked, I hope you (and grav) feel the same way. I think you guys are doing great work, and I've read every single post in this thread, all 1050 pages. I again like to to apologize for not being more structured or sometimes clear. I'm alsoa bit ill (fckn fever time of year), so my thoughts feel really scrambled, on top of the fact that I need to translate all these science heavy words ain't helping.
  6. I'm just gonna step in here and say there's a bit of a conundrum here. You say the average people know squat about science, and this is true. But in the past, I've seen VonLud get attacked for posting said science here, in an attempt to further our understanding. Like, OK, noone directly attacked VonLud, but I've seen him take ridiculous heat for posting what seems to be the most insightfull posts in this thread, at our (the FE-side) request no-less. I'm not surprised he hasn't posted in a while, I feel like there's been a less than gratefull attitude towards him, which is kinda sad. Because here we are again (well you guys, I'm just a lurker mostly), page after page trying to make sense, or poke holes in the "science-story". Sometimes, science DOES have the anwser (in case of rockets being able to propel in space, which is only stubbornly accepted, despite being solid science which is backed by common sense and practical experiments -newtons laws of motion are applicable to the real world), and I feel that some of you have become too disillusioned with science to make sense of the matter. (No offence) I've already given rocket science (propulsion) as an example, but there's numerous others: The fact that people are spinning 1000 MPH at the equator isn't some crazy, ridiculous thing science claims; Within the theories science provides, it makes sense. (Unlike the atmosphere wheel for example) So whenever people bring this up, to me it's like they're shooting themselves in the foot, because it shows they don't understand the underlying mechanics. (intertia, rotational speed, ... whatever mechanics apply to the arguement) I spose i'm just a little irritated by the slight hypocricy here. I suck way too hard at putting my mental pudding into readable paragraphs, so what I wrote probably comes off the wrong way, but I hope some of my sentiment is understood. Love you all still. FE for life, globe denier for life!
  7. Data mining in video games....

    I've concidered this for a while now aswell. People are usually of the opinion videogames are like lesser entertainment compared to television (or social media/internet shizzle). In reality, videogames outclass all other forms in terms of immersion, and it would be pretty naive to assume the Illuminati haven't figured this out a long time ago. Assuming they're actually feeding us this technology (combustion engine, silicon technology, wireless technology, ...), the fact they co-opted videogames comes as a given. Games like Bioshock, Mass Effect, Portal and so many others have such obvious esoteric themes, if you're woke you simply can't look past it. There's also numerous amount of space-games (No Man's Sky, ...) that give ever-more freedom and immersion in galactic environments. (Space propaganda pretty much) Matrix is very real, videogames offer a glimpse behind the curtain, just like movies and TV shows. I think the data-mining, for now, is limited in the sense that videogames are still only videogames. With VR on the rise, aswell as better and better graphics (immersion), videogames seem like the future choice of indoctrination. (Like that Black Mirror episode) I'm kinda glad my game-computer broke down some years ago, preventing me from no-lifing the way I did in the past. At the same time, I've been trying to save for a new beast-pc for years now, because I really miss this form of immersion... I'll get there eventually!
  8. No such thing as safe space for flat earthers!
  9. I smile everytime you say clownface with Moon as nose; I can see it too lol. Flat Earth is happening though. More and more of my friends are seeing FE articles pushed in their facebook feed (wall) or other media. I mean, most of them still think it's completely wack, and the fact that mostly (only?) the dis-info agents seem to get air-time ain't helping, regardless the cat is almost out of the bag. I'm still completely oblivious as to how they plan on playing this out. (As I said in earlier posts) Blue Beam seems like no bueno when Flat Earth is being openly discusses, or even ridiculed. The "intellectual value" of FE is out there, which is the possibility aliums simply don't (can't) exist; Or atleast not in terms of "coming from a different planet".
  10. Aha, I think I've already seen a reply of her on youtube. She seems friendly, as does Mark Sargent. I have no problem with them personally though I'm not really following them on youtube, I see the weekly video pass. I'm fine with the way she replied (she seems to take it gently, though I can imagine she ain't happy about it), I'm not really dead-set on proving anyone is trans, I mostly don't care. It's only the conspiracy and deception I"m interested in. It's unlucky she fits the bill, but even if I saw her in real life, I doubt I'dd be convinced on way or the other. I know myself well enough to know I can't tell for sure, based on what I see. This whole transgender topic has got me into looking how good (real) trans woman can actually look, and that's not even entertaining the crazy notion of castratos and whatnot these aristocratic families might still be into. When we got people like Nicole Kidman, Reese withher Spoon, Michael Fassbender, ... running around as suspect trannies, so her name ain't helping much. (Has she ever talked about her name?) There's very little to prove anything, other than do a full body check, and I'm not interested in a witch hunt to sniff out agents and/or illuminatie trannies (Typing it and reading how ridiculous it sounds keeps my sanity). She seems a nice, albeit very polished, personality that's got some dodgy stuff going on, but that's just FE I guess... (FEA ODD drama etc) I'll shut up about it because it's not really related to flat earth in this thread, but I, like, most are throwing the occasional thought out there. Illuminati trannies (like flat Earth) seems like the (a?) next big hurdle to cross, they're definitely linked (even if through youtube). It could be another psy-op, it fits the bill, but so does every conspiracy, all I know it's hitting home. (it makes sense, it puts the illuminati in a different angle, almost super-human dare I say, in the sense they're beyond gender) I know it's shitty thing for her to hear, but in the greater scheme of things, it's a small price to pay. If she's a real woman, her friends and family (the people she cares about) know the truth, she's just an unlucky victim of a relevant conspiracy. It'll all get cleared up in time, from what I can tell, she's also got thick skin and she can take it.
  11. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/19/the-earth-may-not-be-flat-but-it-is-possibly-doomed-fake-news Slowly going mainstream. Sadly, I don't trust Mark Sargent or the people he's surrounded with. (The tranny vibe with patricia steere is killing meh) I do wonder where it's heading. The few mainstream articles/segments that passed so far usually seem to give the floor to people I (aswell as alot of other people) assume to be dis-info agents. I think the FE getting co-opted (infiltrated) by TPTB is a given. (Eric Dubie, matt powerhands, etc...) I'm trying to wrap my head around where they could possibly push this thing. One obvious use for the FE-agents is the strawman debunking, but it's still a slippery slope for them to balance. Ultimately the FE (no matter what version) has the globe-deception at it's core. Once you awaken to this deception (like alot of us have), there's no putting the cat back in the bag, you'll question everything. (Phantom time, concave Earth, end times, tranny deception, ...) So how exactly are the TPTB planning to put the cat back into the bag, after the FE goes mainstream? EDIT: Also @Anthem(0): No worries about me feeling offended. I agree with most of what you say. I had a big reply lined up last week, but I figured there's no point since we're mostly in agreement. I've got a thick skin, I think everyone should, this is conspiracy territory. Everyone could be a dis-info agent, so everyone should be prepared to get called out. How people deal with getting called out also says a whole-lot about them. Love ya buddy, your posts inspire meh. Love (mostly) everyone here.
  12. I understand what you mean, and I agree with it, it's all a bunch of complicated sht, but again for the up-down arguement it makes sense. People here are saying there is a universal up and down: The claim: "People/water/objects sticking to the bottom of the globe is ridiculous" comes from assuming there IS a universal direction which objects fall to. (down) So with gravity working according to mainstream theory (this is NOT about the theory being correct, it's about the theory making sense), when you're looking at the globe from far away, everything will get pulled to the center, to the ground, irrespective of location on the ball. (Top bottom, side, ...) There is no "people falling from the bottom of the globe", because that's exactly one of the purposes of gravity, to anwser that very question. We're on the same team, and I don't care too much how other people go about their conspiracies, but I think I'm correct in stating it's a shitty arguement, there's far better ones, that just don't rely on saying: "I don't see it, therefore it's bullshit", which is what most people are saying when using this arguement. I know you don't fall under this category, though some here definitely do. We also don't know is there is an up or down; our daily experience tells us yes, like it also tells us the Earth is flat and stationairy, but thats why science exists, to explain away all those things. I dont agree with alot of it, but I will say when things do or don't make sense, and people sticking to the bottom of a globe due to gravity does make sense. The space rocket arguement is kinda similar in this regard: Rockets working in space, yeah right. But then when you thoroughly think things through (Newton's laws of motion, 2nd and 3rd mainly), there's no logical fallacy in assuming rockets could/would work in space. You can say it's also a load of sht, but it still makes sense within the theories provided. Obviously there's a difference here because Newton's law of motion are based on repeatable science, so there's a definite link to reality, which the up-down arguement doesn't have. You can only say: "We experience up down, therefore the Universe has an up and down" You beat science on their own turf, or that's my view atleast. You don't just point at science and say "bullshit!". I've come far enough to see it probably all is bullshit, but that sentiment alone won't convince anyone who's not already onboard the FE conspiracy.
  13. Well, I don't a logical problem with people walking "upside down" on the globe. It's how gravity works, according to theory (gonna repeat this again and again, cuz I'm playing Devil's advocate lol). I do see a logical problem with the atmosphere wheel, because thats not how friction and/or laws of motion/fluids work.
  14. I agree it's all theory, but in this case I don't see a problem. In theory, there is no up and down in space (if it were to exist). This seems to make sense (within the theory) given we're just floating around surrounded by stars in all directions... As opposed to for example the atmosphere wheel example where I can't see/understand how the atmosphere (especially at higher altitudes) is rotating along with the earth. I have a hard time accepting it's friction (from the Earth) dragging the atmosphere along, combined with the fact higher altitudes aren't dragged behind, they're stationairy in respect to lower altitudes, so they're moving faster than lower altitudes. (Cuz they cover more distance) To me, this arguement is alot stronger, because there's flaws within the theory. For the up-down arguement, there's you (and other FE'ers offcourse) saying there IS a universal up and down, and the globe-side saying there isn't one. There's no interaction of mechanics, no debating, it's just one side saying one thing, the other another, and we can test neither because we can't go to space.
  15. But what if you turned/spinned your body 180* and then looked at the Earth, top would now be bottom and bottom top... A sphere (or slightly oblate spheroid) doesn't have a top or bottom. A basketball doesn't have a top and a bottom. U could mark them with a pencil to represent top and bottom (like the North and South pole), but ultimately U can pick any 2 opposite points to be top and bottom, cuz it's a sphere... There is no pictures showing this from space (cuz space is fake), but if *space were to be real*, you could take a high-zoom picture of someone at the visual bottom of the globe walking upside down. But then you could also turn the camera up-side down, take another picture and that person is now walking upright, as we experience in daily life.
×