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

[Right Divider]

Dave!

Dave is oblivious to real facts, but in love with fake "facts".

He's the perfect spokesperson for that utter nonsense called flat earth.

 

[Right Divider]

Oh really???

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

--Dave

The PEOPLE are also moving WITH the earth and the atmosphere, dummy.

 

[The Barbarian]

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

We can look at the vectors for each force, and calculate the resultant force. One is gravity, pulling the atmosphere toward the center of the Earth. The other is due to the kinetic energy of the atmosphere moving with the earth's surface. The faster the motion of the Earth, the more the force counters gravity.

That means that one should weigh measurably less at the equator than one would weigh at the poles.

And this turns out to be true.

What would happen if Earth started to spin faster?
Even a 1 mph speed boost would make things pretty weird
https://www.popsci.com/earth-spin-faster/

 

[DFT_Dave]

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

If the atmosphere is "moving" with the earth then "all" particle/molecule in the atmosphere are moving at the same speed of the earth.

Hello, are you brain dead?

If the atmosphere is not moving at 1000 to 700 mph then it's not moving with the earths spin.

See how logic works?

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

Oh really???

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

--Dave

That speed was recorded in 1934.

And 700 mph, let alone 1000 mph, is more than triple the speed of the record. So no, it's not an appropriate analogy.

Normal wind speeds (relative to the earth, and I can't believe that I have to specify that) don't get anywhere near 231 mph.

 

[Right Divider]

If the atmosphere is "moving" with the earth then "all" particle/molecule in the atmosphere are moving at the same speed of the earth.

YEP... NET speed.... ZERO.

Hello, are you brain dead?

No, but apparently you are.

If the atmosphere is not moving at 1000 to 700 mph then it's not moving with the earths spin.

TWO DIFFERENT REFERENCES... with reference to the EARTH the atmosphere is roughly NOT MOVING.

See how logic works?

--Dave

I understand everything involved here.... YOU DO NOT.

 

[JudgeRightly]

If the atmosphere is "moving" with the earth then "all" particle/molecule in the atmosphere are moving at the same speed of the earth.

Hello, are you brain dead?

If the atmosphere is not moving at 1000 to 700 mph then it's not moving with the earths spin.

See how logic works?

--Dave

And this just confirms that you're stupid Dave.

The fact that there are no 700-1000 mph windspeeds is PROOF that the atmosphere's spin motion relative to the earth's spin is 0 mph

 

[JudgeRightly]

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

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

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

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

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

--Dave

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

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

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

--Dave

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

 

[Right Divider]

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

Dave cannot even understand the most basic elements of motion.... he's hopeless.

 

[DFT_Dave]

The PEOPLE are also moving WITH the earth and the atmosphere, dummy.

If the earth and atmosphere were moving at 700 to 1000 mph we would not be here.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

If the earth and atmosphere were moving at 700 to 1000 mph we would not be here.

--Dave

Why?

 

[DFT_Dave]

And this just confirms that you're stupid Dave.

The fact that there are no 700-1000 mph windspeeds is PROOF that the atmosphere's spin motion relative to the earth's spin is 0 mph

The fact that there are no wind speeds 700-1000 mph proves the atmosphere is not moving with the speed of the earth.

The fact that the earth is not moving 700-1000 mph through the atmosphere proves the earth is not moving.

Relativity destroys logic.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

If the earth and atmosphere were moving at 700 to 1000 mph we would not be here.

--Dave

YOU are moving at approximately the SAME speed as the surface of the earth and the atmosphere.

So simple that a child can understand it, but not FE Dave.

 

[Right Divider]

The fact that there are no wind speeds 700-1000 mph proves the atmosphere is not moving with the speed of the earth.

That is hilarious... you have it EXACTLY BACKWARDS.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The fact that there are no wind speeds 700-1000 mph proves the atmosphere is not moving with the speed of the earth.

It proves EXACTLY THAT, Dave!

The fact that the earth is not moving 700-1000 mph through the atmosphere proves the earth is not moving.

Relativity destroys logic.

--Dave

This a "proof by assertion" fallacy.

"The earth is not moving proves the earth is not moving."

Your arguments are anything BUT logical.

Relativity is logical. You just can't seem to understand it.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Why?

If all the particles/molecules in the atmosphere were moving with the earth they would be moving in one direction, the same direction as the earth's spin.

How could you move in any other direction?

When you say the speed is "0", that's not true. The speed being the same in one direction means both atmosphere and earth are moving at the same speed.

You all want the same speed to be no speed at all which is absurd.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

If all the particles/molecules in the atmosphere were moving with the earth they would be moving in one direction, the same direction as the earth's spin.

Yes, I believe that's what I said.

How could you move in any other direction?

By walking through the atmosphere... The atmosphere is a FLUID, Dave, not a solid.

When you say the speed is "0", that's not true.

INCORRECT.

The speed is 0 mph relative to the earth.

The speed is 67,000 mph relative to the sun.

Again, motion is always determined using an EXTERNAL Frame of Reference!

The speed being the same in one direction means both atmosphere and earth are moving at the same speed.

Yes, Dave, that's correct.

You all want the same speed to be no speed at all

No, Dave, you still don't get it.

MOTION CAN ONLY BE DESCRIBED USING AN EXTERNAL FRAME OF REFERENCE.

EACH FRAME OF REFERENCE IS ARBITRARY, AND MOTION DESCRIBED RELATIVE TO ONE FRAME OF REFERENCE HAS NO BEARING ON MOTION DESCRIBED TO ANOTHER FRAME OF REFERENCE.

Relative to the earth, the atmosphere's motion is 0 mph.

Relative to the sun, the atmosphere's motion is an orbit at 67,000 mph, and a rotation of up to 1037.5 mph at the equator.

Why two different numbers?

Because TWO DIFFERENT FRAMES OF REFERENCE ARE USED!

which is absurd.

--Dave

Appeal to absurdity, a logical fallacy.

 

[Right Divider]

If all the particles/molecules in the atmosphere were moving with the earth they would be moving in one direction, the same direction as the earth's spin.

On average, they do.

How could you move in any other direction?

Any way that you like.

When you say the speed is "0", that's not true.

It's approximately true.

The speed being the same in one direction means both atmosphere and earth are moving at the same speed.

Ok, where is the problem here?

You all want the same speed to be no speed at all which is absurd.

--Dave

You do NOT have the slightest clue what motion is. I showed you the definition and you still don't understand it.

And YET, you ramble on and on about it ... even though you are clueless about it.... just wow.

 

[DFT_Dave]

That is hilarious... you have it EXACTLY BACKWARDS.

You want the speed of the earth and the speed of the atmosphere to be "0" mph while at the same time both moving at 700-1000 mph., the same speed.

700-1000 mph does not equal 0 mph.

Space is the immovable reference, the movement of the earth would be through immovable space.

The sun is also a reference to the movement of earth.

The atmosphere obviously is not moving in one direction at 700-1000 mph so it is not being pull by an earth that is moving at that speed.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

You want the speed of the earth and the speed of the atmosphere to be "0" mph while at the same time both moving at 700-1000 mph., the same speed.

700-1000 mph does not equal 0 mph.

Space is the immovable reference, the movement of the earth would be through immovable space.

The sun is also a reference to the movement of earth.

The atmosphere obviously is not moving in one direction at 700-1000 mph so it is not being pull bey an earth that is moving at that speed.

--Dave

Why two different numbers?

Because TWO DIFFERENT FRAMES OF REFERENCE ARE USED!

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