I'm challenging xCivicx to A Debate About Flat Earth

[xCivicx]

I understand what you're saying here, it's just not what I observe

For example, if the earth's atmosphere is rotating 1000mph east with the earth's surface, and a cloud is floating 2mph westward in that atmosphere, does that mean that the cloud actually moving 1002mph westward in order to offset the rotation of the earth? And if that's the case, wouldn't that cloud be generating a pretty large force in the westward direction?

 

[xCivicx]

I already explained this to you.


You are looking at the moon through the Earth's atmosphere.

The Sun is on the left side of the moon (our right side), so you don't see the right side of the moon (the left from our perspective).

You do not see "behind" or "through" the moon here. You are simply viewing the side of the moon that is in shadow, but through our own atmosphere.

Again, I understand what you're saying, and this would make sense to me if only the left side of the moon was appearing to be blue

But the right side of the moon, the part facing the sun, also appears to be blue in some areas, when it really should be completely white correct?

To me that implies that the moon is in the earth's atmosphere

 

[null]

1000 - 2 == - 1002 ?

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

I understand what you're saying here, it's just not what I observe

For example, if the earth's atmosphere is rotating 1000mph east with the earth's surface, and a cloud is floating 2mph westward in that atmosphere, does that mean that the cloud actually moving 1002mph westward in order to offset the rotation of the earth? And if that's the case, wouldn't that cloud be generating a pretty large force in the westward direction?

That IS what you observe.

The cloud is moving 2 MPH in reference to the Earth. There is no 'offset' as the whole Earth is the inertial reference frame. For you to see it moving at 1002 MPH, you'd have to be in space. It's the same as observing someone holding a ball in a moving car travelling @ 60 MPH. To you, the ball is travelling 60 MPH, but to the person IN the car holding the ball, it isn't moving at all.​

 

[Th3Birdman]

I understand what you're saying here, it's just not what I observe

For example, if the earth's atmosphere is rotating 1000mph east with the earth's surface, and a cloud is floating 2mph westward in that atmosphere, does that mean that the cloud actually moving 1002mph westward in order to offset the rotation of the earth? And if that's the case, wouldn't that cloud be generating a pretty large force in the westward direction?

Keep in mind: inertial reference frames.

Inertial reference frames can exist within inertial reference frames.

For example, in the Globe Model, generally speaking the Earth is an inertial reference frame. But on Earth, a car, plane or a train themselves are also inertial reference frames-- this is why you can sit in a car, train or a plane that is moving at a constant velocity and you feel no movement, and can do things in the vehicle, such as drink a bottle of water, play cards, or even balance a coin:

I've ridden the bullet trains in Japan many times and can personally attest to being able to do this ^^^

Anyway, how this relates to your cloud question is the same principle: the cloud is within the reference frame of the Earth, so it is moving with the Earth's rotation. But just like how you can walk to the rear of a plane that is flying in an Eastern direction (again, I've done this myself on my many flights to Japan from Los Angeles) the Earth is "static" from the perspective of the cloud, and the cloud can move relatively freely within that system while also maintaining the overall Eastern rotation with Earth's atmosphere.

Again, I understand what you're saying, and this would make sense to me if only the left side of the moon was appearing to be blue

But the right side of the moon, the part facing the sun, also appears to be blue in some areas, when it really should be completely white correct?

To me that implies that the moon is in the earth's atmosphere

The parts that appear blue, without the Earth's atmosphere in the way, would appear "black", because those are craters and those craters are in partial or sometimes total shadow.

This can be demonstrated on Earth:

If you viewed this from space, you'd see it as a black shadow, or if you viewed it through a blue-light atmosphere like Earth's, it would appear bluish.

There are also some craters on the moon that are in perpetual shadow, due to the moon being tidally locked with Earth.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Again, I understand what you're saying, and this would make sense to me if only the left side of the moon was appearing to be blue

But the right side of the moon, the part facing the sun, also appears to be blue in some areas, when it really should be completely white correct?

To me that implies that the moon is in the earth's atmosphere

If you put on red-tinted sunglasses, it would appear red so, no, it isn't IN the atmosphere but is tinted BY the atmosphere in the same way.​

 

[Still Benefited]

Again, I understand what you're saying, and this would make sense to me if only the left side of the moon was appearing to be blue

But the right side of the moon, the part facing the sun, also appears to be blue in some areas, when it really should be completely white correct?

To me that implies that the moon is in the earth's atmosphere

Are you saying that the moon isnt just reflecting sun light,but instead actually produces its own light?


Because I never believed that shyt either. Now if the sun is heating up gases on the moon that cause it to glow at night thats a different story.

 

[The Half-Blood FKA Prince]

Say what u will about TLR but it can not be denied we got some brilliant fukkin minds among our virtual community

 

[drederick tatum]

Say what u will about TLR but it can not be denied we got some brilliant fukkin minds among our virtual community

Man, shut yo pleasant ass up. Being all agreeable and complimentary. You're terrible at internet

 

[The Half-Blood FKA Prince]

Man, shut yo pleasant ass up. Being all agreeable and complimentary. You're terrible at internet

Nothing but facts right here bruh. I really suck at this troll shyt.

Ol "is ur refrigerator running? Yeah? well thats good, food safety is very important " head ass.

 

[↓R↑LYB]

Say what u will about TLR but it can not be denied we got some brilliant fukkin minds among our virtual community

We also got nikkas with high school diplomas denying the existence of gravity

 

[null]

We also got nikkas with high school diplomas denying the existence of gravity

we observe gravitational effects but we don't understand the mechanics of gravity.

"In theories of quantum gravity, the graviton is the hypothetical quantum of gravity, an elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitational interaction."

Graviton - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

you can also model the universe without the use of gravity as a force by using curved spacetime instead.



partial readings of this (even though this does not mean that corresponding gravity-effects are not observed) can lead some to conclude that gravity does not exist.

NOTE: i didn't study physics at university and i didn't attend GT. i did some physics at school, read some books and watch science channels on youtube.



additionally gravity is much weaker than the other forces leading to some theories that gravity can cross (bleed into) universes / dimensions.

why gravity is so weak other dimentions universes - Google Search

kip thorne is a theoretical physicist from the aforementioned caltech.

kip thorne worked as an advisor on the film interstellar.

this suggests why gravity was used in interstellar to communicate from higher dimensions.

(the sand, the drone, the watch)

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

​

 

[↓R↑LYB]

we observe gravitational effects but we don't understand the mechanics of gravity.

"In theories of quantum gravity, the graviton is the hypothetical quantum of gravity, an elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitational interaction."

Graviton - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

you can also model the universe without the use of gravity as a force by using curved spacetime instead.



partial readings of this (even though this does not mean that corresponding gravity-effects are not observed) can lead some to conclude that gravity does not exist.

NOTE: i didn't study physics at university and i didn't attend GT. i did some physics at school, read some books and watch science channels on youtube.



additionally gravity is much weaker than the other forces leading to some theories that gravity can cross (bleed into) universes / dimensions.

why gravity is so weak other dimentions universes - Google Search

kip thorne is a theoretical physicist from the aforementioned caltech.

kip thorne worked as an advisor on the film interstellar.

this suggests why gravity was used in interstellar to communicate from higher dimensions.

(the sand, the drone, the watch)

What school did you graduate from? You're gonna need at least an associates degree in lesbian studies to convince me gravity isn't real breh.

 

[null]

What school did you graduate from?

two uk schools so no idea if I would have been accepted at GT.

You're gonna need at least an associates degree in lesbian studies

to convince me gravity isn't real breh.

the theory of gravity as a force might not be "valid" ... we might all be travelling in straight minkowski lines even when we're not moving.



caltech:

"THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY

Einstein came up with the theory of general relativity (1915), the prototype of all modern gravitational theories. Its crucial ingredient, involving a colossal intellectual jump, is the concept of gravitation, not as a force, but as a manifestation of the curvature of space-time, an idea first mentioned in rudimentary form by the mathematician Ceorg Bernhard Riemann in 1854. In Einstein's hands gravitation theory was thus transformed from a theory of forces into the first dynamical theory of geometry, the geometry of four dimensional curved space-time."​

https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/ESSAYS/Bekenstein/bekenstein.html