I'm challenging xCivicx to A Debate About Flat Earth

↓R↑LYB

I trained Sheng Long and Shonuff
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
44,204
Reputation
13,743
Daps
171,150
Reppin
Pawgistan
two uk schools so no idea if I would have been accepted at GT.

:francis:
We don't fukk with tea and crumpets around these parts
full
 

MasterThought

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
Mar 11, 2022
Messages
3,382
Reputation
2,389
Daps
22,044
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.​

Wait hold on, a few years ago they switched up and said that newly discovered observations proved that the Earth's atmosphere does indeed extend BEYOND the moon or in other words, yes the moon is INSIDE the earths atmosphere:

0:00 - 0:17

"Our Earth's atmosphere is waaaay bigger than we thought......like it goes PAST the moon"





3yWLzcp.png

aIAD77k.jpg
 

↓R↑LYB

I trained Sheng Long and Shonuff
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
44,204
Reputation
13,743
Daps
171,150
Reppin
Pawgistan
vHCq43O.png
i'm heading to the states breh :blessed:



packing my suitcase now.

i look through my telescope at new york each evening as preparation for my time there.
You excited about experiencing your first mass shooting :lupe:
 

Dafunkdoc_Unlimited

Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
Joined
Jul 25, 2012
Messages
44,553
Reputation
8,089
Daps
121,265
Reppin
The Wrong Side of the Tracks
Wait hold on, a few years ago they switched up and said that newly discovered observations proved that the Earth's atmosphere does indeed extend BEYOND the moon or in other words, yes the moon is INSIDE the earths atmosphere.
It isn't a 'switch'. There are several layers of our atmosphere and the layer called the exosphere extends from about 400 miles to 10,000 miles above the Earth. At that altitude, the molecules that compose our atmosphere are so spread out (density = 10 ^-¹⁵kg/m3), it acts better than the best vacuum we've managed to create on Earth. Recent studies showed those molecules are detectable past that range (geocorona). So, no, it ain't IN the atmosphere in the way that statement and findings suggest....

 
Last edited:

xCivicx

Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Messages
24,537
Reputation
2,730
Daps
78,792
Reppin
Atl
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:

Screenshot-888.png



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.



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:

Tenoumer-Crater.jpg


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.


Screenshot-889.png
So how would that work for a plane flying west at 500mph? Does that mean that the plane isn't moving at the earth is rotating 500mph east, away from said plane?

Craters on earth are illuminated sometimes when the sun crossed them at the correct angles. No matter what photo I'm looking at, the craters on the moon look the exact same, no matter where it is with respect to the sun

Are there any close up pics of the moon where the mountains or "elevated areas" are casting shadows on the lower level areas?
 

Th3Birdman

Rookie of The Year
Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2022
Messages
3,924
Reputation
2,198
Daps
11,997
Reppin
Los Angeles
So how would that work for a plane flying west at 500mph? Does that mean that the plane isn't moving at the earth is rotating 500mph east, away from said plane?

The plane is always rotating with the Earth's rotation. It will never not rotate in the same manner as the planet, no matter what direction it travels.

It's the same exact situation that I described above: the Earth constitutes an inertial reference frame. This means that everything is ALWAYS rotating with the Earth at a near constant velocity, so it feels like nothing is rotating in exactly the same way that a car ride is comfortable even though you're travelling at 60-70 mph.

This is why I keep bringing up cars, planes and trains. Inside of a flying plane, you can move freely inside the plane in any direction, but the plane and everyone inside is always moving in the same direction overall.

Craters on earth are illuminated sometimes when the sun crossed them at the correct angles. No matter what photo I'm looking at, the craters on the moon look the exact same, no matter where it is with respect to the sun

Yes, as I showed in the screenshot, there are craters that are perpetually dark, and due to the Moon's orbit and rotation, we always only see one side of the moon.

Are there any close up pics of the moon where the mountains or "elevated areas" are casting shadows on the lower level areas?

There are quite a few:

Copernicus Crater (shadow on the right side of the image):

https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F8930dba1-fd4a-4f6f-9911-4fe4224cd88d_1250x1000.jpeg


Tycho Crater's 1.6 kilometer peak:

https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F0d831a35-dc90-4152-9d5a-73d233878496_1641x985.jpeg
 

xCivicx

Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Messages
24,537
Reputation
2,730
Daps
78,792
Reppin
Atl
The plane is always rotating with the Earth's rotation. It will never not rotate in the same manner as the planet, no matter what direction it travels.

It's the same exact situation that I described above: the Earth constitutes an inertial reference frame. This means that everything is ALWAYS rotating with the Earth at a near constant velocity, so it feels like nothing is rotating in exactly the same way that a car ride is comfortable even though you're travelling at 60-70 mph.

This is why I keep bringing up cars, planes and trains. Inside of a flying plane, you can move freely inside the plane in any direction, but the plane and everyone inside is always moving in the same direction overall.



Yes, as I showed in the screenshot, there are craters that are perpetually dark, and due to the Moon's orbit and rotation, we always only see one side of the moon.



There are quite a few:

Copernicus Crater (shadow on the right side of the image):

https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F8930dba1-fd4a-4f6f-9911-4fe4224cd88d_1250x1000.jpeg


Tycho Crater's 1.6 kilometer peak:

https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F0d831a35-dc90-4152-9d5a-73d233878496_1641x985.jpeg
I try to simplify concepts to make them easier to understand

In a whirlpool, there are forces causing the rotate while also pulling the water inward/down. In a whirlpool, when the entire system is moving in one direction, it's not possible for an object placed in said whirlpool to just move off in any direction besides the direction of rotational force, unless another force is acting on it

It doesn't make sense to me that a plane can still be rotating in the same direction as the atmosphere, when it is literally thrusting off of the atmosphere in the opposite direction

Of course you know I think those pics are generated on a computer
 

Th3Birdman

Rookie of The Year
Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2022
Messages
3,924
Reputation
2,198
Daps
11,997
Reppin
Los Angeles
I try to simplify concepts to make them easier to understand

In a whirlpool, there are forces causing the rotate while also pulling the water inward/down. In a whirlpool, when the entire system is moving in one direction, it's not possible for an object placed in said whirlpool to just move off in any direction besides the direction of rotational force, unless another force is acting on it

Simplifying these concepts is a great idea, and it's how people understand difficult concepts. The only problem is that there are times where simplification doesn't always work.

Your whirlpool example is one of these instances. The problem with this example is that the parameters are not the same. A whirlpool is not a system where there is uniform velocity and there is a lot of fricative forces in that system. In the Globe Model, the Earth is rotating in a near vacuum, and is not experiencing friction in the way something in a whirlpool would be.

I think you're confusing the fact that a whirlpool spins and that we are saying the earth spins. There are different kinds of rotation, and a whirlpool is not a solid body, but a collection of billions of different molecules.
It doesn't make sense to me that a plane can still be rotating in the same direction as the atmosphere, when it is literally thrusting off of the atmosphere in the opposite direction

Do you think you cannot walk to the rear of a train that is travelling in one direction?

This is the same exact principle as the plane on Earth. A plane is a "passenger" on the "train" of Earth. The same way you can comfortably walk to the bathroom on a train or the snack bar or to another seat, a plane can freely travel within Earth's atmosphere.

Of course you know I think those pics are generated on a computer

OK, let's try this a different way-- what would YOU consider proof of an image? I mean, you asked me for images, and I gave them to you.

What would constitute proof of the validity of an image?
 

xCivicx

Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Messages
24,537
Reputation
2,730
Daps
78,792
Reppin
Atl
Simplifying these concepts is a great idea, and it's how people understand difficult concepts. The only problem is that there are times where simplification doesn't always work.

Your whirlpool example is one of these instances. The problem with this example is that the parameters are not the same. A whirlpool is not a system where there is uniform velocity and there is a lot of fricative forces in that system. In the Globe Model, the Earth is rotating in a near vacuum, and is not experiencing friction in the way something in a whirlpool would be.

I think you're confusing the fact that a whirlpool spins and that we are saying the earth spins. There are different kinds of rotation, and a whirlpool is not a solid body, but a collection of billions of different molecules.


Do you think you cannot walk to the rear of a train that is travelling in one direction?

This is the same exact principle as the plane on Earth. A plane is a "passenger" on the "train" of Earth. The same way you can comfortably walk to the bathroom on a train or the snack bar or to another seat, a plane can freely travel within Earth's atmosphere.



OK, let's try this a different way-- what would YOU consider proof of an image? I mean, you asked me for images, and I gave them to you.

What would constitute proof of the validity of an image?
I think the train example works because we have a reference frame from outside the train. We can see the motion of the system from outside the system

I'm not sure it's possible to observe a plane flying west from outside of earth to observe what's happening

Like I said before I completely understand these concepts. I know the type of motion in a whirlpool is different than the type of motion of the earth. can give the correct answers on a test. I'm just not sure that I observe these things in real life

I honestly don't know what a valid picture would look like

This is supposed to be an official Japanese government video of the earth from the moon. It looks ridiculous to me


In this video and those photos, the moon just looks like a computer rendering to me
 

HiphopRelated

In Broad Daylight
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
20,837
Reputation
2,443
Daps
47,096
Reppin
My brother's keeper
I think the train example works because we have a reference frame from outside the train. We can see the motion of the system from outside the system

I'm not sure it's possible to observe a plane flying west from outside of earth to observe what's happening

Like I said before I completely understand these concepts. I know the type of motion in a whirlpool is different than the type of motion of the earth. can give the correct answers on a test. I'm just not sure that I observe these things in real life

I honestly don't know what a valid picture would look like

This is supposed to be an official Japanese government video of the earth from the moon. It looks ridiculous to me


In this video and those photos, the moon just looks like a computer rendering to me

WHY does it look like a computer rendering? I mean we can dismiss anything we want in this world based on "feelings"
 

xCivicx

Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Messages
24,537
Reputation
2,730
Daps
78,792
Reppin
Atl
WHY does it look like a computer rendering? I mean we can dismiss anything we want in this world based on "feelings"
Because I've spent a lot of time rendering images on computers. The pixel count looks extremely low in the video and the images

Pictures from the 60s appear to have more detail and less/no pixelation

Aldrin_Apollo_11_original.jpg

To be clear I don't think they're on the moon here

Do you think that video i posted looks real?
 
Top