Where does space actually begin? What does it actually mean to be "in space"? ...apparently not much of anything, as no human has ever been there.
Originally "outer space" was defined by the claims of one Theodore von Kármán in the 1900s ...hence the Kármán line...which is about 50 miles up...though this is apparently flexible and is sometimes cited as up to 62 miles up. Today's more "enlightened" priests of scientism claim that's wrong and instead say "outer space" begins around 100 miles up(Neil DeGasBag Tyson), though NOAA.gov cites 73 miles up as the beginning of "outer space".
Today if you ask google you can find all kinds of wild answers to such a simple question. Many allege even that officially "space/time" doesn't even "officially" begin until 390,000 miles out! ...like well outside the moon's alleged orbit! The moon is literally WITHIN Earth's alleged "air sphere"! ...as are geostationary/geosynchronous satellites(22,236 miles).
Gosh, it's almost as though these priests of scientism assholes are just making shit up. Doesn't seem like they actually "know" shit. Wouldn't it be cool if they'd stop pretending as though they do? One would expect such a simple question to have a definitive answer...unlike hard questions like...can one see stars in space?
Yep, though I usually cite it as an "air sphere", the meaning is the same. The question is, where does this alleged "air sphere" begin directly contacting the alleged vacuum of space? ...which btw is provably impossible according to the accepted laws of physics...specifically the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The law of entropy is almost certainly the most hated law amongst ballers, as it contradicts huge portions of their spinning water ball fairy tales and cosmological gibberish.
Ballers tend to focus on edges, eclipses, and domes when attempting to ridicule flat Earth proponents, but seem blissfully unaware of the many problems with their own spinning ball Earth "model". When looked into with any scrutiny the alleged ball Earth model that's treated as though it's fact, suddenly becomes very wishy washy in nearly every way. ...in part since it cannot be accurately modeled physically...because grabbiton unicorns are seemingly very bashful.
Joe, you continue to reference both myself & Solarion as flat earth earthers, when throughout this thread, both of us, Sol & myself have questioned both the flat & round hypothesis... Yet you completely avoid our interactions and go straight to the flat earth with your round earth theory, never allowing for any other discussion.... That nice Lil CGI blue marble you think this is, just isn't so.... But I get it, your defending your cult religion.
Joking, though intelligent, is so completely indoctrinated by his own religious beliefs...which he falsely believes to be based in science, that he belittles anyone raising genuine questions. This is precisely the opposite of what a genuinely inquisitive scientific mind would do as skepticism of entrenched concepts is vital to maintaining objectivity.
Belief structures have no place in legitimate scientific discourse, else we'd all now "know" the Earth to be "a flat disc with upturned edges" and ball Earthers would be ridiculed...or worse. "Settled science" is an oxymoron and those that think otherwise are mistaking beliefs for knowledge.
A lot of people darn well should see it, and come to the realization that if these folks logic and reasoning ability can be so irreparably flawed on this subject, that it likely extends into other subjects as well.
I'd be surprised if there are many that haven't had a helium balloon in a moving car. While interesting, I'm not sure it's proof of anything...particularly gravity or simulated gravity.It's proof that something caused it to move. The only thing that changed inside the car is that by pressing the...
Now about that atmospheric momentum savings account that you've avoided discussing since you made it up to ignore problems with your precious ball Earth model? About the FACT that you don't even know what gravity is?
You don't know a GD thing about me joking. You're just an easily triggered ball Earth zealot running around derailing any conversation here that causes people to question what you consider to be "settled science". You fancy yourself a self appointed "defender of science", seemingly oblivious of the fact that objective truth doesn't need to be defended.
I never claimed to know everything, and I don't pretend to know the shape of Earth and have said so many times. I claim only to know there are numerous problems with ball Earth theory and I seek knowledge. You're the one that's, as usual, hurling insults.
You absolutely did not address it. You ignored it once I pointed out that water was blocking the view of the lower portions of the buildings.
...same as every other flat Earth flattard on this forum has done when asked about it. Even your buddy @Silvergun ran away from the topic.
Again, you are dishonest and you are showing that fact to everyone on the board with each post you make on this subject.
The idea of a mud ball covered in air mysteriously spinning in unison at up to 1037 mph(depending on latitude) can sound like a reasonable theory...as long as it's viewed only superficially and without considering its impact on accepted laws of physics. The whole thing is allegedly held together by (now disproven) gravitational theory, most notably proposed by Isaac Newton in 1687. Yet this same man also wrote laws of motion that are plainly violated by this same spinning air covered water-ball theory.
An object in motion, stays in motion, unless acted upon by an outside force. Newton's first law of motion is plainly violated every time one envisions an aircraft maneuvering on an air covered water-ball rotating West to East at up to 1037mph. That is RELATIVE to another object(say an airfield), so those wishing to hide behind Einstein's gibberish needn't bother.
Even our resident self appointed pseudoscience cop knows this is a problem with ball Earth theory, that's why he invented "air ball momentum savings accounts" before realizing how ridiculous that sounds and refusing to comment further. Which he has done again in this very thread.
Question. We can all agree, I think, that air pressure changes with altitude on Earth...yes? This is seemingly caused by increased air density at lower altitudes(more dense matter falls and less dense matter rises). Charted, it looks like this:
Some here and elsewhere have cited this observable fact as evidence of proof that gas pressure can exist without a container...specifically that gravity *IS* that container...we simply cannot observe that container as a human on the surface of Earth. For example, there's this post claiming precisely that, though there are many more examples on GIM2 and elsewhere.
Lets discuss an experiment. I am a land surveyor believe it or not haha. The very definition of which is to measure the surface of the earth. If you are being honest about conducting an experiment, do something like what this guy did. Except use a car so you can go further and therefore...
Assuming this is true, then it would seem that within this claim is the assumption that air pressure is a result of gravitational "force". Assuming that's true, then wouldn't it mean also that gravitational "force" reduces as one rises...allowing for this gradient air pressure effect? ...and if that's true then how can gravitational "forces" still be the cited reason for air speed remaining constant throughout the alleged air sphere?
Reduced gravitational "forces" at higher altitude would result in lower angular velocity of the alleged "air sphere's" rotational velocity...yet that counters the ball Earth model. Help me out here ball Earth proponents.
Is this yet another example of "missing mass" disproving gravitational theory and therefore disproving ball Earth theory?
Does the bottom brick experience the same amount of pressure upon it as a brick halfway up the stack? Or the same as the one on top of the stack?
No, they do not. Same as the air at sea level experiences the weight of all the air above it. The ones at the bottom are packed more tightly together. Ie: there's not enough room for all the air to be at sea level.
...except your "pressure" is based upon gravitational forces in the ball Earth model. Everything about weight and mass has been re-written over time to include aspects of Cavendish's 1798 experiment "weighing the world" ...which includes the gravitational constant.
You ignored what I asked to re-interpret what I already said.
The trouble with the ball Earth model is that gravity is used to dismiss all the problems...while creating numerous other problems...such as allegedly consistent angular velocity in the alleged presence of declining gravity.
As usual, I can't understand it for you.
....and I was not really responding to you, but rather just posting for anyone who might read your flat Earth propaganda and possibly start thinking it might have merit.
You explained nothing. You ignored yet another problem with the ball Earth model.
The air sphere's allegedly consistent rotational velocity throughout REQUIRES increased mass as air pressure declines...yet gravitational theory calls for lower gravitational "force" as two masses move apart(the inverse square of the distance between their centers). The exact same problem occurs on a large scale with regard to galactic rotational velocities. It is the impetus for the invention of theoretical "dark matter" ...eighty-eight years ago. Which was an excuse used at that time to again ignore the obvious problems with gravitational theory.
The problem is not that you cannot understand it for me, the problem is that you do not understand your own model...or your own gravity god.
The air sphere's allegedly consistent rotational velocity throughout REQUIRES increased mass as air pressure declines...yet gravitational theory calls for lower gravitational "force" as two masses move apart(the inverse square of the distance between their centers).
Yes, you're obviously very comfortable telling me lots of stuff you claim to know...even about me. What you don't seem adept at doing is actually providing any evidence for anything you claim to know, but plainly do not understand. This is not a response intended to address the question at all, it's simply you trying to salvage your own ego...followed by another assertion that you're committed to your own belief structures.
So I'll just go ahead and accept that you have no legitimate response to this problem with your own ball Earth model that you claim to know is a fact. "Your calculations are most likely off." is just evasion...like your unwillingness to back up your own claim that the air sphere has within it a mechanism to store momentum...which is a theory so ridiculously idiotic, I don't blame you for never addressing it again. If I'd said something so dumb, I'd probably try to forget about it too. lol
More super zoom photos that prove the Earth cannot be an oblate pear shaped spheroid 7917 miles in diameter. These platforms, photographed at an altitude of 8' are 6.08 and 10.10 miles from the photographer...yet the horizon clearly appears behind them.
Here a red head shows that Einstein's theory of general relativity is provably wrong. The entire video is interesting, though the destruction of Einstein's silly theory begins at 17:30.
You are the one who posted the pic of Chicago, but then became unable to see it anymore due to your cognitive dissonance that causes you to not be able to see anything that shows that the Earth's surface has curvature consistant with being an ~8k mile dia sphere.
Prove it. Prove that the pic is taken at those distances. It's easy to just say it is X number of miles, but you flat Earth guys are well known for intentionally mislaballing photos in order to spread your mind pollution.
I see your pic of an oil platform at an unknown distance and raise you by your own pic of Chicago that was taken from a known distance that even you agreed with.
.....and that clearly shows curvature consistent with what you say cannot exist. Yet there it is, right in front of you.
Where's all the missing buildings between the two arrows?
They are hiding behind the horizon that's made of water.
A child could see what this pic shows. Can you? Are you as intelligent as a child?
It is your pic after all, so you ought to be able to see it.
Even your buddy @Silvergun had to run away with his tail between his legs after a miserably failed attempt to address what this pic shows. Lol
There aren't any. Just composite "images" created by a gumbymint agency that many here refuse to question. It's as though the past couple years haven't taught us that nothing governments say should be accepted without scrutiny.
The reason more and more people each day are questioning the mainstream theory of the shape of Earth, is that they observe falsifying evidence with their own eyes. When plain photographic proof is presented that Earth cannot be a water ball 24901 miles in circumference, ball worshipers typically ignore the evidence to attack the one presenting the proof...just as happens here. Problems with the spinning space fruit theory are always ignored...and rather than addressing the evidence those defenders of ball Earth instead attack a competing theory...in this case flat Earth. Anything to avoid addressing the evidence.
For instance, Joe King who constantly hurls insults at anyone daring to question his space ball religion, while carefully ignoring anything that proves his precious theory wrong. That's precisely why he keeps ignoring me when I ask for details about his air sphere momentum savings account theory.
Here are three problems with the spinning space pear model explained in this very thread. Where are the spinning ball proponents even addressing these problems with their model? Nowhere. Instead they simply ignore the problems and call the poster a troll. Why? If there's so much evidence to support the spinning ball theory, then this stuff should be easy.
And so mny ignored answers! . I recently learned a description for this type of behavior - chaff & redirect.
Then there's plenty of photographic evidence...like the one just posted above. These platforms are located off the shoreline of Santa Barbara, CA and can be verified by anyone.
The bottom of these rigs should not be visible at this distance, and the horizon line should not be behind them. Consistently ignoring evidence and problems with gravitational theory to instead ridicule people that rightly question the spinning water ball model isn't much of a response...and it's merely resulting in more people questioning long standing pseudoscience. Keep up the good work ball worshipers! :)
Problems with the spinning space fruit theory are always ignored while rather than addressing the evidence those defenders of ball Earth instead attack a competing theory...in this case flat Earth. Anything to avoid addressing the evidence.
You're the one who started that shit. As long as you've been posting your bs on this topic in many different threads over the years and you are the one constantly calling others dumb and mocking them with your stupid "herp derp" comments.
Over the years I have received several PM's from several people noting my patience in trying to help you to see reality.
They normally are not, but this is yet another case of you misrepresenting what a photo actually shows.
The guy who took the video that pic was pulled from, took it in order to show an example of atmospheric refraction. He also said that in normal conditions the horizon is obviously in front of the platforms.
So this is just another example of the lying deceitful ways of those in the flat Earth "community".
Why can't we see all of downtown Chicago? It seems to be underwater.
....and where are all the missing buildings between the two arrowed buildings? They are not visible. Since you supposedly do not ignore falsifying evidence, please use your flat Earth "science" to explain for us, why we cannot see them in this pic.
If you cannot explain it, tell us again who is ignoring evidence. It ain't me, that's for sure. Lol
...he says while ignoring all the evidence on the same page as well as his own hair brained theory concocted to ignore evidence. ROFL
I've already addressed the photo you seem to think does not disprove your precious ball Earth theory. Hell, I even linked to a lengthy conversation between us about it. Now how about addressing anything in this thread? ...or how about addressing your 2018 theory about how the alleged "air sphere" mysteriously stores momentum for later retrieval. I mean, if proven, that's a ground breaking theory buddy! LMAO
So, no response to my arguments, and no thanks for my patient explanations yet, solarion? You posted an argument?!? Pull the other one! The last rubbish I saw from you that could be construed as an argument was again about reference frame gibberish...and I've gotten enough of that irrelevant...
Easily one of the stupidest comments ever made by someone attempting to defend their belief structures. ...no wonder you haven't addressed the subject in over three years.