Earth discussion. What is Earth?

[wolf_the_mag]

It takes a critical thinking to abandon the science does it? Surely a critical thinker would weigh the evidence for both and choose to reject your hypothesis?

Also for this to be true, there would have to be a global conspiracy theory involving then, nay hundreds of thousands of people. How is that possible?

But then again, I'm one of the scientists, maybe I'm in on it <bandit>

I'm just one person that doesn't believe what I've been schooled into. That doesn't mean I'm correct, it just means that I have an alternative take on what Earth is.
Scientists don't have to be in on anything. I mean, the Earth theory as to what people believe it is, is well worked. Everything fits, so there's no reason for scientists to think otehrwise if they don't want to.
It's like God. I mean, you cannot see God and I cannot see him, so we don't know if there is a God, yet look around you at all the churches and the amount of people that go to them and pray.
That's not to say that God does not exist, even though there is no proof except for writings and story telling, yet it's accepted as set in stone by billions.
Do you see what I'm getting at?
It's not about the majority of people being in on anything, it's about the few that maybe know or have a good idea, yet choose to have that knowledge kept from us whilst we follow a model of their making.
You have your own mind and thoughts and I'm not about to tell you what to believe, because you are entitled to believe what your own logic tells you and if that means your earth is a rotating globe, then fair enough.

There's far too many reasons for me to think otherwise though, although I once believed it all until I started to see a lot of things that just didn't make sense.

[Colback's Orange Tufts]

What is the motivation for lying?

To get laid. That's also why they took a car to the moon.

oT this is probably the best post on this forum. EVER

[Seagull]

There's far too many reasons for me to think otherwise though, although I once believed it all until I started to see a lot of things that just didn't make sense.

I'm not trying to insult you here, but do you not think there's a chance that it might not make sense to you simply because you don't know enough about physics?

[Speedo]

Well keep on saying what doesn't make sense to you, and then maybe we can explain it/be perplexed if we genuinely don't understand it either. Also I don't think it is fair to compare science and religion. Science is not about faith. Science is about the rigorous testing of phenomena. The round world is not a theory, it's a scientific fact (i.e. well above 99% chance of being accurate). We have theories about stuff we can't explain, like black holes or bits of complex quantum and stuff I am ill-qualified to talk about (A* and A at GCSE only over here!). Without wanting to come across as patronising or rude, just because you don't understand something, it doesn't mean other people don't understand it better than you, or couldn't explain to you why such-and-such-a-thing makes perfect sense.

[PTAO?]

What are stars, where did they come from and how do they create the energy to give off light. Also why and how do they move in predictable patterns and relative to each other?

[Colback's Orange Tufts]

Would it be fair to characterise it hence:

You know there are things that scientists claim are evidence for it. You don't disagree with the science and/or logic stemming from the observations, you think the observations are made up/mis-measured?

[Dr. Bishop]

At work so can't be arsed to read through all the posts so if this has been mentioned I apologise.

You mention that you believe gravity to be air pressure. If that was the case, how do you suppose that planets and stars are suspended within this dome? Drop a ball it falls to the floor, so why aren't all the planets and stars at a singular point essentially creating a giant ball dome?

[Seagull]

It's not about the majority of people being in on anything, it's about the few that maybe know or have a good idea, yet choose to have that knowledge kept from us whilst we follow a model of their making.

Why would people choose to do this? What benefit to them is it that we follow their theories instead of the truth?

edit: Sorry, I've seen you answered it on the last page... kind of..

[wolf_the_mag]

The ground should be moving at over 1000 mph, it should not be moving slowly, even accounting for something supposedly starting off at the same speed before hovering. It should still slow down quickly with friction but in the case of a helicopter , you don't see that.

Air pressure pushes you down because it's stacked molecules from bottom to top. That's why jumping up against it, is hard and falling is easy.

Remember the helicopter does still have that forward speed from the earth, and gravity means that even though it's not touching the ground, it's still spinning with the earth. Think of it like a wheel, the centre spins, the spokes (gravity's force) mean the tyre on the outside still goes round. Hence clouds and birds don't fly at hundreds of miles an hour. It's the same principle behind geostationary orbiting satellites. Re. Air Pressure - what determines top and bottom? Also gas molecules don't stack, they float about. If they stacked loosely, they'd be liquid, or if they were tightly stacked, they'd be solid. Air pressure is lower at higher altitudes because gravity's force is being exerted to a lower extent up there.

Like I said with the helicopter. Even going by what you say about it still keeping the same speed as the earth on take off, it would still create a friction against the atmosphere because it's legs are not on a solid ground so logically it's sensible to assume that the atmosphere is not going to keep pushing it at the same speed as a solid ground.

As for air pressure and top and bottom, it's just what we percieve as top and bottom with our senses. Think of everything on earth as a push. Everything is pushing and it all starts from super dense solids creating massive friction/vibration that agitates everything and expanding it to push up which includes the water and air above us, but it all falls into place back onto the crust of the earth or anything (including us) on it.

It's a case of low and high pressure caused by expanding molecules that are all bonded. Nothing is free or loose. It's all connected from top to bottom.
Think of it like a build up of soap bubbles creating a dome effect as it grows where you see smaller dnser bubbles and more expanded bubbles as it grows.
The more it does this, the more pressure that's created on anything under it.

[wolf_the_mag]

There's far too many reasons for me to think otherwise though, although I once believed it all until I started to see a lot of things that just didn't make sense.

I'm not trying to insult you here, but do you not think there's a chance that it might not make sense to you simply because you don't know enough about physics?

Well, that's for other people to decide to be honest. I can only go on my thoughts about what makes sense the most, to me. I well aware of how it appears to most, because we are conditioned to ridicule (not saying you are) anything that does not agree with the mainstream view.

[Colback's Orange Tufts]

Like I said with the helicopter. Even going by what you say about it still keeping the same speed as the earth on take off, it would still create a friction against the atmosphere because it's legs are not on a solid ground so logically it's sensible to assume that the atmosphere is not going to keep pushing it at the same speed as a solid ground.

As for air pressure and top and bottom, it's just what we percieve as top and bottom with our senses. Think of everything on earth as a push. Everything is pushing and it all starts from super dense solids creating massive friction/vibration that agitates everything and expanding it to push up which includes the water and air above us, but it all falls into place back onto the crust of the earth or anything (including us) on it.

It's a case of low and high pressure caused by expanding molecules that are all bonded. Nothing is free or loose. It's all connected from top to bottom.
Think of it like a build up of soap bubbles creating a dome effect as it grows where you see smaller dnser bubbles and more expanded bubbles as it grows.
The more it does this, the more pressure that's created on anything under it.

The Atmosphere is NOT pushing it left or right! Both the atmosphere and the helicopter are all in circular orbits, so are stationary with respect to another. Of course individual air particles bang into the helicopter all the time, but on average they have no net momentum laterally.

There's no frictional effect left or right because there is no net movement. Averages man, averages.

Cal/Mods. Can I do wikipedia style Latex coding on here for equations

[wolf_the_mag]

Well keep on saying what doesn't make sense to you, and then maybe we can explain it/be perplexed if we genuinely don't understand it either. Also I don't think it is fair to compare science and religion. Science is not about faith. Science is about the rigorous testing of phenomena. The round world is not a theory, it's a scientific fact (i.e. well above 99% chance of being accurate). We have theories about stuff we can't explain, like black holes or bits of complex quantum and stuff I am ill-qualified to talk about (A* and A at GCSE only over here!). Without wanting to come across as patronising or rude, just because you don't understand something, it doesn't mean other people don't understand it better than you, or couldn't explain to you why such-and-such-a-thing makes perfect sense.

I understand where you're coming from and like I said, it's simply just my thoughts, which could be wrong, I admit that.
The trouble is, I question everything and if it doesn't make sense in some things, I have to question more things nd so on.
You mention black holes and the theories about them but nobody knows what a black hole is. It's a made up set of words like special relativity and space time fabric and a whole host of other stuff that sound great and all complicated and scientific, yet are just given out by people who are put forward to sell it, like Einstein and all the rest.

I think most of us know that we are lied to, even if people only think it's a small proportion. If they lie to you on one thing, it makes you question other stuff and so on.
Naturally you stick rigid to your beliefs and have studied certain stuff, so you probably feel that everything you study is legitimate, which is fair enough.

I don't want to tell anyone that I'm right and they're wrong. I'm basically giving my thoughts out for people to view and if they don't see anything in them that makes them question stuff, then no problem.

[wolf_the_mag]

What are stars, where did they come from and how do they create the energy to give off light. Also why and how do they move in predictable patterns and relative to each other?

Stars are just reflections off of the dome from the sun which is in the centre of the earth. This is what I believe it to be. It doesn't mean I'm correct, so we will say that this is my hypothesis.
We only know what we are told about the Earth. All most of us ever do is take a plane from one piece of land to another so we can be fed anything and look at pictures, video, writings, schooled at various institutes and all the rest of it, which most of us happily go along with, because, well, why not?
I'm simply a person who questions it all and looks for ways to figure out what is potentially true and what is masked from us.
I suppose that sigles me out as a tin foil hat loony to many, because we aren't conditioned to accept anyone who goes against the grain.
People accept that stars are thousands of light years away because scientists tell them this. If you think about it, it needs to be questioned but it's simply accepted because scientists use stuff like redshift and what not to make people accept it.
Trust your own eyes and trust how primitive your own eyes are and it should tell you that what is up in that sky, is not hundreds/thousands/millions of light years away, they are very close and are not very big.

[wolf_the_mag]

Would it be fair to characterise it hence:

You know there are things that scientists claim are evidence for it. You don't disagree with the science and/or logic stemming from the observations, you think the observations are made up/mis-measured?

Space science in the main is what I'm questioning, plus certain Earth science as in gravity and what not. Science as a whole that we use in every day life, I can accept a large proportion of it.
Most scientists are brilliant people and a re genius in their own right. Astronomers look into the sky and can map out the lights they see and believe them to be what they are told they are. I mean, after all, all they're looking through is a looking glass, a magnifying glass, that's all.
E= MC2 for instance. Ok it means , in a nutshell, energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. Make sense?
Of course it does, because people are conditioned to accept it makes sense, because basically it's telling is that we can get more energy out of something than we put in and it's wrong, because we can't, except in Pinocchio science. (Just my opinion.)
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is the true thing on Earth and it's what is keeping everything alive. Without this simple action and reaction in equal terms, nothing works.

What mainstream science does with this type of stuff, is they amaze you with the theories of it all and then baffle the hell out of you with the bull s*** equations behind it all.
Any person studying this stuff will naturally jump on my back and tell me I'm nuts or wrong. I have no problem with that, because I'm going against everything they've spent a large proportion of their time studying, so all I will say is, I'm not intentionally out to diss what you've learned, it's just that I have a strong mind about this stuff in terms of not accepting a lot of the outlandish theories.

[Colback's Orange Tufts]

Engage Particle Physicist mode!

It's a made up set of words like special relativity and space time fabric

Relativity isn't just made up words . It's a large theory, with intricate and well defined mathematical structure, extensively tested. We've tested the speed of light and it IS constant, we've looked at the starts to see it.

You can reduce any theory to 'a bunch of made up words', but that doens't mean it's false. The theory of how cameras work is just madeup words, maths and testing by experiment. But it works and we know this because we've all seen pictures/tv.

nobody knows what a black hole is

We do actually, even a cursory wiki search would give you something like ~mass so densely packed by gravity that even light can't escape. There's this guy called Hawkins, he and his mate have written alot about them. We have a formula that dictates how they are formed, how things act around them and what they give off.
What you might be referring to is that inside the event horizon we aren't exactly sure how to mathematically model it, but that is not the same as saying we don't know what one is

Also Black holes are firstly due to general relativity, not special

Finally

Naturally you stick rigid to your beliefs and have studied certain stuff,

That's what you are doing, when confronted with logic and scientific observations you either go 1) it's a lie 2) it's just made up terms. You've studied some physics and will accept it (pressure stuff) based on the evidence gathered for it. But the same chain you won't accept for gravity. I mean if we flip it and I ask you to show me the evidence for the physics you've quoted, would it pass your tests of "well that's just a made up word"?

[Colback's Orange Tufts]

E= MC2 for instance. Ok it means , in a nutshell, energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. Make sense?
Of course it does, because people are conditioned to accept it makes sense, because basically it's telling is that we can get more energy out of something than we put in and it's wrong, because we can't, except in Pinocchio science. (Just my opinion.)

Nope. It does definitely not say we can get energy out of nothing. It says we can move energy from one stored type (mass) to another less confined type energy.
An atom has a set amount of energy, some in it's internal movement, some stored as mass to hold it together. We can split the atom, we don't need to hold it together any-more so some of the stored energy is released. But the whole system has the same amount before as after, just stored differently.
Like in a car, we convert chemical energy in petrol to kinetic energy in the engine.

If you reject E=mc^2 how do you explain the nuclear bomb, nuclear power, radioactivity and the like?

[wolf_the_mag]

At work so can't be arsed to read through all the posts so if this has been mentioned I apologise.

You mention that you believe gravity to be air pressure. If that was the case, how do you suppose that planets and stars are suspended within this dome? Drop a ball it falls to the floor, so why aren't all the planets and stars at a singular point essentially creating a giant ball dome?

I believe they are reflections of light from the centre of Earth. What we see as the sun, is the light bulb of the earth. It creates everything and also reflects into the sky which the dome reflects back to us.
Think of it like one of those lamps that reflect dots of light onto the ceiling as it rotates.
The earth is like a massive saucer with a dome. we are tiny organisms inside a cell. It's sort of cells within cells within cells, etc, etc, etc.
The Earth works by vibration/frequency which creates what we see s energy. The sun is a dense hydrogen gobbling frition machine in the centre of Earth.
Nothing gets wasted, it simply takes on a more or less dense form as time goes on.

[Colback's Orange Tufts]

In your hypothetical dome model, with the sun in the centre, how does night/day cycle work across the world?

[wolf_the_mag]

Like I said with the helicopter. Even going by what you say about it still keeping the same speed as the earth on take off, it would still create a friction against the atmosphere because it's legs are not on a solid ground so logically it's sensible to assume that the atmosphere is not going to keep pushing it at the same speed as a solid ground.

As for air pressure and top and bottom, it's just what we percieve as top and bottom with our senses. Think of everything on earth as a push. Everything is pushing and it all starts from super dense solids creating massive friction/vibration that agitates everything and expanding it to push up which includes the water and air above us, but it all falls into place back onto the crust of the earth or anything (including us) on it.

It's a case of low and high pressure caused by expanding molecules that are all bonded. Nothing is free or loose. It's all connected from top to bottom.
Think of it like a build up of soap bubbles creating a dome effect as it grows where you see smaller dnser bubbles and more expanded bubbles as it grows.
The more it does this, the more pressure that's created on anything under it.

The Atmosphere is NOT pushing it left or right! Both the atmosphere and the helicopter are all in circular orbits, so are stationary with respect to another. Of course individual air particles bang into the helicopter all the time, but on average they have no net momentum laterally.

There's no frictional effect left or right because there is no net movement. Averages man, averages.

Cal/Mods. Can I do wikipedia style Latex coding on here for equations

Ok, think about this:
They tell us the earth is rotating at over 1000 mph and we are asked to believe that it somehow picks up the atmosphere from the ground, all the way up into the sky and drags it around the earth at the same speed.
Now as this is happening from west to east, it's still possible for wind to blow in all directions.
Does anyone not find this strange?

[Colback's Orange Tufts]

Ok, think about this:
They tell us the earth is rotating at over 1000 mph and we are asked to believe that it somehow picks up the atmosphere from the ground, all the way up into the sky and drags it around the earth at the same speed.
Now as this is happening from west to east, it's still possible for wind to blow in all directions.
Does anyone not find this strange?

They tell us that. Who is they? Cos that's not how science explains it AT ALL!
The atmosphere is rotating at the same speed at the earth, but NOT because the earth is dragging it!

The particles in the atmosphere are attracted to the centre of earth by gravity. But they travel at a right angle to it. The gravitational force bends their paths into a circle, so they remain in a circular orbit. But they aren't being dragged by the earth, they have their own speed independently.

This of course refers to their average. But local changes to the speed are allowed (but it averages out to zero). Wind it such a change, but even if the wind is opposite to the spin of the earth it's a small effect. They are still travelling net in the spin direction.

A key principle of mechanics is that you can model a large body of individual objects (ie air), by a point particle at the centre of mass with the average momentum/speed of them all