Moon Landing/Flat Earth Discussion

[braingrunt]

I'm speaking metaphorically when I say things like, "yes you've jumped but not far enough".
I will try to eliminate such tactics from further conversations because they are unnecessary.

Anyway, you can't have it both ways. You cannot claim that planes, which are specifically designed to separate themselves from the momentum of the earth, so that they are no longer subject to its requirements and restrictions, THEN turn around and say, oh, but MOMENTUM DOES APPLY to them anyway, even though the entire purpose and design of the plane is to overcome those hindrances.

I don't think that planes are at all designed to free themselves from the momentum of the earth.

They are designed to swim in air.

To put it simply if air is moving it's also going to move the plane unless the plane specifically resists.

Do we agree on that?

[braingrunt]

You even disclosed that you are aware of this problem, when you said that momentum was directional. We have been told the Earth rotates 1,000 mph at the equator. This number diminishes ( as if it ever existed in the first place ) to near zero at the presumed "North Pole".

Correct. Is there a problem with this in your mind?

So, since in your theory this momentum does impact the motion of everything else, ( the velcro effect ), and since it is directional, then it impedes motion in one direction and accelerates it in the other.

Velcro effect is not a great description. Air is moving just like the earth and doesn't want to stop moving with the earth; just as with everything else, moving things keep moving unless something stops them.

I think the wording you are using is not quite right but so far the rough idea is maybe ok.

You can't have it both ways , gents and ladies, ladies and gents. If momentum accelerates you at roughly the speed of the earth in one direction then it also slows you down when you go the other direction. AND ALL, repeat, ALL, meaning each and every one of the airplane flights on THIS EARTH, take almost exactly the same amount of time to execute, whether they go east-west or whether they go west-east. It takes the SAME TIME to fly to Munich or Madrid as it does to fly back.

The motion of the air matches the motion of the earth, naturally. That's it's most restful state. So if you are in the air, and it's moving east at 15 deg per hour, or 1000 mph if you like, then as you swim through the air, it's going to keep you over the same spot of ground. If you want to travel east through the air and over the ground at 400 mph then great, add more eastward speed. If you then want to turn north and land, do it. If you turn, the speed you are adding will change from eastward to northward, and the air will continue to carry you eastward at the right speed to match the ground because you've stopped swimming with or against that motion. Your own momentum will fully cooperate with continuing to go eastward at that correct speed because you only bled off enough of your eastward momentum to turn north, not more, not less.
If you want to go west, then subtract enough eastward speed that you can progress relative to the ground and air. It's no easier or harder than adding some eastward speed to go east compared to the ground.

Can you agree that swimming in a swimming pool on a moving cruise ship is an analogous scenario? The motion of the water matching the motion of the ship is not going to not mean beans to you as you navigate that pool.

NO WAY in this good universe can anyone demonstrate the motion of the earth. They can assume it. They can declare it. They can pretend it's a thing. They can point to phony NASA footage pretending they are not using CGI. Don't matter. The earth remains stationary, just like all our senses which God gave us show.

I think this is false but don't want to move past the momentum discussion yet.

[cmichael]

I'm speaking metaphorically when I say things like, "yes you've jumped but not far enough".
I will try to eliminate such tactics from further conversations because they are unnecessary.

Anyway, you can't have it both ways. You cannot claim that planes, which are specifically designed to separate themselves from the momentum of the earth, so that they are no longer subject to its requirements and restrictions, THEN turn around and say, oh, but MOMENTUM DOES APPLY to them anyway, even though the entire purpose and design of the plane is to overcome those hindrances.

I don't think that planes are at all designed to free themselves from the momentum of the earth.

They are designed to swim in air.

To put it simply if air is moving it's also going to move the plane unless the plane specifically resists.

Do we agree on that?

NOPE. Planes are designed to be independent of the earth. Period. But you're right in the sense that they are not designed to be independent of the momentum of the earth, since there is no such momentum. But if there were, they would become independent of it.

[cmichael]

You even disclosed that you are aware of this problem, when you said that momentum was directional. We have been told the Earth rotates 1,000 mph at the equator. This number diminishes ( as if it ever existed in the first place ) to near zero at the presumed "North Pole".

Correct. Is there a problem with this in your mind?

So, since in your theory this momentum does impact the motion of everything else, ( the velcro effect ), and since it is directional, then it impedes motion in one direction and accelerates it in the other.

Velcro effect is not a great description. Air is moving just like the earth and doesn't want to stop moving with the earth; just as with everything else, moving things keep moving unless something stops them.

I think the wording you are using is not quite right but so far the rough idea is maybe ok.

You can't have it both ways , gents and ladies, ladies and gents. If momentum accelerates you at roughly the speed of the earth in one direction then it also slows you down when you go the other direction. AND ALL, repeat, ALL, meaning each and every one of the airplane flights on THIS EARTH, take almost exactly the same amount of time to execute, whether they go east-west or whether they go west-east. It takes the SAME TIME to fly to Munich or Madrid as it does to fly back.

The motion of the air matches the motion of the earth, naturally. That's it's most restful state. So if you are in the air, and it's moving east at 15 deg per hour, or 1000 mph if you like, then as you swim through the air, it's going to keep you over the same spot of ground. If you want to travel east through the air and over the ground at 400 mph then great, add more eastward speed. If you then want to turn north and land, do it. If you turn, the speed you are adding will change from eastward to northward, and the air will continue to carry you eastward at the right speed to match the ground because you've stopped swimming with or against that motion. Your own momentum will fully cooperate with continuing to go eastward at that correct speed because you only bled off enough of your eastward momentum to turn north, not more, not less.
If you want to go west, then subtract enough eastward speed that you can progress relative to the ground and air. It's no easier or harder than adding some eastward speed to go east compared to the ground.

Can you agree that swimming in a swimming pool on a moving cruise ship is an analogous scenario? The motion of the water matching the motion of the ship is not going to not mean beans to you as you navigate that pool.

NO WAY in this good universe can anyone demonstrate the motion of the earth. They can assume it. They can declare it. They can pretend it's a thing. They can point to phony NASA footage pretending they are not using CGI. Don't matter. The earth remains stationary, just like all our senses which God gave us show.

I think this is false but don't want to move past the momentum discussion yet.

I won't go into the details since it is unnecessary to the simple proposition.

Have you calculated how much energy it takes to move a pile of dirt? And then, to keep it moving independently?

We can move a plane full of people but it we don't get something for nothing. It takes energy.
We can move a dump truck full of dirt but the same conditions apply.
We CANNOT move the entire earth, without immense amounts of energy and if you see evidence that it's possible, please inform all those people who are in the excavation or dirt hauling business, maybe they can devise a way to get a reduction on their transportation costs.

[cmichael]

I think the discussion of momentum, derived from air, is completely flat out ridiculous.
For the origin of the momentum has never been adequately explained or demonstrated.

And I know of half a dozen proofs that there is no motion, the earth is stationary. That's what convinced me to convert over to 'the dark side'.

I don't care about the SHAPE of the earth. Irrelevant. I don't care about the education of my youth, or what I learned about Newton during my university calculus and physics courses.

It's what I've learned SINCE that I do care about.

[cmichael]

"Velcro effect is not a great description. Air is moving just like the earth and doesn't want to stop moving with the earth; just as with everything else, moving things keep moving unless something stops them."

Ummm, NO THEY DON'T. That's a lie that runs counter to everything we observe in real life. But it was a NECESSARY LIE taught by occultists to deceive your mind.

All moving things eventually stop. That much is obvious. And it takes energy to get them moving, and keep them moving. There must be an animating power.

[cmichael]

I think Velcro effect is not a good answer but it is a good description of the globalist belief system. That belief system, like the other big lie of our age, evolution, wants something for nothing. As a great intelligent design person said, "There ain't no free lunch". You don't get to pontificate about how this and that occurred, without regard to how it could possibly have begun to occur that way. That's skipping the foundation and going right to the building.

In other words, the great pseudo-scientific lies of our age have NO foundation. We had to notice it eventually.

I do not believe the earth spins, I know it doesn't according to several measures. Not the least of which is that everything we have ever observed, requires energy in order to move. The Newtonian perspective that setting an object in motion and it will stay in motion, is flat out nut-job crazy.
I set my body in motion the other day, for a long hike, expecting not to expend much energy on the way, so I didn't eat. MUCH TO MY SURPRISE - I soon grew famished and had to stop at the local Subway for a sandwich before resuming my endeavors.
Then, to really put Newton to the test, I set my car in motion. I figured I would save gas by just loading up with enough fuel to get me onto the freeway. Once I reached about 65 mph I just let 'er coast. But then, the stupid thing kept slowing down. HMMMMM. Curiouser and Curiouser.

[braingrunt]

...
It does seem that the only place the angular velocity of the atmosphere would be the same as the earth would be at sea level, and the higher we go the faster we would have to be moving in order to keep up with a spinning earth.
...

Yes air at higher elevation has to turn slightly faster, but
1)according to my calculations, the linear speed of air at 400km only has to be 65mph faster than air at the ground in order to match the angular velocity of the earth and the air beneath it
2)in our model there is nothing impeding it from doing so
3)if that motion exists (trying not to presuppose for your sake) it's momentum would encourage it to keep that little extra speed.

But I don't want to get too dogmatic here. I have to reiterate that I don't know how high the atmosphere matches the angular velocity of the earth "in the model". I also don't think it matters much. by 400 km it's already way too thin to do very much to you. According to science it only blows the space station out of it's orbit by tiny percentages which they've chosen to adjust for roughly monthly.

....
And that leads into my questions about re-entering the atmosphere while moving at the same angular velocity as the atmosphere would have catapulted you in the first place—what happens if you re-enter at a very slow-moving location, such as at one of the poles? Shouldn’t that alone cause huge problems? If not, why not?
....

I don't think this needs deep analysis and it's beyond me right now. What I can tell you for certain (in the model) is the following:

the momentum earth rotation imparts is very small compared to the amount of momentum a rocket builds up to obtain orbit. Still it's worth it to use it, so rockets tend to launch east to use the eastward momentum. If they want a westward orbit sad news you need a little extra fuel to burn off that momentum. They would rather not.

similar on reentry, the orbital momentum is a mountain to compared to a molehill of airspeed difference. I'm willing to shrug it off because I imagine a little manuevering will do the trick if needed, and I'm not a rocket scientist and I honestly don't think it's a major problem. Still if you want I can try to tease it out a little.

The other part was a question about our alleged revolution around the sun and if it is an elliptical orbit. If that is true, we would have some serious velocity changes which seemingly ought to create some notable sloshing in that moving “pool,” the oceans. Does the globe have an explanation for why we don’t observe that?

All motions besides day/night rotation are in a class called "freefall". a falling object can change speeds without disturbing any relationships between objects.

sun speeds up earth. sun speeds up water exactly the same. earth and water don't see any difference
sun slows down earth. sun slows down water exactly the same. They see no difference.
If they saw any difference then yes you could expect the water to slosh.

[braingrunt]

I'm speaking metaphorically when I say things like, "yes you've jumped but not far enough".
I will try to eliminate such tactics from further conversations because they are unnecessary.

Anyway, you can't have it both ways. You cannot claim that planes, which are specifically designed to separate themselves from the momentum of the earth, so that they are no longer subject to its requirements and restrictions, THEN turn around and say, oh, but MOMENTUM DOES APPLY to them anyway, even though the entire purpose and design of the plane is to overcome those hindrances.

I don't think that planes are at all designed to free themselves from the momentum of the earth.

They are designed to swim in air.

To put it simply if air is moving it's also going to move the plane unless the plane specifically resists.

Do we agree on that?

NOPE. Planes are designed to be independent of the earth. Period. But you're right in the sense that they are not designed to be independent of the momentum of the earth, since there is no such momentum. But if there were, they would become independent of it.

Can we agree that flight is a fluid dynamics problem? I think before you reject that proposition you should ask someone who makes planes.

Can we agree that a sidewind will move a plane sideways unless the plane resists?

[braingrunt]

"Velcro effect is not a great description. Air is moving just like the earth and doesn't want to stop moving with the earth; just as with everything else, moving things keep moving unless something stops them."

Ummm, NO THEY DON'T. That's a lie that runs counter to everything we observe in real life. But it was a NECESSARY LIE taught by occultists to deceive your mind.

All moving things eventually stop. That much is obvious. And it takes energy to get them moving, and keep them moving. There must be an animating power.

Can we agree that we always see a reason why things in motion stop moving?
Friction from the air or ground?

I'm just looking for any tiny thing we can agree on and see if that gives us a starting place to discuss.

[cmichael]

ROFL.

Newton is THAT addicting to you that you can't just open your eyes and observe?

You have to put your faith in the pseudo-intellectual ramblings of an OCCULT IDOL?

No, I don't believe in the fantastical assertions of the globe ballers, who have to invent invisible and unquantifiable ghost forces to explain things to me. I reject them as the ridiculous fantasies they are.

[cmichael]

"Can we agree that flight is a fluid dynamics problem? I think before you reject that proposition you should ask someone who makes planes.

Can we agree that a sidewind will move a plane sideways unless the plane resists?"

Yes, I should resort to the collective HIVE mind to hypnotize me into unconscious acceptance of everything they tell me and want me to believe.

OR _ I can choose to exercise the intelligence GOD gave me and find the truth instead.

[cmichael]

"Can we agree that a sidewind will move a plane sideways unless the plane resists?"

Nope, because that isn't so. Certainly not so to the degree necessary to enable a huge plane to navigate onto a runway positioned crosswise to my flight path spinning at 1,000 mph.

You don't realize how far you have to go down the crazy path to believe that? You want the free lunch option, the one that takes no effort and everything is provided for your convenient belief system?

I remember when I finally woke up to the nonsense, it wasn't easy for me either, but I'm grateful I made it.

[cmichael]

Do an experiment for me. Set up an experiment to transfer the earths' momentum, over the atmosphere, to a physical object. Let me know how that goes. The air as a 'momentum transfer device' with the earth providing the energy in the form of tapping into its momentum. That would be ground breaking if you could demonstrate that and show your degree of mastery. We could write it up in Popular Mechanics and such.

[cmichael]

In other words, the air is independent of the earth.

If you can also , in your next experiment, demonstrate this magic invisible glue that the earth uses to transfer energy and force with. That would be great.

[braingrunt]

"Can we agree that a sidewind will move a plane sideways unless the plane resists?"

Nope, because that isn't so. Certainly not so to the degree necessary to enable a huge plane to navigate onto a runway positioned crosswise to my flight path spinning at 1,000 mph.

You don't realize how far you have to go down the crazy path to believe that? You want the free lunch option, the one that takes no effort and everything is provided for your convenient belief system?

I remember when I finally woke up to the nonsense, it wasn't easy for me either, but I'm grateful I made it.

So do you really assert that sidewinds don't move planes sideways? I think we can work with that and show you evidence for it.
But I need to be done for today.

Please calm back down and if you can actually rebut "things in motion tend to stay in motion unless acted on by an outside force" then I want to hear them.

[cmichael]

I 'assert' the sidewinds are neglible and that they do NOT materially impact the 'momentum' of a plane moving 'sideways'. And even if they DID, they don't do it at 500 mph plus, which is what you are claiming.

Helicopters? Do they also receive this momentum of which you speak? Do they find it twice as easy to fly east as to fly west? Does it take more energy for planes, trains, helicopters, and ships to move WITH the earth, than against it?

Not only no, but blankety blankety NO. They use the same amount of energy and the same amount of fuel regardless which direction they go.

You've demonstrated ZERO curiousity about the other half dozens ways I know the earth is motionless. TYPICAL.

GLOBEBALLERS are so much in love with their worldview and so much condescending about Flat Earth, they typically display ZERO interest in expanding their perspective to the point where they could UNDERSTAND before JUDGING.

Ask me how I know, I've been at this long enough.

[cmichael]

Does it take more horsepower for any craft to move WITH the earths' so-called 'momentum' than OPPOSITE it? No.
Does it take more TIME for an craft to arrive at an eastward destination as it does to return home again? No.

Were these the only indicators that the rotation theory is a myth, then possibly we could live with that, but every rational indicator, using gyroscopes, and other experiments from people who really wanted to know for themselves, indicate that there is no rotation, no basis for rotation, no energy for rotation, no guidance systems for rotation, and in the end, NO ROTATION.
It's the nail in the coffin for the blatantly absurd rotation theory, which people only believe because they were taught it first thing when they entered the educational system and so when they are old, they will not depart from it.

But we should demand a refund on all the lies we were taught and the toll on society for believing those myths when we could have been making actual progress with the truth instead, all this time.

[braingrunt]

Sir I know literally almost everything there is to know about flat earth theory. I know what you say about michelson and morley and sagnac and pendulums and laser gyros and the north star, and probably everything else. How can I be curious about stuff I've already heard?

Right now I'm trying to focus on momentum and how it relates to planes or rockets. Tomorrow though.

[cmichael]

"So do you really assert that sidewinds don't move planes sideways? I think we can work with that and show you evidence for it."

Winds are one thing. They sometimes blow OPPOSITE to the rotation of the earth, and sometimes PERPENDICULAR to it. But in NO case do they serve as a transfer of the momentum of the rotation of the earth to solid objects. There ain't no MAGIC GLUE or VELCRO.

Your childlike faith in this aside, have you ever tried climbing up this column of air? I mean, that's what you are saying, is that the air is solid enough to retransmit force, so by my reckoning it should be solid enough to climb upon.
The only things that transmit mechanical force are NOT gases, they are SOLIDS. AIR is a GAS last time I checked but maybe the Newtonians have "discovered" brand new truths with which to beat us over the head into submission.

[Cruiserdude]

Another whole topic, verrry interesting:

Never ever heard of that....
That's awesome though! Wow

[cmichael]

Sir I know literally almost everything there is to know about flat earth theory. I know what you say about michelson and morley and sagnac and pendulums and laser gyros and the north star, and probably everything else. How can I be curious about stuff I've already heard?

Right now I'm trying to focus on momentum and how it relates to planes or rockets. Tomorrow though.

OK fine. But if you know all this, how is it you still object and then replace it with bogus theories of momentum transmission and zero energy propulsion systems strong enough to move objects that weigh trillions of tons?

[cmichael]

Another whole topic, verrry interesting:

Never ever heard of that....
That's awesome though! Wow

GOOD FIND! KUDOS

I had heard that they actually crashed airplanes into the dome when they were exploring down there. And then they spent a lot of time blowing up atomic bombs in the sky. Mark Sargent talked about that on his Flat Earth Clues series.

And then surmised that that was the reason for the Antarctic Treaty.

[cmichael]

"Please calm back down and if you can actually rebut "things in motion tend to stay in motion unless acted on by an outside force" then I want to hear them."

Too funny. You can rebut this yourself if you reflect on it long enough. I've already given you examples from the real world.

I don't know ANYTHING that tends to stay in motion without effort of some kind being applied. It takes great faith to believe otherwise, to place your trust in invisible and unmeasurable forces. I DO believe in God and His power, but I don't believe in cheap imitations and black magic stunts.

You might argue, that God set this motion and keeps it there. Alright, that's more plausible than that there was NOTHING at the foundation, but then, who is resorting to Deus Ex Machina style arguments?

Before we might say that God is setting this in motion, we might want to actually MEASURE that motion like we do everything else in scientific explorations, like temperature, width, height, length, ...virtually all the scientific units of measurement that we are accustomed to using as scientists instead of spiritualists.

I remember when I learned this Newtonian law of motion, they took great pains to make sure I believed it on an elementary level in elementary school. Yep, I bowed down to the authority who knew better than I did, that setting an object in motion would keep it there unless acted upon by an outside force. RIIIIIGGGHHHTTTT. And my name is Marshall Dillon.

That opposite is true. Things tend to stop unless energy is applied to them to keep them moving. Newton's laws are quite impractical for anything useful other than to brainwash generations of otherwise bright people into believing in the space program. All of this occult mumbo jumbo is for the purpose of 'getting gain.'

[larsenb]

I mean, an ice wall nobody can climb or traverse because the military is guarding it?? And the plain it represents could go on for ever?? A dome over the flat earth?? What constitutes the makeup of the dome, pray tell?? And if the flat earth goes on forever, you could then say that the dome projects outward forever.

Such incoherence! Etc., etc. etc.

Not sure why you think that is not the case. You are aware of the treaty, are you not?
And you've heard about the firmament, maybe?
And as any school child knows, a finite dome doesn't need to cover an infinite plane.

If you find that incoherent, that's your decision and choice.

And you could say that if the ice plane goes on forever, then how could you have a dome come down to meet it on it's edges. Completely incoherent.