Let's Talk FE
(imgur.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (91)
sorted by:
The material strength of the napkin in crumpled form is greater than the force of gravity. Same reason we don't pancake against the ground
Air has mass and exerts force. Smoke in a vaccume would indeed fall to the ground, but in the natural atmosphere, sufficieny light particles get carried by air currents. In the case of fire, the hotter and less dense air travels upward, carrying the smoke along with it while the cooler air fills in the space below.
Speed is relative. If you've ever travelled on a plane or train, you'd know that you can be travelling 100s of miles per hour without feeling anything. The air inside the cabin/train car has accelerated to the same speed as the vehicle and you, so there is no wind knocking you down.
The atmosphere is the same. Through influence from the spinning earth, the air has accelerated to be in equibrium with the earth, give or take based on weather patterns. Recall above that smoke is carried by the air.
Even in a vaccume, if one observed an object get launched from earth into the sky (for instance, a stomp rocket), the initial forces on the object pre-launch bring the object in equibrium with the earth's rotation, bringing the object to a seemingly standstill to an observer also standing on earth. At launch, the only additional forces on the object are those exerted by the launcher pointing away from earth, so as the object leaves earth, it still stays relatively inline with the ground because no forces have been exerted to counter the object's sideways motion.
I am genuinely curious, if not gravity, what to you call the force that pulls a ball to the ground when you let go of it, or keeps you from falling into the sky when you jump?
Gravity is strong enough to hold trillions of gallons of water snug against a violently spinning globe but the napkin overpowers it
Amazing. Amazing that you believe this.
Do you know what cognitive dissonance is?
“What pulls things to the ground then?”
HAVE YOU HEARD OF DENSITY BEFORE
AND FUCKING INERTIA?! IS IT INERTIA CARRYING THE BIRD ALONG WITH THE VIOLENTLY SPINNING EARTH AS THE BIRD FLOATS TO AND FRO, CHANGING DIRECTION AS THEY PLEASE
THATS NOT INERTIA
Very interesting. This seems like a plausible explanation if not for 1 thing: airless chambers.
Should density explain the gravity-like forces in our world, then objects in an airless chamber should float. They don't.
Everything I’ve observed during my lifetime contradicts what I’m told about gravity and how it functions
People who don’t understand inertia and their observable surroundings attempt to use inertia as the reason hot air balloons and birds don’t see the ground violently spinning below them
It’s near the bottom but consult the image in the link with the hot air balloon, airplane, and clouds
It’s not a picture it’s a concept; no fakery possible like the smoke stack picture
" material strength of the napkin in crumpled form is greater than the force of gravity "
"... is greater than the force of DENSITY " - corrected
" sufficieny light particles get carried by air currents " - this is, again, density and buoyancy. Not only is it not gravity, when we try to apply the theory of gravity to what we are observing, it doesn't make sense
" what to you call the force that pulls a ball to the ground when you let go of it, or keeps you from falling into the sky when you jump"
LITERALLY DENSITY
The answer, is weight!
Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter, and in no way imbued by fictional "fields" that do not in any way exist (nor can they in any way be measured).
This explanation flies in the face of Newton's Laws, so I suspect you think those are fake as well.
Taking for granted that weight is a constant, does everything fall to earth at the same rate in a vaccume? If so, how much does the earth weigh, and why doesn't fall beneath our feet? Is there an infinite ground below us? Or some sort of bedrock like in Minecraft? If that's the case, how is it possible for one to traverse all continents and end up in the exact same place by heading in a single direction long enough?
An airplane can circle around the flat earth in a circle and appear to the compass as always facing in one direction
As for your questions about how much does the earth weigh and what’s below the earth, how could one possibly know this?
Answered your question re circumnavigation so answer mine:
Why has NO ONE EVER circumnavigated the earth North/South?
Not sure if anyone has or not, but you totally can. There are flights you can book yourself that will take you over the north or south pole. Book a series of flights that creates a ring around the world, traversing both poles, and voila.
Not really, newton is just very badly misunderstood (due to intentional miseducation to make him an idol). Gravitation is not newton's idea, and he specifically asked that his name not be associated with it because of how stupid and philosophically unsound it was. You can read about it in his own pen if you wish.
Well, it is and it isn't. It is constant (or at least primarily constant in stable substances/atomic structures) in regards to intrinsic weight (weight without buoyant force), and varying in effective weight (weight with buoyant force factored in).
Excellent question, and a splendid place to begin.
Firstly, it is worth understanding that a vacuum is not an attainable thing in reality. You cannot devoid any area in existence of all matter - it cannot be done, even theoretically. Nature abhors a vacuum. So we are discussing partial vacuums only (i.e. chambers that still have, at least, gas filling them)
In partial vacuums, archimedes law (and drag) still applies. The answer to your question, is NO. Only things that are the exact same density and shape could possibly fall exactly the same way (probably for TOTAL exact, you'd need the volume to match too...) Of course, functionally the difference is so slight that our "rule of thumb" is typically adequate for use.
No one has any idea how much the world weighs, obviously.
Ah, the famous "out of phase" paradox. What keeps them from just falling through the floor now that they are "out of phase"?!
In science we try and explain phenomenon that ARE, not that you think OUGHT to be. Leave the scifi fanboy snark for hassling capt kirk (i.e. nitpicking fiction).
We don't imagine phenomenon that aren't and then contrive fiction for why it ISN'T (not in f*ing science anyway).
The world doesn't fall beneath our feet. So we have no need to explain why it should. Does this make sense to you?
All of the matter is stacked on all the other matter. What is at the bottom you ask? Why it is turtles, all the way down - naturally. When you ask stupid questions, get ready for stupid answers!
No one knows. The deepest we have ever drilled is around 8 miles. We haven't the foggiest what is down there, and anyone who says otherwise is deluded or lying.
Technically/pedantically, it isn't. Essentially no one can go in a single direction for an entire trip (even around their house, let alone the entire f*ing world). It isn't possible, and it isn't verifiable/validateable because of the challenges of motion through the world.
Now let's actually address your question in earnest. Circumnavigation is a large circle over a large plane (possibly bowl or other shape, but essentially certainly not spherical). You pass over the continents when they are beneath you, and you end up where you started when you complete the circle. No, you cannot fly over the south pole in order to get to the north one on the other side. In fact, there may be no (singular) south pole at all.
Ama!
Everyone in this thread is lost in minutia. Which is exactly how thread based conversations are designed to 'work'. It is how misinformation is created. It is why 'debate' is pushed on thread based forums, when in reality, debates can only take place in person. There is a reason the older format of forums disappeared, and that reason is the endorphin feedback loop.
Simply taking part in this thread, we are unknowingly taking part in misinformation.
Okay CNN
You've intentionally misquoted me, and ignored everything else I said that did not support the narrative you yourself wish to portray.
.