A question for flat earth people

[A_Thinker]

what about this one ?

Regarding the video, the fact that you have to introduce opposing force (i.e. bouyancy) to counter the force of gravity ... demonstrates that there is a force of gravity.

We oppose the force of gravity in any number of processes. The compression strength of a wooden chair opposes the force of gravity when we sit. The propulsive force of a rocket will enable it to rise away from the earth despite the force of gravity. If we throw a ball up away from the earth, it will travel away from the earth at an ever decreasing speed until it finally stops and begins to fall toward the earth until it comes to the surface of the earth.

All of this is due to the force of gravity. We adapt to and attempt to circumvent the effects of gravity at all points in our existence on the earth.

 

[Oldmantook]

The Van Allen radiation belts are indeed a serious hazard to any astronaut spending an extended time within them. All the earth orbit manned missions' including the international space station are well below this radiation hazard. However, the manned missions to the moon had to transit the VA belts both outbound and inbound. A lethal radiation dosage is 300 Rad in one hour. At the time of these missions the VA belts had been well mapped out in terms of radiation intensities. The Apollo mission's average speed through the belts was about 25,000 km/hr for a transit time of about 53 min each both outbound and inbound. Each transit would have resulted in crew members receiving about 12 Rads of radiation. So each astronaut on each complete Mission would have received about 24 Rads or about 8% of a lethal dose. Is there a risk? Yes, but it was a calculated risk. All such voyages of exploration were calculated risks. Some never came back. Lief Erikson, Christopher Columbus and Ferdinand Magellan did. Well, Magellan died in the last leg of the journey home, but his crew did make it back with his records. They were all calculated risks. That is how human progress takes place. The risks may vary but they are all risks.

In an earlier post I pointed out that the lighter more volatile gases, like He and H2, have boiled off the earths atmosphere. With a much weaker gravity all gases have boiled off the Moon and all but the heaviest gases, like CO2 and N, have boiled off of Mars.

The problem is you put your trust in NASA (NEVER A STRAIGHT ANSWER) which has occultic roots via Jack Parsons. How would the astronauts have been protected at all if the only shielding against radiation is lead or gold - both of which are prohibitive due to their excessive weight? The icing on the cake is that NASA strangely admits that they still have to solve this problem before they put people into space. Huh? I thought NASA told us they already put men on the moon?? You may want to refer to a Youtube video where a NASA engineer admits this - just search Youtube for "Nasa engineer admits they can't get past the Van Allen Belts."

Why doesn't the [remaining] atmosphere escape the supposed gravitational pull? The vacuum of space is still much stronger than gravity.

 

[JackRT]

Why doesn't the [remaining] atmosphere escape the supposed gravitational pull? The vacuum of space is still much stronger than gravity.

You speak as though a vacuum has a pull. What we are looking at here is if a molecule of gas has enough energy (velocity) to escape the gravitational pull. There is a constant low level leakage. In the earth's case there is also replacement occurring as well through evaporation and volcanism. Over a long enough period of time the Earth will lose much of its atmosphere. The universe is very patient.

 

[A_Thinker]

Why doesn't the [remaining] atmosphere escape the supposed gravitational pull? The vacuum of space is still much stronger than gravity.

The gravitational force of the Earth is enough to keep the molecules of the gasses that make up our atmosphere from reaching escape velocity necessary to escape Earth.

 

[Oldmantook]

You speak as though a vacuum has a pull. What we are looking at here is if a molecule of gas has enough energy (velocity) to escape the gravitational pull. There is a constant low level leakage. In the earth's case there is also replacement occurring as well through evaporation and volcanism. Over a long enough period of time the Earth will lose much of its atmosphere. The universe is very patient.

Where is the evidence for "constant low level leakage?" Where is the evidence for "replacement occurring?" When one postulates a theory, one is required to provide the evidence for support. Compared to the great vastness of the universe with the relative minuscule size of the earth and its atmosphere, it is quite unlikely that the gravity of the earth overcomes the vacuum of outer space. Moreover, helium, hydrogen and fluorocarbons already defy gravity. The universe is not God. No where in all of Scripture is the earth described according to the heliocentric model. Instead the earth is described according to the geocentric model.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

One need not understand the cause of a particular phenomenon to observe it's effects.

For example, one need not understand the physics of fire to cook breakfast.

I never assumed otherwise. I'm well aware of the nature of gravity. I just don't want to see anyone make an established fact out of something not fully explored.

 

[JackRT]

Where is the evidence for "constant low level leakage?" Where is the evidence for "replacement occurring?" When one postulates a theory, one is required to provide the evidence for support. Compared to the great vastness of the universe with the relative minuscule size of the earth and its atmosphere, it is quite unlikely that the gravity of the earth overcomes the vacuum of outer space. Moreover, helium, hydrogen and fluorocarbons already defy gravity. The universe is not God. No where in all of Scripture is the earth described according to the heliocentric model. Instead the earth is described according to the geocentric model.

It would seem that your knowledge of physics and the Bible are both lacking. Biblical cosmology is only geocentric in the sense that the earth is the centre of a three tiered universe --- flat with a dome overhead.

 

[Oldmantook]

The gravitational force of the Earth is enough to keep the molecules of the gasses that make up our atmosphere from reaching escape velocity necessary to escape Earth.

One is forced to presume that there is such a thing as escape velocity. Gravity is nothing more than air resistance. If gravity exists, why do smoke molecules rise? Objects which are denser than air fall and vice-versa. In order to presume in the existence of "outer space," one is forced to deny the existence of the solid firmament over the earth in which the sun, moon and stars are placed as described in Genesis.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

It is amazing how everyone takes for granted the things they can not see but scoff at people who do believe in other things that they can not see. Christians experience proofs of their faith, just like those who believe in walky-talkies and radiowaves.

Fred Allen, once a popular radio personality, once remarked about the advent of a new invention called radio. There was a small mid-western town where the local grocery store had the only radio in town, and one of the locals kept insisting that the radio was a sham. He couldn't believe that invisible waves were traveling through the air and turning into sound inside the device. He insisted that, however it worked, the broadcast came prerecorded inside the device. "Nothing can come out of that machine that wasn't in there to begin with!" were his words, I think.

 

[Oldmantook]

It would seem that your knowledge of physics and the Bible are both lacking. Biblical cosmology is only geocentric in the sense that the earth is the centre of a three tiered universe --- flat with a dome overhead.

Certainly my knowledge of physics is lacking as I do not presume to be an expert in matters of science. However, I graduated with honors from seminary so I would say that my knowledge and understanding of Scripture is not lacking though of course I don't understand everything. You neglected to mention that besides being a flat circle enclosed in the firmament, the Bible describes the earth as fixed and immovable above which the sun/moon which are also in the firmament, make their circuits. Are you able to offer any scriptures that indicate otherwise?

 

[A_Thinker]

Compared to the great vastness of the universe with the relative minuscule size of the earth and its atmosphere, it is quite unlikely that the gravity of the earth overcomes the vacuum of outer space.

The Earth is a localized system which maintains itself in the vastness of the universe. Sort of like a home in a neighborhood. The Earth is large enough to hold it's own atmosphere, similar to.Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, and Uranus. The other plants of the Solar System are too small to hold an atmosphere (i.e. their gravity is too weak).

That the Earth can hold an atmosphere appropriate for life is one of many features which makes it special in the universe.

P.S. I've read through the scriptures a couple times ... and I don't recall any cosmological constructs being offered. The Bible speaks of the Earth as the place God has given us for our home. The sun, moon, and stars are mentioned, but only as they benefit and affect life on Earth.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

You speak as though a vacuum has a pull.

Quite right. The "pull" of a vacuum is really the push of the atmospheric pressure. That pressure is the result of the weight of the atmosphere above it. Therefore, with increasing altitude, the atmospheric pressure decreases, and the apparent "pull" of a vacuum decreases, until one reaches the top of the atmosphere, where a vacuum has no apparent pull at all. The only thing driving air away from the Earth at the top of the atmosphere is molecular motion, which is essentially heat, which is why, as you say, the lighter gasses boil off into space from the effect of the sun.

 

[JackRT]

Quite right. The "pull" of a vacuum is really the push of the atmospheric pressure. That pressure is the result of the weight of the atmosphere above it. Therefore, with increasing altitude, the atmospheric pressure decreases, and the apparent "pull" of a vacuum decreases, until one reaches the top of the atmosphere, where a vacuum has no apparent pull at all. The only thing driving air away from the Earth at the top of the atmosphere is molecular motion, which is essentially heat, which is why, as you say, the lighter gasses boil off into space from the effect of the sun.

You said it better than I did. Thank you.

 

[JacksBratt]

If you jump up off the ground you are temporarily able to overcome gravity in a limited way, or, put in another way gravity isn’t so strong that it doesn’t allow some movement. The force of air moving from an area of high pressure to one of low pressure (one example of wind) is strong enough that it can act within the pull of gravity, in the same way that you can jump briefly above the earth.

If the air will move from an area of high pressure to one of lower pressure.. why does it not, then, move from one of high pressure, anywhere in our atmosphere, (not to mention...in the upper atmosphere where even men are almost weightless), to the area of low pressure, well in reality an area of NO pressure, in space?

Like the poster who questioned why the atmosphere doesn't just get sucked out into the dark void.... would this not be quite a wind storm?

The difference in high pressure to low pressure, on earth, that creates wind and rain and bright sunny days.... is a lot less of a difference than that of our atmosphere... and the void of space.

Is it not?

I don't think you have come close to solving this query.

 

[Oldmantook]

The Earth is a localized system which maintains itself in the vastness of the universe. Sort of like a home in a neighborhood. The Earth is large enough to hold it's own atmosphere, similar to.Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, and Uranus. The other plants of the Solar System are too small to hold an atmosphere (i.e. their gravity is too weak).

That the Earth can hold an atmosphere appropriate for life is one of many features which makes it special in the universe.

P.S. I've read through the scriptures a couple times ... and I don't recall any cosmological constructs being offered. The Bible speaks of the Earth as the place God has given us for our home. The sun, moon, and stars are mentioned, but only as they benefit and affect life on Earth.

I agree with you that the earth is a localized system. However, the earth is a localized system only because it is covered by the firmament referenced in Gen 1:6-8. Thus we have a dilemma. Is our enclosed system enclosed by a solid firmament/dome as the Word of God states or is our enclosed system enclosed by the boundaries of outer space as science states?

 

[JacksBratt]

You speak as though a vacuum has a pull.

Mine does... well, not sometimes and I have to bend over to pick up the un popped pop corn colonel. But......it sure sucks... er.. pulls.

 

[JacksBratt]

The gravitational force of the Earth is enough to keep the molecules of the gasses that make up our atmosphere from reaching escape velocity necessary to escape Earth.

Hmmmm, really? I mean seriously, a butterfly... a bird...a house fly... a bumble bee...even a grass hopper... can create enough "escape velocity" when they are right here on the surface with full gravitational forces....
How, then, does a He2 molecule.. that just floated up there, against the pull of gravity.... get held there at the far reaches of our atmosphere... by that weaker gravity... in competition to the very high pressure difference of space, a vacuum, and our atmosphere?

 

[JacksBratt]

Where is the evidence for "constant low level leakage?" Where is the evidence for "replacement occurring?" When one postulates a theory, one is required to provide the evidence for support. Compared to the great vastness of the universe with the relative minuscule size of the earth and its atmosphere, it is quite unlikely that the gravity of the earth overcomes the vacuum of outer space. Moreover, helium, hydrogen and fluorocarbons already defy gravity. The universe is not God. No where in all of Scripture is the earth described according to the heliocentric model. Instead the earth is described according to the geocentric model.

It's scientific babble.... they have to say something so that all the sheeple can go "oh, ya, I guess that must be it... he's smart, he has messy hair and wears a tie with his white lab coat."

Nobody thinks anymore. Nobody tests things anymore. We have grown up in a society where you listen to the teacher..... store what they told you in your head, on paper, on your laptop... regurgitate it on the exam.. and get letters after your name.

 

[A_Thinker]

I agree with you that the earth is a localized system. However, the earth is a localized system only because it is covered by the firmament referenced in Gen 1:6-8. Thus we have a dilemma. Is our enclosed system enclosed by a solid firmament/dome as the Word of God states or is our enclosed system enclosed by the boundaries of outer space as science states?

The Bible doesn't say that the earth is COVERED/ENCLOSED by the firmament.

The Bible says that the firmament separates the waters of the Earth from the waters of the heavens. This scripture describes the separation between the waters of the Earth (i.e. oceans, seas, rivers, lakes, etc.) ... and the waters of the heavens (i.e. the clouds).

Genesis 1

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

 

[JacksBratt]

One need not understand the cause of a particular phenomenon to observe it's effects.

For example, one need not understand the physics of fire to cook breakfast.

That doesn't give you the excuse to say we need fire in order to have breakfast.

Here's a force that I bet you don't know anything about.. it's source... it's purpose... what it causes.. what it impedes from happening..

Take a gold ring...
Get a hair from someone with long hair.
Feed the hair through the ring.
Grab each end of the hair with the ring suspended in the middle.
Now, bring the ends of the hair together while the ring is suspended below, in a loop.
Get a female (this may also work with males IDK) to lay on her back.
Hold the suspended ring about an inch above the belly of the women. This works very well if they are a pregnant woman too.
Hold you hand a still as you possibly can.
Watch as the ring begins to either pendulum back and forth, on it's own, or move in an ever increasingly bigger circle....Keep watch as it increases in speed and diameter or amplitude, if it's like a pendulum.

What is this force? How do we measure it? What causes it?

How come it can be used to determine the sex of the unborn children that the mother will have?

This, by the way, was used to "sex" eggs on my mothers farm when she was a girl. The ones deemed to be roosters... were breakfast.. the ones deemed to be hens... were either layers... or meat birds....

The accuracy is uncanny.