Is Our Earth FLAT and Motionless, Not a Spinning Globe?

[Winston]

Ask him how fast the astronauts are going when they step outside the space station to take a little walk. Are they going 17,000 mph along with the space station, or does it just park and wait for them?

I wonder. If a stunt-person is riding on the top of a train or bus, and if he jumps straight up into the air, will he necessarily always land back down on the moving vehicle? Or is there a significant chance that the vehicle will not be under him when he lands?

Likewise, if a man opens the sunroof of a moving vehicle, if he tosses a ball up in the air high enough, will it fall back down into his hand for him to catch it? At what point is the synchronicity of their inertia lost, and then both objects are no longer linked together? Is it simply a matter of distance?

My guess is, that probably once the smaller object is outside of the vehicle (the larger object), the synchronicity of movement or the transfer of inertia from the larger object to the smaller object is lost. To maintain inertia, the smaller object would have to be inside of the larger. Once outside of the vehicle (the larger object), anything can happen to the smaller object.

Yes, instead of gravity, I call this property of objects "protection."

Of course he would. You can try it yourself by jumping when you're on a bus. I guess if you could somehow float for a while in midair, eventually you would stop and the bus or train would begin to move past you? It's probably a question of physics.

What do you mean by "protection"? You mean like gravity? I guess they will say that gravity is like a tractor beam, so even if you are outside of Earth and in space, you will still be moving with the earth, just like if you stand on a merry go round, and you stand next to the horses, they will not move because you will be moving with them. That seems to be their theory? I don't know how one can prove it or verify it though. It seems a bit ad hoc, like something they just make up out of thin air to fit a theory.

If that's how it works, then what was the point of the Michelson Morley experience using lasers to detect the movement of the earth? If the lasers move with the earth, just like a ball inside a bus moves with the bus, then no movement should expect to be detected by the lasers and instruments right?

[Neo]

Ask him how fast the astronauts are going when they step outside the space station to take a little walk. Are they going 17,000 mph along with the space station, or does it just park and wait for them?

I wonder. If a stunt-person is riding on the top of a train or bus, and if he jumps straight up into the air, will he necessarily always land back down on the moving vehicle? Or is there a significant chance that the vehicle will not be under him when he lands?

Likewise, if a man opens the sunroof of a moving vehicle, if he tosses a ball up in the air high enough, will it fall back down into his hand for him to catch it? At what point is the synchronicity of their inertia lost, and then both objects are no longer linked together? Is it simply a matter of distance?

My guess is, that probably once the smaller object is outside of the vehicle (the larger object), the synchronicity of movement or the transfer of inertia from the larger object to the smaller object is lost. To maintain inertia, the smaller object would have to be inside of the larger. Once outside of the vehicle (the larger object), anything can happen to the smaller object.

Yes, instead of gravity, I call this property of objects "protection."

Of course he would. You can try it yourself by jumping when you're on a bus. I guess if you could somehow float for a while in midair, eventually you would stop and the bus or train would begin to move past you? It's probably a question of physics.

What do you mean by "protection"? You mean like gravity? I guess they will say that gravity is like a tractor beam, so even if you are outside of Earth and in space, you will still be moving with the earth, just like if you stand on a merry go round, and you stand next to the horses, they will not move because you will be moving with them. That seems to be their theory? I don't know how one can prove it or verify it though. It seems a bit ad hoc, like something they just make up out of thin air to fit a theory.

If that's how it works, then what was the point of the Michelson Morley experience using lasers to detect the movement of the earth? If the lasers move with the earth, just like a ball inside a bus moves with the bus, then no movement should expect to be detected by the lasers and instruments right?

There is a distinct difference here. If the man is inside the bus, it doesn't matter because he is automatically protected: meaning the motion of the bus is always transferred to or conferred upon him while he is inside the bus. The bus cannot drive away from him or leave him behind while he is inside of it.

However, once he is on top of the bus (meaning outside on the surface, not inside [not one of those special double decker buses]), he is no longer protected because the motion of the bus is not necessarily transferred to or conferred to him. Basically once he is outside of the bus, even simply standing on top, if he jumps up, he is on his own, because the bus may continue traveling while he is in mid-air, and he risks not landing on the bus. [Think of the stunts in movies, standing on top of a train.] I.E. He could land on the ground instead of on top of the bus (on top of the outside).

So likewise, in theory if it were possible to leave the earth, once an object leaves the earth, the motion of the earth should no longer be transferred to that smaller object. As speculated, the earth should leave that object or person behind, just as the bus can leave behind the stunt man who jumps up while standing ON TOP of the bus.

In this analogy, jumping up in the air from on top of the bus is likened to launching a space craft from the surface of the earth.

[Winston]

[5/20, 12:57 PM] Alex From Venice: Let's say that you are in a bus... there's a ball in the corridor floor... then the bus suddenly stop... what will happen to the ball? I'm sure that based on your personal everyday life experience you'll assume that the ball will move forward the faster the bus was moving and the the quicker its deceleration to come to a stop. Why the ball move forward? because it's a natural behavior of all things that once they gain a speed they tend to keep moving at that speed and direction till something will appose their movement. When the ball was steady inside the bus, but the bus moving, the ball was moving together with the bus... when the bus has slow down to stop, the ball was still moving at bus speed so it's speed was faster then the bus that has slow down, and therefore the ball moved "forward" relative to the bus, because the bus speed has become slower than the ball.

[5/20, 1:02 PM] Alex From Venice: Speed is a relative motion bro. Speed of bus in motion is 70mph relative to earth, speed of steady ball inside the bus is 0mph relative to the bus but is 70mph relative to earth. Speed of bus that has come to stop is 0mph relative to earth, speed of ball inside the bus is 70mph relative to earth and 70mph relative to bus if the bus has slow down from 70mph to 0mph in 0 seconds.

[5/20, 1:05 PM] Alex From Venice: That's not sky rocket science... it's basic physics that can be observed easily everywhere there's something in motion

[Neo]

[5/20, 12:57 PM] Alex From Venice: Let's say that you are in a bus... there's a ball in the corridor floor... then the bus suddenly stop... what will happen to the ball? I'm sure that based on your personal everyday life experience you'll assume that the ball will move forward the faster the bus was moving and the the quicker its deceleration to come to a stop. Why the ball move forward? because it's a natural behavior of all things that once they gain a speed they tend to keep moving at that speed and direction till something will appose their movement. When the ball was steady inside the bus, but the bus moving, the ball was moving together with the bus... when the bus has slow down to stop, the ball was still moving at bus speed so it's speed was faster then the bus that has slow down, and therefore the ball moved "forward" relative to the bus, because the bus speed has become slower than the ball.

[5/20, 1:02 PM] Alex From Venice: Speed is a relative motion bro. Speed of bus in motion is 70mph relative to earth, speed of steady ball inside the bus is 0mph relative to the bus but is 70mph relative to earth. Speed of bus that has come to stop is 0mph relative to earth, speed of ball inside the bus is 70mph relative to earth and 70mph relative to bus if the bus has slow down from 70mph to 0mph in 0 seconds.

[5/20, 1:05 PM] Alex From Venice: That's not sky rocket science... it's basic physics that can be observed easily everywhere there's something in motion

Maybe someone has a false impression or misunderstanding somewhere.

I'm not even talking about a ball inside of a bus. I was attempting to answer what happens to a rocket ship once it leaves earth, by likening that to a man on the surface of a bus or train (e.g. a stunt man on the top surface of the train), or a ball once it leaves a car through a sunroof in a going "straight up" trajectory.

This is not about acceleration or deceleration. The globe theories to my knowledge do not have the earth vary in speed.

This is about whether or not the earth will leave the space ship behind. The answer is, it will leave the ship behind, just as a bus will leave someone behind who leaves the bus. Once a person gets off the bus or jumps off the bus, then the bus continues on. There is no such thing as the gravitational force of a bus or planet that can maintain that person moving at the same speed or trajectory as the bus or planet once that person exits.

In other words, when the person is inside the bus or planet, they move together. Once a person leaves the bus or planet, they move independently, and the bus or planet will continue on its own journey without magnetically transferring some mysterious property of attraction to tether a person. This is all fancy fiction.

[gsjackson]

[5/20, 12:01 PM] Winston Wu: Someone in my forum asked you:

"Ask him how fast the astronauts are going when they step outside the space station to take a little walk. Are they going 17,000 mph along with the space station, or does it just park and wait for them?"

[5/20, 12:07 PM] Alex From Venice: They will have exactly the same speed as the space station...

So is that 17,000 mph or 0 mph? And if the former, how does the human body hold up hurtling through space at that speed? Any problems with space debris or some such? If the latter, if the space station parks for a while, how is it stopped and started up again?

I think he meant 17k mph. The human body holds up because there's no air in space, so no friction or resistance. Just like on earth, you move through space at 67,000mph with the earth and don't notice it. Just like you don't notice movement on a plane because you move with the plane. The space station probably floats around the earth at that default speed, without any thrusters, so it never really stops I guess? That's what they would say probably.

He realizes, of course, that on its face this is beyond absurd?

[Usoop]

Ask him how fast the astronauts are going when they step outside the space station to take a little walk. Are they going 17,000 mph along with the space station, or does it just park and wait for them?

I wonder. If a stunt-person is riding on the top of a train or bus, and if he jumps straight up into the air, will he necessarily always land back down on the moving vehicle? Or is there a significant chance that the vehicle will not be under him when he lands?

Likewise, if a man opens the sunroof of a moving vehicle, if he tosses a ball up in the air high enough, will it fall back down into his hand for him to catch it? At what point is the synchronicity of their inertia lost, and then both objects are no longer linked together? Is it simply a matter of distance?

My guess is, that probably once the smaller object is outside of the vehicle (the larger object), the synchronicity of movement or the transfer of inertia from the larger object to the smaller object is lost. To maintain inertia, the smaller object would have to be inside of the larger. Once outside of the vehicle (the larger object), anything can happen to the smaller object.

Yes, instead of gravity, I call this property of objects "protection."

Of course he would. You can try it yourself by jumping when you're on a bus. I guess if you could somehow float for a while in midair, eventually you would stop and the bus or train would begin to move past you? It's probably a question of physics.

What do you mean by "protection"? You mean like gravity? I guess they will say that gravity is like a tractor beam, so even if you are outside of Earth and in space, you will still be moving with the earth, just like if you stand on a merry go round, and you stand next to the horses, they will not move because you will be moving with them. That seems to be their theory? I don't know how one can prove it or verify it though. It seems a bit ad hoc, like something they just make up out of thin air to fit a theory.

If that's how it works, then what was the point of the Michelson Morley experience using lasers to detect the movement of the earth? If the lasers move with the earth, just like a ball inside a bus moves with the bus, then no movement should expect to be detected by the lasers and instruments right?

There is a distinct difference here. If the man is inside the bus, it doesn't matter because he is automatically protected: meaning the motion of the bus is always transferred to or conferred upon him while he is inside the bus. The bus cannot drive away from him or leave him behind while he is inside of it.

However, once he is on top of the bus (meaning outside on the surface, not inside [not one of those special double decker buses]), he is no longer protected because the motion of the bus is not necessarily transferred to or conferred to him. Basically once he is outside of the bus, even simply standing on top, if he jumps up, he is on his own, because the bus may continue traveling while he is in mid-air, and he risks not landing on the bus. [Think of the stunts in movies, standing on top of a train.] I.E. He could land on the ground instead of on top of the bus (on top of the outside).

So likewise, in theory if it were possible to leave the earth, once an object leaves the earth, the motion of the earth should no longer be transferred to that smaller object. As speculated, the earth should leave that object or person behind, just as the bus can leave behind the stunt man who jumps up while standing ON TOP of the bus.

In this analogy, jumping up in the air from on top of the bus is likened to launching a space craft from the surface of the earth.

Thanks for the info mate

[Winston]

Alex's response to Neo:

[5/20, 5:20 PM] Alex From Venice: this guy doesn't understand the basics of physics. it's not about being protected or not. it's about having a speed or not. Once you are inside the bus you get the speed the bus has because when the bus accelerate you are dragged for higher speed and when it decelerates you are dragged to a lower speed... but once the bus speed is constant your speed also is constant and it remains your speed, it's a property of your body which you keep even if the bus would disappear in a blink of an eye like in those cartoons animation when the car or airplane or vehicle disappears and the pilot keep moving.

[5/20, 5:28 PM] Alex From Venice: the stunt man on top of the bus, if he jumps he immediately decelerate due to the friction of the air which he is moving against... but in space there isn't air, no friction, no deceleration. In space an astronauts can jump on top of the bus and will always stay at same speed of the bus not seeing it moving away

[5/20, 6:56 PM] Alex From Venice: Bro, think of this very simple example that everybody's can observe in real life... if someone is ridding a motorbike and have an accident so that the motorbike suddenly switch from say 70mph to stop, doesn't the driver "fly" on the same direction he was riding the motorbike? it means that once the driver has the same speed of the motorbike, even if the motorbike stops the driver keeps the speed and he "flies" at least for a few moments

[5/20, 7:04 PM] Alex From Venice: Let's say that there's a stunt on top of the bus and the bus is going against a concrete wall which has almost the same height of the bus and is 6 meters thick... a moment before the bus will crash against the wall the stunt man will make a vertical jump... the bus will crash and come to a stop in a blink of an eye... will the stunt man stop too or he will continue moving forward eventually landing beyond the wall?

[5/20, 7:10 PM] Alex From Venice: that's to point out that so called kinetic energy, or motion energy, is a property of a body. Once a body gain speed it will keep going to that speed independently for any other body that may have provided the energy to reach that speed. The bus provides energy to increase the speed of all passengers inside. But once the passengers have their speed increased it's their speed not the bus speed. Indeed if the bus has told stop, the load on the brakes is not only the one needed to slow down the bus alone, but it's also to slow down all the passengers. A truck with bigger load needs much more breaks power than a truck without any load.

[5/20, 7:13 PM] Alex From Venice: That's common sense and everyday life experience, it's not rocket science

[gsjackson]

Alex's response to Neo:

[5/20, 5:20 PM] Alex From Venice: this guy doesn't understand the basics of physics. it's not about being protected or not. it's about having a speed or not. Once you are inside the bus you get the speed the bus has because when the bus accelerate you are dragged for higher speed and when it decelerates you are dragged to a lower speed... but once the bus speed is constant your speed also is constant and it remains your speed, it's a property of your body which you keep even if the bus would disappear in a blink of an eye like in those cartoons animation when the car or airplane or vehicle disappears and the pilot keep moving.

[5/20, 5:28 PM] Alex From Venice: the stunt man on top of the bus, if he jumps he immediately decelerate due to the friction of the air which he is moving against... but in space there isn't air, no friction, no deceleration. In space an astronauts can jump on top of the bus and will always stay at same speed of the bus not seeing it moving away

[5/20, 6:56 PM] Alex From Venice: Bro, think of this very simple example that everybody's can observe in real life... if someone is ridding a motorbike and have an accident so that the motorbike suddenly switch from say 70mph to stop, doesn't the driver "fly" on the same direction he was riding the motorbike? it means that once the driver has the same speed of the motorbike, even if the motorbike stops the driver keeps the speed and he "flies" at least for a few moments

[5/20, 7:04 PM] Alex From Venice: Let's say that there's a stunt on top of the bus and the bus is going against a concrete wall which has almost the same height of the bus and is 6 meters thick... a moment before the bus will crash against the wall the stunt man will make a vertical jump... the bus will crash and come to a stop in a blink of an eye... will the stunt man stop too or he will continue moving forward eventually landing beyond the wall?

[5/20, 7:10 PM] Alex From Venice: that's to point out that so called kinetic energy, or motion energy, is a property of a body. Once a body gain speed it will keep going to that speed independently for any other body that may have provided the energy to reach that speed. The bus provides energy to increase the speed of all passengers inside. But once the passengers have their speed increased it's their speed not the bus speed. Indeed if the bus has told stop, the load on the brakes is not only the one needed to slow down the bus alone, but it's also to slow down all the passengers. A truck with bigger load needs much more breaks power than a truck without any load.

[5/20, 7:13 PM] Alex From Venice: That's common sense and everyday life experience, it's not rocket science

Always theory. Nothing that can be tested in the real world, and actually the opposite of "common sense and everyday life experience." Since we don't have any disappearing buses, we can't test to see if the human being would keep going absent the locomotive force of the bus.

These people seem to have no idea of the magnitude of the task they face in defending the official story. Allusions to "the basics of science" aren't going to cut it. We all learned the same things in school they did, they just don't have sufficient explanatory power.

[Neo]

Alex's response to Neo:
[5/20, 5:28 PM] Alex From Venice: the stunt man on top of the bus, if he jumps he immediately decelerate due to the friction of the air which he is moving against... but in space there isn't air, no friction, no deceleration. In space an astronauts can jump on top of the bus and will always stay at same speed of the bus not seeing it moving away

Space is full of fictional properties which cannot be true, including prolonged (everlasting?) inertia, lack of air resistance, and vacuum pressure.

According to the theories of astrophysics, the inertia will last forever because there is no air resistance. At the same time however, navigation and propulsion should not be possible in space because of that same fact: there's nothing to propel against. There can be no propulsion in the void of a vacuum. Air resistance is a requirement for propulsion. There must be something to push against. Therefore space travel cannot be possible.

(In fact, if the vacuum theory is true, there can be no power production from engines in space, because all "air" (or gas), including engine output, would be whisked away in a vacuum. Engines would be rendered useless. There can be no air in space, including no engine output, meaning propulsion would be impossible. (Like a reverse blow out. Instead of preventing ignition by wind, it does it by vacuum, like an oven whose light cannot be lit.)

[I would even go so far as to say that if space were real and a shuttle entered into it, that it would be crushed by the vacuum's negative pressure like an aluminum can. There is no way enough internal positive pressure could be generated to stop it from imploding.

I'd also say that because each planet is not "sealed" from the vacuum, that earth could not exist with an atmosphere. It would be siphoned off by the negative pressure of space, despite gravity.])

[Winston]

[5/21, 12:40 AM] Winston Wu: But bro. The key question is, how do they know the earth is moving? Whats their basis? Is there proof? Can it be verified? Thats the main question.

[5/21, 10:12 AM] Alex From Venice: it's impossible to know that the earth is moving at an absolute speed relative to the universe origin. Even Einstein admitted it's impossible that's why he conceived the theory of relativity because all speed measurements can only be relative and therefore space and time are relative too

[5/21, 10:13 AM] Alex From Venice: because speed is movement in space in a given time

[5/21, 10:17 AM] Winston Wu: How hard can it be to prove that something is moving? Should be easy right? Especially with an object the size of the earth.

[Winston]

But Neo. Can't scientists or physicists test propulsion in a vacuum in a lab? They can create a vacuum chamber and test propulsion inside it right? This is something testable. So if propulsion in a vacuum by a rocket engine or combustion engine is not possible, wouldn't some scientist or physicist have demonstrated this and published the results in a journal?

[Neo]

But Neo. Can't scientists or physicists test propulsion in a vacuum in a lab? They can create a vacuum chamber and test propulsion inside it right? This is something testable. So if propulsion in a vacuum by a rocket engine or combustion engine is not possible, wouldn't some scientist or physicist have demonstrated this and published the results in a journal?

There can be tests. That doesn't mean the results will be positive. As for publication, as we know, the world is controlled. Dissent isn't usually allowed. At least not openly. A man will have to draw his own conclusion.

That's why in those anti-HIV papers, it is never outright stated that HIV is a hoax. All of the underlying scientific principles are shown to be invalid instead of outright stating what's going on.

[Winston]

But Neo. Can't scientists or physicists test propulsion in a vacuum in a lab? They can create a vacuum chamber and test propulsion inside it right? This is something testable. So if propulsion in a vacuum by a rocket engine or combustion engine is not possible, wouldn't some scientist or physicist have demonstrated this and published the results in a journal?

There can be tests. That doesn't mean the results will be positive. As for publication, as we know, the world is controlled. Dissent isn't usually allowed. At least not openly. A man will have to draw his own conclusion.

That's why in those anti-HIV papers, it is never outright stated that HIV is a hoax. All of the underlying scientific principles are shown to be invalid instead of outright stating what's going on.

I don't understand how HIV can be a hoax though. Lots of people have died from HIV including AIDS denialists who did not take AZT. How do you explain that? The HIV hoax documentaries never explain that or even tried to. Why?

Couldn't amateur independent scientists test propulsion in a vacuum and show the results on YouTube?

[Neo]

But Neo. Can't scientists or physicists test propulsion in a vacuum in a lab? They can create a vacuum chamber and test propulsion inside it right? This is something testable. So if propulsion in a vacuum by a rocket engine or combustion engine is not possible, wouldn't some scientist or physicist have demonstrated this and published the results in a journal?

There can be tests. That doesn't mean the results will be positive. As for publication, as we know, the world is controlled. Dissent isn't usually allowed. At least not openly. A man will have to draw his own conclusion.

That's why in those anti-HIV papers, it is never outright stated that HIV is a hoax. All of the underlying scientific principles are shown to be invalid instead of outright stating what's going on.

I don't understand how HIV can be a hoax though. Lots of people have died from HIV including AIDS denialists who did not take AZT. How do you explain that? The HIV hoax documentaries never explain that or even tried to. Why?

Couldn't amateur independent scientists test propulsion in a vacuum and show the results on YouTube?

HIV does not exist. So no one can die from it. There is absolutely no proof of its existence whatsoever. It is falsehood. The test for it simply tests for antibodies, which is meaningless, because those antibodies occur in everyone. It's just a matter of proportion. The homosexual lifestyle itself, however, is quite deadly. [Go to YT and look at a documentary called "House of Numbers":





https://www.youtube.com/user/houseofnumbers

Gas cannot exist in a vacuum. Therefore there can be no propulsion. Also, there is nothing to push against in space, which again means no propulsion. In some amateur experiments in vacuums, the object (or rocket) itself expels gas which then pushes against the walls of the experimental chamber to create a rebounding "motion," but in space that wouldn't work because spacecrafts are not enclosed in small chambers in which gas compressed against walls can create propulsion.

[Winston]

Alex to Neo:

[5/21, 1:16 PM] Alex From Venice: Oh, gosh... what do I have to do Winston? I think it doesn't make sense to try to debate about basic physics. It's so basic that there are plenty of experiments that can be easily done by anyone. The guy you forward the message to me is assuming that to "keep" the speed you need to "keep" having something pushing you, an engine or vehicle, otherwise you'll slow down the very moment you detach from that pushing device... this it true on everyday life observations because we are living in an environment that cause friction ALWAYS... even someone falling from 10miles above ground without parachute at some point will stop accelerating his speed because of the gravity acceleration (which indeed works like an engine always pushing and that buffles the scientist as they can't figure out where the "engine" energy comes from, that's why gravity is so difficult to explain with classic Newtonian physics) will be opposed by the deceleration caused by air friction. So gravity accelerate the body speed, but air decelerate the body speed... when they balance the speed is constant... you can see it in any video of people practicing "free fall".
In space there's no air. As you said we can also make experiments on earth about objects behaviour on a "vacuum" environment and observe that deceleration is a matter of friction with air.
But of course everyone knows that air cause deceleration... don't everyone see the difference in design between sports car and a SUV? lol
Com'on guys... it's called "aerodynamic" coefficient or CX

[5/21, 1:55 PM] Alex From Venice: Bro, Newtonian laws of physics are the very basic "laws" and they can be "confirmed" by basic experiments. Newton was living in times when experiments were done with very simple setup. If someone doubts about the validity of basic physics it means that he she really needs to attend some courses on a lab and do experiments, or watch related videos available online. I surely don't think is a good idea to debate on basic physics laws especially on the 1st law, which is the "law of inertia".
Neo assertion is also an example of poor understanding of basic physics.
While propellers propulsion rely on the existence of a surrounding fluid like air for airplane propellers, and water for boats propellers, Jet propulsion doesn't need that.
Jet propulsion rely on the observable fact that when two bodies repels each others, they both accelerate, gain speed on opposite direction.
Think you are on a ice ground and you are with your friend, both standing in front of each others not moving... if one of the two will push away the other, both will start moving, slipping on the ice, not just one or the other, both.