Rayvin

Is this what you think the sun does?

I am nearly certain that this whole thing is an elaborate ruse to bring about this exact scenario.

One thing I do find intriguing here, is the premise for why gravity exists at all. I understand how it works, but not why it functions in the way it does. Why should an object with mass exert a force on other objects with mass around it? I googled it yesterday and it seems that people have concluded that the force itself is a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. One article put it quite well when it suggested we think of a blanket being stretched out, and then having a ball dropped into it. It distorts the otherwise flat blanket in such a way that any smaller objects then added to the blanked are then pulled towards it. But while this is a reasonable satisfying answer, it doesn't consider why this should be the case at all. I don't know if we'll ever understand it, and I'm sure Wolfy will point to this as part of the global conspiracy and note how it doesn't make any sense, but it's interesting to think about.

Even if the atmosphere was left behind, which isn't what I said, we wouldn't be blasted off into space. The atmosphere doesn't hold us to earth, gravity does. I think you've blended your theory about atmospheric pressure with our view there. On the sun, you're saying it's reflected in the ceiling of the cell. Why would the reflection move? And surely we'd be able to see where the source is?

But you said the sun goes up and down? How can it go up and down and also sideways across the world at 650mph? You also keep saying atmosphere drags things along as if this is what we're telling you - we're not. We're saying that everything on earth; you, me, the atmosphere, all have momentum that matches the spin of the earth. Nothing is being dragged by the atmosphere.

This doesn't make sense to me, can you elaborate?

Definitely lost now.

Huh? You mean we've lost the argument or you've lost me? If the latter, you're right but only by virtue of self-fulfilling prophecy

Honestly, at this point based on how the conversation has progressed, you'd have to conclude that wolfy either has a vested emotional interest in believing this stuff, in much the same way that religious people do about what they believe, and that he will stick to it in the face of all evidence to the contrary... or that he's winding us up. Seems a smart enough guy to be able to see how irrational his position is, so I don't believe the problem is that we simply haven't presented the right counter information. Obviously you can never be 100% sure of anything, but the only way I see wolfy's theory stacking up is if there is a grand conspiracy at play that is literally able to manifest a reality that doesn't exist - and which, when tested by us, returns results which support the presentation of this reality. It's just so unlikely. Just on the sun thing, just for the hell of it - when I flew to from China to the UK a few years back, I remember setting off around lunchtime, and arriving in the UK 11 hours later, at what would be 11pm and dark in China. In the UK, it was 3pm and still daylight. How would that work? 11 hours definitely passed, as my watch was still on Chinese time. I remember this vividly because I was tired as fuck and still had an entire afternoon to get through before bed.

I've thought about this a lot over the past few months, and I think Hillary would have won previous elections if she'd beaten Obama in the run off. I think she would have won vs. Bush junior too. Times have changed though.

Agreed, but him being there acts as a pressure release. No one on offer was ever actually going to change anything for anyone - but if enough people believe that Trump has, or has tried to, it might settle down the anti-establishment sentiment again. If he's ousted 4 months in, a decent number of them will think it's a stitch up. Moreover, even if they don't we'll have to re-run this fiasco with someone quite possibly more dangerous, in 5 years time.

It would transform the principle of a Trump government though. It would just be another off the shelf Republican package. Not saying that's a bad thing, but it'll not alleviate the frustrations that brought us here which, crazy as he is, Trump stood a chance of doing.

Ryan?? Yikes... Pence looks too cowardly to be involved in this stuff IMO. It's a shame though, because if an election re-run were a possibility, maybe we could get Sanders. Although there's an equal chance it'd be Hillary I suppose.

Do you think he's trying to be impeached? Genuinely think it might be an option. Since it looks like he's now going to go, I've been wondering what will happen instead. Will it be Pence? Or will we have to re-run the election?

And more importantly, readjust our expectations of how feasible he is to buy in the first place If Bournemouth are spunking £30m on those two, we'd get far better value for money outside the PL.

Wolfy, we can explain how all of this works based on observable science. For instance the conservation of momentum you could see in any object that moves. We don't even need to get into the flat earth debate to investigate that one. If we can see that applying in totally unrelated circumstances (passenger in a plane, person on a bike, etc) then it's absolutely sound thinking to apply that to the relationship between the earth and everything on it. So what you're saying isn't that we should expand our thinking, it's that we should overlook an observable, rationally sensible pattern. We would, in effect, need to look at this irrationally.

This is absolutely on you mind you started this.

I suppose you can, but for that to stack up... Ok better question, what do you think the earth looks like?

They're not being dragged along by atmosphere though. Atmosphere isn't acting on the helicopter in this scenario. Both the atmosphere and the helicopter have sideways momentum already. Once the helicopter lifts, it keeps this sideways momentum because there is no force acting against it (because the atmosphere is going in the same direction, at the same speed). The only way it slows down is if the wind or some other force works against it. And obviously in a live test that would happen - but assuming absolutely no wind, the atmosphere would have no impact at all - because it's matching the helicopter's speed. Which is presumably why it doesn't matter whether or not this happens in a vacuum. Because the atmosphere and all components involved in the process, travel at the same speed. Thus they don't act upon each other. Same for Baumgartner. Whatever he jumped from was in orbit at the same sideways speed it had when it departed. Thus he retained that sideways speed also. As he fell, then wind currents will have come into play and pushed him off course. But as you say, not by that much - because actually, he's moving at the same sideways speed as the earth more or less throughout.

I work in academic publishing in STM, and can absolutely confirm that the government does not pre-vet any of our publications for anything, let alone specifically for information concerning whether or not the earth is flat. So again, this would have to be such a thorough conspiracy that those responsible couldn't be reliant upon it self perpetuating - they'd have to be actively distorting how everyone sees the world. I thought of something else though - I'm guessing you don't believe it's possible to circumnavigate the globe? That would be testable - you could do it by plane if you really wanted to.

I think with the helicopter, it's not so much that the earth pulls it along with it, it's that the helicopter itself was already moving horizontally at the same speed as the earth - and nothing is acting against it to slow it down. Thus, conservation of momentum would apply. The atmosphere is also matching this speed, so doesn't act on the helicopter (assuming no wind).

I found it. Damn Freudian slips..

...it was? I have absolutely no memory of this

I don't think many people on here would consider me to be someone who follows the standard school of thought tbf. I seem to spend half my forum posting time arguing with people about the wider failings of Western civilisation. It's why no one likes me anymore But even I'm struggling with your position here. There is clear evidence refuting your theory, and no "non-theoretical" evidence in support of it - and the only basis upon which to challenge that is to question the legitimacy of absolutely every aspect of our society, and indeed I would argue, every person you meet. That's such a big jump that for it to make any rational sense, surely, you would have to have actual physical evidence of the claim. That's for you to be satisfied by it as a position, as someone with a skeptical mind, I would argue.

Also, what if you can clearly see the point at which the disappearing ship meets the sea (which you can)? Surely that means that a whole section of the horizon has not only been omitted, but that the rest of the picture has 'shifted down' to accomodate this loss?