wolfy

It's amazing how we are told that the Earth and atmosphere are in exact unison and drag any person or object with it in exact unison and yet on the flip side they use coriolis effect . The beauty about mainstream scientists...well, the one's that are paraded before us as supposed genius, is, they can come up with any old crap they want to because it will be accepted under the pretence that it was peer reviewed. People getting paid to feed us all with pseudo-science in many respects.

Like I said. In your plane you are inside a pressurised tube pushing into atmosphere and creating friction on the plane. You are independent of that external friction and are equalised inside a pressure tube. On your globe you are supposedly spinning at over 1000 mph with your atmosphere supposedly gripping a solid Earth and also water at exactly the same speed and yet this is supposed to mimic your inner plane, yet your plane is also moving into friction, whereas your Earth is supposedly just spinning in a so called space vacuum. They are not the same scenario at all. It's a nice dupe but that's all it is by those that think this stuff up.

Yep, assuming a steady speed and no acceleration, which would change the pressurisation making it unequal.

The plane is a pressurised tube with wings. Simple enough. The plane is using its engines to push itself through atmosphere and creating friction on itself, externally, whilst the inside of it is equalised with pressure. Is that clear enough?

It's there and explained. Take some time to get the thoughts of it. It's only garbled because naturally you oppose it and follow a set path.

Fair enough.

How can it have independence to atmosphere? It is atmosphere. It's in one system. It's a system that produces high and low pressure due to expansion and contraction oif molecules creating friction as molecules expand into more dense molecules, which creates the winds we feel. There is no extra atmosphere dragging us along. You either get dragged along by a hurricane or you walk about in a summer dress in a light breeze. Or if you're me, A pair of hot pants and a smug look not caring what people think because I've had worse on toontastic. Just kidding.

The Earth and atmosphere that goes from sea level pressure to extreme low pressure at a great height. A plane with a pressurised tube going against an atmosphere with the plane itself creating the friction on itself. The Earth supposedly goes against the atmosphere but manages to drag it all with it. It's senseless.

Weather is part of the atmosphere isn't it?

But the plane is a tube pushing into an atmosphere. The person inside the plane is equalised in a friction grip. A pressure grip.

Yeah, the old inertia stuff. An object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. Basically no object will stay in motion, because it will always be acted on by friction, at all times...unless we get taken to supposed space in this supposed space vacuum that magically allows something in motion to just stay inn motion forever. But let's go with it. You see, the helicopter can be dragged with the Earth and yet clouds can go the opposite way. Does nobody find that odd? Clouds are just water that has been taken from Earth, going at speed of the Earth, apparently and yet they can move in all directions and immediately defy the Earth from which they came from, yet a big helicopter and everything else that can hit the sky gets dragged along as if a big fist is holding them. Nobody see anything odd about it all?

No, but then again Earth wouldn't resemble that. This is one thing given out to supposedly prove a spinning globe. It doesn't even follow the globe process as an answer. It's a cheat answer.

A cell among cells. If we could view it from outside, which obviously we can't, then I would liken it to one of an infinite cells, just like we would be looking at something like, frog spawn or even a boat load of poached eggs with Earth being one yolk among the infinite yolks, or cells. I don't really like to make analogies like this because I just know someone will make out that I think the Earth is a poached egg.

Yep, I understand exactly what you're saying, but the reality is that the helicopter lifting up from the ground would not keep an exact motion with a solid Earth for 1 hour. This is what I'm getting at. Imagine being on a spinning roundabout. You're attached to the roundabout by your feet by the friction of them and your body mass. If you jumped up, you would be flung off, but assuming the roundabout was absolutely huge and you jumped up...the roundabout would have moved a fair distance away in terms of the point from which you jumped from. Now judging by your vacuum mindset and saying no friction, then we can apply that to the scenario and come to the same conclusion that the roundabout moves away from the point of the jumper. A rotating Earth at over 1000 mph would follow the same scenario, if Earth was a rotating globe, which I do not believe for one second.

You can circumnavigate a circle.

Yep, that's generally the answer. Now on a serious note. Do you honestly believe that the atmosphere could carry a helicopter along at the same speed of the Earth if it hovered for 1 hour and that helicopter not losing any momentum. Basically just being dragged along by the atmosphere for 1 hour without any reduction by friction of drag? Added to that...did you watch the Felix Baumgartner 23 mile high jump from what we were told was basically a vacuum? Is he going to be dragged along with the atmosphere even in a supposed near vacuum? He was supposedly up there for over an hour and yet finished up landing just 73 miles or so away from his start point. The trouble with that is, if the Earth rotates at around 1000 mph or 800 mph to give a smaller estimate for Mexico, then shouldn't he end up around 800 miles from his starting point? You see, we're asked to just accept this and it literally does not make any rational sense.

To be fair, I'm playing a best guess scenario based on my thoughts about Earth. I haven't been to the centre of Earth, so anything I do say is based on hypothesis or musing to be fair. Have a think about gold and silver and platinum, plus diamond and all the many so called precious stones. Hard to find, right? That may be true to an extent but how abundant could they be and how big could they be if it all originates from the centre? A big energy emit from the centre and a channel of veins carrying all kinds of minerals throughout this cell. To give you an idea. Take a look at your own eye ball. Look at the set up of it all. Look at how everything is channelled around and through it. Now see a black centre. What's to say that Earth isn't something that resembles this type of working. I know, I know, I'll be told by some that I think the Earth is an eye ball ...but on a more serious note, we only know what we are trained to abide by and taught to regurgitate. We are certainly not taught to actually think and question what is set out for us, in truth. I know people will argue that scientists have to think, otherwise how do things get advanced. I say, there'll be plenty of scientists out there looking for answers to all kids of stuff. The issue is, what stuff is allowed to be made genuine public legitimate reality? Like I said, I don't know all the answers or even a small portion of them. All I can do is put my thoughts out and basically question.

Anything I say will always be met by the words "prove it." I can prove it but my proof would never stand up to peer review, because it's a simple proof that we all know. Water level. Gravity being atmospheric pressure. The problem is, they will always be rendered as not realistic and cannot work, when clearly it does work. It gets thrown aside in favour of curved water and also gravity, with simple un-provable explanations cited. You mention things as basic as you can...something like, well how come a helicopter can hover and yet the ground does not move from under it? The usual answer is, " oh, because the Earth spins so fast that it drags the atmosphere with it and everything else within it, whether it's on the floor or in the air." Most people's logic tells them that this does not make any real sense. It really doesn't but we get told that the Earth has been spinning for millions of years and has managed to drag the atmosphere along with it and that's why if you jump up you just follow the rotation. Then when you say, "hey, how come we don't get flung off this Es that the Earth takes 24 hours to make one revolution so it's going so slow relative to someone in space looking at it. There's always an answer to the nonsense and people swallow it because it's "official" yet hid behind the comfort blanket of a "scientific theory"...etc

Your horizon is always at eye level, no matter how high or low you go, as long as you are looking horizontally level. The sky meets water or the sky meets land. Now picture a ship below that horizon line. It's naturally going to lose light to the bottom of the hull whilst the mast is going to sit closer to your horizon line and obviously higher towards more reflected light. Your eyes naturally take in this light but omit the darkest part which you now view as a sinking ship, or basically a ship supposedly going down a curve or Earth. Have you ever wondered why people mention ships going down a curve that are starboard or port facing to that person. What happens here? Because surely a ship doesn't move away from your view, sideways. See what I'm saying?

There's lots of things that trick our eyes. There'll be many things that I get wrong. We are all easily duped in many circumstances. We are basically creatures of habit. Mimicking is the name of the game with us. The thing is, it's not just basic visual fooling with all this stuff. Some of it is basic natural verifiable science on everyone's part that can only be scuppered by people who choose to tell us that magic defeats our own normal logical sense. Now, don't get me wrong. If you choose to go with everything on that part, as we were all schooled into, then fine. I really have no issues with any of it, because like I said...I was exactly the same and had to go over stuff enough times to start to see how ridiculous some of the stuff we've been taught, is.

No. They are reflections of most probably inner Earth crystal...at a guess.

It depends on the actual weather which determines whether your ship actually loses light and appears to sink or appears to rise and float. It's all down to how the atmosphere deals with the light which you observe. And no, I don't expect you to believe me. Try stuff out for yourself to satisfy yourself one way or the other.

Same thing. You simply see it upside down but still lose the light from the bottom of the water, up.

Most probably, yes.