When the globe claims we're riding a 1,000 MPH (rim speed) flywheel that has a diameter of 8,000 miles, I call that weak because I know that the sheer forces involved would cause an instant explosion to happen.
That's because you don't have a good sense of the physics involved. The centripetal force is F = mv2/ r. Plug in the numbers and you will see that it is much lower than the force of buoyancy and that is why we don't go flying off into space.When the globe claims a pressure gradient (air) exists next to a vacuum without a container, I call that weak because I know it's a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.
That's because you are overlooking the effect of buoyancy on the air. Air falls to the earth in a vacuum just as other objects fall to the earth in a vacuum.When the globe claims we're travelling at 66,600 MPH while spinning 1,000 MPH, I call that weak because I've been on a mad carnival ride before.
Again, that's because you don't have a good sense of the physics involved. Haven't you traveled anywhere? Whether you are in a car going 50 mph, on a train going 100 mph, in a plane going 700 mph, or hurtling through space at 66000 mph, it is like you are standing still because everything around you is doing the same thing. It is called an "inertial frame of reference". And again, while "spinning at 1,000 MPH" might seem like a lot, if you do the math you will see that it is not. Spinning 1000 mph on the earth is as much of a carnival ride as a bug running around a basketball.... the fact that the earth is observably and measurably flat for as far as a modern super-zoom camera can see.
That is open to debate because the same camera seems to show examples of flat earth (objects seen above the horizon) and spherical earth (objects obscured by the horizon).In fact I've discussed looming, other refractive effects & optical compression with you before so I'm really just left with the impression that you're intellectually dishonest. The fact you pressed me for censored/memory holed images & diagrams makes it seem like you glow in the dark.
The debate is over why the camera seems to produce contradictory observations. Both sides have explanations, but neither seems to be sufficient to convince the other side.
