- This topic has 6,406 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 weeks, 1 day ago by
.
- Posts
T8, what about my eclipse drawing? Do you agree that – according to your belief – the sun, earth and moon have to be directly in line (syzygy) for a lunar eclipse to occur?
T8, what about my last Ruapehu point? If the bottom 50% is refracting up from behind the curve, why would the upper 50% – which is already visible above the curve – also refract up into the sky and rest perfectly on top of the bottom 50% that refracted up from behind the curve?
It doesn’t take a lot of home work to figure out that distance does not diminish the effects of a vacuum. Between pressure and vacuum there is no “neutral zone”! Try it sometime.
You owe me $65.00 because I needed to correct you. Note that the atmosphere thins out the higher you go. I have tested this myself. I lived in a city that was close to 3000 metres high and it is hard to breathe up there. Explain that on a flat earth in a dome Einstein. Lol.
T8, what about my last Ruapehu point? If the bottom 50% is refracting up from behind the curve, why would the upper 50% – which is already visible above the curve – also refract up into the sky and rest perfectly on top of the bottom 50% that refracted up from behind the curve?
First thing to understand is I have posed not just refraction as an option but merging in of the foreground on the near side into the mountain in the background. I demonstrated this with some photos I took that show the unique effects of zoom lenses merging two different landscapes into one.
I have also said that these earth calculators may be inaccurate with long distances. I have seen the math required to measure the curve and what is hidden and it is very complex. These calculators may be using a much simpler equation which works adequately at short distances.
But lets assume half the mountain is behind the curve and is visible. Well refraction answers it because the whole mountain is being refracted. Yes sometimes you see a mirror image, with part of an object but it is not impossible for light to be bent a few degrees too and consequently show a huge area that is not ordinarily observed. I posted a video on that. You only need to understand the basics of what light can do when it is refracted, bent, skewed, or reflected. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist, just use your God given imagination and 1 minute later you can move onto the next point.
But how about you explain why Ruapehu is only visible say once in 5 years or so from that lookout using the Flat Earth model when the air is usually clear throughout the year.
Something extraordinary is going regardless of what model you believe in so why is the onus on me alone. Lol. If you want to prove the Earth is flat, then explain that photo in your paradigm.
T8: You owe me $65.00 because I needed to correct you. Note that the atmosphere thins out the higher you go. I have tested this myself. I lived in a city that was close to 3000 metres high and it is hard to breathe up there. Explain that on a flat earth in a dome Einstein. Lol.
You haven’t explained the “neutral zone” you have only imagined it. Thin air is still air and when air encounters a vacuum it always ends the same way.
You’re only explanation is that our pressurized atmosphere adjoins a vacuum <i>without</i> a barrier? Again, not an explanation. It would only make sense if there <i>was</i> a barrier like the biblical firmament.
There could be multiple reasons why the atmosphere thins as the height is increased. I suspect that it wasn’t that way after the initial Creation. There have been studies which conclude that a much denser atmosphere existed in the past.
Either way, you have not explained how a pressurized system can adjoin a vacuum and remain intact. Your notion that the vacuum won’t work on the air if it is thin is laughable. Try it sometime.
What happens when the thin air is removed by the ” vacuum of space”? Wouldn’t more air take its place? Then what would happen to that air? And on and on and on. You believe that the earth has been here for millions of years correct?
In your evotionary devolpment of the earth, wouldn’t the atmosphere have developed very gradually? You know, thin air first then a thicker atmosphere? But wouldn’t the earth have been engulfed in the “vacuum of space” before the atmosphere evolved? Also, the earth would have been bombarded with the full radiation of the sun without an atmosphere for who knows how long, according to the evolutionary theory. I would imagine an atmosphere would be difficult to establish with solar winds ripping thru the planet.
But I’m sure you will be able to google me an answer. Just put it on my tab. lol
You haven’t explained the “neutral zone” you have only imagined it. Thin air is still air and when air encounters a vacuum it always ends the same way.
I will try and explain it another way for you. The atmosphere thins out to almost zero at which point it comes into contact with space. From what I have learned, there is some loss of atmosphere where supposedly nothing (space) meets almost zero atmosphere, but it is not as dramatic as you think.
Try to ignore Star Trek when Voyager comes under attack and there is a breach and think what zero is doing to almost zero.
T8, what about my eclipse drawing? Do you agree that – according to your belief – the sun, earth and moon have to be directly in line (syzygy) for a lunar eclipse to occur?
Would first need to Google that word’s complete meaning, then pull out 3 soccer balls and try different orientations to consider the third dimension. Plus do research to see if it is even possible or not given their fixed orbits.
T8: I will try and explain it another way for you. The atmosphere thins out to almost zero at which point it comes into contact with space. From what I have learned, there is some loss of atmosphere where supposedly nothing (space) meets almost zero atmosphere, but it is not as dramatic as you think.
Try to ignore Star Trek when Voyager comes under attack and there is a breach and think what zero is doing to almost zero.
If the atmosphere thins out does that necessarily mean that the vacuum thins out or weakens as well? Nope! In fact the thinner the atmosphere the stronger the vacuum will overcome it.
Do you suppose that the vacuum says to itself, “well look how weak that atmosphere is, let me just take it easy on it”? Is this what you want me to believe?
Since you admit that the vacuum does interact with the thin atmosphere what makes it stop? Why wouldn’t it proceed to the denser atmosphere? What causes it to stop or slow down?
From what I understand it does strip away at it, but it is a very slow process and would take a huge amount of time before it affected the atmosphere in a big way.
Same thing could have happened to Mars. It’s atmosphere was stripped away.
Say that you are standing on Earth holding a glass bottle. If you attach the bottle to a vacuum pump, pump out all the air and then seal the bottle, the bottle contains a vacuum. If you put a hole in the bottle, air rushes in. The reason it rushes in is because of the air pressure around the bottle. Standing on the ground, we are all standing in an ocean of air that rises many miles above us. The air molecules stack up on one another and create a pressure of 14.7 pounds per square inch (psi) at sea level. The higher you rise in the atmosphere, the shorter the stack of molecules, so the lower the pressure.
At sea level, it is the weight of all of the molecules stacked above the bottle (14.7 pounds of them in every square inch) that forces the molecules into a punctured vacuum.
If you were to travel in a rocket to the edge of the atmosphere, you would find that there is no air pressure. Instead, individual air molecules are zipping around in the vacuum of space. The molecules can zip anywhere they like, but they tend to zip toward the Earth because the Earth’s gravity acts on them just like it acts on anything else with mass. The reason the vacuum of space does not attract the molecules is because there is no suction to the vacuum of space — there is no air pressure forcing things into the vacuum. All there is in space is molecules traveling through the vacuum.
You can see that there is no danger of the vacuum sucking our atmosphere away, but it turns out there is another force that could strip away our atmosphere. That force is called the solar wind. Fortunately, the atmosphere is protected from the solar wind by the Earth’s magnetic field.
I already answered you last question. Here it is again.
Try to ignore Star Trek when Voyager comes under attack and there is a breach and think what zero is doing to almost zero.
Practically nothing Dig.
It’s like saying why doesn’t the cold temperature of the Arctic spread across the earth and cool the tropics right down.
As you know, it goes from freezing to cold, to neutral to warm to hot.
Now think of the psi of the atmosphere starting at sea level and going down to almost zero as you go higher.
Sounds like a story you would tell to children, t8. But not something an adult would believe.
You begin with a sealed bottle and then jump to an open atmosphere. Talk about bait and switch!
Do you suppose the vacuum of space cares if it is one molecule of air or 10 trillion trillion?
To be a credible story you need to find the power of the vacuum of space – Google it, and then explain why this great power ignores a weaker force? Do you suppose it is just playing nice? It really is like a heavyweight going up against a lightweight!
Without the firmament this story is well, vacuous.
I’ll wait until you can understand the power of the vacuum of space. Then we can proceed.
I’ll try to make it easy for you.
The PSI at sea level is not the same as the edge of the atmosphere.
Up there, it is almost zero PSI. So the interaction with space is very tiny.
Do you suppose the vacuum of space cares if it is one molecule of air or 10 trillion trillion?
Well yeah. The atmosphere is interacting with one molecule not ten trillion trillion.
Try to think of it like water droplets. One droplet doesn’t matter, a trillion trillion droplets would be like a waterfall.
To be a credible story you need to find the power of the vacuum of space – Google it, and then explain why this great power ignores a weaker force? Do you suppose it is just playing nice? It really is like a heavyweight going up against a lightweight!
It’s about the difference in pressure. At sea level it is about 14.70 pounds per square inch and that interacting with space is significant. At almost zero PSI it is not significant at all. At 5,000-feet it is 12.2 pounds per square inch and 10,000-feet is 10.1 pounds per square inch.
If you do not believe that the pressure changes as you gain altitude, measure it yourself by walking up a mountain and watch it drop. Then imagine if you were able to continue to the edge of the atmosphere and you have the answer.
When you fly in an aircraft you are in a pressurized cabin, thus the PSI is less up there than in the cabin which is set to replicate what we experience down here.
When you think about this, air pressure is a proof of the globe model not the Flat Earth dome model. Under a dome, one would expect it to be filled with air and it would all be the same. A breach in an aircraft on an international flight proves the difference in air pressure.
Maybe a better way to describe it would be to imagine if space was the same PSI as sea level. Now imagine a difference of say a millionth. Well ZERO PSI and almost zero PSI at the atmosphere’s edge is like that.
LOL! I’ll gladly pay him the $65 if he can produce the actual, one and only answer to the question I asked. 😀 (Good luck with that, T8!)
Your on. Which question?
T8: The PSI at sea level is not the same as the edge of the atmosphere.
Again, do you think the vacuum of space cares?
Why would it not gobble those few molecules up and go for the rest? Any answers?
What is stopping the vacuum from coming all the way down to the ground level? Any answers?
The vacuum of space cannot care because it is not self aware that I am aware of at least.
But there is very little that a vacuum can do to the edge of the atmosphere because it is also most zero itself.
Pretty simple to comprehend.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
