Nostr Web Client

That's what I've said, it's an orientation. You do know what that means don't you?

I understand orientation.

I’m asking you to explain to me how the world can be moving ‘up’ for everyone at the same time unless it’s flat.

As an extreme example, how can it be moving ‘up’ for someone on the North Pole and someone on the South Pole at the same time.

Just to avoid confusion I do not think the earth is flat, it’s demonstrably a sphere and I can’t tally that with your assertion that when you drop something it doesn’t fall down but the earth moves ‘up’ to meet it.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

𝕞𝕪𝕡𝕒𝕥𝕙𝕥𝕠𝕗𝕚𝕣𝕖 9mo ago

If you understand orientation, and as I have said, the earth is moving upwards. Then because of the motion, regardless of where you are on the earth, regardless of the shape of the earth, you would all have an upward vector caused by the motion of the earth. The upward vector allows you to know up and down, gives you weight (in freefall you are weightless).

Check the video I shared again, this is real world physics and a repeatable experiment you can do yourself - I am not making claims - I have SHOWN you actual reality and you can demonstrate/repeat the experiment yourself.

I do not make any claims to know the shape of the earth, but if you know and can demonstrate it, along with some proof objects are falling, happy to review.

𝕞𝕪𝕡𝕒𝕥𝕙𝕥𝕠𝕗𝕚𝕣𝕖 9mo ago

Here is a great animation showing what's happening

https://youtu.be/SgFvkiFeQn4

𝕞𝕪𝕡𝕒𝕥𝕙𝕥𝕠𝕗𝕚𝕣𝕖 9mo ago

Another practical demonstration that there is no evidence showing objects falling. Once released from the reference frame (movement), they show no signs of acceleration downwards but lose weight , buoyancy and density (which are caused by motion).

https://youtu.be/ACiy61TkdI8

wymike 9mo ago

So are you saying that when something ‘falls’ towards the earth it does not accelerate?

I did an experiment at school when I was 13 using wooden cars, ticker tape and weights to demonstrate that acceleration due to gravity is not affected by mass but they all did still accelerate.

I’m not trying to be a troll but you are going to have to explain in much simpler terms what it is that I don’t understand here.

𝕞𝕪𝕡𝕒𝕥𝕙𝕥𝕠𝕗𝕚𝕣𝕖 9mo ago

Yes, it's clearly demonstrated in this experiment. You can do the same experiment with water. There is an upward vector caused by motion of the earth.

https://youtu.be/hvhIsikVeI0

wymike 9mo ago

My reply to this would be what does the flame do if it’s not in a sealed jar? Not what we are seeing here.

𝕞𝕪𝕡𝕒𝕥𝕙𝕥𝕠𝕗𝕚𝕣𝕖 9mo ago

Do you deny what the experiment shows? Is there a downward force? If so, please demonstrate

wymike 9mo ago

If I push a candle in a direction and it’s not in a closed container the flame will not move in the direction of the force. Anyone who has ever carried anything with a flame on it will tell you that is true.

This phenomenon is caused by the flame being in the sealed container. From the candles point of view the earth is accelerating towards it. From the earths point of view the candle (+the jar and air inside) is accelerating towards it. The physics that explain both are the same. Therefore we have to look at other factors to decide which is actually happening. Is the earth moving up to meet the container or is the container moving down to meet the earth. Since we know from many observations that the earth is a sphere, unless it is expanding it cannot be moving ‘up’ in every direction at the same time. If the earth was expanding it would be observable and measurable, and this has neither been observed or measured therefore it’s reasonable to conclude that it is no the earth moving to meet the container but the container moving to meet the earth.