Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't)

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.
Post Reply
Seneca
Member
Posts: 491
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm
Contact:

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by Seneca » Sun May 11, 2014 1:17 pm

lux wrote:I guess I just can't picture a revolving Earth turning within its atmosphere for millions/billions of years without the atmosphere eventually ending up turning more or less with it.

Would a planet's atmosphere really remain motionless for all that time while the planet within it turned?

I realize that's not a very scientific observation but it just feels right to me that the atmosphere would end up turning with the Earth.

Also, much, if not all of the atmosphere's content comes from the Earth. Or, at least that is my understanding. Water vapor certainly comes from evaporation of surface waters at least. If the source of the atmosphere is turning (the Earth) wouldn't the atmosphere itself turn as a result?

Jupiter's "great red spot" is a feature of its atmosphere and it can be observed with amateur telescopes to revolve around the planet.

I don't know what the relationship between the red spot and the planet's turning is but it's at least some evidence that a planet's atmosphere can revolve.
Yes that makes sense.
You are right about the atmosphere being produced by the earth or things on the earth (plants, trees, volcanos, oceans) so it would have the same speed. What I still cannot explain is why the atmosphere would rotate so smoothly, I mean the higher you go, the faster the molecules have to rotate to keep the same relative position, because of the greater perimeter.
But even if we can explain that it is possible for the atmosphere to rotate this is not proof that it is happening.

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Sun May 11, 2014 3:08 pm

I agree. Proof would be more than visual. Right now, the arguments for a spinning Earth are as weak as the forces they claim to be detecting.

Where is the centripetal effect? Why can't it be demonstrated to exist?

We must either accept different physics for the Earth as a whole (which I am perfectly comfortable doing) or assume their globe-shaped Earth is not spinning. But the reason NASA persists in the nebulous contradiction of denying either path of inquiry is because it allows them to push their "discovery of alien suns/planets/worlds" hypothesis without addressing the nearly infinite number of unknowns about what they claim to be spotting (in their Photoschlop pixel-pushing offices, anyway. I don't know about actual telescope photography, which is why we need access to telescopes).

Seneca
Member
Posts: 491
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm
Contact:

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by Seneca » Sun May 11, 2014 3:39 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:Where is the centripetal effect? Why can't it be demonstrated to exist?
Do you mean the centripetal force?
It think it cannot be demonstrated because it is supposed to be exactly in the opposite direction from gravity, and like gravity, proportional to the mass of the object it is effecting.
This is very convenient, they can choose whatever rotation speed they want and adjust the force of gravity accordingly.

Farcevalue
Member
Posts: 390
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:21 am

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by Farcevalue » Sun May 11, 2014 7:32 pm

I am sure I "learned" this in school once upon a time, but what is the purported force that keeps the earth perpetually spinning? There is no friction in a vacuum, so no drag, but is there a clear demarcation line between the "vacuum" and the atmosphere where objects are subject to friction and drag coefficients?

The more I wonder about it, the less sense it makes.

lux
Member
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by lux » Sun May 11, 2014 7:40 pm

If you had a round platform 10 feet in diameter that rotated at the speed of one revolution per day and you placed a ball somewhere on the platform, how much centripetal force would be evident on the ball?

I think not much at all. It would likely be too small to measure. I think the ball would just sit there motionless. One revolution per day is awfully slow.

And, making the platform larger wouldn't change this as long as the speed remained at one revolution per day. I would guess you could even make the diameter of the platform 8,000 miles, like the Earth, and the ball still wouldn't move. No matter where you put it on the platform -- even near the edge where it would be "moving at 1,000 mph" (as long as the atmosphere was moving with it).

That's my guess anyway but I could be wrong.
Seneca wrote: What I still cannot explain is why the atmosphere would rotate so smoothly, I mean the higher you go, the faster the molecules have to rotate to keep the same relative position, because of the greater perimeter.
If we say the Earth's diameter is 8,000 miles, then for each 10 miles of altitude the necessary speed gain of the atmosphere would be about 2 mph to remain in the same relative position. That's an increase of about two tenths of one percent. Not a whole lot. An altitude of 10 miles (52,800 feet) is the approximate service ceiling of most jet aircraft. Above that the air gets pretty thin so I don't think airspeed makes much difference or can be thought of in the same way when you get much beyond that point. Above 2 or 3 miles people usually need pressurized cabins and/or oxygen tanks just to breath normally.
Last edited by lux on Sun May 11, 2014 9:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Oddfellow
Banned
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 5:58 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by Oddfellow » Sun May 11, 2014 8:55 pm

Perhaps the exact same force that causes the earth to rotate causes the atmosphere to rotate as well?

scud
Member
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 5:56 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by scud » Sun May 11, 2014 8:57 pm

Seneca:
Do you mean the centripetal force?
It think it cannot be demonstrated because it is supposed to be exactly in the opposite direction from gravity, and like gravity, proportional to the mass of the object it is effecting.
This is very convenient, they can choose whatever rotation speed they want and adjust the force of gravity accordingly.
Nah. From both poles to the equator a ‘mass’ should weigh less. Remember, the crew aboard the ISS are ‘weightless’ not because they are so far from Earth that gravity no longer has an effect, but because the ‘centrifugal force’ exerted upon them by way of rotation around Earth counter-acts gravity perfectly. So by this definition of ‘orbit’ mass should be negated some 0.3% at Earth’s equator over its southerly and northerly extremities yet no such discrepancy is acknowledged to exist.

Think of the Olympic games. Much is made of ‘headwinds’ and ‘altitude’ to level the playing field as it were, yet none is made as to the ‘latitude’ of event. If Earth is spinning as we’re told it is, then sprinters, high jumpers, shot putters etc should all be advantaged the closer to the equator they can be and vice versa by a very particular and straight forward calculation...yet this is most certainly not registered as a factor concerning ‘records’.

Contradictorily, were told in no uncertain terms that Earth possess an ‘equatorial bulge’... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_bulge a raising of the oceans on and around the equator. Obviously a recognition that a spinning Earth must have more counter-gravity effects at the equator than at the poles....yet if I took 1 Kg of gold from Ecuador and plonked it on the scales in Oslo, my guess is that it would still weigh exactly the same.

lux
Member
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by lux » Sun May 11, 2014 9:11 pm

scud wrote: ... if I took 1 Kg of gold from Ecuador and plonked it on the scales in Oslo, my guess is that it would still weigh exactly the same.
According to this Cornell reference (which I'm not saying I agree or disagree with) your kilo of gold would weigh 5 grams more at the poles than at the equator. At today's rate I put that at about a $200 difference. Not worth the airfare I guess. :)

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Sun May 11, 2014 10:53 pm

Mm. And to me it's not just the weight but the direction of the force, which would be more leaning and sideways the closer to a pole you got. The most significant strangeness should be at 45 degrees from the equator. I happen to live on the 45th parallel myself, and I've spent over 20 years of my life here, and yet I do not instinctively lean to the North to compensate for anything. Top-heavy objects with very low friction do not automatically begin tipping South, and wheels do not roll faster South, no matter how much winter birds in camper vans would save on gas. This is an issue for the argument of conventional Newtonian physics for the Earth. I urge people to please go back in this thread and read my calculations and try to understand what we've been saying. I am not saying I know the answer or that the world must inherently be a pancake riding on the back of an echidna. I'm just saying it's definitely worth considering, especially if it would simplify the glutinous air logistics. Not saying understanding it all is simple, either.

Seneca
Member
Posts: 491
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm
Contact:

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by Seneca » Mon May 12, 2014 8:59 am

scud wrote:Seneca:
Do you mean the centripetal force?
It think it cannot be demonstrated because it is supposed to be exactly in the opposite direction from gravity, and like gravity, proportional to the mass of the object it is effecting.
This is very convenient, they can choose whatever rotation speed they want and adjust the force of gravity accordingly.
Nah. From both poles to the equator a ‘mass’ should weigh less. Remember, the crew aboard the ISS are ‘weightless’ not because they are so far from Earth that gravity no longer has an effect, but because the ‘centrifugal force’ exerted upon them by way of rotation around Earth counter-acts gravity perfectly. So by this definition of ‘orbit’ mass should be negated some 0.3% at Earth’s equator over its southerly and northerly extremities yet no such discrepancy is acknowledged to exist.

Think of the Olympic games. Much is made of ‘headwinds’ and ‘altitude’ to level the playing field as it were, yet none is made as to the ‘latitude’ of event. If Earth is spinning as we’re told it is, then sprinters, high jumpers, shot putters etc should all be advantaged the closer to the equator they can be and vice versa by a very particular and straight forward calculation...yet this is most certainly not registered as a factor concerning ‘records’.

Contradictorily, were told in no uncertain terms that Earth possess an ‘equatorial bulge’... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_bulge a raising of the oceans on and around the equator. Obviously a recognition that a spinning Earth must have more counter-gravity effects at the equator than at the poles....yet if I took 1 Kg of gold from Ecuador and plonked it on the scales in Oslo, my guess is that it would still weigh exactly the same.
Yeah Scud you're right, my answer was far too simplistic. The forces would be only in the opposite driection at the Equator. I wonder how they explain that the earth was deformed by the rotation, but the atmosphere is not. At least that is what I think they mean by "If the equatorial bulge is in equilibrium with the planet's rotation rate then at every latitude this resultant force exerts precisely the amount of centripetal force that is necessary to maintain an even thickness of the atmospheric layer." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Force ... eroid2.gif). But I can't even see how this normal force, which is a component of the contact force of the ground can act up in the atmosphere.

Libero
Member
Posts: 333
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by Libero » Sat May 17, 2014 8:58 pm

Astronomic Philanthropy or something else? (i.e. Beware of Greeks bearing gifts...)

Let's examine some of the characters...

Griffith J. Griffith --
Griffith Jenkins Griffith (January 4, 1850 – July 6, 1919) was a Welsh-American industrialist and philanthropist. After amassing a significant fortune from a mining syndicate in the 1880s, Griffith donated 3,015 acres (12.20 km2) to the City of Los Angeles which became Griffith Park, and he bequeathed the money to build the park's Greek Theatre and Griffith Observatory.
--What a peculiar combination... an observatory and a theater named "Greek" (inside joke?) It's currently not exactly the prime property one would want to host a telescope either, what with all the light pollution from Los Angeles. It sure made a great field trip from school in my youth, though.

Image
In 1878 G. J. Griffith became mining correspondent for the Alta California, a San Francisco newspaper. As a reporter he gained extensive knowledge of the mining industry on the Pacific Coast and in Nevada, which led to his employment by various mining syndicates. As a mining expert, Griffith acquired a fortune.
--According to this author, his riches were made via what would be better known as "insider trading" today-- http://www.mikebetette.com/griffith-park.php

While vacationing in Santa Monica on September 3, 1903, Griffith shot his wife in the presidential suite of the Arcadia Hotel, as she knelt on the floor before him. Surprisingly, the shot did not kill her, but she was left disfigured and lost her right eye. In the sensational case, Griffith was charged with assault with a deadly weapon with intent to commit murder. The prosecution was led by Henry T. Gage, former governor of California. Griffith was defended by noted attorney Earl Rogers, whose cross-examination of the veiled Mrs. Griffith revealed that her husband — generally thought to be a teetotaler — was in fact a secret drunk who was subject to paranoid delusions. Griffith was convicted of a lesser charge, assault with a deadly weapon. The judge sentenced him to two years in San Quentin State Prison, instructing that he be given "medical aid for his condition of alcoholic insanity."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griffith_J._Griffith

(Griffith's attorney in above case, Earl Rogers ended up becoming the inspiration for the character, Perry Mason. His Wiki is a very worthwhile read along with that of his journalist daughter. Gage's is quite interesting as well -- looks to have also gotten into mining as a scheme among others.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Rogers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adela_Rogers_St._Johns
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Gage


Samuel Oschin --
Samuel Oschin (1914–2003), born in Detroit, was a Los Angeles entrepreneur and philanthropist who was dedicated to giving back to the Los Angeles community. Oschin's successful business ventures in manufacturing, banking, investment, and real estate development enabled philanthropic work in many areas (astronomy, medicine, education, and the arts).
After a generous donation to Palomar Observatory, the 48-inch Schmidt telescope there was renamed for him. Other organisations named for him include the Comprehensive Cancer Institute at Cedars-Sinai Hospital and the planetarium at Griffith Observatory. A new addition to the California Science Center, to be called the Samuel Oschin Air and Space Center, will be the permanent home of the Space Shuttle Endeavour, which will be on temporary display in the Samuel Oschin Space Shuttle Endeavour Display Pavilion, opening October 30, 2012.
-- Viewing one of the various productions at the planetarium is truly the highlight of one's trip to Griffith that undoubtedly keeps folks coming back year after year. On a side note, do any of these philanthropic donations for the medical profession ever accomplish anything but to finance larger buildings and new exotic methods for treatments rather than to seek out solutions to the actual cures?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Oschin


Palomar Observatory -- (Rockefeller Foundation)
Palomar Observatory is a privately owned astronomical observatory located in San Diego County, California, United States, 145 kilometers (90 mi) southeast of Los Angeles, California, in the Palomar Mountain Range. It is owned and operated by the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) located in Pasadena, California. Research time is granted to Caltech and its research partners, which include the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and Cornell University.

The observatory operates several telescopes, including the famous 200-inch (5.1 m) Hale Telescope and the 48-inch (1.2 m) Samuel Oschin Telescope. In addition, other instruments and projects have been hosted at the observatory, such as the Palomar Testbed Interferometer and the historic 18-inch (0.46 m) Schmidt telescope, Palomar Observatory's first telescope, dating from 1936.
The 200-inch telescope is named after astronomer George Hale. It was built by Caltech with a $6 million grant from the Rockefeller Foundation, using a Pyrex blank manufactured by Corning Glass Works. Dr. J.A. Anderson was the initial project manager assigned in the early 1940s.[2] The telescope (the largest in the world at that time) saw first light January 26, 1949 targeting NGC 2261.[3] The American astronomer Edwin Powell Hubble, perhaps the most important observer of the 20th century, was given the honor of being the first astronomer to use the telescope.

Astronomers using the Hale Telescope have discovered distant objects at the edges of the known universe called quasars and have given us the first direct evidence of stars in distant galaxies. They have studied the structure and chemistry of intergalactic clouds leading to an understanding of the synthesis of elements in the universe and have discovered thousands of asteroids. A one-tenth-scale engineering model of the telescope at Corning Community College in Corning, New York, home of the Corning Glass Works (now Corning Incorporated) was used to discover at least one minor planet, (34419) Corning.†

Carnegie Observatories--
The Carnegie Observatories were launched in 1904 when George Ellery Hale, seeking clearer skies than existed near his native Chicago, obtained support from the newly formed Carnegie Institution of Washington to found the Mount Wilson Solar Observatory in the mountains near Pasadena. Hale built both the 60” and 100” telescopes on Mount Wilson, each the largest in the world at the time of their completion. It was with these instruments that Carnegie astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered and first described the expanding universe.
In 1969, the focus of Carnegie observations moved to the Las Campanas Observatory, set high in the southern reaches of Chile's Atacama Desert. At an altitude of 2,400 meters, in a region of dark, clear skies and excellent seeing that is unsurpassed by any site on Earth, reside the Carnegie Observatories’ telescopes. The principal telescopes at Las Campanas are the Swope 1-meter telescope, the du Pont 2.5-meter telescope, and the twin 6.5-meter Magellan Telescopes. Carnegie operates the Magellan Telescopes for a consortium whose other members are Harvard, MIT, and the Universities of Arizona and Michigan. The twin 6.5-meter Magellan telescopes are widely considered to be the best natural imaging telescopes in the world.
(The du Pont telescope in the Chilean observatory is a nice touch... The growing of hemp, of course was outlawed in the U.S. just as du Pont's Nylon was coming into the scene, but that's a different story <_<) -- http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f= ... 6#p2390276

Edwin Hubble --
As a result of Hubble's work, our perception of mankind's place in the Universe has changed forever: humans have once again been set aside from the centre of the Universe. When scientists decided to name the Space Telescope after the founder of modern cosmology the choice could not have been more appropriate.
...the son of an insurance executive...

...the combination of athletic prowess and academic ability earned him a Rhodes scholarship to Oxford. There, a promise made to his dying father, who never accepted Edwin's infatuation for astronomy, led him to study law rather than science...

He studied Roman and English Law at Oxford and returned to the United States only in 1913. Here he passed the bar examination and practised law half-heartedly for a year in Kentucky, where his family was then living.

When the school term ended in May 1914, Hubble decided to pursue his first passion and so returned to university as a graduate student to study more astronomy.
A new era for astronomy begins

The famous British astrophysicist Stephen Hawking wrote in his book A Brief History of Time that Hubble's "discovery that the Universe is expanding was one of the great intellectual revolutions of the 20th century." Who could have guessed such a future for Edwin when he began his PhD in Astronomy at Chicago University in 1914?
Hmm... a Rhodes scholar certainly puts him in with an "elite" group of folks. The providers of the scholarship couldn't possibly have been too happy about his about-face, could they?
Established in 1902, it was the first large-scale programme of international scholarships, and is widely considered the "world's most prestigious scholarship" by many public sources such as Time, Yale University Press, The McGill Reporter, and Associated Press.
"For more than a century, Rhodes scholars have left Oxford with virtually any job available to them. For much of this time, they have overwhelmingly chosen paths in scholarship, teaching, writing, medicine, scientific research, law, the military, and public service. They have reached the highest levels in virtually all fields."
Is it "they have reached" or is "they have been allowed to reach" more appropriate? Check out the list of Rhodes Scholars and decide for yourself.

http://www.spacetelescope.org/about/his ... _the_name/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodes_Scholarship
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Rhodes_Scholars

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Wed Jun 25, 2014 6:33 am

I am sorry I missed this post of yours until now, Libero. It's awesome. Well done, and well written.

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:43 pm

When calculating a trajectory or path, how is it done?

On the one hand, it seems it's best to pretend as if the Earth were an endless series of flat copies, like the repeating quilt I mentioned earlier, whereby the ground's planar position remains the same both in behavior and visually — since we haven't observed the curvature of the Earth that there is supposed to be if the Earth were a ball. The "X and Y" dimensions (north, south, east, west) are measured and reckoned by the human brain to be straight, whereas the "Z" (up and down) dimension is measured curved by any observation of the Moon and Sun in the same sky. (I've explained earlier in the thread why light cannot strictly be moving in a straight line).
flat_pattern_4_small.jpg
Yet the ground's relative spacial position, when mapped, is much more accurately represented by a ball. That is to say, if you want to find the shortest distance between any two points on Earth, the quilt is useless because it must have corners that do not exist on our perfect unblemished and uncornered plane. The only way we have been able to conceptually show an unblemished, cornerless plane that is useful from any point upon it is to render our map as a ball.
globe-earth-space-western-hemisphere.jpg
(Or a tube, if you use a flat digital GoogleMaps-style map, where the map scrolls infinitely East-West but has a clear "top" and "bottom" South or North.)
116cE.jpg
So is the Earth physically a ball or only conceptually a ball?

That is: is the Earth only "ball shaped" in our maps and NASA fiction because we are taking the entirely fictional position of being able to observe all points at the same time? If we cannot imagine an alternative, does it necessarily mean there is no alternative, or does it mean our imagination is finite and confined to applying the rules of our familiar world to the unknown macro-realm we inhabit? Does reality warp to our perception at the moment of observation, as quantum mechanics has suggested for nanoscale stuff? Or can our "Earth" be described as something with much more complex physics than we presume?

We walk around on a visually and dimensionally planar surface. Yet, we test for arrival at one point from any other to be spatially a loop of some kind. You can either say the loop just happens to work for every thing, no matter which direction it goes, or you can say our physics are different from our perception of our physics.

The Earth must be considered "looping" in the sense that it repeats itself predictably like a sphere, but otherwise does not share other properties of a conventional sphere. Therefore, the Earth should not be referred to as a dimensionally semi-spherical "object". It should be noted that we seem to be on an unmoving plane with a series of repeating objects flying "overhead" some distance "away" from this non-object we call the Earth.

The Earth might instead be considered either: an absolutely positioned plane with a non-XYZ straight-line framework (as presumed by our calculations and predictions) or a sphere that we are incapable of detecting with our human or self-enhanced senses.

For the sake of explaining our "position", I believe it is safe to assume either and make calculations and assumptions from these points. What do you think?

Could it be that the Earth is curved, but light and other forms of electromagnetism bend around the Earth in such a way that they appear flat? If so, this suggests we should not and cannot reach "the stars" or "other worlds" until we can at least see a curvature at all, and have some electromagnetic compatibility that safely transfers physics itself from our "home planet" to "another". Is NASA so deep into their Gnostic/New Age beliefs that they are hoping that by manipulating people's perceptions (i.e.; lying), they will create an electromagnetic consciousness-based "contract" between Earth and another world? I believe that those on top of this pyramid may have given their employees a little lower down this premise by exploiting our misunderstanding of physics. I think it could be that TPTB are trying to tell their underlings that they are Gods, and that they can break the laws of physics if their underlings wish really hard, similar to a child begging Santa Claus for a magic wand. I think this might be some incentive for some of these people to lie. They are being lied to and told they will basically become Gods, and this is part of their motivation for having the Religious fervor and look of hypnotic idiocy we can observe in the liars.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

fbenario
Member
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by fbenario » Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:38 am

hoi.polloi wrote: Is NASA so deep into their Gnostic/New Age beliefs that they are hoping that by manipulating people's perceptions (i.e.; lying), they will create an electromagnetic consciousness-based "contract" between Earth and another world?
A great, great sentence.

Overall just an excellent post.

pov603
Member
Posts: 851
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:02 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by pov603 » Mon Aug 18, 2014 11:09 am

Apologies for 'piggy-backing' on your post but, for me, the odd thing about out depiction of the Earth isn't that it is as a ball [if it were it would not matter how we viewed it] but for the 'fact' that we are told it rotates at a fixed point and consequently we always conceptualize it the same way i.e. in the N/S-manner.
However, when viewed rotated through 180 degrees it takes on a somewhat unrealistic/uncomfortable visage yet this shouldn't be the case as there shouldn't be an 'up' or 'down'.
I know that someone postulated sometime ago that the shape of the land masses above water seemed to indicate a downward trajectory brought about by a force/gravity or suchlike, and this was 'pooh-poohed' by the Academic World.
Nevertheless it should beg the question are we perceiving it correctly or is this the only way it can be perceived.
Image
picture share

Edit: fixed typos.

Post Reply