john m
Lv 4
john m asked in EnvironmentClimate Change · 8 years ago

Are you a flat earther and don't even know it ? Do you see this as fact or theory ?


edit Mike, Jim and Sam Thanks for your opinions on this subject . I see this process clearly happening. Looking at it I see why there is a 11 year solar cycle.

The sun is traveling in a direction at about 500,000 miles per hour and as the earth gets out in front of the suns direction it's drawn closer to the sun and our atmospheric tail of a night is pulled back towards the sun and it's this process that is the cause of the sun spot cycle , as oxygen is out gassed of a night and and dumped in the line of the suns path it comes in contact with hydrogen to form water vapor Has anyone shown the time gap between sun spots if so are they in 24 hour cycle?

Update 2:

edit Trevor Cheers for your responce Here's something that I've looked at for a while If you look at earth from space and look at the north pole you would be correct in saying the earth rotates anticlockwise and if you look at it from space at the south pole the earth appears to rotate in the opposite direction Seeing science has evolved from the northern hemisphere and using Mike when he said Well it's all about "point of view" What other things have we got back to front and upside down? in reality the earth has no top or bottom It's man need as a reference point for explanations only.

Update 3:

Edit Trevor thanks for your responce I was sitting back thinking about what you said about the sun being on a invisible bungee tether I see the same connection earth has to the sun

I've posted these two links as reference to when we pass through the suns magnetic tether which I think could be every eleven years and this has led to my belief that when we out gas at this point in the suns magnetic tether the ionised particles are traped in the suns magnetic field line and drawn towards the sun after earth has passed through. Trev am I correct in saying that the Tropopause is the Earths first magnetic field line were charged particles move north south instead of west to east as in the troposphere ? And when CO2 reaches the tropopause is it carried north because of the

Update 4:

2 negatively charged oxygen molecules or is CO2 Bi-polar ? sorry for the extra questions Cheers

Update 5:

2 negatively charged oxygen molecules or is CO2 Bi-polar ? sorry for the extra questions Cheers

9 Answers

  • Trevor
    Lv 7
    8 years ago
    Favourite answer

    The presentation made in the video massively over-simplifies the way that Earth moves in space and only addresses one of the nine principle ways in which the planet is moving relative to a static reference point.

    In relation to the solar system, not only do you get the helical spin and orbit that was described in the video but you get the movement toward Lambda Herculis at some 20 kilometres per second.

    Additionally, the whole solar system is travelling some 6 km/s perpendicularly to the plane of the Milky Way such that we’ll eventually leave the galaxy and end up some 250 light years from the galactic centre. Then, as if we’re tethered to a giant bungee rope, we’ll spring back toward the centre of the galaxy.

    Whilst all this is going on, the solar system is orbiting the galactic centre at some 200 km/s in an orbit that takes about 125 million years.

    It doesn’t stop there as the entire galaxy is whizzing through the universe at 599 km/s.

    If it were possible to observe Earth and the solar system from a point way beyond our galaxy we’d see, amongst other things, the following…

    • Earth bouncing up and down as it orbits the Sun

    • Earth wobbling on it’s southern axis like a gyroscope

    • Earth tilting backward and forward upon it’s axis

    • The shape of Earth’s orbit in a two dimensional plane tending toward and away from circularity

    • The elliptical orbit precessing up and down

    • The Earth and other planets spinning through a helical orbit relative to the Sun

    • The solar system rising up and away from our galaxy

    • The solar system moving toward Lambda Herculis

    • The solar system orbiting the galactic centre

    • Precession of the solar eccentric orbit

    • The Milky Way moving out from the centre of the universe.

    To address your specific question as to whether the video is fact or theory - it’s a fact. It’s actually a very simple concept, it may be hard to visualise in respect of something the size of the solar system but it’s easily demonstrated using a model or computer animation.

    There was one error in the video in that the presenter stated that the Coriolis Force determines the rotation of water down a plug-hole – it doesn’t. At this scale the force is so miniscule as to have no effect at all.

    - - - - - - - -


    << if you look at it from space at the south pole the earth appears to rotate in the opposite direction >> I’d never thought of it like that before but you are, of course, absolutely right. Interesting point, thank you.

    Regarding your earlier added comments. I believe your premise is that as Earth travels through space it leaves behind a ‘tail’ of outgassed oxygen, this is drawn in to the Sun where it reacts with hydrogen to form water vapour and thus create sunspots.

    The problem with this notion is that the O2 atom is too massive to reach escape velocity. The temperature of the exosphere isn’t enough to energise the atoms to the point where atmospheric escape could occur, this would require temperatures in excess of 1200K. There is some loss of the atmosphere by way of the lighter H and He atoms escaping, this is at a rate of 3kg per second.

    The other problem is one of scale. Even if just one millionth of the hydrogen burned by the Sun were to react with Oxygen outgassed from Earth, we would need to lose 64,000 kg of O2 every second (assuming that all lost O2 made it’s way to the Sun). On this basis the world’s O2 supply would have been depleted 7,687 times over (4bn kg H mass lost by Sun/s ÷ 1,000,000 = 4,000kg. Mass H = 1, O2 = 16, therefore 64,000kg O2/s needed. Total mass atmospheric O2 = 1.2x10^18kg, ÷ 64,000 = 1.87510^13s. Age of Earth = 1.441x10^17s, ÷ 1.87510^13s = 7,687).

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    I was going to write virtually same as Mike !!!

    When we look at other references frames from our reference frames things can be made to sound absurd. In fact , its really very simple physics

    If you are sitting in a travelling car , points on the wheels are making a circular motion. If you are on the footpath watching a car , points on the wheels are making bizarre spirals away from you. Which is correct : they both are , depending on the reference frame of the observer

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    I believe that when Trevor said that we get 250 light years from the galactic core, he meant 250,000 light years from the galactic core. Other than being far enough away not to be sucked up by black hole in the center of the galaxy, 250 light years from the core is essentially at the core. If we were that close to the core it would be to hot to support life as it would have hundreds of yellow balls in the sky.

    Currently we are 30,000 light years from the galactic core. We are also 30,000 light years from the core of the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy, which will soon be absorbed by our galaxy.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    <in reality the earth has no top or bottom It's man need as a reference point for explanations only.>

    omg lol. thanks for pointing this out to us who have actually studied science, it clearly hasn't ever occured to us. [edit: ok, well it HADN'T occurred to trevor...]

    Now that you wish to state that the sun is responsible for the current warming trend, all you need to do is provide evidence as to why the earth has continued to warm despite solar activity declining significantly since the 1980s, and also explain why the energy emitted from GHGs which has been measured to increase at earth's surface is NOT contributing to this warming trend by explaining what it is doing instead of warming the earth.

    Or, you could stop mistaking your thoughts for facts. utube is not a source of credible evidence. there are utube clips which show that aliens, bigfoot and gods all exist. They are all based on lies. Once these so called scientists can explain the two points I raised above, the stuff you think is science might actually have a shred of credibility.

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • 8 years ago

    Well it depends on your point of view.

    If you substitute "frame of reference" for "point of view" in my first sentence, then yes this is essentially fact albeit presented as being more incredulous than it actually is.

    These physics oddities (well actually that's not the right word) can be manipulated to those who do not understand them. Retrograde planetary motion is another example in astronomy where doubt can be cast on the orbits of the planets by presenting a selection of facts.

  • 8 years ago

    What a bunch of dipstick bunk. One can use a flat map to represent the round earth without BELIEVING that the earth truly is flat. Learn how to spell response before "trying" to understand the science you flunked in school.

  • Koshka
    Lv 5
    8 years ago

    Yes, well, what do you know? These dang engineers base their calculations on that dang theory to send Rover to Mars! Oh well.

    Happy New Year =)

  • 8 years ago

    That is a theory. It's interesting but cannot be proved.

  • 8 years ago

    So, all of a sudden you have reinvented the Theory of Relativity. Wow! Amazing.

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.