1 - Timocrates
- Member
Offline - Registered: 7/06/2015
- Posts: 357
Earth is not a Spaceship: End of the line with modern cosmology
I think it's high time we just called out modern cosmology as bunk. The tendency today in our modern system is to convert Earth into a giant spaceship - as it must be - to avoid all the ludicrous consequences of the infinite vacuum of space. I ask the reader for a moment to consider some glaring absurdities that are necessary consequences of claiming that the Earth is whipping around inside of an extraordinarily intense vacuum. Please note that this follows upon Einstein's "vacuuming out" of the aether, which was the only physical medium that could otherwise have at least potentially prevented any need of turning the Earth into some space worthy craft in the modern Star Trek cosmology of the universe, which is as reasonable as imagining that nature, through purely natural processes, could produce a fully functional, ready-to-go Boeing 747 by pure, dumb luck and chance. There are no naturally produced spaceships in the modern conception of the universe with the sole, necessary and glaring exception of the good earth: of all the other planets, not a one comes even close to functioning as our earth does as a space-faering craft that can adequately and safely maintain and protect organic life.
We have heard many references to "the blue marble" and we have heard many references to 'spaceship Earth' when modern physicists and cosmologists or astrophysicists try to explain to us the alleged world/universe we live in and our place or situation in it. These conceptions are necessary as a direct consequence of imagining that "outer space" is some potentially infinite void and total vacuum: a pure death trap. But there is one glaring fault in this hypothesis: spacecraft and marbles are physically sealed and contained systems; whereas, we have to believe also that man-made spacecraft can launch out into "outer space" here on earth without breaching the container or seal.
Now imagine if we were actually living inside of a typical household marble and wanted to escape from it; or imagine trying to "exit" a Boeing 747 while it is flying at 35,000 feet. In the former case, you would have to penetrate through an extremely thick and strong solid barrier, which would obviously require drilling of some fashion; in the latter, you would depressurize the craft you were exiting and be violently ejected and have no hope of controlling your movement or negating the powerful forces that would be immediately acting upon you. In both cases there is a physical barrier. Now obviously it is absurd to suggest there is some meaningful analogy (beyond shape) between the earth and a marble; the Boeing 747, however, is a much better analogy to what the earth is like in modern physics and cosmology. But therein lies the rub and problem.
Gravity does not save spaceship earth.
If gravity were a strong enough force to save spaceship earth's atmosphere from being violently blown out into the infinitude of space, then your vacuum cleaner could never work. But it works. Therefore, gravity cannot and does not negate the force of a vacuum. Absurdly, we are supposed to imagine that gravity actually becomes weaker the further away we get from earth while the vacuum of space is and must be radically more intense and powerful than your vacuum cleaner is. This is, of course, a recipe for disaster.
Indeed, the very fact that we experience 14.7psi of air pressure at sea level(1) gives us reason to believe that the earth is not inside of or surrounded by a powerful vacuum, firstly because without a strong container any atmosphere would per necessity be liberated and try to fill that vacuum and pressurize it; secondly, because even if there were some effective container, the air or gas would still be pressing outward against the inner wall of the container; therefore, if anything, we would expect the pressure to tend upward/outward and not downward/inward. This is at least evidence that we must have at minimum some sort of container surrounding the earth to maintain air pressure or that there is another substance filling outer space; however, this latter substance, given additionally the shear alleged size and scale of the universe, would presumably crush most anything, however light and subtle it might be: in this last situation, the earth would be like a submarine resisting crushing under pressure.
If earth is a spaceship it needs an outer hull; if earth isn't a space ship, it still needs an outer hull!
So either there is some physical protective shield surrounding the earth preventing violent depressurization or, otherwise, the earth is in some substance (i.e. not surrounded by a vacuum) but the universe is not so insanely large as we are lead to believe or, finally, the earth is in some substance like aether that stretches out to fill the enormity of the modern universe but is again protected by some sort of extremely powerful hull serving as a container, much like the hull of a submarine. Whatever the case may be, I think we are - to be sane - forced to admit at least that modern physics is in desperate need of an immediate revamping when it comes to "outer space."
The two conceptions of the Earth:
1a. "Spaceship Earth"
Earth has in this conception an atmosphere but is mystically protected by some magical, invisible seal:
1b. "Spaceship Earth:
Earth here again enjoys an atmosphere but is clearly protected/sealed by some mystical shield:
2. "Blue marble Earth":
Earth in this conception has no mystical seal but neither does it enjoy an atmosphere much above the height of clouds:
So take your pick. Personally, I would probably prefer to be stuck inside a sealed marble than be on option 1, which is a pressurized Boeing 747 whipping around at tremendous speeds at extremely high altitude without a hull.
Last edited by Timocrates (7/13/2016 4:20 pm)
"The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16 (3).
Defend your Family. Join the U.N. Family Rights Caucus.
- iwpoe
- Member
Offline
- From: Knoxville, TN
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 1,080
Re: Earth is not a Spaceship: End of the line with modern cosmology
Earth isn't surrounded by a "powerful" vacuum. If you set a cloud of air in space with no pre-existing velocity it will just sit there (with some local dispersal because of the motion of the gas particles hitting each other) until it either gets knocked around by other things or the particles within the cloud bump each other or solidify or whatever. Basically all earth does is hold a lot of gasses close to itself because no other forces acting on them are sufficient to move them away from earth.
I mean, I'm sure sometimes there are such forces, but not generally.
Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
- Timocrates
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 7/06/2015
- Posts: 357
Re: Earth is not a Spaceship: End of the line with modern cosmology
iwpoe wrote:
Earth isn't surrounded by a "powerful" vacuum. If you set a cloud of air in space with no pre-existing velocity it will just sit there (with some local dispersal because of the motion of the gas particles hitting each other) until it either gets knocked around by other things or the particles within the cloud bump each other or solidify or whatever. Basically all earth does is hold a lot of gasses close to itself because no other forces acting on them are sufficient to move them away from earth.
I mean, I'm sure sometimes there are such forces, but not generally.
But then why is decompression such a threat to astronauts in space? Why would people's lungs explode? Actually, modern rocket propulsion in space operates on the principle that outer space is a vacuum: it's the pressure differential between the pressurized propellant and the vacuum of space that - when the pressurized propellant is exposed to the vacuum of space - generates the needed thrust.
The recent film, the Martian, used the pressurized atmosphere of a ship to slow itself down (by exposing it to outer space): but this operates on the assumption that it is the extreme pressure differential existing in outer space between a pressurized environment and a vacuum that can be used to generate thrust.
If we say that space is a void but not a vacuum, then we have no way to move around in space: courses and trajectories would necessarily have to be fixed upon launch. Gravity would then have to do the rest of the work. That's one heck of a hail Mary into the end zone!
Moreover, it's not even clear what sort of physical environment you'd be in where pressure differential is something like irrelevant. Presumably every physical void or near void is always and necessarily also a vacuum environment.
Now the pressure in the thermosphere is supposed to be only 0.001 millibars, which is barley even expressibly in psi. 0.001 millibars is 0.0000145037738007 psi. The thermosphere is the last layer of earth's atmosphere: it's where most spacecraft (like the ISS) are supposed to be.
This is the reason why helium filled weather balloons will eventually explode: it's the expansion of the gas in the balloon that bursts the container. You need to be able to control altitude or set up a balloon that will only reach a certain height to prevent the balloon from exploding, giving the container/the balloon sufficient amount of "give" for expansion/contraction.
Last edited by Timocrates (7/13/2016 7:29 pm)
"The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16 (3).
Defend your Family. Join the U.N. Family Rights Caucus.
- •
Thread Starter- iwpoe
- Member
Offline
- From: Knoxville, TN
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 1,080
Re: Earth is not a Spaceship: End of the line with modern cosmology
I mean, conceptually, it helps to think about it in reverse- a vacuum leaving atmosphere and going into space. If you depressurize a sealed container it, for instance, will hold a lid on due to the pressure differential. If you then take it up into space it will no longer do so. If your model of an aether holding the air to the surface of the earth were correct you wouldn't expect this to happen. The aether would be forcefully pushing against the lid just like the air does. Unless you allege that aerther has no power to push against things, but that is going to be something you need to keep your concept clear.
In any case space doesn't so much suck particles into space as the particles are pushed into space. The atmosphere is very thin at the upper levels. Gravity holds most of the atmosphere down. There's a much higher pressure difference between what gets blown into a vacuum cleaner and the vacuum than between Earth's upper atmosphere and space. Likewise inside a space ship and space and Earth's upper atmosphere and space. (Though some of the atmosphere does trickle out very slowly. Nice looking article on that here.)
The pressure difference between what gets blown into a vacuum cleaner and the vacuum is about 2.90075 psi; the pressure difference between Earth's upper atmosphere and space is at most 0.0000145037738007 psi. The pressure difference between inside a space ship and space is closer to 14.7 psi; the pressure difference between the Earth's upper atmosphere and space is the same as previous.
Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
- Timocrates
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 7/06/2015
- Posts: 357
Re: Earth is not a Spaceship: End of the line with modern cosmology
I mean, conceptually, it helps to think about it in reverse-
Yes, I have thought about this but the problem remains: firstly, there just is a vacuum which the force of gravity certainly cannot negate; but second, even if we grant a void but non-vacuum space where pressure differential is somehow negated, then rocket propulsion in space would not be effective at all as a consequence. But perhaps I am wrong about that.
Still, I just can't conceive as physically real a void but non-vacuum space. It makes little sense to me.
If you depressurize a sealed container it, for instance, will hold a lid on due to the pressure differential.
I agree.
If you then take it up into space it will no longer do so.
It should unless something acts on the lid to either push or pull it off. It should remain in an inertial state because there is no pressure coming from inside the container trying to get out and no pressure outside the container acting on the lid to push/pull it off of the container. There is no pressure differential here because outside and inside is a vacuum, so it wont move unless something pushes/pulls on the lid.
If your model of an aether holding the air to the surface of the earth were correct you wouldn't expect this to happen.
I don't 
The aether would be forcefully pushing against the lid just like the air does. Unless you allege that aerther has no power to push against things, but that is going to be something you need to keep your concept clear.
Well, the aether I suggest could at least have removed potential problems of being in a pressurized state inside a vacuum without a container seal.
In any case space doesn't so much suck particles into space as the particles are pushed into space.
What's pushing them? I think attraction might be a better way of thinking of it from this point of view. The pressurized objects want to fill vacuums, which is why things under pressure need to be contained with sufficiently strong containers to resist this action that would otherwise occur.
The atmosphere is very thin at the upper levels. Gravity holds most of the atmosphere down.
But that exasperates the problem. Thinner air should all the more rapidly be sucked into and try to fill/pressurize a vacuum. Gravity can't keep the air here on earth from being sucked up a vacuum and it can't even keep dust, dirt or small objects from being sucked up into it either.
There's a much higher pressure difference between what gets blown into a vacuum cleaner and the vacuum than between Earth's upper atmosphere and space. Likewise inside a space ship and space and Earth's upper atmosphere and space. (Though some of the atmosphere does trickle out very slowly. Nice looking article on that here.)
Yes well they need to say something like that don't they?
The pressure difference between what gets blown into a vacuum cleaner and the vacuum is about 2.90075 psi; the pressure difference between Earth's upper atmosphere and space is at most 0.0000145037738007 psi. The pressure difference between inside a space ship and space is closer to 14.7 psi; the pressure difference between the Earth's upper atmosphere and space is the same as previous.
I don't see how such an arrangement is anything other than effectively attempting to negate a vacuum by introducing some kind of effective aether. The relative pressure in the virtual infinitude of space to Earth's atmosphere could not be balanced if there really is a void/vacuum "of space." The air would be sucked out and dispersed.
Indeed, the effective constant thinning of air pressure as we travel higher itself implies a universally closed and sealed system and an aether (or something) filling space. Again, gravity even right here on earth cannot negate a vacuum, and the modern cosmos has an enormous amount of void space to fill.
There are other issues associated with the vacuum and void of space, such as heat and energy transfer, which would be less problematic again if there was an aether - though I think heat would still remain a problem.
Last edited by Timocrates (7/13/2016 10:28 pm)
"The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16 (3).
Defend your Family. Join the U.N. Family Rights Caucus.
- •
Thread Starter- ArmandoAlvarez
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 7/09/2015
- Posts: 48
Re: Earth is not a Spaceship: End of the line with modern cosmology
- Timocrates
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 7/06/2015
- Posts: 357
Re: Earth is not a Spaceship: End of the line with modern cosmology
!!!!
That is just so horrible!!!!
...
I may as well take the time to point out that near as I can tell, since the time of Newton, gravity was effectively defined as your weight and the force thereof; so, if you are at the equator where the Earth's rim velocity is supposed to be the most extreme (about 1,030mph), then your measured weight is the force of gravity that also de facto negates any physical consequences of the earth's rim velocity (prevents you from being chucked into space):
Weighing an object at the Earth's poles and on the equator
Consider an object that is being weighed with a simple spring balance at one of the Earth's poles. There are only two forces acting on the object, the Earth's gravity, which acts in a downward direction, and the equal and opposite tension in the spring, acting upward. There is no net force acting on the object and the spring balance so the object does not accelerate and remains stationary. The balance shows the value of the force of gravity on the object.
When the same object is weighed on the equator the same two real forces act upon the object. However, the object is moving in a circular path as the Earth rotates. When considered in an inertial frame (that is to say, one that is not rotating with the Earth), some of the force of gravity is expended just to keep the object in its circular path (centripetal force). As such, less tension in the spring is required to counteract the 'remaining' force of gravity.
-
Some might call foul play here. In real physics, rim velocity matters. It is one of the most powerful forces known. The fact that its consequences just magically disappear and is negated because when I stand on a scale at the equator my weight is only perhaps 0.3% less than it is elsewhere is, well, absurd. It would at least also require that gravity is far, far more intense at the equator; but as we see from the wiki quote above, gravity just is the force that produces whatever you happen to weigh. Therefore, had someone asserted that the earth were spinning not at 1,000 but actually now at 20,000 miles per hour at the equator, then gravity would by definition and per necessity be enough to counteract the consequent (insane) forces that would be produced.
Last edited by Timocrates (7/13/2016 11:26 pm)
"The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16 (3).
Defend your Family. Join the U.N. Family Rights Caucus.
- •
Thread Starter- ArmandoAlvarez
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 7/09/2015
- Posts: 48
Re: Earth is not a Spaceship: End of the line with modern cosmology
I don't like Tyson's style, but everything he says in that video is correct.
Perhaps the better explanation is the reddit comment by uvindex. You live at the bottom of an ocean of air. Just like in the ocean of water, the pressure at the bottom of the ocean/atmosphere is much, much higher than the pressure at the top of the ocean/atmosphere. All the pressure we experience down here is from the weight of the air molecules above us, just like the pressure at the bottom of the ocean is from the weight of the water molecules above them. There is no shell keeping the ocean in. Similarly, there is no need for a shell to keep the atmosphere from being sucked away into space.
- Timocrates
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 7/06/2015
- Posts: 357
Re: Earth is not a Spaceship: End of the line with modern cosmology
I don't like Tyson's style, but everything he says in that video is correct.
Perhaps the better explanation is the reddit comment by uvindex. You live at the bottom of an ocean of air. Just like in the ocean of water, the pressure at the bottom of the ocean/atmosphere is much, much higher than the pressure at the top of the ocean/atmosphere. All the pressure we experience down here is from the weight of the air molecules above us, just like the pressure at the bottom of the ocean is from the weight of the water molecules above them. There is no shell keeping the ocean in. Similarly, there is no need for a shell to keep the atmosphere from being sucked away into space.
But the air is asserting pressure on the surface of the water: about 14.7 psi of it...
But we are also getting into density and displacement here too. Regardless, Tyson himself claimed that the vacuum of space is so intense we can't even replicate it here on earth. He claims that gravity magically negates it; but for Tyson, it would seem the air pressure just is (by definition) the effective force of gravity, as I explained in my above post. But this just begs the question. Regardless, the presence of a vacuum that intense just could not fail to violently suck out all of the earth's atmosphere and probably most loose particulate matter on the earth too, if not perhaps even cause the oceans to explode into space as the air evacuated. "Gravity" cannot negate a vacuum; and space is one enormous, hungry vacuum.
Last edited by Timocrates (7/13/2016 11:16 pm)
"The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16 (3).
Defend your Family. Join the U.N. Family Rights Caucus.
- •
Thread Starter- ArmandoAlvarez
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 7/09/2015
- Posts: 48
Re: Earth is not a Spaceship: End of the line with modern cosmology
I don't think I will engage much further on this topic. This feels like debating a flat earther or a new atheist saying, "But then doesn't God need a cause?"
Vacuums are not "powerful" or "intense". The "power" of a vacuum comes from the pressure differential. Down here there is 14.7 psi of pressure. As Poe notes, in the upper atmosphere, there is barely any pressure. So there's not much of a differential between space and the upper atompshere.
Imagine a human pyramid. The folks at the bottom of the pyramid feel a lot of pressure. The people in the middle of the pyramid feel less, and the person at the top feels none.
Imagine rational animals inhabiting the bottom of the Mariana Trench. They need 15K psi to survive. They send Terranauts to the land to explore it. They must do so in landships that can create 15K pressure inside the ship and are perfectly sealed against the atmosphere or they will explode and our Terranauts will die. The air seems like a vacuum to these creatures because of the pressure differential. Even a depth of 100 meters below the surface of the ocean will seem like a vacuum to them. The question "Why doesn't the ocean get sucked into the atmosphere?" makes as much sense to them as the question "Why doesn't the atmosphere get sucked into space?" makes to you. The 14.7 psi of air pressure doesn't seem like a lot to them because they think of ocean pressure as 15K psi
Last edited by ArmandoAlvarez (7/13/2016 11:22 pm)