The reason we take these for granted today is that they were proved over hundreds of years. In the case of the Earth orbiting the Sun, Galileo was persecuted by the church for even suggesting such a thing.
No, and no. Galileo's trial concerning heliocentrism did not actually go down like you hear in most accounts (which act like he was hounded for twenty years. He was accused of heresy, and later called the whole thing an idle fancy of youth.
In his later years Galileo insisted on the truth of the geocentric solar system, Kelly said. The story that after he formally renounced the motion of the earth at his sentencing he muttered, “And yet it moves,” is a romantic invention of a later generation.
As for the first point, the reason you believe this is because from early childhood onward, you get spammed by pictures of a round Earth. So you think that the science must be settled, and you buy the narrative.
Universal Studios logo
Pictures on magazines and posters of a round earth.
These are all very nice, but the fact is that you're told over and over from even when you're a child (perhaps you've seen those kid's planet models above cribs) what the solar system looks like and how it behaves. So atheist types get after Christians for supposedly "brainwashing" children, but this is hardcore.
Time zones are human constructs to account for the sun rising at different times in different places of the world. I know people who don't believe this, but it is pretty easy to test, just call someone in a different time zone.
...No. They had to do with the time being minutes off at every train station. It used to be that there were clocks at each one, but they decided to set a synchronized time by hourly zones. This is the effect of centralized government. And if they can get you to believe that five miles across a time zone is really an hour apart, they can get the public to cooperate with or accept anything.
I am assuming the gas in it is lighter than air. But that's kinda exactly the point. Lighter than air
. We are not talking about a "force" that pressed down on things. We are talking about density verses layers of air pressure. Most vehicles are not suited to reaching the stratosphere because they are (1) too dense and (2) there isn't upward propulsion enough to overcome this.
It's bypassed. Birds should not be strong enough with their fragile bodies to fly past something that is supposedly strong enough to hold the ground together while the Earth is spinning at over 1000 mph ( btw, there isn't such a thing as perpetual motion, we are told that day in and day out, the Earth spins on its axis but if a human were to spin on their axis for even an hour, they would become dizzy and violently ill, an inanimate object likewise would begin to rip off chunks of itself). But they are, easily, simply by having light bodies. Shouldn't a powerful force be difficult to overcome?
No, it is explicitly stated that the reason water doesn't fall off the Earth is because of gravity and rotation. But this is not duplicated in any micro-level test. I went to a science museum, and they are trying to convince you that water is staying on this big metal globe. Actually, it's constantly falling off, and the water that seems to be going to the top is only doing so because they have a strong pump underneath the globe pushing water upwards to turn the globe. If the globe was turned by air pressure instead, all water would settle to the bottom. In space, constantly rotating, this is exactly what would happen.
Right. It uses forces like propulsion to lift itself. But there is also the factor of being largely hollow inside, and having wide aerodynamic wings. But if gravity is as much a thing as you seem to think it is, it shouldn't glide much less fly, not at any speed. Its weight is roughly 910,000 lb.
The more something weighs, the more gravity should exert pressure on it to fall. Instead, this jumbo jet flies from North America to Europe to Africa.
There is no "gravity" without buoyancy. Everything about "gravity" relies on the exact forces of density and buoyancy, propulsion and other laws of attraction. These are not
separate forces. "Gravity" is
This is not countering, this is outright defying. An object that large and awkward is the effective equivalent of a dragon flying. But I read a rather long argument that said basically mythological dragons shouldn't be able to fly, because it was basically a flying brick. The larger they are, and the heavier, the more impossible it is for an already impossible creature to do that. Yet here we have an equivalent object, and you're all like, sure no problem just use alot of energy to counter it.
It's not funny at all. In our science class, we went on an amusement park, and they showed us that most of these rides use real physics. So the best test of real physics, is from observation by experience. I was on said ride.
The ride can reach a maximum speed of 24 rpm in less than 20 seconds, due to the 33 kW 3-phase motor.
After spinning at 24 rpm, we are lifted aloft.
So how has is 24 rpms? Well it depends on the radius. I have here this handy calculator.
But we need the radius. So how big is it?
The entire ride racks on a single 15-metre (50 ft) trailer for transport
This means its diameter is 50 ft (or less, given it has to fit inside the rack). This means the radius is 25 ft or 7m. In fact, it did seem to be about 25 ft away from center to edge, so that's about right. So, let's calculate.
As you can see, even if we were to say the diameter was the radius, we are not looking at an astounding speed, only about 39 mph. We are told that the Earth is rotating at a shocking 1024 mph (which given this RPM calculator, is not that fast in RPMs, considering the entire radius of the Earth is supposedly about 20856000 ft (I had to convert miles in radius into feet to make the calculator work), certainly not enough to spin anything aloft but also not enough to hold water in place). But since gravity is so weak as to overcome it with far less than 100 miles for a human, and only 184 mph for a fully loaded 747...
...if it does exist, its effect is so weak as to be insignificant.