Why every world map you're looking at is WRONG

  • Thread starter Thread starter prodigal
  • Start date Start date
  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Angela53510 said:
Getting back to the OP, surely in this digital age someone can come up with a 3D representation of the earth, with a globe that spins on a flat surface.

You could make an app out of it. Not sure if it would have practical application, since most people really don't have a use for an accurate representation of the earth.

Didn't everyone take this stuff about Mercator projections in Junior High? We spent a lot of time going through the various maps and how they were made and their draw backs. Cartography was interesting in university, too, but the course assumed everyone knew these basic facts about the limitations of flat maps.

"What do they teach them in the schools, these days?" The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe - C S Lewis.
Click to expand...

Yeah, sadly education wasn't like they use too. Everything now is done on power-point and online. Teachers used to draw/write it out on the blackboard and actually go through the subject with proper explanation and not just a quick read, and on to the next power-point slide :(

It's "funny" how good teachers, the ones who are passionate or put a lot of effort in their class, makes the most lasting impact and memories. I still remember my Grade 8 teachers and on wards. They are a gem!

anyway, apology on going side-track here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This was just posted online yesterday. No, I do NOT believe the earth is flat. And I don't put faith in conspiracies. But I was just wondering why the earth looks so different in this photo than it does in other pictures we've seen. I'm asking all you science experts out there. Thanks friends! :)

[video=youtube;CconZpamCQc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CconZpamCQc[/video]
 
VioletReigns said:
This was just posted online yesterday. No, I do NOT believe the earth is flat. And I don't put faith in conspiracies. But I was just wondering why the earth looks so different in this photo than it does in other pictures we've seen. I'm asking all you science experts out there. Thanks friends! :)

[video=youtube;CconZpamCQc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CconZpamCQc[/video]
Click to expand...

This video is actually kind of sad. I mean North america doesnt look right? lets see the earth is tilted on an axis and there are clouds and this guy is just a moron.
 
don't know why i didn't know about this before, but for all of you flat-earth / geocentric-universe / all-space-science-is-a-big-fake-hoax / etc conspiracy nutcases . . .

here'a a live stream from the ISS that gives you 24/7 realtime proof that the earth is convex & that there is an actual international space program.
the stream shows interior live video while the crew of the ISS is on duty, and real-time exterior footage of the earth while they are not. you can even check weather around the globe to verify cloud patterns if you like; there's a tracker of where the ISS currently is included in the link. enjoy!

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/live-iss-stream
 
No one so far has mentioned the other Planets in our Solar System. They all appear to be round, so why would the Earth be any different? Anyone with a decent telescope can check it themselves.
 
posthuman said:
don't know why i didn't know about this before, but for all of you flat-earth / geocentric-universe / all-space-science-is-a-big-fake-hoax / etc conspiracy nutcases . . .

here'a a live stream from the ISS that gives you 24/7 realtime proof that the earth is convex & that there is an actual international space program.
the stream shows interior live video while the crew of the ISS is on duty, and real-time exterior footage of the earth while they are not. you can even check weather around the globe to verify cloud patterns if you like; there's a tracker of where the ISS currently is included in the link. enjoy!

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/live-iss-stream
Click to expand...


Why are there never any stars around in these pictures orshots? What is the explanation for this? Is there some reason cameras can'tpick up stars in space? It is a vacuum right? So there is literally nothing toblock or defuse the light, so why are there not stars in the “live feed”? Ialso wondered how rockets work in a vacuum when there is no air to “push off”of. Now I am not pretending to be some super smart guy that just stumped NASAor anything like that, those are honest questions I have.

I just read that rockets apperantly don't need air to work, but still would like to know about the stars.
 
Last edited:
Jimbone said:
Why are there never any stars around in these pictures orshots? What is the explanation for this? Is there some reason cameras can'tpick up stars in space? It is a vacuum right? So there is literally nothing toblock or defuse the light, so why are there not stars in the “live feed”? Ialso wondered how rockets work in a vacuum when there is no air to “push off”of. Now I am not pretending to be some super smart guy that just stumped NASAor anything like that, those are honest questions I have.

I just read that rockets apperantly don't need air to work, but still would like to know about the stars.
Click to expand...

it's simple, really - it's because the stars are faint, but the earth itself (and the ISS lit up by spotlights) are very bright.
same thing with the photos from the surface of the moon, or the photos from satellites like Cassini & Voyager etc.

think of it like this - if you went outside at night and turned on your porchlight, and then tried to take a picture of your porch with some of the sky in the background - you wouldn't see stars in that picture. your camera shutter would only be open for 1/60 of a second.
now same situation, but you want to get the stars in the picture - you need to leave the shutter open for a couple minutes. like 100X as long as you did to get a picture of the porch. when you do this, the porch will be completely washed out in the picture - it'll look like a giant white spot.

when you see a picture of a planet or a moon or the earth or a spacewalking astronaut etc, they're trying to get a picture of that thing, not the stars. so there's a relatively fast shutter speed.
when you see a picture from a telescope, looking at stars - the shutter is open for waaaay longer.

does that make sense? a little knowledge and a little understanding clear up so much confusion!

:)
 
OK and about how rockets work -- they are different than propellers. propellers need air or water to work because they are actually "pushing off" on something to move a boat or plane forward -- their curved blades push air/water backwards, and pull the craft ahead as they spin.

a rocket is different. it's more like this old physics 101 standard test question:
you're stuck in the middle of a frozen over lake, in a sled full of heavy rocks that for whatever reason you can't get out of -- how do you get to the edge of the lake?

the answer is that you throw the rocks in one direction, and that pushes you in the opposite direction.
this is because momentum (mass*velocity) is conserved: 'for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction'

it's the same principle as the recoil of shooting a gun - the gun pushes the bullet forward and pushes you backwards. you weigh a lot more than a bullet, so you wind up going backwards with a lot less speed than the bullet does, but (except for frictional losses and fancy tricks to absorb and spread out the recoil) your momentum and the bullets momentum are the same.

so when you toss a rock off your sled, you're pushing the rock away from you - and in a sense the rock is pushing back with the same amount of force. watch a couple hockey players try to push each other and see it in action - or if you can get yourself out on some ice this winter, get someone to stand next to you and try to push them away - you'll push yourself backwards too!

and when a rocket expels some exhaust out of one end, that exhaust is pushing the rocket in the opposite direction - without needing anything to push against.

hope that makes sense too :)
 
Last edited:
Nautilus said:
Science shouldnt be this hard for you all.
Click to expand...

Dude why do you contribute nothing but sarcasm? If you have everything so figured out then why not explain it to us complete morons, or just mind your own business? If we are just so far down the intellectual latter that you don’t have time to, then why even waste your time commenting? Every comment I see of yours offers absolutely nothing but your own cynical view. Not everyone needs to know your contempt and thoughts for their views or curiosities, especially when they serve no purpose but feeding your own ego.
 
@ Posthuman

Thank you man, and yes I understood what you said. I understand the principle behind how they say it works I just cannot get it to click in my mind. I’ve seen an experiment with a balloon that showed without the escaping air being able to “push” off something. Now again I am just trying to learn and understand, and am very open to being completely wrong, or understanding something wrong, or just plain not understanding at all. Here’s the link to the video I’m talking about. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-v_K1k8Se0

What is off with this experiment that makes it wrong? Also I really do appreciate you taking the time to actually explain this stuff to a “thick head” instead of just insulting me.
 
Jimbone said:
@ Posthuman

Thank you man, and yes I understood what you said. I understand the principle behind how they say it works I just cannot get it to click in my mind. I’ve seen an experiment with a balloon that showed without the escaping air being able to “push” off something. Now again I am just trying to learn and understand, and am very open to being completely wrong, or understanding something wrong, or just plain not understanding at all. Here’s the link to the video I’m talking about. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-v_K1k8Se0

What is off with this experiment that makes it wrong? Also I really do appreciate you taking the time to actually explain this stuff to a “thick head” instead of just insulting me.
Click to expand...

the vacuum is exerting a lot more force than the air escaping from the balloon. if the vacuum was placed in line with the wheels, instead of perpendicular to it, it would pull the car across the board. it might even suck the whole straw into the vacuum hose - which would then make it obvious that the vacuum is exerting a force on the car, right? well that force doesn't disappear when you turn the hose sideways -- it's just pointed in a different direction.

what's happening in the video is that the force of the vacuum cleaner is overcoming the force exerted by the air in the balloon.
"vacuum" in space is not the same as what happens at the end of a vacuum cleaner hose - it's emptiness, an absence of air. at the end of a vacuum cleaner, there's not an absence of air -- their's air moving with a lot of velocity into the vacuum hose. so this guy is not testing whether a balloon can exert a force without air to "push against" -- there's plenty of air still behind the balloon. it's just that that air is moving quickly into the vacuum hose instead of just sitting there. if you really want to test the theory the poster of the video is pushing, you need to do this in a vacuum chamber - a place where there's no air. you want the absence of other forces -- but in this video, we've added another force, one that's bigger than the force from the balloon.

do you know how airplane wings work? air moves over the top of the wing faster than the bottom, so there's lower pressure on top, and the air underneath effectively pushes the wing upward (because the air above isn't pushing as hard downwards)? the same thing is happening at the back of the car in the video. there's very fast moving air behind the car, faster than the air moving out of the balloon, and the air in front of the car isn't moving at all. so there's a low pressure pocket behind the car - like what you have above an airplane wing - and that's pulling the car backwards and sideways, with more force than the balloon.
 
posthuman said:

the vacuum is exerting a lot more force than the air escaping from the balloon. if the vacuum was placed in line with the wheels, instead of perpendicular to it, it would pull the car across the board. it might even suck the whole straw into the vacuum hose - which would then make it obvious that the vacuum is exerting a force on the car, right? well that force doesn't disappear when you turn the hose sideways -- it's just pointed in a different direction.

what's happening in the video is that the force of the vacuum cleaner is overcoming the force exerted by the air in the balloon.
"vacuum" in space is not the same as what happens at the end of a vacuum cleaner hose - it's emptiness, an absence of air. at the end of a vacuum cleaner, there's not an absence of air -- their's air moving with a lot of velocity into the vacuum hose. so this guy is not testing whether a balloon can exert a force without air to "push against" -- there's plenty of air still behind the balloon. it's just that that air is moving quickly into the vacuum hose instead of just sitting there. if you really want to test the theory the poster of the video is pushing, you need to do this in a vacuum chamber - a place where there's no air. you want the absence of other forces -- but in this video, we've added another force, one that's bigger than the force from the balloon.

do you know how airplane wings work? air moves over the top of the wing faster than the bottom, so there's lower pressure on top, and the air underneath effectively pushes the wing upward (because the air above isn't pushing as hard downwards)? the same thing is happening at the back of the car in the video. there's very fast moving air behind the car, faster than the air moving out of the balloon, and the air in front of the car isn't moving at all. so there's a low pressure pocket behind the car - like what you have above an airplane wing - and that's pulling the car backwards and sideways, with more force than the balloon.
Click to expand...

"what's happening in the video is that the force of the vacuum cleaner is overcoming the force exerted by the air in the balloon.", but if that is true then how they say rockets work is wrong anyway. If a rocket worked like you're saying and it needs no outside thing to "push off" of then this vacuum should have no effect on the thrust at all. Think about it, space is a vacuum and if a rocket can propel it's self through it on it's own, then simply diverting (or sucking up) the escaping air should have no effect on the thrust. If all the thrust is made inside the balloon itself then anything done to the escaping air should have no effect. In my mind anyway, and again I am not saying I have even a small understanding of rocket science, but do you at least see where my hang-up is? Here is another one without the vacuum The actual experiment starts at 6:45 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfFJImcFx3s If the thrust is made in the balloon with nothing needed outside to push off of (like in space) then no matter what you do to the escaping air should make a difference. Now the only way I can see this one explained is by saying that the paper is acting like a sail and the air is creating the exact amount of thrust backwards as the balloon it creating forward, and I personally can’t see how it could create the same force so perfectly it doesn’t even budge, but again I reserve the right to be completely wrong. Also thank you so much for discussing this stuff with me to help me figure it out, most people would feel like it was just a waste of time and just mock anyone that questions what “experts say”. Even though experts also say we are all related to the same single cell too.
 
bowharp said:
By the way, this isn't a conspiracy. It's science.

Oil gas and mining companies have used geodatum for years.

They hire surveyors and to get the latest maps ( earth's plate tectonics movement changes and other factors).
Click to expand...

Bowharp, do you work in the mining/O&G industries? Because you are spot on with your knowledge on geodatum.

They use that a lot in oil and gas exploration fields.
 
Jimbone said:
"what's happening in the video is that the force of the vacuum cleaner is overcoming the force exerted by the air in the balloon.", but if that is true then how they say rockets work is wrong anyway. If a rocket worked like you're saying and it needs no outside thing to "push off" of then this vacuum should have no effect on the thrust at all. Think about it, space is a vacuum and if a rocket can propel it's self through it on it's own, then simply diverting (or sucking up) the escaping air should have no effect on the thrust.
Click to expand...

no, in that experiment, there are two differences: first, what's happening at the end of the shop-vac's hose isn't "vacuum" in the sense of space exactly - it's not an absence of matter.
it is alike in the sense that there's low pressure - in space there is extremely low pressure, because there is simply no air (or gas, more precisely) there at all.
the second difference is that in space, there is vacuum all around a rocket - not just at the back end of it. so instead of having a force effectively pulling the car/rocket backwards & sideways because of the pressure difference, there is a 'force' pulling the rocket/car in every direction at the same time.
would need to put another vacuum hose in the front, one on the other sides, top, bottom -- the whole thing would have to be surrounded by vacuum to simulate space. sucking air at the back of the car only, and nowhere else, isn't simulating space.

i have to go run some errands - only read the first part of your post. but i'll be back on later, and give it some more thought :)

i might be presenting some of this a little wrong too - but i'm certain about the basic principles. apologize in advance if i misspeak about something.

but i'll be back later on, and no problem about taking time - i'm enjoying thinking about this, and explaining to someone is a very good way to make thoughts clear for myself too :)
 
Last edited:
Jimbone said:
Here is another one without the vacuum The actual experiment starts at 6:45 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfFJImcFx3s If the thrust is made in the balloon with nothing needed outside to push off of (like in space) then no matter what you do to the escaping air should make a difference. Now the only way I can see this one explained is by saying that the paper is acting like a sail and the air is creating the exact amount of thrust backwards as the balloon it creating forward, and I personally can’t see how it could create the same force so perfectly it doesn’t even budge, but again I reserve the right to be completely wrong.
Click to expand...

you're right about what's happening here - the paper is attached to the car, and it's acting just like a sail. the force that's being applied by the pressure of the air inside the balloon is being applied everywhere inside the balloon except at the open end pointing backwards, so in the absence of anything else, the air inside the balloon pushing against the front of the balloon ins't balanced out by any force pointing backwards, and the cart is pushed forward. with the piece of paper rigidly attached to the car though, there's a force pointing backwards that balances out the forward-pointing one.

you're right too that it shouldn't be perfectly balanced - but that difference should be pretty small. the air coming out of the back of the balloon is moving pretty quickly - the air speed is proportional to the diameter of the straw. big straw, slower air, small straw, faster air. when it leaves the straw, it starts to spread out and slow down because (1) gas at pressure naturally expands in every direction and (2) it runs into the ambient air that's not moving at all, slowing it down.
because it leaves the straw with a high velocity, it takes some distance before it spreads out, and since the paper is relatively wide compared to the straw, the 'sail' is still catching most of that momentum. there's probably a small amount of loss, but i guess it's not very much.
it doesn't have to be "perfect" in balance though to keep the cart from moving. the force needed to move the cart has to be great enough to move the wheels. the wheels are "stuck" in place by two other forces - gravity holding them down and friction between the wheel and the surface of the board. as long as the difference between the force on the front of the balloon and the force on the sail is smaller than the force needed to roll the wheels, the cart won't move.

it's not the force of the air coming out of the straw that moves the cart. it's the force on the inside of the front of the balloon. the air coming out of the straw is pushing the air behind the cart out of it's way - and that air is not attached to the cart at all.
inside the balloon there is force in every direction from the pressure of the air. left and right, top and bottom, it's perfectly balanced - there's equal force in both directions. front and back though, there's a force pressing on the front of the balloon, but in the back the opposite force is pointing out of the straw. it's not balanced because of the hole in the back.
that's like what happens inside an engine - there's an explosion inside that produces force in every direction. in a car gas explodes inside a cylinder and pushes on every part of the cylinder - but one side is a piston that's easier to push, so the piston moves, and mechanically that force is used to turn some gears and move the wheels. in a rocket engine the back of the cone is open so all the force pointing forward is unbalanced by force pointing backwards. in the balloon/straw, the force on the inside of the balloon, attached to the cart, directly opposite the straw, is unbalanced. some of the force is used up pushing air inside the straw and behind it out of the way, but it's the difference in pressure inside the balloon that causes the cart to move, not the air behind the straw.
the balloon is attached to the cart; the sail is attached to the cart -- the air is not attached to the cart.
 
[video=youtube;H4CNvZj-gko]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4CNvZj-gko[/video]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back