159. It is impossible for the rotating atmosphere to be adjacent to the vacuum of space

"If there were progressively faster and faster spinning atmosphere the higher the altitude that would mean it would have to abruptly end at some key altitude where the fastest layer of gravitized spinning atmosphere meets the supposed non-gravitized non-spinning non-atmosphere of infinite vacuum space! NASA has never mentioned what altitude this impossible feat allegedly happens, but it is easily philosophically refuted by the simple fact that vacuums cannot exist connected to non- vacuums while maintaining the properties of a vacuum - not to mention, the effect such a transition would have on a rocket “space ship” would be disastrous."

Utter nonsense from Dubay betraying a total ignorance of anything scientific

Where to start?  This has to count as one of Dubay’s most stupid arguments.

"... [The atmosphere] would have to abruptly end at some key altitude ..."

The atmosphere would not need to end abruptly on a spinning Earth, and does not.

The pressure increases as you dive deeper under water because the weight of the water above you presses down on the water below.  I.e. gravity is pulling the water down.  Although not as obvious and not as pronounced the same principle applies to the atmosphere.  The atmosphere above presses down on the atmosphere below.  Obviously this means that at higher altitude the air pressure becomes less and less and the density of the air becomes less and less.

Obviously it follows that the atmosphere will not end abruptly but will thin out gradually.

"... spinning atmosphere meets ... non-spinning ...  vacuum space!  NASA has never mentioned what altitude this impossible feat allegedly happens ..."

Where is the problem?

Vacuum means lack of particles of matter.  No particles means there is nothing to cause friction.  This means that atmosphere can travel at any speed without any effect. 

As for the exact altitude ... of course there isn't one.  The atmosphere becomes thinner and thinner gradually.  There isn't an exact fixed boundary.

"... vacuums cannot exist connected to non- vacuums ..."

I presume that he just means that a vacuum must have some barrier to keep the air particles out.    With regard to the Earth, the vacuum is “outside”, so we need something to keep the air “in”.  This is of course gravity.

Of course flat earthers refuse to believe in gravity despite all the evidence, which may explain how hard it is for them to understand even these most basic concepts.

"... the effect such a transition [non-vacuum to vacuum] would have on a rocket “space ship” would be disastrous."

Presumably he imagines that a spacecraft flying into space would be like a child jumping off a fast revolving merry go round.  This can dangerous for a child because they will be travelling at speed relative to the ground.  When they make contact with the ground they may well fall over and hurt themselves when their body impacts the ground.

However, when a spacecraft moves from a fast moving atmosphere into vacuum, there is nothing to collide with.  Vacuum is not a stationary thing that you can collide with.  It is lack of thing.  Nothing.
Besides which, as stated before, there is no abrupt boundary between the atmosphere and space.


< Prev     151-160    Next >