Ball’s Out Physics Episode 1.1: A Spinning Atmosphere

6 thoughts on “Ball’s Out Physics Episode 1.1: A Spinning Atmosphere

  1. Tom March 12, 2017 at 8:29 pm Reply

    It’s OK that the video presenter doesn’t have an answer for the question posed; that’s why science and prior research by those who can provide an answer is such a good system.

    After all, just because I use a computer doesn’t mean I have to understand the internal scientific reasons how and why it works; I can simply accept the facts that it does work, and be satisfied.

    For this question, there are any number of internet sources that might be helpful. I thought this source might be one worth sharing:

    Click to access 2_Equations.pdf

    There was also a sight that offered this explanation, which relates to the grossly inaccurate relative earth/atmosphere sizes depicted in the video:

    “I think you have over-estimated the increase in velocity at the higher atmosphere. The radius of the earth is about 21,000,000 feet so the radius at 21,000 feet is only 0.1% higher. That would only add about 1 mph at 21K feet. With everything else that is happening in the atmosphere, maybe there is no overall increase in speed but it is not noticeable.



    • jwlpeace March 13, 2017 at 1:08 am Reply

      you need to go to a globe gravity heliocentric site. You waste our time with such nonsensical copy and pasting of well known made up scientism.

      “Angular velocity” like speed is angled?
      Just like “angular movement” to explain how and why the Earth rotates perfectly over billions of years at the perfect speed.

      Just nonsense, pure nonsense.

      You seem you really just want to debunk FE, not understand FE concepts and basic premise.


      • GlendaR March 13, 2017 at 4:31 am

        You’ll always be right inside of an echo chamber.

        Also, got quite a laugh from your line about “copy and pasting.” Most of your site is copy/paste from other sites, sometimes without attribution. You book appears to be more of the same.

        Since the subject of this post is physics… aka science, what could possibly be so difficult about debating the scientific facts?


      • jwlpeace March 13, 2017 at 10:28 pm

        Whose fact GlendaR???
        The lying NASA who faked all things space?
        From the fraud Einstein who plagarized and got credit for the Big Bang theory that Father Jesuit Georges Lamaitre wrote?
        of the the priest Copernicus, or Newton, who did not even use the word “weight” in this still a theory, unproven gravity?
        The scientists who will not admit chemtrails and geoengineering
        The academicians who cannot even measure for themselves the simple curvature of the Earth to realize what a great fraud heliocentrim is?

        Which “facts” Glenda, Which facts?

        How can you criticize about not crediting when i include the links to where i got the information?


  2. Tom March 13, 2017 at 1:27 am Reply

    What prevents this site from providing a basic definition of weight, what it is, how its measured?

    Is asking for this fundamental information, that seems so important in your writings, and is around us and experienced by us, biased for or against FE?


  3. GlendaR March 14, 2017 at 3:22 am Reply

    Facts don’t belong to a person or a group, jwlpeace.

    The bottom line is that you don’t have the facts to prove your FE story. There are plenty of things you can do, real scientific experiments or even simple plane flights you can take that will demonstrate without a doubt what is true and what is false. But I have yet to see any of that happen. You won’t even debate with Tom – you just tell him that he’s spewing nonsense and needs to go somewhere else.

    If you can’t back up your position with facts and reason, you’re likely wrong about your FE premise. Dane Wigington was willing to debate Mick West on the subject of chemtrails and geoengineering, so what is the problem with debating FE? (Interestingly, a transcript of the debate appears on West’s website, but not on Wigington’s.)

    Regarding cut and paste. It’s true, you do sometimes give proper attribution. But so did Tom and you still criticized him – for doing the same thing you do.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: