PDA

View Full Version : The Earth is FIXED in Space



Pages : [1] 2

Musicology
04-01-2010, 05:17 PM
More evidence that the Earth is fixed in space and that it's the Sun and the heavens which move around a fixed Earth. This time Photographic evidence. How do we explain these images -


http://www.fixedearth.com/Size_and_Structure%20Part%20IV.htm

kevinthediltz
04-01-2010, 05:30 PM
How do you explain seasonal changes in earths climate if the sun rotates around us on the same axis?

Satan
04-01-2010, 05:47 PM
Sun and the heavens? Oh dear! I'll feel special tonight.

Scheherazade
04-01-2010, 05:53 PM
I'll feel special tonight.Like you are the chosen one?

Musicology
04-01-2010, 05:56 PM
Kevinthediltz,

Interesting question. Really. The seasonal changes are caused by the spiral revolutions of the Sun as it circumnavigates the Earth each day. Each orbit being different. Completing one complete cycle of revolutions each year.

Equinoxes, solstices, and tropics are the result of the north-south motion of the sun, starting with the vernal or spring equinox on March 21, the official beginning of spring in the northern hemisphere.

On that day, the sun lies on the celestial equator. The word equinox refers to the fact that, on this day, the night is equal to the day: each is twelve hours long. The sun is directly above the equator, so its rays fall vertically down.

Through the months of March, April, and May, the sun moves north. On June 22nd, it reaches its most northerly point, that is, 23 1/2° above the equator. In the northern hemisphere that day is called the summer solstice. It is the longest day of the year and the official beginning of summer. The sun lies on the circle of the earth called the Tropic of Cancer.

On September 23, the sun, moving south, reaches the equator again. The day is again 12 hours long. That day is called the autumnal equinox and is the official beginning of autumn.

On December 22, the sun reaches its most southerly point. That day is of course called the winter solstice and is the official beginning of winter. The sun shines up from beneath the equator. At noon the sun is straight overhead at points on the earth's Tropic of Capricorn, located 23 1/2° south of the equator. At that time, it is the summer solstice in the southern hemisphere. The cycle again repeats itself and gives us our 4 seasons and the solar year.

The winter solstice occurs on June 22 in the southern hemisphere. 3 days later it is June 25 or "Christmas" day in the southern hemisphere. So that the cycle begins again with the New Year starting there, in the extreme southern hemisphere.

Regards



How do you explain seasonal changes in earths climate if the sun rotates around us on the same axis?

Satan
04-01-2010, 06:13 PM
Like you are the chosen one?
Feeling left out, are we? ;)

Scheherazade
04-01-2010, 06:28 PM
Feeling left out, are we? ;)Like, no way!!! Didn't you see how the chosen ones end up???

MarkBastable
04-01-2010, 07:36 PM
My feeling is that you can more or less dismiss any argument that resorts to ironic quotation marks - such as...

These, we are told by 'scientists', are 'facts'

or

Many 'experts' make money selling this 'truth'.

That, I find, is a 'pretty infallible indicator' of 'crap'

keilj
04-01-2010, 07:50 PM
don't you love these April Fool's threads?? Except, the more you guys respond with serious discussions, the bigger the laugh the thread starter will have tomorrow

PS - thread starter, is it true that the Internet will be closed for spring cleaning tomorrow too??

:icon_bs:

Musicology
04-02-2010, 05:25 AM
Well, here we are at April 2. Still laughing ?

What exactly is the evidence that the Earth revolves around the Sun ? Since the facts, the actual, observable facts, suggest the opposite is true. Don't they ? If, however, you find some evidence in support of what you read in textbooks please post it here and we can examine it. That would be a fair discussion. In the meantime we have the following -

''Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the Earth? - declare, if thou hast understanding''. (Job 38.4)



don't you love these April Fool's threads?? Except, the more you guys respond with serious discussions, the bigger the laugh the thread starter will have tomorrow

PS - thread starter, is it true that the Internet will be closed for spring cleaning tomorrow too??

:icon_bs:

My feeling is you can more or less dismiss any argument which consists in ignoring the subject itself ! And yes, most of what we are taught these days is sheer nonsense. And always has been. The proof of this is our ability or inability to have a conversation about evidence that contradicts our attitudes and assumptions. In such a case the words of Simon and Garfunkel come to mind -

'Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest'

Why not ask a science teacher or someone who has studied this subject what he thinks ? Wouldn't that be a fair way to start ? So that you can judge the case having heard both sides ?

:smilielol5:

My feeling is that you can more or less dismiss any argument that resorts to ironic quotation marks - such as...

These, we are told by 'scientists', are 'facts'

or

Many 'experts' make money selling this 'truth'.

That, I find, is a 'pretty infallible indicator' of 'crap'

MarkBastable
04-02-2010, 08:34 AM
My feeling is you can more or less dismiss any argument which consists in ignoring the subject itself ! And yes, most of what we are taught these days is sheer nonsense. And always has been. The proof of this is our ability or inability to have a conversation about evidence that contradicts our attitudes and assumptions. In such a case the words of Simon and Garfunkel come to mind -

'Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest'

Why not ask a science teacher or someone who has studied this subject what he thinks ? Wouldn't that be a fair way to start ? So that you can judge the case having heard both sides ?

:smilielol5:


My friend who designs low-orbit satellites thinks you might be wrong. Then again, he's probably in on the deception, because that's how he makes his living.

Still - if I were to suggest that the world was run by small yellow pixies who were born from buttercups and whose only mission was to rob us all of our pubic hair in order to weave lassoos to catch moonbeams, and if I were roundly ignored as a lunatic, I too would protest that it wasn't fair and everyone should look at my side of the argument, particularly as I happen to be able to line up a professional gnome hunter who knows this pubic pixie thing inside out and is prepared to swear on a copy of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion that I speak nothing but the truth.

However, most people would not be drawn in by that spurious appeal to balance and fair play, because life is too short to indulge the self-evidently daft.

However, I do believe every word that David Icke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke)says, because he's written books and everything.

Musicology
04-02-2010, 08:38 AM
Ah, yes, Mark Bastable's is a real answer to the subject of this thread - 'The Earth is Fixed in Space'. Isn't it ?

Let's discuss that subject. What subject ? 'The Earth is Fixed in Space'. Or, if you prefer, we can always discuss, 'The Earth is Fixed in Space'. Again, if this threatens you and the profession of your friend, you may try the more interesting subject of, 'The Earth is Fixed in Space'. Who knows, maybe you can even move on to discuss, 'The Earth is Fixed in Space' ? But let's not hold our breath waiting for your post. That's would be real, serious discussion, wouldn't it ? Academic dogma notwithstanding, that is ? A discussion where the evidence, the known facts, are aired and discussed, that is ? And what does your friend (who specialises in low orbit satellites) have to say about 'The Earth is Fixed in Space' ? Shall we be surprised it may be more than you ?

:crash:

Thanks



My friend who designs low-orbit satellites thinks you might be wrong. Then again, he's probably in on the deception, because that's how he makes his living.

Still - if I were to suggest that the world was run by small yellow pixies who were born from buttercups and whose only mission was to rob us all of our pubic hair in order to weave lassoos to catch moonbeams, and if I were roundly ignored as a lunatic, I too would protest that it wasn't fair and everyone should look at my side of the argument, particularly as I happen to be able to line up a professional gnome hunter who knows this pubic pixie thing inside out and is prepared to swear on a copy of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion that I speak nothing but the truth.

However, most people would not be drawn in by that spurious appeal to balance and fair play, because life is too short to indulge the self-evidently daft.

However, I do believe every word that David Icke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke)says, because he's written books and everything.

MarkBastable
04-02-2010, 09:05 AM
The Earth is FIXED in Space... That's a real, serious discussion, isn't it ?



I'm afraid it isn't, no.

Musicology
04-02-2010, 09:09 AM
Great ! We all believe you because you are now having a real, serious discussion on the evidence. Aren't you ? As everyone can see. Can't they ? LOL !!

:crash:


I'm afraid it isn't, no.

Lokasenna
04-02-2010, 09:17 AM
My friend who designs low-orbit satellites thinks you might be wrong. Then again, he's probably in on the deception, because that's how he makes his living.

Still - if I were to suggest that the world was run by small yellow pixies who were born from buttercups and whose only mission was to rob us all of our pubic hair in order to weave lassoos to catch moonbeams, and if I were roundly ignored as a lunatic, I too would protest that it wasn't fair and everyone should look at my side of the argument, particularly as I happen to be able to line up a professional gnome hunter who knows this pubic pixie thing inside out and is prepared to swear on a copy of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion that I speak nothing but the truth.

However, most people would not be drawn in by that spurious appeal to balance and fair play, because life is too short to indulge the self-evidently daft.

However, I do believe every word that David Icke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke)says, because he's written books and everything.

I personally think Mark's answer is damn good one, and entirely appropriate to this ridiculous thread.

Musicology
04-02-2010, 09:24 AM
Great. So your answer to the evidence presented is that it doesn't exist. Because Mark has a friend who is involved in building low earth satellites ?

I have a friend who makes computer software. Does that mean he is able to tell me about how to make a curry, or how to extract a tooth ?

How about a serious conversation on the subject of 'The Earth is Fixed in Space', providing some verifiable evidence to contradict it, or which shows the very opposite ? Since you have provided none and have not even addressed the subject !!

LOL !!! I mean, what is a 'serious conversation' if it does not address the subject ? In such a case what becomes ridiculous is your post. Let's all laugh at your silliness. Wouldn't that be a serious conversation ?? So much for Nietzsche, humbug and the clowns of the 'scientific establishment'.

'Professing themselves to be wise they became fools'.



I personally think Mark's answer is damn good one, and entirely appropriate to this ridiculous thread.

papayahed
04-02-2010, 09:37 AM
The link only shows pictures of small periods of time, nothing more then 24 hours I would think if you look at the same area in the sky for longer periods of time you would see the stars moving in a wider range.

Musicology
04-02-2010, 09:45 AM
Thanks Papapayhed,

Do you agree these time-lapsed photographs show stars moving in a roughly circular path over those hours of their exposure ?


The link only shows pictures of small periods of time, nothing more then 24 hours I would think if you look at the same area in the sky for longer periods of time you would see the stars moving in a wider range.

applepie
04-02-2010, 09:47 AM
Great ! We all believe you because you are now having a real, serious discussion on the evidence. Aren't you ? As everyone can see. Can't they ? LOL !!

:crash:

I looked through the first site that you posted, and I was amazed at the lack of scientific proof. Religious scripture does not make for scientific justification. By that logic, Woman was made from a single rib which makes no sense at all.

I will be more than happy to come back later with scientific proof like images from the Hubble space telescope, but since you didn't offer up your own argument instead of providing links to a site, I find little reason to do so myself. I'm more than happy to provide you with a link to a site that would certainly prove the contrary. http://www.nasa.gov/ Enjoy your reading :D

Musicology
04-02-2010, 09:50 AM
Mkhockenberry,

Are you suggesting these images are not evidence of the stars moving in a roughly circular path over the time-lapsed exposure of those images ? I mean, let's start with that. You do agree with this, don't you ?

And since we are not talking of woman being made from a single rib, pardon me for staying on the topic of 'The Earth is Fixed in Space'.

You may have evidence to the contrary. That would be great.

What are posted here are actual time-lapsed pictures. How do these equate with your assumptions, your education ?



I looked through the first site that you posted, and I was amazed at the lack of scientific proof. Religious scripture does not make for scientific justification. By that logic, Woman was made from a single rib which makes no sense at all.

I will be more than happy to come back later with scientific proof like images from the Hubble space telescope, but since you didn't offer up your own argument instead of providing links to a site, I find little reason to do so myself. I'm more than happy to provide you with a link to a site that would certainly prove the contrary. http://www.nasa.gov/ Enjoy your reading :D

MarkBastable
04-02-2010, 11:29 AM
Are you suggesting these images are not evidence of the stars moving in a roughly circular path over the time-lapsed exposure of those images ?

Of course it could be evidence of the observer moving in a roughly circular path over the time-lapsed exposure of those images.

Musicology
04-02-2010, 11:30 AM
Hockenberry,

Before the Hubble Telescope was ever constructed you believed that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Didn't you ? It's found in all the textbooks. This was widely believed from the time of Copernicus. And what IS the evidence of this ? You now say it can be provided by images of the Hubble Telescope. Did Copernicus have a Hubble Telescope ? He did not, so what, exactly, is the evidence that has supported this teaching of yours for centuries ? Do tell us please.

Your reply is to retreat from the discussion altogether !!! You write -

I find little reason to do so myself. I'm more than happy to provide you with a link to a site that would certainly prove the contrary. http://www.nasa.gov/

Great ! So you have nothing to provide us except a vague reference to the Hubble Telescope !!! Isn't that a circular argument ? What evidence can you provide from the last 400 years of astronomy and from other sciences that the Earth actually revolves around the Sun ? And how do you interpret these time-lapsed images of the stars which have been posted here ? The answer is only your silence. Your refusal to provide evidence of any kind.

This looks decidedly awkward for you, doesn't it ? You believe something but cannot provide evidence in its support. In science this is called dogmatism, isn't it ? 'The Earth revolves around the Sun' because, well, because you insist 'the Earth revolves round the Sun'. Isn't that the sum total of your argument ? With no actual evidence to support your argument and these images completely suggesting the opposite !


Thanks

kiki1982
04-02-2010, 11:44 AM
wahahaha.

Explain to me the phases of plaets and the moon, then.

MarkBastable
04-02-2010, 11:55 AM
Check Section 10 here (http://www.astro.uu.nl/~strous/AA/en/antwoorden/hemel.html#v154).

Until you can come up with a flaw in that explanation of your photographs (one that doesn't involve Job), I think that you're going to have trouble convincing anyone that the Earth is fixed (or if you prefer, FIXED) in space.

Satan
04-02-2010, 11:56 AM
@Musicology,

Sir/madame, please don't mind the uneducated unbelievers here. This lot refuses to believe in anything that isn't supported by a bunch of fundamentalist scientists who have nothing but absurd and obscure mathematical equations to carry their point across. I do firmly believe that our planet Earth, created by the almighty, is the only static object in this nonchalant universe and everything else revolves around us--the only significant beings created in His image by the Divine Providence.

Might I also suggest that you take a look at the Flat Earth Society (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/) which attempts at refuting the rather absurd claim that Earth is round and not flat?

Musicology
04-02-2010, 12:02 PM
I will happily explain the phases of the planets (which you spell 'plaets') and the moon. But this thread is on the subject of the fixed Earth. A subject which deserves its own thread. Now, if you wish to explain the phases of the planets and the moon please do so first. Since the main subject of this thread is the fixed Earth and your failure to address the evidence already presented is rather obvious.

Here, for your education, is evidence of the so-called Mickelson/Morley experiments begun in 1887. Which were so disastrous for the conventions of 400 years of fiction that their results had to be ignored. One example from dozens. Leading to the invention of the bogus theory of Einstein's 'Relativity' -

To Michelson's utter amazement, his experiment produced a zero effect. Michelson could find no drag on the transmission of light in any direction. He detected only the slightest shift in the interference fringes. Both halves of the split single beam of light were returning at virtually the same instant.

The data were almost unbelievable. The so-called ether wind had had no effect whatever on the velocity of light whether the beam was traveling with the "wind" or across it. There was only one other possible conclusion to draw—that the Earth was at rest. This, of course, was preposterous.

(Jaffe, 'Michelson and the Speed of Light', p. 76).

So, are you prepared to discuss the subject of this thread, together with the evidence (photographic and otherwise) already supplied ?


wahahaha.

Explain to me the phases of plaets and the moon, then.

So it could be a camera moving in a roughly circular path !!!!!!!!!!!!

In that case, how do you explain the fact there are literally thousands of similar photographs taken from all over the world ? Thousands of cameras moving in a roughly circular path over hours ? Right :crash:

Why not take some images by time-lapsed photography yourself ? You and your friend who is in the satellite industry. And tell us how you interpret their results ?

LOL !!


Of course it could be evidence of the observer moving in a roughly circular path over the time-lapsed exposure of those images.

Will you tell us then your interpretation of these images ?

Incidentally, there are no less than 68 references in the bible to the motion of the sun. And none at all to any motion of the Earth. The Sun is moving daily around the Earth. So are the planets and the stars moving around the Earth. But the Earth is fixed in space together with its atmosphere. So says the bible. So say these images. And so say the discoveries of science. The rest is popular (400year old) fiction. Taught as 'fact' despite it being contradicted by scientific evidence in volumes.


Check Section 10 here (http://www.astro.uu.nl/~strous/AA/en/antwoorden/hemel.html#v154).

Until you can come up with a flaw in that explanation of your photographs (one that doesn't involve Job), I think that you're going to have trouble convincing anyone that the Earth is fixed (or if you prefer, FIXED) in space.

kiki1982
04-02-2010, 12:16 PM
The phases of the moon and the planets are a definite part of the solar system as geocentrism argues they ae orbitting around the earth. How do they go into phases?

I said, explain.

You see, you do not explain yourself, obviously because you can't.

I asked you a question and I expect an answer.

papayahed
04-02-2010, 12:18 PM
Thanks Papapayhed,

Do you agree these time-lapsed photographs show stars moving in a roughly circular path over those hours of their exposure ?

Of course but that is attributed to the rotation of the earth.

Musicology
04-02-2010, 12:21 PM
But I asked you to address the subject of this thread. If you wish to discuss the phases of the moon and the planets why not open a separate thread and I will happily contribute. After you have offered your own explanation, that is.

In the meantime the title of this thread (and the evidence produced here) are related to the Earth being fixed in space. A subject on which you have apparently nothing to offer, despite being presented now with some of the mass of evidence that exists in its support.

So, open your thread and explain your dogma. This thread will run first before I am diverted from it.


The phases of the moon and the planets are a definite part of the solar system as geocentrism argues they ae orbitting around the earth. How do they go into phases?

I said, explain.

You see, you do not explain yourself, obviously because you can't.

I asked you a question and I expect an answer.

OrphanPip
04-02-2010, 12:23 PM
This thread explains so much about the Mozart thread.

Musicology
04-02-2010, 12:23 PM
Yes, that is attributed to the alleged rotation of the Earth. And on what scientific basis is the rotation of the Earth based ? Care to tell us ? If the Earth is rotating so too is its atmosphere. Is that true or not ?


Of course but that is attributed to the rotation of the earth.

Katy North
04-02-2010, 12:29 PM
:sosp:

I should point out that the stars are millions of miles away, and that earth revolves quite quickly as opposed to their orbits/revolutions, which would result in the time lapse pictures posted on the website and tail effects.

I am sure, that since you are yourself a scientist, you could construct the following experiment to prove that the star's tail effects are the result of a rotating earth and not a revolving universe...

Turn on a small light on the ceiling of a dark room.

Set up a lapse time camera underneath said light on a slowly rotating wheel (one that has one rotation every 24 hours).

see if the pictures you develop have the "tail effect" described as evidence that OBVIOUSLY!! the stars are circling the earth.

I think that they will. Which would disprove the only proof the website creator had at his disposal.

I am now retreating from the discussion altogether, because after all, it is nonsense, and I have other more important things to do... like wash my hair...

MarkBastable
04-02-2010, 12:31 PM
Incidentally, there are no less than 68 references in the bible to the motion of the sun.



What's that got to do with it?

OrphanPip
04-02-2010, 12:37 PM
Yes, that is attributed to the alleged rotation of the Earth. And on what scientific basis is the rotation of the Earth based ? Care to tell us ? If the Earth is rotating so too is its atmosphere. Is that true or not ?

It's called the Coriolis effect, that's why things that fall into the atmosphere appear to follow curved paths. Also, if the Earth wasn't rotating there would be no Coriolis forces, and if there were no Coriolis forces we wouldn't get tornadoes. Since, tornadoes exist, I hope we can agree on this, there must be Coriolis forces on Earth, thus the Earth is rotating.

Q.E.D.

BienvenuJDC
04-02-2010, 01:12 PM
The earth is FLAT too!!

kiki1982
04-02-2010, 01:15 PM
But I asked you to address the subject of this thread. If you wish to discuss the phases of the moon and the planets why not open a separate thread and I will happily contribute. After you have offered your own explanation, that is.

In the meantime the title of this thread (and the evidence produced here) are related to the Earth being fixed in space. A subject on which you have apparently nothing to offer, despite being presented now with some of the mass of evidence that exists in its support.

So, open your thread and explain your dogma. This thread will run first before I am diverted from it.

That is the subject. Because they are part of it.

The only reason why you do not want to discuss this is because they can only be explained by heliocentrism. And that is the poblem.

They were the reason that geocentrism was doubted in the first place.

Clearly you do not know at all what you are talking about.

But one more try, can you explain them by geocentrism?

kevinthediltz
04-02-2010, 01:33 PM
My second and last reply to this thread because frankly I don't want to be involved in what I believe is complete nonsense.

You are christian. Or some form of religion that follows the bible. That is obvious.
The bible cannot be taken as science. Period. To prove my simple point I give you this link. This is the former director of the Vatican Observatory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReV0nCuObcs

Oh and take a gander at the pictures in the background as well. :)

ClaesGefvenberg
04-02-2010, 01:41 PM
'Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest' Indeed he does. :smilielol5:

Apparent gravity is weaker nearer the equator because the Earth's rotation produces an apparent centrifugal force. As rotational speed decreases as one moves towards the poles, local gravity, g, increases from 9.789 m·s2 at the equator to 9.832 m·s2 at the poles

/Claes

The Atheist
04-02-2010, 01:48 PM
More evidence that the Earth is fixed in space and that it's the Sun and the heavens which move around a fixed Earth. This time Photographic evidence. How do we explain these images

Because even the closest star to earth which isn't the sun was 40,105,894,946,675,644.8 times further from the camera than the surface of the earth - assuming a distance from the ground of 1 metre.

The further an object is from the camera, the slower it appears to move against things closer to the camera, and when one factors in a distance ratio of over 40 qudrillion, time-lapse images can appear to distort reality.

Just curious. If comets orbit the sun, how does that fit with the FIXED earth?

Forgive my presumption, but I am assuming FIXED isn't an acronym?


Still - if I were to suggest that the world was run by small yellow pixies who were born from buttercups and whose only mission was to rob us all of our pubic hair in order to weave lassoos to catch moonbeams, ...

It's not?

All this time, you've been lying!

Scoundrel.


However, I do believe every word that David Icke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke)says, because he's written books and everything.

Pah, never mind the books - he was on the BBC!


It's called the Coriolis effect, that's why things that fall into the atmosphere appear to follow curved paths. Also, if the Earth wasn't rotating there would be no Coriolis forces, and if there were no Coriolis forces we wouldn't get tornadoes. Since, tornadoes exist, I hope we can agree on this, there must be Coriolis forces on Earth, thus the Earth is rotating.

Q.E.D.

And hurricanes & cyclones!

How could you miss that one?

Musicology
04-02-2010, 01:49 PM
Katy North is 'now retreating from the discussion altogether'. 'Elvis has left the building', or what ??? LOL. You guys are really amazing !

This is hilarious !! Katy North, you and people like you have had centuries of literally dominating textbooks with your dogmas about the Earth and Sun relationship. Please provide us (instead of vice-versa) with evidence to support your dogmas. Instead of running away. Like, real evidence. Do you have any ?

Or have you already 'retreated' from the discussion ???

Let's hope you have more evidence of washing your hair than your contribution to this discussion. :crash:

LOL ! And where have all the 'experts' gone when you need them most ? LOLOLOLOL !!!!


:sosp:

I should point out that the stars are millions of miles away, and that earth revolves quite quickly as opposed to their orbits/revolutions, which would result in the time lapse pictures posted on the website and tail effects.

I am sure, that since you are yourself a scientist, you could construct the following experiment to prove that the star's tail effects are the result of a rotating earth and not a revolving universe...

Turn on a small light on the ceiling of a dark room.

Set up a lapse time camera underneath said light on a slowly rotating wheel (one that has one rotation every 24 hours).

see if the pictures you develop have the "tail effect" described as evidence that OBVIOUSLY!! the stars are circling the earth.

I think that they will. Which would disprove the only proof the website creator had at his disposal.

I am now retreating from the discussion altogether, because after all, it is nonsense, and I have other more important things to do... like wash my hair...

Mark Bastable,

It has a lot to do with it. Since ALL the biblical references tell us the Sun is moving and not the Earth. Not a single time. It is the sun which rises and the sun which sets. It is the sun which is said to be moving and not the Earth. It was the Sun which stood still in the days of Joshua, and not the Earth. And so it goes on with dozens and dozens of similar statements. And your answer to the evidence so far presented is...... you know somebody who makes low altitude satellites ? Great. I know somebody who makes tuna sandwiches !

The significance has clearly escaped you. The Earth stands fixed in space and the Sun orbits around it. As do the planets and stars. At least, if you can understand plain English.

I note you have still not answered my various, previous posts. But hey, what's new in 400 years of dogma ? In your case you believe what you believe because you believe what you believe. And damn the facts themselves.

'Professing themselves to be wise they became fools' or what ?

Take me to your leader !!! We surrender to your dogmas. LOL.

lol

Janine
04-02-2010, 01:56 PM
Next we will be hearing the earth is flat!

kiki1982
04-02-2010, 01:57 PM
You have still not got us any proof of that apart from Bible verses of thousands and thousands of years old.

What did people know then?

It is sad :bawling:

Musicology
04-02-2010, 02:05 PM
No Janine,

May I relieve you of that aspect of your fertile and unfounded imagination ? Try this, for example, which the pagan world found hard to accept. Just as the pagans of today find it difficult to accept the findings of modern science. In the Old Testament we read of -

"the circle of the earth" - lit. the ('sphere' of the Earth)

(Isaiah 40.22)

Isaiah lived around 500 years BC. The bible is not going to change any time soon. Which is exactly what we have in fact, isn't it ?


Next we will be hearing the earth is flat!

Satan
04-02-2010, 02:05 PM
Proof that Earth indeed is the center of the universe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gc8AN6TIbm4

You clearly have no idea, Kiki. Sorry! ;)

MarkBastable
04-02-2010, 02:07 PM
Mark Bastable,

It has a lot to do with it. Since ALL the biblical references tell us the Sun is moving and not the Earth. Not a single time.

So, if I can find a book that says the opposite, are we even?

Musicology
04-02-2010, 02:08 PM
So glad you agree. Since that is the fact of it. A fact nobody here has evidence against because there is none. What we have instead are people unable to show differently. And it shows. So much for the dogmas of the past 400 years, yes ?



Proof that Earth indeed is the center of the universe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gc8AN6TIbm4

You clearly have no idea, Kiki. Sorry! ;)

If you can find a book which shows that the Earth revolves around the Sun (which is what you believe) we will all marvel. It will be more marvellous than your education, in fact, since, at this time you cannot produce a shred of evidence to support your beliefs. Many hours later. Your beliefs lack any support. And it shows.

So, yes, please provide some proof from a book that says the opposite to what has been said. We wish to see it. Take your time. It will be really interesting to see it. Centuries of proofs must exist in all these textbooks, yes ? LOL !! I mean, you wouldn't believe science fiction, would you ?


So, if I can find a book that says the opposite, are we even?

papayahed
04-02-2010, 02:12 PM
The rotation of Earth can be proven in several ways. One is the Foucault experiment. This was first conducted in 1851, by the Frenchman Léon Foucault. He suspended a heavy iron ball from a 200 ft (61 m) wire, creating a pendulum, from the dome of the Pantheon in Paris. He put sand underneath the pendulum, and placed a pin on the bottom of the ball, so it would leave a mark on its swing from side to side. On each swing, over the course of 24 hours, the mark in the sand would move to the right. The direction in the path showed movement of the earth against the swing of the pendulum.

Read more: Earth's Rotation http://science.jrank.org/pages/2222/Earth-s-Rotation.html#ixzz0jy3K6h2q

And:



There was no straightforward proof for the motion of Earth until 1725 when James Bradley discovered stellar aberration. This is (apparent) yearly change in positions of all stars in the sky due to Earth's own motion. Aberration arises due to adding up of the speed of light coming from the star and Earth's own speed. This is a very complex phenomenon and its description requires some math.

Another, much simpler, consequence of Earth's motion is stellar parallax. If Earth changes its position relative to the stars, than the stars should appear to change position in the course of the year.....

...Parallax of a star was first measured by Bessel in 1838. It was not measured before because this change of star's apparent position is very small (the stars are very far from us). This was a very important discovery because Aristotle himself mentioned the lack of observable stellar parallax as the proof that the Earth is not moving (he didn't have a telescope and didn't know that the stars are so distant).

A third discovery proving Earth's motion was that of Doppler effect. Wavelength of the light that we receive from objects moving relative to us becomes a little shorter (i.e. bluer) when we approach the source and becomes longer (i.e. redder) when we move away from the source. When Earth moves toward a star, the star will appear slightly bluer (only high-tech instruments can measure this) while it will appear redder when Earth is on the other side of the orbit and moves in the opposite direction. This effect proves that Earth has a velocity relative to the stars, similar to aberration.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=190

Musicology
04-02-2010, 02:17 PM
Sorry, but you have been misinformed. Just as the Moon affects tides, so also do heavenly bodies affect the Earth, including the Sun. All of these bodies rotating the Earth. Thus, your 'evidence' of alleged 'Earth rotation' is nothing of the kind. It is the effect of gravity between the Earth and those heavenly bodies which (as said) are continually rotating around it. Planets, stars and the Sun.

Can you provide some better evidence of the 'rotation of the Earth' ? Explaining, as you do, how the atmosphere of the Earth remains with us if the entire Earth is moving and rotating at great velocity ?

A speed of rotation said (by your textbooks) to be -

About 1,038 miles per hour. The atmosphere at the equator is also slightly thicker due to rotation, and you weigh slightly less. At mid-latitudes, the speed of the Earth's rotation decreases to 700 to 900 miles per hour.

So, what happens to Earth's atmosphere if the Earth is really rotating at close to 1,000 mies per hour in some places but at far slower speeds in others ? And what is your firm evidence of that rotation ? Since I often see cloud formations which move little in hours.


Read more: Earth's Rotation http://science.jrank.org/pages/2222/Earth-s-Rotation.html#ixzz0jy3K6h2q

And:




http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=190

kevinthediltz
04-02-2010, 02:21 PM
Explaining, as you do, how the atmosphere of the Earth remains with us if the entire Earth is moving and rotating at great velocity ?

Gravity.

kiki1982
04-02-2010, 02:21 PM
Proof that Earth indeed is the center of the universe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gc8AN6TIbm4

You clearly have no idea, Kiki. Sorry! ;)

Tja, it's always the others that are mad, eh?

OrphanPip
04-02-2010, 02:25 PM
Can you provide us with some better evidence of the 'rotation of the Earth'. Explaining, as you do, how the atmosphere of the Earth remains with us if the entire Earth is moving and rotating at great velocity ?

Uh, it's called gravity...

You see planets with low gravity like Mars have very tiny atmospheres, planets like Jupiter with a lot of mass have high gravity and very large atmospheres. Even the Moon has an atmosphere, it's just so sparse it is practically a vacuum.

Satan
04-02-2010, 02:25 PM
So glad you agree. Since that is the fact of it. A fact nobody here has evidence against because there is none.

:iagree:

Just as good existed before evil and darkness before light, the eternal words of religious scriptures far outweigh the conflicting words of scientific dogma. What I find quite amusing is if Earth isn't a static object, how do those snobbish scientists send probes to other planets? But who needs logic anyway!

Musicology
04-02-2010, 02:26 PM
What did people know then ?

Why not build the Great Pyramid and tell us yourself ?


You have still not got us any proof of that apart from Bible verses of thousands and thousands of years old.

What did people know then?

It is sad :bawling:

papayahed
04-02-2010, 02:26 PM
Can you provide us with some better evidence of the 'rotation of the Earth'. Explaining, as you do, how the atmosphere of the Earth remains with us if the entire Earth is moving and rotating at great velocity ?




If, as you say the other planets are rotating around us how does Venus and Mars have an atmosphere? How do the atmosphere's of the gas giants like Jupiter or Saturn (and for that matter Saturn's rings) stay with those planets?

Musicology
04-02-2010, 02:27 PM
And how do lunar astronauts walk on the film studio, oops, lunar surface ? :crash:


:iagree:

Just as good existed before evil and darkness before light, the eternal words of religious scriptures far outweigh the conflicting words of scientific dogma. What I find quite amusing is if Earth isn't a static object, how do those snobbish scientists send probes to other planets? But who needs logic anyway!

MarkBastable
04-02-2010, 02:28 PM
So, yes, please provide some proof from a book that says the opposite to what has been said.

But you haven't provided proof from a book - you've provided a statement from a book, without any evidential back-up of the statement.

Musicology
04-02-2010, 02:29 PM
That is to assume that the 'atmospheres' of Venus and Mars exist. And that the 'gas' to who which you refer is gas and not dust or other matter. But, if possible, let us stay with the evidence presented here from Earth. Since we can easily be diverted from the images and evidence already presented here of Earth.



If, as you say the other planets are rotating around us how does Venus and Mars have an atmosphere? How do the atmosphere's of the gas giants like Jupiter or Saturn (and for that matter Saturn's rings) stay with those planets?

OrphanPip
04-02-2010, 02:33 PM
And how do lunar astronauts walk on the film studio, oops, lunar surface ? :crash:

The answer is gravity again...

You know that pesky force of attraction based on the masses of two objects multiplied by each other and divided by the square of the distance between them and subsequently multiplied by the gravitational constant? Well that's Newtonian mechanics which is technically only a functional approximation.


That is to assume that the 'atmospheres' of Venus and Mars exist. And that the 'gas' to who which you refer is gas and not dust or other matter. But, if possible, let us stay with the evidence presented here from Earth. Since we can easily be diverted from the images and evidence already presented here of Earth.

Jesus, I think elementary school children have a better understanding of physics and chemistry than you.

Musicology
04-02-2010, 02:42 PM
Are you refering to that well known occultist and alchemist - Isaac Newton ? (Who shot to fame with the assistance of the Venetian occultists who supported him). The Royal Society of London being stuffed with them from the early years of its formation ? Or to the occultist Charles Darwin, whose grandfather was member of the occultist Lunar Society ? And Charles Darwin, close associate of the occultist teachings of population control occultists. Social Darwinism, in fact. Ask Malthus, his close friend. 'Survival of the fittest', yes ? And what of Abbe G. Ortes, founder of eugenics in the century before, whose writings were greatly admired by Darwin's own friends. Or perhaps you are refering to occultist A. Einstein ? Credited with having invented a 'theory' on relativity based on the dogmatic assumption that the Earth is moving at great speed round the sun ? A dogma used to conceal the plainest facts.

I dare to say children in schools are not aware of these things too. But their teachers and parents may care. At least, we hope. Since, in all cases, their dogmas are not allowed to be publicly exposed as fiction.


The answer is gravity again...

You know that pesky force of attraction based on the masses of two objects multiplied by each other and divided by the square of the distance between them and subsequently multiplied by the gravitational constant? Well that's Newtonian mechanics which is technically only a functional approximation.



Jesus, I think elementary school children have a better understanding of physics and chemistry than you.

Satan
04-02-2010, 02:45 PM
Are you refering to that well known occultist and alchemist Isaac Newton ? (Who shot to fame with the assistance of the Venetian occultists who supported him). The Royal Society of London being stuffed with them from the early years of its formation ? Or to the occultist Charles Darwin, whose grandfather was member of the occultist Lunar Society ? Or perhaps to the occultist Alfred Einstein ?

I dare to say children in schools are not aware of these things too. But their teachers may care. At least, we hope.

And it is no mere co-incidence that even Newton was seduced with an apple just as in case with Adam and Eve. I have always presented this argument against using Apple products, but that requires its own dedicated thread.

Thank you for opening my eyes. "Truth shall set you free."

kevinthediltz
04-02-2010, 02:47 PM
Are you refering to that well known occultist and alchemist Isaac Newton ? (Who shot to fame with the assistance of the Venetian occultists who supported him). The Royal Society of London being stuffed with them from the early years of its formation ? Or to the occultist Charles Darwin, whose grandfather was member of the occultist Lunar Society ? Or perhaps to the occultist Alfred Einstein ?

I dare to say children in schools are not aware of these things too. But their teachers and parents may care. At least, we hope. Since, in all cases, their dogmas are not allowed to be publicly exposed as fiction.

Don't attack the lives of these people. Show facts to prove them wrong. Something in all your arguements that you have not done. You are trying to distract people from their own points. Who gives a damn that Isaac Newton was an alchemist? Does that prove him wrong?

BienvenuJDC
04-02-2010, 02:48 PM
Are you refering to that well known occultist and alchemist Isaac Newton ? (Who shot to fame with the assistance of the Venetian occultists who supported him). The Royal Society of London being stuffed with them from the early years of its formation ? Or to the occultist Charles Darwin, whose grandfather was member of the occultist Lunar Society ? Or perhaps to the occultist Alfred Einstein ?

I dare to say children in schools are not aware of these things too. But their teachers and parents may care. At least, we hope. Since, in all cases, their dogmas are not allowed to be publicly exposed as fiction.

You need to focus on the issue. Whether Newton (or anyone for that matter) was an occultist or not has NO bearing on the simple laws of physics. There is gravitational pull. If there is gravitational pull, then there also is a counter force made my a centrifugal action. without one we would see catastrophic results. I think that you need to end your rants by closing this thread, it is as ridiculous as the Dark Ages.

:rant:

Musicology
04-02-2010, 03:05 PM
Whether Newton was a raving lunatic makes no difference to the fact that he was a raving lunatic. And the same is true of Abbe Ortes of Venice, of Charles Darwin, of Malthus and of countless other scam merchants of 'modern science'.

The Dark Ages are another invention.

Tell us plainly what happens to the Earth's atmosphere if the Earth is revolving at around 1,000 miles per hour. Just do this, can you ? And do give us your interpretation of the stellar images posted at the start of this thread. Which seem to have escaped your attention.

Thanks



You need to focus on the issue. Whether Newton (or anyone for that matter) was an occultist or not has NO bearing on the simple laws of physics. There is gravitational pull. If there is gravitational pull, then there also is a counter force made my a centrifugal action. without one we would see catastrophic results. I think that you need to end your rants by closing this thread, it is as ridiculous as the Dark Ages.

:rant:

kevinthediltz
04-02-2010, 03:14 PM
The Dark Ages are another invention.
Oh god no.


Tell us plainly what happens to the Earth's atmosphere if the Earth is revolving at around 1,000 miles per hour. Just do this, can you ? And do give us your interpretation of the stellar images posted at the start of this thread. Which seem to have escaped your attention.

Thanks

I can. :) The atmosphere of earth travels (and get this) at the same speed as the earth does, held by gravity. Amazing isn't it? And I believe that The Atheist explained those pictures very clearly, a post which YOU ignored and have not replyed to, the same as all of my replys. :) I see you are ignoring any answers that you cannot argue against. Very clever... actually not really. I am still waiting on replys to several of my questions.

MarkBastable
04-02-2010, 03:14 PM
As a matter of interest, why are all these people engaged in this huge fraud? What's in it for them?

kiki1982
04-02-2010, 03:41 PM
As you have not actually proved anyone really wrong yet, I have not yet found an answer to my phases which have to do with the movement of the planets and the earth.

I think you just don't know, no, you don't, I just know it. :rolleyes:

You just continuously go off on some rant instead of discussing. Just because the fact that you cannot explain yourself, and you know it. You cannot face it and cannot understand the facts.

'Truth will set you free', that is true... It is sad that so many people are still wrapped up in a lie.

But thank you for experiencing rampant ignorance. It enlightens me regarding my brother-in-law. I am learning to ask the right questions an detecting certain tactics. It is not going to work :hand:.

Musicology
04-02-2010, 03:58 PM
People have been showing facts to the Darwinist establishment since 1859, the year of the 'Origin of Species'. They don't want facts. They want their own dogmas. And to hell with the facts.

Who cares whether Newton was an alchemist and an occultist, supported by the alchemists and occultists of Venice ? That he stole virtually anything 'he' did from men like Leibnitz of Germany and claimed them as his own discoveries ? Really ? In such a case Neil Armstrong becomes a hero of the state. Is it not time to say that what is worthy of our belief is seen to be true and is seen to be subject to fair criticism ? If not, we are ignorant, and worse than ignorant. We are then willingly ignorant men.

Regards



Don't attack the lives of these people. Show facts to prove them wrong. Something in all your arguements that you have not done. You are trying to distract people from their own points. Who gives a damn that Isaac Newton was an alchemist? Does that prove him wrong?

Then show us your best evidence for the Earth revolving around the Sun. This thread has been running all of today and we are still waiting for the evidence. From 400 years of publications you surely have some evidence, don't you ?

And you have still not told us your view of these stellar images which have been taken thousands of times from all over the world.

Which side is open to criticism ? And which side is producing evidence ? You have your answer. And, as long as this thread runs it will always be the same.



As you have not actually proved anyone really wrong yet, I have not yet found an answer to my phases which have to do with the movement of the planets and the earth.

I think you just don't know, no, you don't, I just know it. :rolleyes:

You just continuously go off on some rant instead of discussing. Just because the fact that you cannot explain yourself, and you know it. You cannot face it and cannot understand the facts.

'Truth will set you free', that is true... It is sad that so many people are still wrapped up in a lie.

But thank you for experiencing rampant ignorance. It enlightens me regarding my brother-in-law. I am learning to ask the right questions an detecting certain tactics. It is not going to work :hand:.

What's in it for them ? Well, it's a club. Academic studies tend to be. The conventions decree that careerists do not question the conventions. That they are never examined fairly and openly in the light of modern discoveries. Welcome to the Darwinian paradigm and that of the universe constructed around 400 years of mere assumption. The issue is this - are the conventions able to explain the discoveries of those who disagree with them ? That standard applies to almost everything we claim to be science. And, if it does not, we are sure to become deluded and are dogmatic fools. I do not want to be in that category. But I see academic dogmas all around me. So must you. That's why we can and must question these things. We can and must invite criticism. And welcome it. Because only with criticism can we claim what we study is worthy of our belief and is better than the views of our critics. Not to argue. But to share the facts, such as we have of them.

Regards



As a matter of interest, why are all these people engaged in this huge fraud? What's in it for them?

kiki1982
04-02-2010, 04:05 PM
:hand:

tsh, We are still waiting for yours. I can't see it coming yet :rolleyes:.

You ignore most of our evidence anyway under the pretence you can't (don't want to) see it, so I'm asking for yours so that we can finally see how deep your mind is and the mind of people who put this into your mind. Obvisouly it is very shallow.

But, you see, I still haven't got an explanantion of phases. Still waiting, although I think I will have to wait a long time. You won't get out of it. :hand:

Is it gonna come or not? You can do it man (I hope :D).

MarkBastable
04-02-2010, 04:09 PM
What's in it for them ? Well, it's a club. The conventions decree that careers do not question the conventions. That they are never examined fairly and openly in the light of modern discoveries.

Okay. What's in it for the club? When this club was first formed with intention of deliberately misleading the world about how the universe worked, what advantage did the founders see in that?

Musicology
04-02-2010, 04:10 PM
Kiki,

You have 400 plus years of 'evidence' that the Earth revolves around the Sun. You have nearly 150 years of photography. You have every possible advantage. You have a head start (you claim) and you surely, surely have overwhelming evidence that the Earth revolves around the Sun, with the Sun as the centre of the Universe. Where is your evidence ? When, in fact, these stellar images, and these facts already presented clearly do not support your assumptions. Let's start there. But if that's too difficult, well, in that case, study what has been posted. Closely. And then we can agree to disagree.

Regards



:hand:

tsh, We are still waiting for yours. I can't see it coming yet :rolleyes:.

You ignore most of our evidence anyway under the pretence you can't (don't want to) see it, so I'm asking for yours so that we can finally see how deep your mind is and the mind of people who put this into your mind. Obvisouly it is very shallow.

But, you see, I still haven't got an explanantion of phases. Still waiting, although I think I will have to wait a long time. You won't get out of it. :hand:

Is it gonna come or not? You can do it man (I hope :D).

kiki1982
04-02-2010, 04:15 PM
:hand:

Still no explanation about phases.

I wonder whether you are not blind in one eye...

You can't explain, can you?

I'll tell you what, as you are so clever you have all possible advantage, why don't you explain the phases of the moon to me?

I'm really enjoying my time here. :hat:

Musicology
04-02-2010, 04:16 PM
Control !

Control of what is taught, believed, consumed, spoken of, admitted into textbooks, libraries, colleges, universities etc. Control of money, of governments, of banks, of culture and of 'science' (so-called). I think it's called 'control'.


Okay. What's in it for the club? When this club was first formed with intention of deliberately misleading the world about how the universe worked, what advantage did the founders see in that?

Mark,

How about this idea. Set up a time lapsed camera session pointed at the stars. And then judge the results for yourself.

It won't convince many people. But it may well convince you. And if it does so you deserve the credit, having examined a view which, till now, you had not considered. That's the fruits of a fair conversation.

Regards



Okay. What's in it for the club? When this club was first formed with intention of deliberately misleading the world about how the universe worked, what advantage did the founders see in that?

MarkBastable
04-02-2010, 04:22 PM
Control !

Control of what is taught, believed, consumed, spoken of, admitted into textbooks, libraries, colleges, universities etc. Control of money, of governments, of banks, of culture and of 'science' (so-called). I think it's called 'control'.

But they could just as easily exercise that control with your science couldn't they? Why does mendacious science give them control that real science doesn't?

Musicology
04-02-2010, 04:28 PM
Well, no.

Since, if you set up such an experiment yourself I would have no input into it. The results would be entirely your own. And, when you have such results, see how they will be treated by your colleagues.

'Mendacious science' is easily identified by its failure to allow major criticism of its underlying assumptions. And with that Darwinian/Copernican backdrop I think you have your answer.

At least, so I believe.



But they could just as easily exercise that control with your science couldn't they? Why does mendacious science give them control that real science doesn't?

kiki1982
04-02-2010, 04:32 PM
As refusing to answer a simple question is an admittance of wrong :D

MarkBastable
04-02-2010, 04:35 PM
I think you misunderstand. I entirely accept that if I were to set up that camera, I'd end up with exactly the photo that you suggest - and that I expect. I'd expect it because this model (http://www.astro.uu.nl/~strous/AA/en/antwoorden/hemel.html#10)predicts it. It predicts the photo exactly as well as your model predicts it. So - what are we to do about incompatible models that adequately explain the same phenomenon?


Well, no.

Since, if you set up such an experiment yourself I would have no input into it. The results would be entirely your own. And, when you have such results, see how they will be treated by your colleagues.

'Mendacious science' is easily identified by its failure to allow major criticism of its underlying assumptions. And with that Darwinian/Copernican backdrop I think you have your answer.

At least, so I believe.

OrphanPip
04-02-2010, 04:46 PM
The pictures were explained ages ago, it's created by the rotation of the Earth.

Musicology
04-02-2010, 04:46 PM
In such a case, Mark, we must call on other evidence which proves to be completely incompatible with one or both of those models. How about the outcome of attempts to measure the speed of light ? Which, it was assumed, would be influenced in their results by the Earth travelling around the Sun and rotating at 1,000 miles per hour as it did so. The notorious experiments of the Mickelson experiment. To the astonishment of those involved the results showed no change at all. It showed only constant speed.

The "scientific" community panicked when the Michelson-Morey experiment showed no variation in the speed of light due to the supposed rapid movement of the Earth around the Sun! And THAT was the true reason for the invention of "Professor" Einstein and his theory of relativity which eliminated the ether!!

As already posted. So, once again, here are results which do not support the conventions you subscribe to. And which clearly did not conform to expectations also. The possibility the Earth stands still was, of course, instantly dismissed. Although nobody had reason to do so. They still don't. Such is the power of dogma. And of convention.

Enter Stage left, Einstein. To muddy the waters still more. Thus filling the embarrasing gap, the logical conclusion, that the Earth, in fact, stands still and that the Sun and stars move around it. A view entirely compatible with the known facts and contrary to none of them.

So, there, since you ask for it, is one simple example of the elegant solution and superiority of the view that the Earth really IS fixed in space and that the Sun and starts really DO act as said.

Numerous other powerful proofs indicate the same. Some of which have already been posted here. I began with time-lapsed images taken of stars above the North Pole. Here too we find the same. Again, what of the atmosphere if the Earth is really rotating at 1,000mph. Is it, the Earth's atmosphere tied to, fixed to, the Earth ? Does it, the Earth's atmosphere, revolve at around 1,000 mph too ? These are basic questions you may consider. Since, if a plane enters a cloud flying in the direct opposite direction to the alleged rotation of the Earth and its atmosphere how long would it take such a plane to leave that cloud on the other side of it ? Either the cloud is travelling at 1,000 mph or it is not. Either the Earth's atmosphere is travelling at 1,000 mph or it is not. Which ?

Rgds




I think you misunderstand. I entirely accept that if I were to set up that camera, I'd end up with exactly the photo that you suggest - and that I expect. I'd expect it because this model (http://www.astro.uu.nl/~strous/AA/en/antwoorden/hemel.html#10)predicts it. It predicts the photo exactly as well as your model predicts it. So - what are we to do about incompatible models that adequately explain the same phenomenon?

You have invented the rotation of the Earth to explain it. Since the alternative is deemed to be unthinkable. By you.



The pictures were explained ages ago, it's created by the rotation of the Earth.

OrphanPip
04-02-2010, 05:06 PM
You seem capable of amazing feats of delusion. The Michelson experiment was an attempt to prove the existence of the ether, and it failed miserably because the ether doesn't exist. This didn't rock the foundations of science since the ether was already widely doubted. For the Earth not to be moving you would have to disprove Foucault's pendulum.

So, you believe Newton's theory about an ether being needed to propagate light over Einstein, but then you reject Newton as an occultist when it suits you. :smilielol5: you're quite special.

Musicology
04-02-2010, 05:09 PM
Orphan Pip,

Tell us this. The Earth (you say) is rotating at around 1,000 mph. Are the clouds in the sky also rotating at around the same speed as the Earth below them ? Fixed to the Earth by some invisible umbilical chord ? Or are they moving far slower ?


You seem capable of amazing feats of delusion. The Michelson experiment was an attempt to prove the existence of the ether, and it failed miserably because the ether doesn't exist. This didn't rock the foundations of science since the ether was already widely doubted. For the Earth not to be moving you would have to disprove Foucault's pendulum.

So, you believe Newton's theory about an ether being needed to propagate light over Einstein, but then you reject Newton as an occultist when it suits you. :smilielol5: you're quite special.

kiki1982
04-02-2010, 05:11 PM
@OrphanPip

Be careful, or he might start to ignore you, he is already doing it with me as my question doesn't suit him.

I'll have to wait bl**dy long for my answer.

But you're right, it is hilarious.

@Musicology (if you still acknowledge me, that is)

What about yes? But, oh, I forgot, there is no gravity, is there, that keeps the atmosphere with the earth so we can actually breathe (that is right isn't it, Pip?).

Musicology
04-02-2010, 05:15 PM
Kiki,

Let me ask more or less the same question.

If the Earth is really rotating at approximately 1,000 mph do the clouds above the Earth also rotate at the same speed ? With the Earth ?

If so, what happens if a 1,000 mile long cloud is entered by a plane travelling in the direct opposite direction to that rotation of the Earth ? How long would it take such a plane to get out of that cloud if it, the plane, is only travelling at 500 mph ?



Be careful, or he might start to ignore you, he is already doing it with me as my question doesn't suit him.

I'll have to wait bl**dy long for my answer.

But you're right, it is hilarious.

Satan
04-02-2010, 05:23 PM
Why don't you do us all a G*I*A*N*T favor and buy yourself a book on fundamental physics? Stop embarrassing yourself. It's not even funny anymore.

Lote-Tree
04-02-2010, 05:26 PM
Why don't you do us all a G*I*A*N*T favor and buy yourself a book on fundamental physics? Stop embarrassing yourself. It's not even funny anymore.

It's wee bit of British humour ;-)

Musicology
04-02-2010, 05:29 PM
Lote-tree,

Great answer !!!

What was your answer ? :crash:

Here is the question. Are clouds travelling at around the same speed as the alleged speed of 'rotation of the Earth' ?

Yes

or

No

a) Are they (clouds) travelling around 1,000 mph. Roughly corresponding with the alleged speed of 'Earth's rotation' ?

b) Around 100 mph ?

or

c) Sometimes far slower ?


and finally -

Did you ever stop to think for yourself ?

Lote-Tree
04-02-2010, 05:35 PM
Lote-tree,

Great answer !!!

What was your answer ? :crash:

Here is the question. Are clouds travelling at around the same speed as the alleged speed of 'rotation of the Earth' ?

Yes

or

No

Are they (clouds) travelling around 1,000 mph ?

Around 100 mph ?

or

Sometimes far slower ?

My answer?

You are beating a dead horse my old Cockney chap ;-)

Musicology
04-02-2010, 05:38 PM
You are completely correct Lote-Tree.

As the saying goes - 'You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink'.

Thus, the horse died from lack of water.


My answer?

You are beating a dead horse my old Cockney chap ;-)

BienvenuJDC
04-02-2010, 05:41 PM
It was my understanding that the SUN was in its own orbit with at least nine planets orbiting the sun, each (or at least most) having their own natural satellites (moons) orbiting them. So...with all this complexity of orbits...WHAT is actually the center of the sun's orbit, and is THAT object in an orbit of its own too?

Musicology
04-02-2010, 05:47 PM
The Sun's orbit varies from day to day through the year. Until it begins a new cycle at the start of the next year. A sort of spiral.

I do not have a diagram. It's an interesting question and I don't have the expertise to answer you. Others surely do.

Regards



It was my understanding that the SUN was in its own orbit with at least nine planets orbiting the sun, each (or at least most) having their own natural satellites (moons) orbiting them. So...with all this complexity of orbits...WHAT is actually the center of the sun's orbit, and is THAT object in an orbit of its own too?

Lote-tree is going to tell us if the clouds above us are travelling at 1,000 mph. But he is so modest he's a little bit shy. :blush:



It's wee bit of British humour ;-)

Lote-Tree
04-02-2010, 05:50 PM
You are completely correct Lote-Tree.

As the saying goes - 'You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink'.

Thus, the horse died from lack of water.

Come on chaps and chappeses get the hint ;-)

Musicology
04-02-2010, 05:52 PM
Hints ? Ah, yes, more Copernican hints from our corporate sponsors !! :smilielol5:

Thus, we believe what we believe although we haven't a clue what we are believing. Hints, nudges, and winks are enough. LOL.


Come on chaps and chappeses get the hint ;-)

Satan
04-02-2010, 05:56 PM
It was my understanding that the SUN was in its own orbit with at least nine planets orbiting the sun, each (or at least most) having their own natural satellites (moons) orbiting them. So...with all this complexity of orbits...WHAT is actually the center of the sun's orbit, and is THAT object in an orbit of its own too?

Sun, with its entire solar system, orbits around the center of our galaxy Milky Way at an average velocity of 800,000kms per hour. We are roughly 26-28,000 light-years away from the center of the galaxy, which is supposed to be a supermassive black hole.

http://img682.imageshack.us/img682/8117/sunmilkyway.jpg (http://img682.imageshack.us/i/sunmilkyway.jpg/)

Musicology
04-02-2010, 05:58 PM
It seems you have no such book to refer us to that would answer thse fundamental questions. May I recommend you buy one yourself ?


Why don't you do us all a G*I*A*N*T favor and buy yourself a book on fundamental physics? Stop embarrassing yourself. It's not even funny anymore.

OrphanPip
04-02-2010, 06:14 PM
Kiki,

Let me ask more or less the same question.

If the Earth is really rotating at approximately 1,000 mph do the clouds above the Earth also rotate at the same speed ? With the Earth ?

If so, what happens if a 1,000 mile long cloud is entered by a plane travelling in the direct opposite direction to that rotation of the Earth ? How long would it take such a plane to get out of that cloud if it, the plane, is only travelling at 500 mph ?

Okay I guess I'm going to have to explain inertial frames of reference.

Have you ever been on a train. Well let's say you're on a train going at a steady 50 mph, and while you're on that train you drop a ball. The ball still drops straight down despite you being on the train because of inertia, likewise it wouldn't take you any more strength than if you were standing still to throw that ball down the aisle in the direction the train is going. This changes if the train were accelerating.

In the broader world the Earth's rotation is the inertial frame of reference. As to your cloud question, you're thinking of it as if we look up and see the clouds move because of the rotation of the Earth. However, the clouds move due to air currents, so your question is flawed. (Although, tangentially the rotation of the Earth is related to how air currents form)

JuniperWoolf
04-02-2010, 06:27 PM
I'm pretty sure that this is a joke. If not, then... well... it's still kind of a joke.

Satan
04-02-2010, 06:36 PM
It seems you have no such book to refer us to that would answer thse fundamental questions. May I recommend you buy one yourself ?

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/9703/impliedfacepalmi.jpg

1. Learn to ask questions the smart way.
2. Have at least some basic understanding of the topic.
3. Think before you post.

Lote-Tree
04-02-2010, 06:40 PM
http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/9703/impliedfacepalmi.jpg

1. Learn to ask questions the smart way.
2. Have at least some basic understanding of the topic.
3. Think before you post.

That's not the posters aim ;-)

BienvenuJDC
04-02-2010, 06:42 PM
http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/9703/impliedfacepalmi.jpg

1. Learn to ask questions the smart way.
2. Have at least some basic understanding of the topic.
3. think before you post.

priceless pic!!!!

MarkBastable
04-02-2010, 06:44 PM
Picture a bee in a train...


Orphan Pip,

Tell us this. The Earth (you say) is rotating at around 1,000 mph. Are the clouds in the sky also rotating at around the same speed as the Earth below them ? Fixed to the Earth by some invisible umbilical chord ? Or are they moving far slower ?


Oops...sorry. Pip's ahead of me. As you were.


Where in London do you live, by the way, M? Because I'm starting to feel that it's got to be worth meeting you for a beer.

kevinthediltz
04-02-2010, 07:51 PM
People have been showing facts to the Darwinist establishment since 1859, the year of the 'Origin of Species'. They don't want facts. They want their own dogmas. And to hell with the facts.

Who cares whether Newton was an alchemist and an occultist, supported by the alchemists and occultists of Venice ? That he stole virtually anything 'he' did from men like Leibnitz of Germany and claimed them as his own discoveries ? Really ? In such a case Neil Armstrong becomes a hero of the state. Is it not time to say that what is worthy of our belief is seen to be true and is seen to be subject to fair criticism ? If not, we are ignorant, and worse than ignorant. We are then willingly ignorant men.

Regards

You did not answer my question or any of my questions from earlier posts. You just attacked people you have never met. Including me. Which I take offense to. By the way have you seen my thread "The earth is flat" ? Its very similar to yours. :)

BienvenuJDC
04-02-2010, 08:15 PM
By the way have you seen my thread "The earth is flat" ?

You mean to say that the earth is FLAT too?
:yikes:

kevinthediltz
04-02-2010, 08:20 PM
You mean to say that the earth is FLAT too?
:yikes:

OF COURSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Here is a link to the conclusive scientific babble that I privately researched. I'm surprised you are in the dark as well over this one.

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52044

applepie
04-02-2010, 11:41 PM
Mkhockenberry,

Are you suggesting these images are not evidence of the stars moving in a roughly circular path over the time-lapsed exposure of those images ? I mean, let's start with that. You do agree with this, don't you ?

And since we are not talking of woman being made from a single rib, pardon me for staying on the topic of 'The Earth is Fixed in Space'.

You may have evidence to the contrary. That would be great.

What are posted here are actual time-lapsed pictures. How do these equate with your assumptions, your education ?

I am indeed suggesting that it is not evidence that the stars are moving, all simultaneously mind you, around the Earth. The pictures provided are also found in every astronomy text book that you can find to show the apparent shift of celestial bodies on a nightly basis as the planet revolves. I enjoy watching similar effects as I watch the constellation Orion move through the sky each night. Both of these could arguably be explained by the theory that the Universe revolves around the Earth (Though I suppose it is a bit pretentious in assuming our planet is the center of the universe and all things revolve around us)

What can not be explained by this theory (As formulated by Ptolemy and then perpetuated in more modern times by various religions) is that not only do stars, planets, the moon, and the sun all appear to revolve around the Earth, but they also seem to be in different positions depending on the time of year. It also provides no explanation for why our planet is hotter during some parts of the year than others. As other LitNet folks, have already stated, it provides no explanation for the seasons. The theory of Copernicus explained some of this. It explained the retrograde motion that you find in photos like this time lapse of Mars where planets seemingly move forward and then in reverse

http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2006/04/23/0001213567/Mars2005_6_tezel_c51.jpg

It did not explain Seasons as well since it had yet to be theorized in the 16th century that the Earth's axis is tilted and that the orbit is elliptical in nature instead of spherical. These are things that would later come from observations made by Galileo Lalilei and others. Interestingly enough, Galileo was excommunicated from the Catholic Church for his support of Copernican theory as evidenced by his own observations. This was later revoked by Pope John Paul II in light of relatively recent astronomical finds brought on by trips into space.


Hockenberry,

Before the Hubble Telescope was ever constructed you believed that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Didn't you ? It's found in all the textbooks. This was widely believed from the time of Copernicus. And what IS the evidence of this ? You now say it can be provided by images of the Hubble Telescope. Did Copernicus have a Hubble Telescope ? He did not, so what, exactly, is the evidence that has supported this teaching of yours for centuries ? Do tell us please.

Your reply is to retreat from the discussion altogether !!! You write -

I find little reason to do so myself. I'm more than happy to provide you with a link to a site that would certainly prove the contrary. http://www.nasa.gov/

Great ! So you have nothing to provide us except a vague reference to the Hubble Telescope !!! Isn't that a circular argument ? What evidence can you provide from the last 400 years of astronomy and from other sciences that the Earth actually revolves around the Sun ? And how do you interpret these time-lapsed images of the stars which have been posted here ? The answer is only your silence. Your refusal to provide evidence of any kind.

This looks decidedly awkward for you, doesn't it ? You believe something but cannot provide evidence in its support. In science this is called dogmatism, isn't it ? 'The Earth revolves around the Sun' because, well, because you insist 'the Earth revolves round the Sun'. Isn't that the sum total of your argument ? With no actual evidence to support your argument and these images completely suggesting the opposite !

I would not consider my reply as a retreat from the discussion. In fact I put the same amount of effort into formulating my own argument as you did in presenting your own. It's not terribly awkward, but I imagine that it is for you being caught either understanding the point and taking things out of context or simply not understanding something that was a rather blatantly stated as this


I will be more than happy to come back later with scientific proof like images from the Hubble space telescope, but since you didn't offer up your own argument instead of providing links to a site, I find little reason to do so myself. I'm more than happy to provide you with a link to a site that would certainly prove the contrary. http://www.nasa.gov/ Enjoy your reading

Now that I have that off my chest I feel better. It seems to me that you are basing your argument entirely upon religious dogma and you are arguing scripture as irrefutable proof while discounting any sort of scientific explanation. What is it that makes scripture from the Bible any more irrefutable than science texts? It was written by individuals the same is as scientific theories, and as such it is equally subject to question.

The Atheist
04-03-2010, 12:35 AM
Best troll thread ever - 110+ posts in a little over 24 hours.

I don't seem to have seen an answer as to how a planet that isn't spinning on its axis displays the coriolis effect by cyclones/hurricanes spinning in opposite directions in opposite hemispheres.

Was that question too hard?

IJustMadeThatUp
04-03-2010, 12:56 AM
Well, that was some entertaining reading!

Thanks guys :D

BienvenuJDC
04-03-2010, 01:08 AM
No one has entertained my question as to whether our solar system is in its own orbit...which could very well explain why some constellations seem to be orbiting in a certain path...

DanielBenoit
04-03-2010, 01:23 AM
Ehhhh, this is what happens when people think that because they know what words like "science", "earth" and "rotation" means that they believe they are experts. To the OP, go read some Copernicus ;)

BienvenuJDC
04-03-2010, 01:26 AM
Ehhhh, this is what happens when people think that because they know what words like "science", "earth" and "rotation" means that they believe they are experts. To the OP, go read some Copernicus ;)

I'm not disagreeing with you, but you are awfully young yourself to act like you know what an expert might know...

DanielBenoit
04-03-2010, 01:47 AM
I'm not disagreeing with you, but you are awfully young yourself to act like you know what an expert might know...

What does being young have to do with it? I'm no expert in any field of science. But it don't take no expert to understand some of the most elementary facts of science. I in fact think it takes an expert to go against the established facts presented by experts.

OrphanPip
04-03-2010, 02:55 AM
Everything in the universe is in motion Bien, our solar system moves within the galaxy and the galaxy as a whole is moving as well. My understanding is that we're somewhere on the periphery of our galaxy. I'm a biologist not an astronomer though, so this is beyond my scope.

I think the path the solar system takes through the galaxy is so long though that we can't really observe any change in our lifetimes.

The Atheist
04-03-2010, 04:11 AM
Has anyone mentioned that the stars orbiting the earth means that even a close[ish] star like Sirius must be moving at around 50 time the speed of light to complete a circuit in 24 hours?

The OP is right about one thing - Einstein sucked; so much for the speed of light being absolute, even stars are faster than light!

JuniperWoolf
04-03-2010, 04:40 AM
Everything in the universe is in motion Bien, our solar system moves within the galaxy and the galaxy as a whole is moving as well. My understanding is that we're somewhere on the periphery of our galaxy. I'm a biologist not an astronomer though, so this is beyond my scope.

I just learned a couple of days ago that the other galaxies are all moving away from this one. I used to think that they were in some kind of rotation pattern around something in the center of the universe, because that would fit with the pattern of most things (atoms, planetary rotation, the galaxies themselves, etc). I thought that was pretty cool. I'm a bio student too, physics and astronomy for me have basically been background noise while I doodle on my notebooks up until now; I never really knew how we came to the realization that the universe is "expanding."


Has anyone mentioned that the stars orbiting the earth means that even a close[ish] star like Sirius must be moving at around 50 time the speed of light to complete a circuit in 24 hours?

Haha, well that's a really simple yet effective point.

kiki1982
04-03-2010, 04:55 AM
Kiki,

Let me ask more or less the same question.

If the Earth is really rotating at approximately 1,000 mph do the clouds above the Earth also rotate at the same speed ? With the Earth ?

If so, what happens if a 1,000 mile long cloud is entered by a plane travelling in the direct opposite direction to that rotation of the Earth ? How long would it take such a plane to get out of that cloud if it, the plane, is only travelling at 500 mph ?

:smilielol5:

Oh, my God he is serious :yikes:

The question is irrelevant to the rotation of te earth as the same question would be about the speed of a plane if a person inside it was going at a speed of 5 miles/h and the plane flying at 200 miles/h.

The person would get out of it if he was allowed to just at the time it would take him to walk from the side to the other.

So the plane would exactly take 2 hours to do your thing.

No phases. Not yet? :hand:

Musicology
04-03-2010, 05:06 AM
Kiki 1982 has proved that the world is going mad.

She tells us a plane flying at 500 mph which entered a 1,000 mile long cloud would take 2 hours to fly through it, even if that cloud is moving in the completely opposite direction of that plane at approximately 1,000 mph. !!! I think Kiki should be recruited as the next Chancellor of the Exchequer for England or, at least, as the next Nobel Prize Winner for Physics.



:smilielol5:

Oh, my God he is serious :yikes:

The question is irrelevant to the rotation of te earth as the same question would be about the speed of a plane if a person inside it was going at a speed of 5 miles/h and the plane flying at 200 miles/h.

The person would get out of it if he was allowed to just at the time it would take him to walk from the side to the other.

So the plane would exactly take 2 hours to do your thing.

No phases. Not yet? :hand:

MarkBastable
04-03-2010, 05:17 AM
Kiki has proved that the world is going mad.

She tells us a plane flying at 500 mph which entered a 1,000 mile long cloud would take 2 hours to fly through it, even if that cloud is moving in the completely opposite direction of that plane at approximately 1,000 mph. !!! I think Kiki should be recruited as the next Chancellor of the Exchequer for England.

Imagine a train carriage one mile long, travelling north at a hundred miles and hour.

At the back end - the southern end - is a bee, dragging a banner half a mile long. It starts to fly towards the front end of the carriage at one mile an hour. So it is travelling, actually, at one hundred and one miles an hour.

At the front end there's another bee, which starts to fly towards the back end of the train at one mile an hour.

When the bees meet, how long will it take the second bee, travelling at one mile an hour, to pass the banner?

The Atheist
04-03-2010, 05:23 AM
Haha, well that's a really simple yet effective point.

I've also realised that I've under-estimated the speed by an order of magnitude.

For galaxies over 1,000,000 light years away, they would be travelling at over the speed of light squared, which no doubt proves they don't exist!

Gosh, this stuff is easy when you get started!

Musicology
04-03-2010, 05:24 AM
The answer is simple. It will take 4 rotations of the Earth around the Sun, and 400 years of textbooks.

:)

Imagine a train carriage one mile long, travelling north at a hundred miles and hour.

At the back end - the southern end - is a bee, dragging a banner half a mile long. It starts to fly towards the front end of the carriage at one mile an hour. So it is travelling, actually, at one hundred and one miles an hour.

At the front end there's another bee, which starts to fly towards the back end of the train at one mile an hour.

When the bees meet, how long will it take the second bee, travelling at one mile an hour, to pass the banner?

And shall we ever know whether the clouds above our heads are travelling at around 1,000 mph in following the allegedly rotating Earth below them ? Answers on a postcard to -

Spin Department
Popular Mechanics

MarkBastable
04-03-2010, 05:33 AM
The answer is simple. It will take 4 rotations of the Earth around the Sun, and 400 years of textbooks.

:)

Seriously, this will inform the question about the cloud. Other people have given what they believe to be the answer to that problem by applying their understanding of how the universe works. So - please apply yours to this problem, and perhaps we can move the discussion along.

Imagine a train carriage one mile long, travelling north at a hundred miles and hour.

At the back end - the southern end - is a bee, dragging a banner half a mile long. It starts to fly towards the front end of the carriage at one mile an hour. So it is travelling, actually, at one hundred and one miles an hour.

At the front end there's another bee, which starts to fly towards the back end of the train at one mile an hour.

When the bees meet, how long will it take the second bee, travelling at one mile an hour, to pass the banner?

Musicology
04-03-2010, 05:38 AM
MarkBastable,

I do not see an answer to my direct question. Can you please tell us whether cloud formations are travelling at approximately the same speed as the allegedly rotating Earth below them - the latter rotating at a speed (so we are told) of approximately 1,000 mph ? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Since one of your supporters has calculated that a plane travelling 500 mph will take 2 hours to fly through a cloud 1,000 miles long, even if that cloud is travelling in the opposite direction at around 1,000 mph !!

And since my question was first and is of direct relevance to the thread, you may agree your answer should be found after you have offered one of your own to this earlier question.



Seriously, this will inform the question about the cloud. Other people have given what they believe to be the answer to that problem by applying their understanding of how the universe works. So - please apply yours to this problem, and perhaps we can move the discussion along.

Imagine a train carriage one mile long, travelling north at a hundred miles and hour.

At the back end - the southern end - is a bee, dragging a banner half a mile long. It starts to fly towards the front end of the carriage at one mile an hour. So it is travelling, actually, at one hundred and one miles an hour.

At the front end there's another bee, which starts to fly towards the back end of the train at one mile an hour.

When the bees meet, how long will it take the second bee, travelling at one mile an hour, to pass the banner?

MarkBastable
04-03-2010, 05:47 AM
MarkBastable,

I do not see an answer to my direct question. Can you please tell us whether cloud formations are travelling at approximately the same speed as the allegedly rotating Earth below them - the latter rotating at a speed (so we are told) of approximately 1,000 mph ? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Since one of your supporters has calculated that a plane travelling 500 mph will take 2 hours to fly through a cloud 1,000 miles long, even if that cloud is travelling in the opposite direction at around 1,000 mph !!

And since my question was first and is of direct relevance to the thread, you may agree your answer should be found after you have offered one of your own to this earlier question.

I agree with her. That is my answer. And if you ask why that works, then my question will be part of the explanation.

So...

Imagine a train carriage one mile long, travelling north at a hundred miles and hour.

At the back end - the southern end - is a bee, dragging a banner half a mile long. It starts to fly towards the front end of the carriage at one mile an hour. So it is travelling, actually, at one hundred and one miles an hour.

At the front end there's another bee, which starts to fly towards the back end of the train at one mile an hour.

When the bees meet, how long will it take the second bee, travelling at one mile an hour, to pass the banner?

Musicology
04-03-2010, 05:50 AM
Mark,

You therefore believe the clouds above our heads are rotating with the Earth at around the same speed as the Earth itself below them.

Yes or No ?

I will then answer your question.

kiki1982
04-03-2010, 05:52 AM
:hand:

The answer is simple for you: you refuse to answer the question because you cannot. Or you refuse to answer it because you are afraid that the answer is as it is and that geocentrism does not apply.

So you continuously evade answering.

Can you finally answer my question about the phases of the moon and the planets as you are so clever?

You are constantly going to be reminded of your ignorance, I am sorry. :bigear:

MarkBastable
04-03-2010, 05:53 AM
Mark,

You therefore believe the clouds above our heads are rotating with the Earth at around the same speed as the Earth itself below them.

Yes or No ?

I will then answer your question.

Yes. Now - before you get to your next point - answer my question.

Musicology
04-03-2010, 06:21 AM
Not so fast Mark !

If the clouds above us are rotating at approximately the same speed as the Earth below them your colleague's answer of 2 hours is a nonsense. Isn't it ?

A 1,000 mile long cloud would, if rotating at around the same time as the Earth below, also be rotating at around 1,000 mph. Would it not ? According to your own belief. Thus, if a plane enters a 1,000 mile long cloud cloud headed in the direct opposite direction to that rotation travelling at 500 mph, it would within that same hour, emerge from the other side of that cloud, even if the plane stood still in the air. But it, the plane is travelling at 500 mph. Thus, the plane must be free of that cloud in far less than 1 hour. A fact you must surely agree to. Such is the cost of your bizzare belief about clouds and the alleged rotation of the Earth !

Since this is a clear example of the nonsense your education so obviously produces, I will leave it here as a monument to your 'education' and that of your colleague and will gladly answer your own question. But not before offering you again, even at this moment of your confusion, a final chance to rescue your education. Have you nothing more to say on the subject of the Earth's atmosphere in respect of the alleged rotation of the Earth ?

If not, then I rest my case.



Yes. Now - before you get to your next point - answer my question.

MarkBastable
04-03-2010, 06:36 AM
You therefore believe the clouds above our heads are rotating with the Earth at around the same speed as the Earth itself below them.

Yes or No ?

I will then answer your question.

You reneged on the deal.

Musicology
04-03-2010, 06:39 AM
No, I have not reneged on the 'deal'. You may, if honest, admit that you and your colleague are in total confusion in respect of this issue of the Earth and its atmosphere allegedly revolving at around 1,000 mph. But if you cannot admit to this fact, fine. I give you a final chance to admit to it. But if you cannot do this it remains the outcome of that discussion for all to see. So, which is it to be, my attempted answer to your question or your honest admission on the subject of my own ? Common sense says you deserve one last chance to be honest. After which I must keep my word and answer your own (later) question.



You reneged on the deal.

MarkBastable
04-03-2010, 06:43 AM
You therefore believe the clouds above our heads are rotating with the Earth at around the same speed as the Earth itself below them.

Yes or No ?

I will then answer your question.

I answered 'yes'.

You did not then answer my question.

You reneged.

Musicology
04-03-2010, 06:46 AM
You answered 'yes', but you cannot deny you are answering yes to a nonsense of your own invention. And that of your colleague. Since a plane travelling 500 mph into a 1,000 mile long cloud cannot emerge from the other side in 2 hours if the cloud is itself travelling in the directly opposite direction at nearly 1,000 mph.


I answered 'yes'.

You did not then answer my question.

You reneged.

MarkBastable
04-03-2010, 06:48 AM
You therefore believe the clouds above our heads are rotating with the Earth at around the same speed as the Earth itself below them.

Yes or No ?

I will then answer your question.

Right or wrong - I answered.

You reneged.

Musicology
04-03-2010, 06:52 AM
No, I have not reneged. I have twice, in the last 30 minutes, asked you to admit the nonsense of your answer and that of your colleague with whom you say you agree. Do so and I will gladly move on to the later subject of your own question to me.


Right or wrong - I answered.

You reneged.

MarkBastable
04-03-2010, 06:56 AM
You therefore believe the clouds above our heads are rotating with the Earth at around the same speed as the Earth itself below them.

Yes or No ?

I will then answer your question.

That is a very straightforward proposition. I answered. You did not then do what you said you would do.

Musicology
04-03-2010, 07:01 AM
Mark Bastable,

Kiki seems to have abandoned you with the baby and has left the building. I will not rub your nose in to the problem but will, as a compromise, say nothing more of clouds, the alleged rotation of the Earth, of its atmosphere, nor anything of banners in trains. So that we can both withdraw with some dignity - you with your beliefs and me with mine.

Regards


That is a very straightforward proposition. I answered. You did not then do what you said you would do.

MarkBastable
04-03-2010, 07:02 AM
Mark Bastable,

Kiki seems to have abandoned you with the baby and has left the building. I will not rub your nose in to the problem but will, as a compromise, say nothing more of clouds, the alleged rotation of the Earth, of its atmosphere, nor anything of banners in trains. So that we can both withdraw with some dignity - you with your beliefs and me with mine.

Regards

No. Answer the question as you promised you would.

Musicology
04-03-2010, 07:11 AM
Since this thread is on the 'The Earth is FIXED in Space' and since you cannot admit to making a complete 'pig's ear' of the subject (and your colleague) it would be pointless to proceed to your question unless/until we fairly and honestly agree to conclude on the subject already under discussion. Unless, of course, you have more information on it to offer.

We close one subject before we start another. Or else one nonsense becomes another.

The point of conversation is to exchange views, and, having done so, agree we have learned in the process. I am not convinced you or Kiki have learned anything except, perhaps, the absurdity of your 'education'. This, however, is not admitted to by you or your colleague and you wish to fly away to another question not directly related to this thread. It is in this context I wish to summarise our discussion on this first (and relevant) question before proceeding as promised to the (irrelevant) second.



No. Answer the question as you promised you would.

prendrelemick
04-03-2010, 07:35 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44DlSj6bnn4

MarkBastable
04-03-2010, 07:52 AM
We close one subject before we start another. Or else one nonsense becomes another.



Nevertheless, you said you would answer if I gave a yes or no. And I did that.

Now - answer the question as you promised you would.

Musicology
04-03-2010, 08:19 AM
Your first post on this thread described the contents of my first post as (and I quote) -

A 'pretty infallible indicator' of 'crap'

Now, who is supplying the 'crap' ? This thread is entitled 'The Earth is FIXED in Space' and you and your colleague have been trashed with your nonsense of clouds moving around 1,000 miles an hour !! You've been given three chances to admit to your nonsense. Each time dogmatically repeating a question on a totally unrelated issue.

Unless/until you accept this fact I see no reason to move on to address your question which was (and still is) irrelevant to the subject of this thread. I have even agreed to answer it but only, and when, you agree to the 'crap' you and your colleague have here reluctantly given on this the actual issue - the alleged rotation of the Earth and that of the atmosphere and clouds above it. But not until then. Since my first obligation was and is to this thread, and to letting readers see where the 'crap' is really, really coming from. It's coming from men like you. That is now clear to anyone with common sense. Yourself and your colleague not included, of course.


Nevertheless, you said you would answer if I gave a yes or no. And I did that.

Now - answer the question as you promised you would.

MarkBastable
04-03-2010, 09:54 AM
Unless/until you accept this fact I see no reason to move on to address your question which was (and still is) irrelevant to the subject of this thread. I have even agreed to answer it but only, and when, you agree to the 'crap' you and your colleague have here reluctantly given on this the actual issue - the alleged rotation of the Earth and that of the atmosphere and clouds above it. But not until then. Since my first obligation was and is to this thread, and to letting readers see where the 'crap' is really, really coming from. It's coming from men like you. That is now clear to anyone with common sense. Yourself and your colleague not included, of course.

So - you won't discuss the issue unless I say I agree with you.

What, exactly, did you mean then, when you said this....?


You therefore believe the clouds above our heads are rotating with the Earth at around the same speed as the Earth itself below them.

Yes or No ?

I will then answer your question.

If you live up to that, I promise I shall explain how my question is relevant to the consideration of yours. And I shall keep that promise.

papayahed
04-03-2010, 10:42 AM
Now, who is supplying the 'crap' ? This thread is entitled 'The Earth is FIXED in Space' and you and your colleague have been trashed with your nonsense of clouds moving around 1,000 miles an hour !! You've been given three chances to admit to your nonsense. Each time dogmatically repeating a question on a totally unrelated issue.




Jupiter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaWMp8BUIj0&feature=related

You forget that the sun is not solid, it has an atmosphere:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkKPPuGKb8E&NR=1


How is it possible for these two bodies, that have atmospheres (as can be seen in both videos), to be moving through space if, as you posit, the earth can't be moving in space because of our atmosphere?



(PS. This is like a train wreck, I know I should move on but I just can't look away)

MarkBastable
04-03-2010, 10:48 AM
..train wreck...

God, no. This is fun. I do this with Jehovah's Witnesses at the front door too. I keep them there for hours. I consider it a service to the local community.

papayahed
04-03-2010, 10:59 AM
God, no. This is fun. I do this with Jehovah's Witnesses at the front door too. I keep them there for hours. I consider it a service to the local community.


:D You do have a point..


Fight the good fight my friend!

Niamh
04-03-2010, 12:14 PM
God, no. This is fun. I do this with Jehovah's Witnesses at the front door too. I keep them there for hours. I consider it a service to the local community.

I've done it with mormans regarding geology, archaeology and paleontology. its fun! :D

I was dead certain that this was going to end up an aprils fools joke... but it appears i was mistaken...

Lokasenna
04-03-2010, 01:00 PM
God, no. This is fun. I do this with Jehovah's Witnesses at the front door too. I keep them there for hours. I consider it a service to the local community.

I like to invite them in, offer them a cup of tea, and then sweetly and quietly ask them whether they've ever considered letting Satan into their lives...

Works like a charm - you don't see another one for months!

OrphanPip
04-03-2010, 01:03 PM
Okay I guess I'm going to have to explain inertial frames of reference.

Have you ever been on a train. Well let's say you're on a train going at a steady 50 mph, and while you're on that train you drop a ball. The ball still drops straight down despite you being on the train because of inertia, likewise it wouldn't take you any more strength than if you were standing still to throw that ball down the aisle in the direction the train is going. This changes if the train were accelerating.

In the broader world the Earth's rotation is the inertial frame of reference. As to your cloud question, you're thinking of it as if we look up and see the clouds move because of the rotation of the Earth. However, the clouds move due to air currents, so your question is flawed. (Although, tangentially the rotation of the Earth is related to how air currents form)

Well since I already answered his question, but he either didn't see it or ignored it.

Kiki's answer was a little wrong, but not for the reason music assumes. The clouds are moving because of air currents so to take a plane going at 500 mph going into a 1000 mile cloud which let's say is traveling at 50 mph in the opposite direction of the plane.

So, distance = velocity by time
500h= 1000 - 50h
550h = 1000
h = 1000/550
h = 1.81

It would take the plane 1.81 hours to go through this 1000 mile cloud under these circumstances.

However, all this is completely irrelevant because these speeds are all relative to the inertial frame of reference which is the Earth rotation.

Edit: To be fair to Kiki though, music didn't provide a value for the clouds velocity.

The Atheist
04-03-2010, 01:49 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44DlSj6bnn4

Wins thread!

kiki1982
04-03-2010, 02:39 PM
Pardon, have I left the building and left Mark in it?

:hand:

I don't think so, my ignorant saddo. I had just left to do more interesting stuff.

Am I still going to get an answer on the phases or not?

By the way, just to have you know, I am still solvingyour question with 500 miles/h x 2 = 1000 miles

How does the speed of the plane change from on the ground into orbit around the earth then?


Well since I already answered his question, but he either didn't see it or ignored it.

Kiki's answer was a little wrong, but not for the reason music assumes. The clouds are moving because of air currents so to take a plane going at 500 mph going into a 1000 mile cloud which let's say is traveling at 50 mph in the opposite direction of the plane.

So, distance = velocity by time
500h= 1000 - 50h
550h = 1000
h = 1000/550
h = 1.81

It would take the plane 1.81 hours to go through this 1000 mile cloud under these circumstances.

However, all this is completely irrelevant because these speeds are all relative to the inertial frame of reference which is the Earth rotation.

Edit: To be fair to Kiki though, music didn't provide a value for the clouds velocity.

Haha, yes I didn't account for a cloud that was moving into the opposite direction that the plane was moving.

So you are right.

DanielBenoit
04-03-2010, 03:32 PM
I love how the fastest growing thread on litnet, two days and eleven pages already, is all about the question of whether the earth is in a fixed position or not. I love it.

(Btw, you guys should check out the homepage to that website. "Read all about the Copernican and Darwinian Myths!" It's one think to call evolution a myth, but to call Copernican heliocentric astronomy a myth is just laughable madness.)

Musicology
04-03-2010, 03:45 PM
Hi there Daniel Benoit,

To describe Copernican heliocentric astronomy as a myth is not 'laughable madness' - it's simply rejecting a theory first put forward by Copernicus (1473-1543) more than 400 years ago in a more ignorant age and which you yourself have provided no evidence of being true. You believe it because everyone else believes it, right ? Therefore everyone who believes differently from you must be mad. Right ? Imagine the ignorance of such an attitude ? If you have evidence of Copernicus being true why not offer some ? Is it just a coincidence nobody has done so here ? All they've done is make complete fools of themselves.

At the time of Copernicus people believed in all kinds of nonsense things. We have learned a lot in the last few centuries. One of the things we have learned is no 16th century theory deserves to be taught if it cannot survive criticism and has no verifiable evidence in its support.

This, to you, is 'laughable madness'. What's more crazy than that ? I think it's called Dogma.


I love how the fastest growing thread on litnet, two days and eleven pages already, is all about the question of whether the earth is in a fixed position or not. I love it.

(Btw, you guys should check out the homepage to that website. "Read all about the Copernican and Darwinian Myths!" It's one think to call evolution a myth, but to call Copernican heliocentric astronomy a myth is just laughable madness.)

Kiki,

You have returned to the building ? Great.

Yes, you did not account for a cloud that was moving in the opposite direction to that of the plane. A strange error, yes ? Viva Copernicus, right ?

Do you also believe all clouds are travelling at around 900 to 1000 miles per hour ? And isn't this slightly embarrasing for the supporters of Copernicus to be so riddled with errors ? :blush:



Haha, yes I didn't account for a cloud that was moving into the opposite direction that the plane was moving.

So you are right.

kiki1982
04-03-2010, 04:07 PM
I won't do what Mark did and humour you.

:hand:

No, I didn't account for it. Someone didn't mention the speed, now did he?

Why don't you tell me how the phases of the planets and the moon work and then I will answer your question.

And I asked you a second one: explain to me how the speed of a plain differentiates from its initial speed on earth (500mph) to in the heavens (?). I would be interested to know.

At any rate my answer seems to be more to the point than yours if it comes to Pip's assessment.

Musicology
04-03-2010, 04:10 PM
Orphan Pip says,

It would take the plane (travelling at 500 miles per hour) 1.81 hours to go through a 1000 mile cloud which is travelling 1,000 mph in the opposite direction.

No, that is false !

A plane would fly only 333.33 miles at 500 mph before it emerged if it entered a 1,000 mile cloud that is travelling in the opposite direction at 1,000 mph. Around 40 minutes or so.

Far less than one hour !

:crash:

Quote of the Week -

Kiki's Gem of Wisdom,

'' However, all this is completely irrelevant because these speeds are all relative to the inertial frame of reference which is the Earth rotation'' .

Yeh, right ? What nonsense is this ? The original 'circular argument'.

It is obvious a plane entering a 1,000 mile long cloud will pass through that cloud in less than 1 hour if that cloud is itself travelling at 1,000 mph in the opposite direction and if that plane is travelling at 500 mph.

Your 'inertial frame of reference' is sheer nonsense. Humbug and invention. Since there are only two references, the plane and the cloud.

Oh, my goodness !!!! :crash:

MarkBastable
04-03-2010, 05:58 PM
at 500 mph.

Your 'inertial frame of reference' is sheer nonsense. Humbug and invention. Since there are only two references, the plane and the cloud.


Which bring us neatly back to the bees on the train - only two references: the bee with the banner, and the bee going the other way. Please apply your theory of planes and clouds, as you said you would. I can see the logic of your model - is it universal? Does it apply to the problem I described?

You did promise. And, whatever else I may think of you, I've hitherto assumed you are an honourable man.

JuniperWoolf
04-03-2010, 06:08 PM
This thread is a thing of beauty.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44DlSj6bnn4

Hahahahaha!!! That's the song that was stuck in my head all day after I read this thread yesterday!

OrphanPip
04-03-2010, 09:54 PM
It is obvious a plane entering a 1,000 mile long cloud will pass through that cloud in less than 1 hour if that cloud is itself travelling at 1,000 mph in the opposite direction and if that plane is travelling at 500 mph.

Your 'inertial frame of reference' is sheer nonsense. Humbug and invention. Since there are only two references, the plane and the cloud.

Oh, my goodness !!!! :crash:

My God, please feel free to get on a train and walk down the aisle and come back and tell me inertial frames of reference are sheer nonsense.


Orphan Pip says,

It would take the plane (travelling at 500 miles per hour) 1.81 hours to go through a 1000 mile cloud which is travelling 1,000 mph in the opposite direction.


I didn't say that, note that you didn't say anything about the speed of the cloud. You keep making the false assumption that the cloud's relative movement is due to the rotation of the Earth, when it is in fact due to air movement. Note that I did the calculation with the cloud moving at 50mph and you're insane, please seek medical attention.

The Atheist
04-03-2010, 10:20 PM
Orphan Pip says,...

Hello!

Since you seem to want to persist with this nonsense, can I direct you to two questions you have avoided so far.

For the sake of clarity, I will put them up again for you:

1 Why do cyclonic systems spin in opposite directions in different hemispheres if the earth isn't spinning on its axis.

2 How can the stars possibly travel fast enough to appear to orbit us?


This thread is a thing of beauty.

It certainly is; I hope it stands forever as a metaphor for single-mindedness.

kiki1982
04-04-2010, 05:14 AM
@The Atheist:

Not to forget my phases :D

MarkBastable
04-04-2010, 05:41 AM
Whoa - Kiki, Atheist. Just a planet-spinnin' minute there, Muskie.

You can't simply saunter in at the top of the thread trying to direct his attention to your questions. Goddammit, you've got to put in the long hours of dogged persistence. You've got to pay your dues, bub. Now, I don't say that I'm any closer to success than I was this time yesterday - but at least I have a promise from M that he'll answer my question, and I yet sustain hope that he'll stick to his word.

So the last thing I need, frankly, is you two swanning around the joint with your lunar phases and your counterclockwise hurricanes distracting M from the much more comprehensible issue of my bees on a train. I mean - whatcha trying to do - confuse the guy?

Now get to the back of the line and wait your turn. My number is about to be called - my bees and I are ready to be ushered into the Presence of Truth.

prendrelemick
04-04-2010, 06:00 AM
How can you rely on bees? They're communists! Thats worse than Alchemy.


and Athiest your calculations are flawed because they rely on heathen math (pi= 3.14...etc)

Katy North
04-04-2010, 07:22 AM
*Facepalm*

We're STILL talking about this?

:sosp:

kiki1982
04-04-2010, 07:30 AM
Of course! As long as our ignorant denying friend keeps going, we keep going (until he gives up or sees the light).

I'm not sure whether he is catually going to understand the argument of the bees though.

MarkBastable
04-04-2010, 07:45 AM
I'm not sure whether he is catually going to understand the argument of the bees though.

I'm sure he will. Anyway - it's me that has to understand it, not him. I'm hoping he'll explain it to me.

Musicology
04-04-2010, 11:03 AM
The solution is rather simple.

Take a large cloud of known size. Let us say, one of 100 miles length or so. Fly a plane through its length in the opposite direction to that of the supposed 'rotation of Earth', and at a plane speed which is already known and agreed. And let us note the exact time when that plane first appears from the opposite side of that cloud.

If the plane appears from the far end of that cloud at around the time suggested by a fixed and stable Earth/atmosphere then it, the fixed earth and atmosphere viewpoint obviously wins the argument. But if the plane emerges from such a cloud far faster the rotating Earth theory wins the argument.

Both cannot be true. Since the cloud is either moving (as you claim) with the 'Earth's rotation' (i.e. at a speed of between 900 and 1,000 mph) or it is not.

A simple challenge !

Or, take an even more simple test. Choose two cities on an atlas, separated from each other by thousands of miles. Fly a plane between them in a straight line and at a fixed and known speed. Does the plane finish that flight in a time suggested by

a) Earth Rotation Theory ?

OR

b) The Fixed Earth Theory ?


Let's see whether Mr Copernicus and your 'rotating Earth' theory passes such a simple test. Choose any two cities on the entire atlas of the world. Separated by several thousands of miles.

MarkBastable
04-04-2010, 11:15 AM
Or, take an even more simple test. Choose two cities on an atlas, separated from each other by thousands of miles. Fly a plane between them in a straight line and at a fixed and known speed. Does the plane finish that flight in a time suggested by Earth rotation or by the fixed Earth theory ?

Let's see if Mr Copernicus and your rotating Earth theory passes the test.

Actually, he's got a point here. Two glasses of Bordeaux and a Mandrax, and everything is the same distance away.

Musicology
04-04-2010, 11:19 AM
OK Mark,

Choose two cities of the world separated by several thousands of miles. Any two. You choose them. And let's test both theories. Still feeling confident 'the Earth is rotating at between 900 and 1,000 mph' ?



Actually, he's got a point here. Two glasses of Bordeaux and a Mandrax, and everything is the same distance away.

OK Kiki, why not accept the same test ?

Choose any two cities in the entire world separated by several thousands of miles.

Let's see if a plane flying at an agreed constant speed travels between them in the time predicted by fixed Earth theory or your mediaeval dogmas ? Any response ?

:blush:


Of course! As long as our ignorant denying friend keeps going, we keep going (until he gives up or sees the light).

I'm not sure whether he is catually going to understand the argument of the bees though.

We are still talking about it because posters like you have nothing to say about it. Maybe you like posting about nothing ?


*Facepalm*

We're STILL talking about this?

:sosp:

OrphanPip
04-04-2010, 11:39 AM
You don't seem to understand that the plane is being moved with the Earth's rotation as well, and that the cloud's movement is due to air currents not to the Earth's rotation. Your trolling isn't very interesting if you don't even bother to address the challenges.

BTW space shuttles and rockets do take off in the direction of the rotations of the Earth, and as near to the equator as possible (Florida for the USA, Kazhakstan for the Russians) because it make escape velocity easier to reach there.

Musicology
04-04-2010, 12:01 PM
Orphan Pip,

Let us assume we both need to understand reality. The reality is as follows -

1. The 'air currents' we find in the atmosphere are not 900 to 1,000 mph. Are they ? And, if there are strong air currents let us account for them when we time the flight in question.

2. You say 'the plane is being moved with the Earth's Rotation as well'. Really ? Why ? What proof do you have of this ? None at all. Please provide some. You DO have evidence of this, don't you ?

3. Since you are posting complete nonsense (out of ignorance rather than trolling) please choose any two cities of the entire world, separated from each other by several thousands of miles. The choice is entirely yours from an atlas and is those of your colleagues. Let us see if a plane flying at constant speed from one to the other city completes the arrival of a flight between them at the time suggested by the fixed Earth or by your dogma that the Earth is revolving at between 900 to 1,000 mph.

Fancy the challenge ?

Mediaeval Copernicus Dogma 0
Fixed Earth Reality 1

:crash:


You don't seem to understand that the plane is being moved with the Earth's rotation as well, and that the cloud's movement is due to air currents not to the Earth's rotation. Your trolling isn't very interesting if you don't even bother to address the challenges.

BTW space shuttles and rockets do take off in the direction of the rotations of the Earth, and as near to the equator as possible (Florida for the USA, Kazhakstan for the Russians) because it make escape velocity easier to reach there.

Musicology
04-04-2010, 12:12 PM
Its gone awfully silent in the land of mediaeval dogmas, right ?:blush:

Satan
04-04-2010, 12:28 PM
Its gone awfully silent in the land of mediaeval dogmas, right ?:blush:

Yeah, it seems so.

http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/7986/hurrdurrn.png

kiki1982
04-04-2010, 01:30 PM
You're not going to get anywhere with that question with me, i'm afraid...

Ok, you accept that it gets light and dark every day and that that takes 24 hours to complete its cycle? Yes?

Musicology
04-04-2010, 01:51 PM
Kiki,

Any reader of this thread can see for themselves that the evidence is always being presented by only one side. The other side refusing to answer. And, when they do, filled with basic errors and mistakes. That's the record.

Now you say you refuse to answer the simple question of how long it takes a plane to fly between two cities on the atlas !

You were even given the choice of the cities from anywhere in the entire atlas !!!! And still you can't answer the question !

Well, let me make it very simple. If the Earth is rotating at between 900 and 1000 mph it will, in several hours, rotate several thousand miles, according to your own dogma. Regardless of the choice of your two cities.

Let others see clearly who is hiding from reality. Isn't it already obvious ? You duck the issue, yet again.

Yes, I accept it gets light and dark every day. Again, nobody disputes this.

So, once again, you have had your question answered and refuse to answer the simple tests of others. That's plain dogma, isn't it ?






You're not going to get anywhere with that question with me, i'm afraid...

Ok, you accept that it gets light and dark every day and that that takes 24 hours to complete its cycle? Yes?

The Atheist
04-04-2010, 01:53 PM
Whoa - Kiki, Atheist. Just a planet-spinnin' minute there, Muskie.

You can't simply saunter in at the top of the thread trying to direct his attention to your questions. Goddammit, you've got to put in the long hours of dogged persistence. You've got to pay your dues, bub. Now, I don't say that I'm any closer to success than I was this time yesterday - but at least I have a promise from M that he'll answer my question, and I yet sustain hope that he'll stick to his word.

So the last thing I need, frankly, is you two swanning around the joint with your lunar phases and your counterclockwise hurricanes distracting M from the much more comprehensible issue of my bees on a train. I mean - whatcha trying to do - confuse the guy?

Now get to the back of the line and wait your turn. My number is about to be called - my bees and I are ready to be ushered into the Presence of Truth.

You know the late, legendary Edmund Hillary was a beekeeper before he took up climbing ridiculously high moutains with archaic equipment?


How can you rely on bees? They're communists! Thats worse than Alchemy.

Another bee fact: they're dying off!

We are dead-set going to run out of apples if we're not careful.

The bee population of the world is down by 15-odd percent and here's bleeding Mark Bastable trying to teach them to fly down trains, for god's sake!

It just ain't right.


and Athiest your calculations are flawed because they rely on heathen math (pi= 3.14...etc)

India, once upon a time decided that 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288 was just too much trouble and officially changed the value to 3.2 for ease of computation.

Never buy an Indian car.


Orphan Pip,

Let us assume we both need to understand reality. The reality is as follows -

1. The 'air currents' we find in the atmosphere are not 900 to 1,000 mph. Are they ? And, if there are strong air currents let us account for them when we time the flight in question.

Now, I know you're ignoring my questions, but I'll just pop in here and ask if the bible allows for space (that black stuff we see above the earth at night) is able to be just space (as in, empty)?

Once you've accepted that there is nothing, not even gas, above the earth's atmosphere, all you need is an elementary lesson in physics, with special attention to objects moving and friction, so I'll give you that now:

Run a bath and when there's some water in it, swish your hand through the water. First off, do it with palm flat and try to sweep water with your flat hand. Fingers lying stright out next to each other. See how you can feel the water pushing back at you? Also, you can confirm this by looking at the wake of a boat, water has to be physically pushed out of the way to go through it.

Air actually works exactly the same way, although it's a lot thinner than water. This is why we can breathe airm, but not water. To confirm this, you need to get in a car and get up to 60 mph/100 kmh.

Once you reach that speed, open you window and put the same flt palm facing the direction you're travelling in. See how the wind pushes against your hand the same way?

Amazing stuff, this physics!

Now, in a near-vacuum, like that space above the atmosphere, there is nothing at all to push against!

This means there is nothing pushing against the air of our atmosphere, so it doesn't make a 1000 mph wind at the top.

Bizarre but true.

DanielBenoit
04-04-2010, 02:03 PM
Its gone awfully silent in the land of mediaeval dogmas, right ?:blush:


all you need is an elementary lesson in physics,


I make my point.

Musicology
04-04-2010, 02:06 PM
Atheist,

Great post and totally irrelevant !

Nobody says the atmosphere of the Earth is moving at 1,000 mph except the mediaeval dogmatists themselves !!! In fact, nobody says it all. Only those who believe clouds are moving at virtually the same speed as their own idea of a 'rotating earth'. An Earth, they say, which is rotating at between 900 and 1,000 mph. They also believe the Earth's atmosphere is moving at around the same speed ! And so we asked them about a plane flight time through a long cloud if the plane is flying directly opposite to the alleged rotation of the Earth. They bungled that one. As usual. And then these fools were asked to choose two cities of their very own choice for a test flight to see how long that flight takes - in any direction that they choose. As long as their two chosen cities are several thousands of miles apart. They can't even answer that too !!!

When we even ask them to choose two cities thousands of miles apart for a test of their mediaeval dogma they can't even do that !!! I mean, what planet do these people live on ???

It's hilarious ! The picture that emerges here is a Mickey Mouse 'education'. Isn't it ?

OrphanPip
04-04-2010, 02:12 PM
Athiest,

Great post and totally irrelevant.

Nobody says that the atmosphere is moving at 1,000 mph except the mediaeval dogmatists themselves !!! In fact, nobody says it all. Only those who believe that clouds are moving at virtually the same speed as the 'rotating earth'.

When we ask them to choose two cities thousands of miles apart for a test of their dogma they can't even do that !!!

It's hilarious !

Once again I point you towards inertial frames of reference because you appear to not be able to understand how something can be at rest relative to one frame and moving relative to another. I.e. a person in a moving train. From outer space I am currently moving at the same speed as the rotating Earth. However, with the Earth as frame of reference I am currently at rest. The movement of the clouds relative to me at rest right now is due to being pushed by air currents, not to the rotation of the Earth. From outer space once again, the clouds would appear to be moving at a different speed because you would be in a different frame of reference. Is this concept so difficult for you to understand?

Musicology
04-04-2010, 02:24 PM
Orphan Pip writes -

Once again I point you towards inertial frames of reference because you appear to not be able to understand how something can be at rest relative to one frame and moving relative to another. I.e. a person in a moving train. From outer space I am currently moving at the same speed as the rotating Earth. However, with the Earth as frame of reference I am currently at rest. The movement of the clouds relative to me at rest right now is due to being pushed by air currents, not to the rotation of the Earth. From outer space once again, the clouds would appear to be moving at a different speed because you would be in a different frame of reference. Is this concept so difficult for you to understand ?

OK, let's examine this latest nonsense from Orphan Pip.

Let me repeat that paragraph with underlinings and comments to follow -

''Once again I point you towards inertial frames of reference because you appear to not be able to understand how something can be at rest relative to one frame and moving relative to another. I.e. a person in a moving train. From outer space I am currently moving at the same speed as the rotating Earth. However, with the Earth as frame of reference I am currently at rest. The movement of the clouds relative to me at rest right now is due to being pushed by air currents, not to the rotation of the Earth. From outer space once again, the clouds would appear to be moving at a different speed because you would be in a different frame of reference. Is this concept so difficult for you to understand'' ?

LOL !!!!!:crash:

May I remind you, when you are in outer space you can be travelling at ANY speed or direction. Why do you say 'From outer space I am currently moving at the same speed as the rotating Earth' ? Why do you say this ? From outer space I can be moving at any speed that I like, and in any direction. I am not tied to Earth because I am already OUTSIDE of the Earth's atmosphere. Why ? Because I'm in OUTER SPACE !!!!!!!!! I don't have a frame of reference because I'm in OUTER SPACE. I have my speed and my direction. Those are my references in OUTER SPACE. Right ?

:crash::crash:

Now, let's get back to Earth again. Choose two cities from the entire map of the world. Separated from each other by several thousands of miles. And fly a plane at constant speed between them in a straight line. If your 'rotation theory' is true that rotation will massively affect the flight time. Right ?

What's so difficult ? You can't even name two distant cities on planet Earth can you ?

:crash::crash::crash:

OrphanPip
04-04-2010, 02:32 PM
May I remind you, when you are in outer space you can be travelling at ANY speed or direction. Why do you say 'From outer space I am currently moving at the same speed as the rotating Earth' ? Why do you say this ? From outer space I can be moving at any speed that I like, and in any direction. I am not tied to Earth because I am already OUTSIDE of the Earth's atmosphere. Why ? Because I'm in OUTER SPACE !!!!!!!!! I don't have a frame of reference because I'm in OUTER SPACE. I have my speed and my direction. Those are my references in OUTER SPACE. Right ?


Ug, from a frame of reference not my physical body in outerspace moron. i.e. looking down at me from a fixed point in space I would not be at rest I would be moving with the rotating Earth. If the solar system is my inertial frame of reference then I would be rotating with the Earth, but with the Earth as my inertial frame of reference I'm at rest.

The Atheist
04-04-2010, 02:34 PM
Shall I start keeping count of how many times my questions have been ignored?

Musicology
04-04-2010, 02:40 PM
Orphan Pip,

I have the pleasant task of saying the following -

The average commercial flight time from Miami, FL to Los Angeles, CA is approximately -

5 hours and 45 minutes.

Source - http://66.102.9.132/search?q=cache:U55K5_4xZ-0J:www.orbitz.com/flight-info/AA/AA-MIA-LAX.html+miami+to+los+angeles+flight+time&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk


AND -

The average flight time from Los Angeles to Miami (i.e. a journey in the exact opposite direction) is around the same (allowing for head winds etc)

Is

?????????

WAIT A MINUTE !!! ISN’T THE EARTH SUPPOSED TO BE ‘ROTATING’ AT ALMOST 1,000 MILES AN HOUR BELOW US ? AND IN ONLY ONE DIRECTION ? WHAT ON EARTH............ ???????????????

:crash:



Ug, from a frame of reference not my physical body in outerspace moron. i.e. looking down at me from a fixed point in space I would not be at rest I would be moving with the rotating Earth. If the solar system is my inertial frame of reference then I would be rotating with the Earth, but with the Earth as my inertial frame of reference I'm at rest.

I am about to jump up in the air and when I land I will be in my neighbour's garden, due to the 'rotation of the Earth'. Try it sometime. Last time I did this I landed on their cabbages and their potatoes. Highly recommended experiment.

:hat:

lol

OrphanPip
04-04-2010, 02:51 PM
I am about to jump up in the air and when I land I will be in my neighbour's garden, due to the 'rotation of the Earth'.

:yikes:

Tell me, if you're riding on a train going at a constant speed and you jump in the air do you slam into the back wall? No, because of inertia, I've already explained that the movements of clouds and planes are relative to the Earth's rotation.

kiki1982
04-04-2010, 02:55 PM
You are also refusing to answer my question about phases, then I can also accuse you of wanting to ignore reality. But let's not go down the mud-route and keep it civilised, shall we.

So, you accept that the cycle of the sun takes one day and that it gets light and dark because you can see it.

Second question:

As you accept that the day-cycle (dark and light) takes 24 hours, you also accept that the orbit of the sun is 24 hours round the earth? Yes?

Musicology
04-04-2010, 02:55 PM
So, a plane flying between Miami and Los Angeles takes approximately the same time as a plane of the same speed travelling from Los Angeles to Miami ? (Allowing for head winds, etc).

YES OR NO ? :blush:


Tell me, if you're riding on a train going at a constant speed and you jump in the air do you slam into the back wall? No, because of inertia, I've already explained that the movements of clouds and planes are relative to the Earth's rotation.

OrphanPip
04-04-2010, 02:59 PM
So, a plane flying between Miami and Los Angeles takes approximately the same time as a plane of the same speed travelling from Los Angeles to Miami ?

YES OR NO ? :blush:

Yes, and you know what a toy plane flying at a constant speed from one end of a moving train would take the same amount of time as another toy plane flying at the same speed going in the opposite direction. I don't see what you fail to understand about this.

Musicology
04-04-2010, 03:02 PM
I am not 'refusing' to answer your question. I am trying to find out first if you can accept the Earth is not 'revolving' at between 900 and 1,000 mph. And I am trying to find out whether you agree a plane travelling from Miami to Los Angeles flies that route in approximately the same time as a plane doing the very opposite which is flying at the same speed. (Allowing of course for wind etc).

If you can confirm these simple questions we can progress from there.

Regards



You are also refusing to answer my question about phases, then I can also accuse you of wanting to ignore reality. But let's not go down the mud-route and keep it civilised, shall we.

So, you accept that the cycle of the sun takes one day and that it gets light and dark because you can see it.

Second question:

As you accept that the day-cycle (dark and light) takes 24 hours, you also accept that the orbit of the sun is 24 hours round the earth? Yes?

True. Since the train is not revolving at between 900 and 1,000 mph.

Let us say a surfer is surfing a wave at the speed of the wave. Can he surf in the opposite direction at the same speed ?

The Earth, you say, is revolving, moving, at between 900 to 1,000 mph. On its axis. Thus, anything which moves in the opposite direction must meet resistance to its moving.

And, since you tell us the Earth's atmosphere is also moving with a rotating Earth and at around the same speed as the Earth's rotation how do we explain a plane flies regularly from Miami to Los Angeles in almost the same time as plane flies at the same speed from Los Angeles to Miami ?

The solution, Dr Watson, is that the Earth is NOT rotating. And that the difference between a plane flight time between Miami and Los Angeles and one going in the opposite direction is merely that of wind speeds.



Yes, and you know what a toy plane flying at a constant speed from one end of a moving train would take the same amount of time as another toy plane flying at the same speed going in the opposite direction. I don't see what you fail to understand about this.

kiki1982
04-04-2010, 03:08 PM
You have consistently ignored my question 'can you explain the phases of the moon and the planets to me.' I haven't got an answer from you yet, so you must not have answered it then.

I asked you a question:

As you accept that the day-cycle (dark and light) takes 24 hours, you also accept that the orbit of the sun is 24 hours round the earth as the earth des not turn round is own ax? Yes?

You will soon find out whether the answer to your question is yes or no.

papayahed
04-04-2010, 03:15 PM
And you still haven't explained how other planets, most specifically the sun have an atmosphere?

Musicology
04-04-2010, 03:18 PM
And I have consistently explained that you have been invited to answer basic questions about the supposed 'rotation of the Earth', and the supposed 'rotation of the Earth's atmosphere'. Two things which, you believe, are closely related.

Which makes me ask you, for the third time, how a flight from Miami to Los Angeles is made by a plane in the same time as one flying the same route in the opposite direction at around the same speed.

The flight from Los Angeles to Miami should be far faster than the opposite flight if, in fact, the Earth is moving between 900 mph to 1,000 mph. But this simple fact has escaped you without any explanation.

What has also escaped you is if the atmosphere is really moving with the 'rotation of the Earth' and at a similar speed it must be very hard for a plane to fly against the speed of that rotating atmosphere when it flies from Miami to Los Angeles.

Yet it does so in approximately the same time if both planes are measured to be flying at around the same speed. The explanation for this has also not been offered by you. Is it possible your theory is a load of mediaeval nonsense !!! ????????

:crash:


You have consistently ignored my question 'can you explain the phases of the moon and the planets to me.' I haven't got an answer from you yet, so you must not have answered it then.

I asked you a question:

As you accept that the day-cycle (dark and light) takes 24 hours, you also accept that the orbit of the sun is 24 hours round the earth as the earth des not turn round is own ax? Yes?

You will soon find out whether the answer to your question is yes or no.

No, since a child learns ABC before they learn the rest of the alphabet. And you seem to be struggling with ABC.



And you still haven't explained how other planets, most specifically the sun have an atmosphere?

kiki1982
04-04-2010, 03:29 PM
It could be possible if one only believes what one sees.

So, I may presume that you accept that the sun takes 24 hours to make its orbit round the earth as the earth itself does not turn round, that is right, isn't i?

papayahed
04-04-2010, 03:34 PM
No, since a child learns ABC before they learn the rest of the alphabet. And you seem to be struggling with ABC.

You started this no reason to get frustrated.


It seems to me that if the earth having an atmosphere is your major reasoning why the earth is fixed in space you would be able to explain why other objects with the same properties (atmosphere) as earth are not fixed.

MarkBastable
04-04-2010, 03:39 PM
M, of all your correspondents here, and even given my initial dismissive post, I think I have engaged with your argument most seriously.

So - two things.

First, it is not good intellectual rigour to do what you're doing - which is to refute arguments from the position that what you say is the only explanation. To insist that your model is a precursor is to nullify argument. And that's true of those who argue against you too. The only way to get anywhere is to say "This is what's obviously observed. What might explain it?" And, given the plane and the cloud, your model does explain it. And so does Pip's. You require a static Earth. He requires inertia. To say that his model is an invention is as pointless as him saying yours is. And that's why I ask you to explain my bee thing in your terms. And I'll ask Pip to do the same. The models have to be proven against a hypothetical test.

Second - I assume you take part because you want to convince. If that's true, you must address the arguments that are ranged against you. You must analyse, argue closely, question not only the models others present, but also your own. You must, in fact, make more effort to defeat your own argument than anyone's.

So - I ask you to apply your theory to this problem. It's the last time I shall ask you. I don't do it from the position of my own education, or with any preconceived ideas of the four hundred years of propaganda of which I am a victim. I ask only that you explain - in the terms of what you believe - a circumstance that you know to be observationally the case.

And, just so it's very plain, if you refuse to do this - which is to engage in the to-and-fro of scientific debate, the consideration of theory applied to practical situations, the explanation of what we see through the medium of what we think - then I'll leave this discussion. Not because I think you're wrong, but because you're unwilling to engage in debate.

Here we go...

Imagine a train carriage one mile long, travelling north at a hundred miles and hour.

At the back end - the southern end - is a bee, dragging a banner half a mile long. It starts to fly towards the front end of the carriage at one mile an hour. So it is travelling, actually, at one hundred and one miles an hour.

At the front end there's another bee, which starts to fly towards the back end of the train at one mile an hour.

When the bees meet, how long will it take the second bee, travelling at one mile an hour, to pass the banner?

DanielBenoit
04-04-2010, 03:44 PM
I like to invite them in, offer them a cup of tea, and then sweetly and quietly ask them whether they've ever considered letting Satan into their lives...

Works like a charm - you don't see another one for months!

You sir are a genius. :smilielol5: :reddevil:

The Atheist
04-04-2010, 03:51 PM
When the bees meet, how long will it take the second bee, travelling at one mile an hour, to pass the banner?

Four and three quarter hours.

They meet in the dining car and stop for a few beers.

DanielBenoit
04-04-2010, 03:57 PM
This thread should be sent to the Department of Education as a case for increasing science education in our schools.

There was this grown man I was arguing with about the atomic model and he objected to it because "nobody has never seen an atom." Oh so I suppose Hiroshima and Naggasaki was done by dropping magical bombs made by wizards, right?

Musicology
04-04-2010, 05:48 PM
Fortunately the Earth is much larger than an atom. And the proof, one way or the other, can easily be found. But they can't even agree to a test of the two rival theories.

The last 3 posts are clear proof the dummies have run out of steam. They and their dogmas make them post more nonsense. They've read in a book the Earth rotates at around 900 to 1,000 mph. And that Father Christmas comes down the chimmney to deliver them presents. When they are asked for this theory of theirs (which they've never once questioned nor ever seen evidence for) to be tested they go back to silly posts. Never answering questions and filling pages with basic errors. All the while insisting they are right and others wrong. A true picture of ignorance piled on ignorance ! Asked to name any two cities from anywhere on the entire Earth which they can choose as a test they have no answer to that too !! The farce goes on.

Shall we summarise this thread and save them from even more embarrassment ? It's laughable. Sort of tragic, really.

:crash:


This thread should be sent to the Department of Education as a case for increasing science education in our schools.

There was this grown man I was arguing with about the atomic model and he objected to it because "nobody has never seen an atom." Oh so I suppose Hiroshima and Naggasaki was done by dropping magical bombs made by wizards, right?

MarkBastable
04-04-2010, 06:47 PM
The last 3 posts are clear proof the dummies have run out of steam.

Insults aside - my post was the fourth. Will you address it?

The Atheist
04-04-2010, 06:53 PM
It's laughable. Sort of tragic, really.

That's a pretty good summation of the entire thread.

Laughable that someone can try to make others accept the most ridiculous assertion of all time, tragic that it is genuinely believed to be true.

Here's another question for you to avoid:

Since the bible is literally true - this being the only evidence you have - how do you cope with the completely contradictory bits?

kevinthediltz
04-05-2010, 01:25 AM
Shall I start keeping count of how many times my questions have been ignored?

So far six of mine and a lot more of yours.

I've answered just about everyone of their questions and they have yet to answer a single of mine.

Hmmmmmm.....

To the OP. Maybe you should pick up a book other than the bible for once. :D

TheFifthElement
04-05-2010, 04:28 AM
And, since you tell us the Earth's atmosphere is also moving with a rotating Earth and at around the same speed as the Earth's rotation how do we explain a plane flies regularly from Miami to Los Angeles in almost the same time as plane flies at the same speed from Los Angeles to Miami ?


This is quite simple: it doesn't take the same time. A direct flight from Miami to Los Angeles takes 5 hours 45 minutes and a direct return flight from Los Angeles to Miami takes 4 hours 55 minutes. That's quite a significant difference in flight time.

I'm curious Musicology, is it your contention that the atmosphere is also 'fixed' or do you accept that the atmosphere is 'moving'?

kiki1982
04-05-2010, 04:54 AM
So, I asked:


I may presume that you accept that the sun takes 24 hours to make its orbit round the earth as the earth itself does not turn round, that is right, isn't i?

The Atheist
04-05-2010, 04:54 AM
So far six of mine and a lot more of yours.

Good on you for keeping count.

I have to admit that it's unusual to find one that just completely ignores the question. I'm more used to seeing even more absurd answers as to why it's a stoopid argument. Kind of "All the starz are the same distance from earth !LOL!!" or something along those lines, but finding them entirely too hard is quite new.


I've answered just about everyone of their questions and they have yet to answer a single of mine.

Hmmmmmm.....

Precisely!

Once I had been to the websites linked through the OP and gathered that:

A. This isn't an elaborate joke and
B. FIXED earths is just the beginning,

I had a quick think about how many blindingly obvious ways there were of showing that the whole premise is exactly equivalent to your flat earth thread and there are just so many ridiculously obvious ones that I couldn't begin to count them.

If you haven't checked out the man behind the OP yet, I commend you to do so. David Icke meets Lutherian Rosicrucians; quite superb.


To the OP. Maybe you should pick up a book other than the bible for once. :D

Great segue!

My very next trick was to cover the bible literalism, because it's an old faithful and Musicology is clearly a literalist.

I am therefore assuming that he is a bearded chap who never eats ham or crayfish, lives his life according to Leviticus and who has no trouble with worshipping a god whose tricks include killing 42 kids for calling some old geezer "baldy" but who was unable to protect his favoured humans from iron chariots!

You can't pay for this kind of stuff.

Musicology
04-05-2010, 06:08 AM
The Fifth Element,

Thank you for your post. You've made a valuable contribution. It's the first progress we've had on the subject for about 3 days. So I will ignore the dunces and focus on what you have posted. And, whether we agree or not, thank you sincerely for your post. You tell us -

Miami to Los Angeles 5 hours 45 minutes
Los Angeles to Miami 4 hours 55 minutes

A difference, in fact, of 50 minutes, yes ?

OK, let's look at this.

We are told by the textbooks the Earth is rotating on its axis at between 900 and 1,000 mph. Everyone believes this. (Because everyone else believes this. And everyone else believes it because everyone before them learned it in their class). Thus, a plane flying between these two cities is in the air for some 5 hours 25 minutes, give or take 25 minutes or so. During which time, we believe, the Earth below us must have rotated on its axis around 4,500 to 5,000 miles. Since it's said to be rotating in one direction (and not in all directions) this means our plane taking off from Miami only needs to fly in circles and eventually Los Angeles must appear within easy reach of our plane. So we can land. In Los Angeles.

Similarly, according to the same theory, you can jump up in your garden and land on the pumpkin patch of your next door neighbour if he has one. Because we are told the Earth is already rotating below us as we jump up and during the time we are in the air. So says the dogma.

But if I jump up from a moving car the car will disappear below me and I will fall behind that car on the road and be injured. Likewise, if I jump up from my garden while it is in rotation I will arrive on my next door neighbour's cabbage patch. Thus, my garden is not and cannot be moving.

As for the idea the atmosphere must be moving at the same speed as this alleged rotation of the Earth, no, I don't believe that also. Since, if the Earth atmosphere is linked to Earth rotation and is moving itself at roughly the same speed and direction as this alleged rotation of the Earth we would have atmospheric resistance to any flight occurring in the direct opposite direction of that Earth rotation. But we do not. I assure you that if you are sitting on a 'merry go round' and were able to jump up from its seat you would land in another seat when you come down again. (It's not a good idea to try this).

The difference between the flight times (Miami to Los Angeles and Los-Angeles to Miami) are of course mainly due to headwinds etc. (Assuming they are both travelling on the same route in opposite directions).

And the Earth has definitely not moved 5,000 miles in the time they were flying, has it ? Except in the textbooks.

Thus, the Earth is not, and cannot be moving at between 900 and 1,000 mph. And nor is the atmosphere. Since the winds of the Earth atmosphere are not at those speeds and there is no evidence that plane flights of the kind above are much shorter or longer in either direction. A small problem for the mediaeval dogmatists, you may agree.


Regards

MarkBastable
04-05-2010, 06:25 AM
I think I'm beginning to feel something not unakin to admiration.

bazarov
04-05-2010, 06:29 AM
The flight from Los Angeles to Miami should be far faster than the opposite flight if, in fact, the Earth is moving between 900 mph to 1,000 mph. But this simple fact has escaped you without any explanation.

What has also escaped you is if the atmosphere is really moving with the 'rotation of the Earth' and at a similar speed it must be very hard for a plane to fly against the speed of that rotating atmosphere when it flies from Miami to Los Angeles.

Yet it does so in approximately the same time if both planes are measured to be flying at around the same speed. The explanation for this has also not been offered by you. Is it possible your theory is a load of mediaeval nonsense !!! ????????



Earth rotation doesn't have any effect on airplanes and their speed. When you leave ground, you're still moving with same speed as Earth. BUT:wind storms mostly flows from west to east due to Coriollis's effect (caused by inertial force due to Earth rotation), and when planes enter their trajectories, they get additional speed. So, if wind has speed of 100km/h (nothing special, they are normally much faster), it will give aditional speed to planes when going to east. When going to west, they will loose some speed to fight against wind.

That's the reason why time travel is different when traveling W to E or E to W.

Musicology
04-05-2010, 06:30 AM
A gracious post from Mark Bastable ! I recommend that we call this post the 'Bastable Discussion'. In honour of your goodself and your persistance and fair minded comment just received on this issue.

Regards



I think I'm beginning to feel something not unakin to admiration.

You are absolutely right. All things being relative, of course !

Regards

:D


Don't forget difference from moving in absolute and relative system.

bazarov
04-05-2010, 06:50 AM
Here we go...

Imagine a train carriage one mile long, travelling north at a hundred miles and hour.

At the back end - the southern end - is a bee, dragging a banner half a mile long. It starts to fly towards the front end of the carriage at one mile an hour. So it is travelling, actually, at one hundred and one miles an hour.

At the front end there's another bee, which starts to fly towards the back end of the train at one mile an hour.

When the bees meet, how long will it take the second bee, travelling at one mile an hour, to pass the banner?

Moving in absolute system doesn't have any revelance in moving in relative system. So train speed is irrelevant.

MarkBastable
04-05-2010, 07:01 AM
Moving in absolute system doesn't have any revelance in moving in relative system. So train speed is irrelevant.

Yes. I know that. And you know that. If you wind back through the thread a few hundred pages, you'll see that the point of the question was not that I was unsure of the answer.

Musicology
04-05-2010, 07:06 AM
As for the Coriolis Effect, this is not (contrary to popular belief) evidence for the 'rotation of the Earth'. It is evidence, in fact, only of seasonable wind trends and other seasonable and always changing activity within the annual cycle. And, since the Earth seasons are in fact caused by Solar revolution of the Earth its effects include those we see as trends on the Earth's atmosphere. Including seasonal wind patterns. So the Coriolis Effect is best seen within that Sun/Earth frame of reference.

Note the following -

The Coriolis Force. Responsible for large scale weather patterns and legendary cause of the direction the water swirls down the sink (although it generally isn't). But when trying to explain how it really works, most physicists come up with a blank, point to the equation and mutter something about rotating frames of reference. It's not really our fault, we've only ever seen the equations and rotating frame explanations.

http://66.102.9.132/search?q=cache:qsf9gxWNIzwJ:www.geoss-cryosphere.org/courses/gg101/coriolis/coriolis.html+coriolis+effect&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Amazing, honest, admission from a scientist that we believe what we are taught because we are continually interpreting the data within the dogmatic assumption of the 'rotation of the Earth'.

The credit for this must go to Mr Bazarov (the poster above) who has reminded us of the difference between closed minds and those which are open.

bazarov
04-05-2010, 07:19 AM
As for the Coriolis Effect, this is not (contrary to popular belief) evidence for the 'rotation of the Earth'. It is evidence, in fact, only of seasonable wind trends and other seasonable and always changing activity within the annual cycle. And, since the Earth seasons are in fact caused by Solar revolution of the Earth its effects include those we see as trends on the Earth's atmosphere. Including seasonal wind patterns. So the Coriolis Effect is best seen within that Sun/Earth frame of reference.


''Popular belief'' is based on scientific proofs, so I would say it's correct, Missiles, planes, deformed railrodes and river banks on Northern hemisphere proves it.

P.S. And please stop pointing orbital speed of 900 or 1000 mph. I believe you are aware how wrong it is.

MarkBastable
04-05-2010, 07:23 AM
As to the problem of the stars having to travel very fast to go around the earth in twenty-four hours, that's easy. Space is a vacuum - which means that light travels much faster in space than in our atmosphere. If you doubt this, just try walking through treacle, as opposed to walking in air which is less dense. Because light is travelling faster in space, we are deceived into thinking that the stars are faraway. However, they are relatively close - the precise distance of the furthest star is precisely one light day divided by two pi - this being obviously the case as in twenty four hours the star in question travels the perimeter of a circle of which the earth is the static centre. This actually is as far away as anything illuminated can be - QED. Dark things, it goes without saying, can be further away than that.

This science stuff is easy. Just common ense. I don't know what all the fuss is about.

Musicology
04-05-2010, 07:27 AM
Mr Bazarov,

You say popular belief is 'based on scientific proofs'. The history of science proves dogmas and paradigms are alive and well in the name of science. Lysenko and Darwin are prime examples.

However, I would suggest that what is worthy of being called 'scientific' is that which the creation has taught us. And not that which is popular.

The orbital theory of Earth in respect of its alleged rotation on its axis is a movable and continually reinvented dogma. Varying in its particulars as widely and as often as the different versions of pagan myth but never changing enough for its teachers to address its inherent contradictions.

I am sure that missiles, planes, deformed railroads and river banks of the Northern Hemisphere prove only that our theories on those subjects are as fallible as all others. That they are products of the paradigm to which we are wedded. And that our paradigm is wrong. If the Earth is fixed in space the Darwinian delusion has collapsed. So too the theories of Newton, Einstein and countless others.



''Popular belief'' is based on scientific proofs, so I would say it's correct, Missiles, planes, deformed railrodes and river banks on Northern hemisphere proves it.

P.S. And please stop pointing orbital speed of 900 or 1000 mph. I believe you are aware how wrong it is.

papayahed
04-05-2010, 07:38 AM
As for the Coriolis Effect, this is not (contrary to popular belief) evidence for the 'rotation of the Earth'. It is evidence, in fact, only of seasonable wind trends and other seasonable and always changing activity within the annual cycle. And, since the Earth seasons are in fact caused by Solar revolution of the Earth its effects include those we see as trends on the Earth's atmosphere. Including seasonal wind patterns. So the Coriolis Effect is best seen within that Sun/Earth frame of reference.

Note the following -

The Coriolis Force. Responsible for large scale weather patterns and legendary cause of the direction the water swirls down the sink (although it generally isn't). But when trying to explain how it really works, most physicists come up with a blank, point to the equation and mutter something about rotating frames of reference. It's not really our fault, we've only ever seen the equations and rotating frame explanations.

http://66.102.9.132/search?q=cache:qsf9gxWNIzwJ:www.geoss-cryosphere.org/courses/gg101/coriolis/coriolis.html+coriolis+effect&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Amazing, honest, admission from a scientist that we believe what we are taught because we are continually interpreting the data within the dogmatic assumption of the 'rotation of the Earth'.

The credit for this must go to Mr Bazarov (the poster above) who has reminded us of the difference between closed minds and those which are open.

You left out this next sentance from the quoted article above:

"This article will attempt to explain the basic workings of the Coriolis Effect in terms a non-physicist can understand."

Musicology
04-05-2010, 07:41 AM
papayahed

Yes, let's add that sentence too. You see it comes from a scientist who has already admitted the state of the scientific confusion of this issue. This fact you agree to, don't you ?


''The Coriolis Force. Responsible for large scale weather patterns and legendary cause of the direction the water swirls down the sink (although it generally isn't). But when trying to explain how it really works, most physicists come up with a blank, point to the equation and mutter something about rotating frames of reference. It's not really our fault, we've only ever seen the equations and rotating frame explanations. This article will attempt to explain the basic workings of the Coriolis Effect in terms a non-physicist can understand''.


You left out this next sentance from the quoted article above:

"This article will attempt to explain the basic workings of the Coriolis Effect in terms a non-physicist can understand."

papayahed
04-05-2010, 08:42 AM
No, the scientist admitted that the coriolis effect can be confusing to those that don't have the background to understand the mathematical and scientific principles associated with the coriolis effect.


papayahed

Yes, let's add that sentence too. You see it comes from a scientist who has already admitted the state of the scientific confusion of this issue. This fact you agree to, don't you ?


''The Coriolis Force. Responsible for large scale weather patterns and legendary cause of the direction the water swirls down the sink (although it generally isn't). But when trying to explain how it really works, most physicists come up with a blank, point to the equation and mutter something about rotating frames of reference. It's not really our fault, we've only ever seen the equations and rotating frame explanations. This article will attempt to explain the basic workings of the Coriolis Effect in terms a non-physicist can understand''.

kiki1982
04-05-2010, 08:47 AM
Well, Mr Musicology, I thought you did not ignore questions?

I ask you again:

So, I may presume that you accept that the sun takes 24 hours to make its orbit round the earth as the earth itself does not turn round, that is right, isn't it?

Musicology
04-05-2010, 12:43 PM
Papayahed,

Here, for third time, is what the scientist wrote. I've even underlined and made bold the proof that scientists themselves are confused about it. But here we go again -


When trying to explain how it really works, most physicists come up with a blank, point to the equation and mutter something about rotating frames of reference. It's not really our fault

And why is it not really the fault of scientists for being confused ? He explains the reason - (and I post this once again) -

''something about rotating frames of reference. It's not really our fault, we've only ever seen the equations and rotating frame explanations''.

rotation
rotation

How much plainer does it get ? The problem, says that scientist himself, is the DOGMA of a rotating Earth and of a rotating atmosphere. Right ? SO SAYS THE SCIENTIST HIMSELF ! AT WHAT POINT DO YOU FINALLY SEE IT ????

http://66.102.9.132/search?q=cache:q...&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Meltdown time !!

Fixed Earth 1
Rotating Earth 0




No, the scientist admitted that the coriolis effect can be confusing to those that don't have the background to understand the mathematical and scientific principles associated with the coriolis effect.

Mr Kiki,

No, I do not ignore questions. But nor do I waste time repeating endlessly that the Earth is fixed in space and does NOT rotate. A fact which any reasonable person who reads this thread and examines the evidence already presented must surely accept. But you do not.

That's the problem.


Well, Mr Musicology, I thought you did not ignore questions?

I ask you again:

So, I may presume that you accept that the sun takes 24 hours to make its orbit round the earth as the earth itself does not turn round, that is right, isn't it?

papayahed
04-05-2010, 01:08 PM
When trying to explain how it really works, most physicists come up with a blank, point to the equation and mutter something about rotating frames of reference. It's not really our fault

And why is it not really the fault of scientists for being confused ? He explains the reason - (and I post this once again) -

''something about rotating frames of reference. It's not really our fault, we've only ever seen the equations and rotating frame explanations''.

rotation
rotation

How much plainer does it get ? The problem, says that scientist himself, is the DOGMA of a rotating Earth and of a rotating atmosphere. Right ? SO SAYS THE SCIENTIST HIMSELF ! AT WHAT POINT DO YOU FINALLY SEE IT ????

http://66.102.9.132/search?q=cache:q...&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Meltdown time !!

Fixed Earth 1
Rotating Earth 0


Ok, you are not reading very well. There is no issue with rotating frames of reference, it is proven mathmatically. The mathmatics may be to complex for nonmathematicians to understand however that doesn't mean it doesn't work.


Mr Kiki,

No, I do not ignore questions. But nor do I waste time repeating endlessly that the Earth is fixed in space and does NOT rotate. A fact which any reasonable person who reads this thread and examines the evidence already presented must surely accept. But you do not.

That's the problem.

You still haven't addressed why the sun or other planets with atmospheres are able to move through space and retain their atmospheres?

bazarov
04-05-2010, 01:36 PM
Mr Kiki,

No, I do not ignore questions. But nor do I waste time repeating endlessly that the Earth is fixed in space and does NOT rotate. A fact which any reasonable person who reads this thread and examines the evidence already presented must surely accept. But you do not.

That's the problem.

:yikes: :yikes: :yikes: :hand: :hand: :hand:

I've been from this forum for some time so I didn't read the whole thread, this was looking like your basic idea but I didn't want to believe in it. Excuse me if it was already written before, but that would mean that Sun and other planets are traveling around the Earth? Geocentric instead Heliocentric system? Or something new?

Musicology
04-05-2010, 01:48 PM
Yes Mr Bazarov,

It seems you didn't read the name of the thread also ? This thread is on 'The Earth is FIXED in Space'. A geocentric universe instead of a helicocentric system.

Regards



:yikes: :yikes: :yikes: :hand: :hand: :hand:

I've been from this forum for some time so I didn't read the whole thread, this was looking like your basic idea but I didn't want to believe in it. Excuse me if it was already written before, but that would mean that Sun and other planets are traveling around the Earth? Geocentric instead Heliocentric system? Or something new?

Papayahed,

With respect, I am reading perfectly well. My only problem is that I have to continually repeat information which you yourself seem not to have read well.

Regards

kiki1982
04-05-2010, 03:32 PM
Ok, ok, I get it, just making sure.

So, you also accept that the moon orbits round the earth which doesn't rotate on its own aks AND that it has a cycle of 28 days (new moon to new moon) because we can see that?

papayahed
04-05-2010, 03:32 PM
Papayahed,

With respect, I am reading perfectly well. My only problem is that I have to continually repeat information which you yourself seem not to have read well.

Regards


I guess we are at an impass because I believe the same about you.


Now, how about this question:



You still haven't addressed why the sun or other planets with atmospheres are able to move through space and retain their atmospheres?

bazarov
04-05-2010, 03:51 PM
Kevinthediltz,

Interesting question. Really. The seasonal changes are caused by the spiral revolutions of the Sun as it circumnavigates the Earth each day. Each orbit being different. Completing one complete cycle of revolutions each year.

Equinoxes, solstices, and tropics are the result of the north-south motion of the sun, starting with the vernal or spring equinox on March 21, the official beginning of spring in the northern hemisphere.

On that day, the sun lies on the celestial equator. The word equinox refers to the fact that, on this day, the night is equal to the day: each is twelve hours long. The sun is directly above the equator, so its rays fall vertically down.

Through the months of March, April, and May, the sun moves north. On June 22nd, it reaches its most northerly point, that is, 23 1/2° above the equator. In the northern hemisphere that day is called the summer solstice. It is the longest day of the year and the official beginning of summer. The sun lies on the circle of the earth called the Tropic of Cancer.

On September 23, the sun, moving south, reaches the equator again. The day is again 12 hours long. That day is called the autumnal equinox and is the official beginning of autumn.

On December 22, the sun reaches its most southerly point. That day is of course called the winter solstice and is the official beginning of winter. The sun shines up from beneath the equator. At noon the sun is straight overhead at points on the earth's Tropic of Capricorn, located 23 1/2° south of the equator. At that time, it is the summer solstice in the southern hemisphere. The cycle again repeats itself and gives us our 4 seasons and the solar year.

The winter solstice occurs on June 22 in the southern hemisphere. 3 days later it is June 25 or "Christmas" day in the southern hemisphere. So that the cycle begins again with the New Year starting there, in the extreme southern hemisphere.

Regards

Wrong dates.

Why is thread in serious discussion?

Musicology
04-05-2010, 03:55 PM
Mr Bazarov,

This subject is in serious discussion because the contradictions, dogmas and assumptions of a 'rotating Earth' and a 'rotating atmosphere' are very clear and obvious. Kindly read the thread and you will see the record so far. So that we may not need to repeat those points.

Please produce your best evidence the Earth is really 'rotating on its axis' daily together with the Earth's atmosphere. Then we can examine this belief of yours fairly - in the light of the actual evidence presented.

I am very happy to discuss this subject with you. Although I have already been doing so for many days here.

Here are the estimated speeds of the alleged 'rotation' - which, as you know, are said to vary according to the degree of latitude (and I quote) -

To determine the (alleged) speed of rotation at any other latitude, simply multiply the cosine of the degree latitude times the speed of 1037.5646.

Thus, at 45 degrees north, the cosine is .7071068 so multiply .7071068 times 1037.5464 and the speed of the (alleged) rotation is 733.65611 miles per hour (1180.7 km/h).

For other latitudes...

10° - 1021.7837 mph (1644.4 km/h)
20° - 974.9747 mph (1569.1 km/h)
30° - 898.54154 mph (1446.1 km/h)
40° - 794.80665 mph (1279.1 km/h)
50° - 666.92197 mph (1073.3 km/h)
60° - 518.7732 mph (834.9)

etc.

Source -

http://geography.about.com/od/learnabouttheearth/a/earthspeed.htm

I can find other sources of the same information. And so can you. The question is whether 'rotation of the Earth' and also its atmosphere are factual or not.


Sincerely

1n50mn14
04-05-2010, 06:03 PM
This is too akin to the long-ago deleted 'Was the Moon Landing a Hoax?' thread. And anybody who's been around since then knows my views on THAT subject... and thus, on this one. Crackpot websites are not empirical evidence.

papayahed
04-05-2010, 06:08 PM
.....



You still haven't addressed why the sun or other planets with atmospheres are able to move through space and retain their atmospheres?

BienvenuJDC
04-05-2010, 06:15 PM
The best way to answer such ludicrous concepts is with silence.

Why don't we just let this thread die?

The Atheist
04-05-2010, 11:42 PM
That's the reason why time travel is different when traveling W to E or E to W.

Time travel?

Don't let's go there.


P.S. And please stop pointing orbital speed of 900 or 1000 mph. I believe you are aware how wrong it is.

I wouldn't take bets on it.


Wrong dates.

Why is thread in serious discussion?

Because there is no "Humour" sub-forum.

bazarov
04-06-2010, 02:32 AM
Time travel?

Don't let's go there.



You disagree with a way I have said it or with idea?

Lokasenna
04-06-2010, 03:33 AM
"This is a public service anouncment: visitors are requested not to feed the troll."


The best way to answer such ludicrous concepts is with silence.

Why don't we just let this thread die?

I couldn't agree more. If M wants to reject reality, that's his own choice: it's impossible to win an argument against such a person, as you simply don't have the same frames of reference. That way lies madness and despair, my friends!

The Atheist
04-06-2010, 03:56 AM
You disagree with a way I have said it or with idea?

I was playing with your words - you mentioned time travel, as in time differences on earth, but I thought time travel, as in returning to the past, fitted quite well


"This is a public service anouncment: visitors are requested not to feed the troll."

You spoilsport!

How often do we get our very own one at LitNet to play with?

This one seems quite cute & cuddly, plus, I love the idea of those distant galaxies travelling around the earth at 300,000,000 mps^googol. How can you not like technology which could see you in Orion in about 1/100th of a second?

I'm booking my seat on the first trip!

Musicology
04-06-2010, 04:57 AM
You have to laugh ! When it comes to the alleged rotation of Earth's atmosphere (clouds etc) they make a complete pig's ear of their huge dogma when they are asked to show it in simple detail. When the subject is examined with flights between two cities (any two cities on the entire Earth) they again make a pig's ear ! When the Coriolis Effect is appealed to and examined the alleged rotation of the Earth and the atmosphere at many hundreds of miles an hour is once again admitted to be full of problems - even by the very scientists who teach it ! Page after page of embarrasment. And then comes Lokasenna with his juvenile 'public service announcement not to feed the troll' !!

I think we SHOULD feed the troll ! He will then grow up and understand what the evidence is saying. And said from the start. Does he believe Father Christmas or the Easter Bunny is in town ? He probably does.

It's a sad reflection on the 'education' of our youngsters. Anyway, thanks for the conversation.


"This is a public service anouncment: visitors are requested not to feed the troll."



I couldn't agree more. If M wants to reject reality, that's his own choice: it's impossible to win an argument against such a person, as you simply don't have the same frames of reference. That way lies madness and despair, my friends!

Musicology
04-06-2010, 05:00 AM
You are so right BeccaT !

This is akin to the Moon Landing Hoax. Anyone who disagrees must be a 'crackpot' even if we make complete fools of ourselves with our 'education'. Thanks for this conversation.



This is too akin to the long-ago deleted 'Was the Moon Landing a Hoax?' thread. And anybody who's been around since then knows my views on THAT subject... and thus, on this one. Crackpot websites are not empirical evidence.

Musicology
04-06-2010, 05:03 AM
Crackpot textbooks are not empirical evidence too. If you find some evidence for the rotation of the Earth and its atmosphere don't forget to post it here. Right ? In the meantime, thanks for the conversation.

:crash:


This is too akin to the long-ago deleted 'Was the Moon Landing a Hoax?' thread. And anybody who's been around since then knows my views on THAT subject... and thus, on this one. Crackpot websites are not empirical evidence.

Musicology
04-06-2010, 05:05 AM
This thread speaks for itself. The mass media and the high priests of 'science' are teaching complete nonsense. And it's centuries old. Science fiction, in fact.

Thanks for the conversation.


I guess we are at an impass because I believe the same about you.


Now, how about this question:

Musicology
04-06-2010, 06:01 AM
LOL !! In such a case your silence is deafening !!!


The best way to answer such ludicrous concepts is with silence.

Why don't we just let this thread die?

papayahed
04-06-2010, 07:36 AM
This thread speaks for itself. The mass media and the high priests of 'science' are teaching complete nonsense. And it's centuries old. Science fiction, in fact.

Thanks for the conversation.


Wait:



You still haven't addressed why the sun or other planets with atmospheres are able to move through space and retain their atmospheres?

Musicology
04-06-2010, 07:55 AM
And you still haven't learned that this particular thread is on the Earth.


Wait:

papayahed
04-06-2010, 08:23 AM
And you still haven't learned that this particular thread is on the Earth.

Doesn't matter. I'm asking how you can believe the earth is fixed because of the atmosphere if as you have stated the planets and sun, which have atmospheres, move around the earth.



Earth has atmosphere - fixed
Jupiter, Sun has atmosphere - not fixed

how can this be?

Musicology
04-06-2010, 09:03 AM
Doesn't matter ?

You want to float away into outer space because you can't discuss the EARTH ? Having made a nonsense of that subject you want to divert us away to other planets, right ?

How about a discussion on the EARTH ? The actual evidence of 'Earth rotation' or 'atmospheric rotation'.

Can you do this ? No. It seems you cannot. In fact we see clearly you cannot.

NASA fictions. Textbook fictions. All believed as truth when they are, in fact, science fiction. We study those subjects and the wheels fall off straight away. Time and time again.



Doesn't matter. I'm asking how you can believe the earth is fixed because of the atmosphere if as you have stated the planets and sun, which have atmospheres, move around the earth.



Earth has atmosphere - fixed
Jupiter, Sun has atmosphere - not fixed

how can this be?

Lulim
04-06-2010, 09:22 AM
And you still haven't learned that this particular thread is on the Earth.

This particular thread is named "The Earth is FIXED in Space" which implies that it is about the relation between Earth and Space. You cannot, therefore, in this discussion, consider the Earth all by herself.

Better rename the thread.

Musicology
04-06-2010, 09:48 AM
No, the thread will not be renamed. And if you have no further contribution to make to it I've finished posting here.

Science Fiction 0
Science Fact 1


This particular thread is named "The Earth is FIXED in Space" which implies that it is about the relation between Earth and Space. You cannot, therefore, in this discussion, consider the Earth all by herself.

Better rename the thread.

ClaesGefvenberg
04-06-2010, 09:52 AM
Better still: We have two sides here:


Musicology claims that the earth is fixed in space.
The rest of us claims that it is not.


Suggestion: As neither side is likely to change its opionion, I think it is long overdue to agree to disagree and move on instead of beating a dead horse for the remainder of eternity.

/Claes

Musicology
04-06-2010, 09:59 AM
Yes, we have two sides. And only one side is presenting the evidence. Only one side is being dogmatic. And only side finds the support of modern science.

When they are both compared, fairly, in open discussion, the reader can see for themselves which is fact, and which is fiction. And why.



Better still: We have two sides here:


Musicology claims that the earth is fixed in space.
The rest of us claims that it is not.


Suggestion: As neither side is likely to change its opionion, I think it is long overdue to agree to disagree and move on instead of beating a dead horse for the remainder of eternity.

/Claes

ClaesGefvenberg
04-06-2010, 10:10 AM
When they are both compared, fairly, in open discussion, the reader can see for themselves which is fact, and which is fiction. And why.But of course...

/Claes

Musicology
04-06-2010, 10:12 AM
Glad we agree.


But of course...

/Claes

DanielBenoit
04-06-2010, 03:40 PM
This thread just gets more and more ridiculous! I love it.



I think we SHOULD feed the troll ! He will then grow up and understand what the evidence is saying. And said from the start. Does he believe Father Christmas or the Easter Bunny is in town ? He probably does.


I think there may be some confusion here as to who the troll is according to Musicology's perspective.

skib
04-06-2010, 07:25 PM
edit that- i'll save it for later.

kevinthediltz
04-06-2010, 10:48 PM
I have a question to add to my clicker of ignored questions....

Why are you ignoring my questions?

That will make 7 when you don't answer it.

MarkBastable
04-07-2010, 03:19 AM
The best way to answer such ludicrous concepts is with silence.

Why don't we just let this thread die?

Why would we want it to die? It's quite harmless and endlessly entertaining.

Though, just to be sure, which side of it do you think is ludicrous? I only ask because I seem to remember that you think the concept of Earth being many millions of years old is also ludicrous.

kiki1982
04-07-2010, 03:45 AM
I think my question got lost somewhere:

As you can see it, do you agree that the moon has a cycle of 28 days round the earth as the earth does not turn round its own aksis?

The Atheist
04-07-2010, 04:11 AM
I think my question got lost somewhere:

As you can see it, do you agree that the moon has a cycle of 28 days round the earth as the earth does not turn round its own aksis?

Well, duh!

Since it rises & sets just over every 24 hours, it's obviously orbiting daily, along with the rest of the universe. It proves the FIXED earth theory, because it orbits at a slightly slower rate than everything else.

PWND!

MarkBastable
04-07-2010, 04:28 AM
Well, duh!

Since it rises & sets just over every 24 hours, it's obviously orbiting daily, along with the rest of the universe. It proves the FIXED earth theory, because it orbits at a slightly slower rate than everything else.

PWND!

It orbits slightly more slowly than more distant bodies because it's closer to the earth's static atmosphere, and therefore the moon itself - and not just the light reflected from it - is susceptible to the treacle effect (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=874205&highlight=treacle#post874205).

kiki1982
04-07-2010, 06:46 AM
What would have happened to him? It's becoming very silent at the other end. Would 'medieval dogma' have scared him off?