The Earth is FIXED in Space

[Musicology]

More monkey business from the priests of pseudo-science !

Here are the Earth Sciences -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_science

Please produce for readers here verifiable, measured, published data for -

1. The (alleged) rotation of the Earth at 1,000 mph at the Equator

2. The (alleged) rotation of the Oceans at 1,000 mph at the Equator

3. The (alleged) rotation of the Earth's atmosphere at 1,000 mph at the Equator

No verifiable, measured, published scientific data has been produced for any of the above since this thread began. None ! 28 pages and we are still waiting. As everyone can see. What's the problem ? Surely you have some ? Let's see it.

Where is it ? Does it even exist ? Will we need another dozen pages before it finally arrives on this thread ?

The truth is the Earth is NOT rotating at 1,000 mph near the equator. Nor are the Oceans. And nor is the Earth's atmosphere. The findings of science show this clearly. So it's the findings of the Earth Sciences versus the pseudo-science fraternity. Guess which one has NO verifiable, documented, measured, scientific evidence ?

[applepie]

For what reason is it that you feel the need to limit proof only to the Earth Sciences? Is it simply that you feel these are the only verifiable scientific studies? Or is it that you wish to provide a task that no one else can simply complete since even Earth sciences refer to astrological studies as evidence for the rotation of the Earth. It is simply silly to continue arguing that there is no proof when you simply ignore any proof or change the argument to negate such as you see fit. You have chosen to ignore scientific concepts that even your "true scientists" of the Earth science variety acknowledge as fact. Even the Vatican has accepted these findings and lifted the excommunication of Galileo for such beliefs. So please, instead of demanding that the majority of this site and the human population should take your "theories" as anything more than the crazy ramblings of a conspiracy theorist? I've yet to see anything within your own arguments that offer forth any proof that the planet is not rotating, other than some images that are a staple in any astronomy book you may pick up. I have read as you've chosen to narrow the argument as more an more evidence for the Earth's rotation added up. Here's a bit more about Foucault's Pendulum.

Built by Jean Foucault in 1851. He suspended a 67-meter long pendulum with a 25-kg weight from the dome of the Pantheon in Paris. A ball joint let the pendulum swing freely in all directions.

* Started the pendulum swinging North-South.
* A few hours later, it was swinging NorthEast-SouthWest.
* Later still it was swinging East-West.
* and so forth...

The steady clockwise shift of the pendulum's swing is being caused by the rotation of the Earth.

Please offer another explanation for the changing directions if not the actual movement of the planet itself.

[krisgil_aguila]

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_S...0Part%20IV.htm

so does it mean that the earth is the center of ALL? am i right?

[Musicology]

mkhockenberry,

The Earth Sciences are sciences which survey, map, measure, obtain verifiable evidence of the Earth. I do not ask a dentist to fix a window for me. Nor do I ask a glazier to remove a filling from a tooth. These scientists have made detailed measurements of the Oceans, the Landmasses and the Atmosphere of us here, right on Earth. They've been making them for a long time. They have data for all of these things.

So, what evidence, what verifiable, measured, published, evidence have Earth scientists found which confirms -

1. The (alleged) Rotation of the Atmosphere of the Earth at a speed of 1,000 mph at the Equator ?

2. The (alleged) Rotation of the Oceans of Earth at a speed of 1,000 mph at the Equator ?

3. The (alleged) Rotation of the Landmasses of Earth at a speed of 1,000 mph at the Equator ?

These are simple, basic and obvious questions. Either these measured and verifiable evidences exist for us to see or they do not. Where are they ? In which journals or textbooks can we find them and verify them for ourselves ? When were these surveys/measurements made ? By whom ? And can we please have references to this mass of evidence ?

The 'crazy ramblings of a conspiracy theorist' are refuted (if they are false) by producing contrary evidence. The crazy ramblings of dogmatic, occultist pseudo-science are refuted by asking them to produce verifiable, measured, published, surveyed evidence for their claims.

So glad you agree. So we wait for evidence of the above from the Earth Sciences themselves. They are scientists, aren't they ? Do you have any ? Any at all ??????

LOL ! The excuses are wearing a bit thin, don't you agree ? Page 29 and counting......

For what reason is it that you feel the need to limit proof only to the Earth Sciences? Is it simply that you feel these are the only verifiable scientific studies? Or is it that you wish to provide a task that no one else can simply complete since even Earth sciences refer to astrological studies as evidence for the rotation of the Earth. It is simply silly to continue arguing that there is no proof when you simply ignore any proof or change the argument to negate such as you see fit. You have chosen to ignore scientific concepts that even your "true scientists" of the Earth science variety acknowledge as fact. Even the Vatican has accepted these findings and lifted the excommunication of Galileo for such beliefs. So please, instead of demanding that the majority of this site and the human population should take your "theories" as anything more than the crazy ramblings of a conspiracy theorist? I've yet to see anything within your own arguments that offer forth any proof that the planet is not rotating, other than some images that are a staple in any astronomy book you may pick up. I have read as you've chosen to narrow the argument as more an more evidence for the Earth's rotation added up. Here's a bit more about Foucault's Pendulum.



Please offer another explanation for the changing directions if not the actual movement of the planet itself.

[PeterL]

mkhockenberry,

The Earth Sciences are sciences which survey, map, measure, obtain verifiable evidence of the Earth. I do not ask a dentist to fix a window for me. Nor do I ask a glazier to remove a filling from a tooth. These scientists have made detailed measurements of the Oceans, the Landmasses and the Atmosphere of us here, right on Earth. They've been making them for a long time. They have data for all of these things.

So, what evidence, what verifiable, measured, published, evidence have Earth scientists found which confirms -

1. The (alleged) Rotation of the Atmosphere of the Earth at a speed of 1,000 mph at the Equator ?

2. The (alleged) Rotation of the Oceans of Earth at a speed of 1,000 mph at the Equator ?

3. The (alleged) Rotation of the Landmasses of Earth at a speed of 1,000 mph at the Equator ?

These are simple, basic and obvious questions. Either these measured and verifiable evidences exist for us to see or they do not. Where are they ? In which journals or textbooks can we find them and verify them for ourselves ? When were these surveys/measurements made ? By whom ? And can we please have references to this mass of evidence ?

You have already gotten the proof.Either you can't understand it, or you are simply opting to ignore the proof.

In any case, the ball is in your court. You have the proof, and you haven't bothered to accept it. If you continue to ignore the proof that has been posted, then I will accept the fact that you have conceded defeat.

[applepie]

And yet again you choose to ignore evidence that doesn't fit into the bucket that you wish it to. The Foucault's Pendulum is a perfectly observable phenomenon if you so choose to recreate the experiment. You will not find evidence upon Earth that it is moving as quickly as it is simply because everything is moving at that rate. If you push you're car to 120 miles per hour and hold a marble in your hand, or put a cup of water in the cup holder it is in fact moving as well at 120 mph, but can you measure it? Certainly not, because the entire vehicle is moving that quickly and while you can obtain the speed of the vehicle with a radar gun that uses the same Coriolis effect that has already been mentioned, but everything within the vehicle appears and behaves as a stationary object to the occupants. The only way to determine the motion is by looking out the window which is the same evidence that you wish to discount.

What I'm asking is that you give a valid reason for discounting this evidence when you can observe the same result by doing the above. You stubbornly insist that there is no proof while not presenting any sound scientific proof of your own merely a lack of published proof from the Earth Sciences while refuting any other scientific disciplines. You've provided plenty of observation, which is all well and good, but as you can also determine from the above, the perceptions can be easily skewed by the orientation of the individual making the observation.

[Musicology]

Is it so difficult to understand what is scientifically valid about the Earth will be readily available in published, scientifically measured, verifiable reports of science ?

And you can't provide ANY such evidence, can you ?

Tell you what - just forget it. You can't do it, can you ? All you have is a dogmatic interpretation. What we want are documented, measured, verifiable test results from scientific literature on the following, highly specific, much studied subjects -

1. The (alleged) rotation of the Earth at 1,000 mph. In the scientific literature. From actual, verifiable, measured, surveys of Earth. (Not from your dogmatic textbooks).
2. The (alleged) rotation of the Earth's atmosphere at 1,000 mph. In the scientific literature. From actual, verifiable, measured, surveys of the Earth's atmosphere. (Not from your dogmatic textbooks).
3. The (alleged) rotation of the Oceans at 1,000 mph. From actual, verifiable, measured, surveys of the Earth's Ocean. In the scientific literature. (Not from your dogmatic textbooks).

If you still can't produce any or all of this verifiable evidence just tell us. Then it will not be necessary to make you look like a complete fool.

You DO understand what is being asked for here, don't you ?

p.s. Do you also sell used cars and snake oil medicines ?

And yet again you choose to ignore evidence that doesn't fit into the bucket that you wish it to. The Foucault's Pendulum is a perfectly observable phenomenon if you so choose to recreate the experiment. You will not find evidence upon Earth that it is moving as quickly as it is simply because everything is moving at that rate. If you push you're car to 120 miles per hour and hold a marble in your hand, or put a cup of water in the cup holder it is in fact moving as well at 120 mph, but can you measure it? Certainly not, because the entire vehicle is moving that quickly and while you can obtain the speed of the vehicle with a radar gun that uses the same Coriolis effect that has already been mentioned, but everything within the vehicle appears and behaves as a stationary object to the occupants. The only way to determine the motion is by looking out the window which is the same evidence that you wish to discount.

What I'm asking is that you give a valid reason for discounting this evidence when you can observe the same result by doing the above. You stubbornly insist that there is no proof while not presenting any sound scientific proof of your own merely a lack of published proof from the Earth Sciences while refuting any other scientific disciplines. You've provided plenty of observation, which is all well and good, but as you can also determine from the above, the perceptions can be easily skewed by the orientation of the individual making the observation.

[Musicology]

Yes, that is what the evidence, the actual evidence, clearly indicates. The Earth is at the centre of the known universe. It is at rest and not rotating while the stars and sun move around it.

To obscure this fact an invention of a rotating Earth was developed, together with an Earth which is just one planet amongst millions - with the Sun said to be at its centre. This dogma (and it is a dogma) remains taught today although there is not a shred of scientific evidence for any of it.

Regards

so does it mean that the earth is the center of ALL? am i right?

[Musicology]

Great. So the findings of Earth Sciences on these questions are irrelevant ?

Wow ! You've got a real nerve, haven't you ?

And you want to push this stuff on us as 'Science' ?

It's hocus pocus. Dressed up as 'modern science'.

You have already gotten the proof.Either you can't understand it, or you are simply opting to ignore the proof.

In any case, the ball is in your court. You have the proof, and you haven't bothered to accept it. If you continue to ignore the proof that has been posted, then I will accept the fact that you have conceded defeat.

[PeterL]

Great. So the findings of Earth Sciences on these questions are irrelevant ?

Wow ! You've got a real nerve, haven't you ?

And you want to push this stuff on us as 'Science' ?

It's hocus pocus. Dressed up as 'modern science'.

I'm not nervy. I'm just a knowledgeable person who understands logic. I think that this post by you marks your admission that your silliness is just silly. If you don't have any proof that Foucault's pendulum does not prove that the Earth rotates, then you shouldn't waste the words.

I didn't take you comments the water moving at 1000 mph, because it's simply a matter of the frame of reference. And you already know about rotating frames of reference, because that is what creates the Coriolis Effect.

If you want to advertise your ignorance, then just keep posting.

[applepie]

Tell you what - just forget it. You can't do it, can you ? All you have is a dogmatic interpretation. What we want are documented, measured, verifiable test results from scientific literature of the following, specific subjects -

1. The (alleged) rotation of the Earth at 1,000 mph. In the scientific literature. From actual, verifiable, measured, surveys of Earth. Not from your dogmatic textbooks.
2. The (alleged) rotation of the Earth's atmosphere at 1,000 mph. In the scientific literature. From actual, verifiable, measured, surveys of the Earth's atmosphere. Not from your dogmatic textbooks.
3. The (alleged) rotation of the Oceans at 1,000 mph. From actual, verifiable, measured, surveys of the Earth's Ocean. In the scientific literature. Not from your dogmatic textbooks.

If you still can't produce any or all of this evidence just tell us. Then it will not be necessary to make you look like a complete fool.

You DO understand what is being asked for here, don't you ?

No, the evidence can not be provided within the limitations that you yourself have set. It is within your own opinion that certain scientific texts (though they are accepted by the rest of the scientific community) are dogmatic. When you will refuse evidence provided on your own whim then one can not prove that the planet is indeed moving. What one can do is present a basic observation that proves it is indeed perfectly plausible and be ignored in one aspect and their own question still not answered.

I'm not an infant that does not understand a question. What I am is someone who wishes for you to explain your own reasoning on discounting scientific evidence that is accepted by the same people that you wish to have proof provided from. It is a frustration to me that you have presented a Sisyphean task because you are the one who is choosing what is or isn't acceptable evidence though the evidence presented is what is accepted by the same scientific community that you wish proof to be provided by. You will not find the evidence there because part of the Earth Sciences is that they study the Earth only in relation to itself.

Taking my earlier example of the car, it would be like studying the position and behaviors of the objects withing the car in relation to one another. They are not being viewed in relation to the outside of that environment. Are you wishing to imply that the Earth is not within the separate environment of the solar system? It certainly seems as if that is your cause of argument.

p.s. Do you also sell used cars and snake oil medicines ?

As for your last comment, nope no snake oil I certainly don't sell used cars, but I do drive on a daily basis and I can observe the same evidence as my coffee does NOT spill into my face while I drink it and move at an accelerated rate of speed down the road. You may care to try it as I'm sure much will be explained.

[Scheherazade]

~

Since this thread is now serving only as a platform to exchange personal/inflammatory comments,

it will now be closed.

~