The Earth is FIXED in Space [Archive] - Page 2

Musicology

04-07-2010, 07:32 AM

SIMPLE EXAMPLES OF THE SUPERIORITY OF A GEOCENTRIC UNIVERSE IN RESPECT OF THE ALLEGED 'ROTATION OF EARTH'

1. If the Earth is really rotating on its axis at a speed of around 1,000 mph at its equator, travelling from 'west to east' and its rotation completes 1 cycle per terrestrial day the effects of that rotation would be seen by everyone on the landmass of the Earth and on the sea. They would be the most dominant and observable effects on the Earth next to those of gravity. But no such effects are actually known and there is no hard evidence of them even existing. They exist on pieces of paper, in the heads of mediaeval professors and nowhere else.

2. If Earth is truly rotating at around a speed of 1,000 mph at its equator such a rotation would have the obvious effect of removing from the Earth surface all bodies not fixed to its surface. These now displaced bodies would continually be bounced around the surface of the Earth and into the lower atmosphere at a speed of 1,000 mph from the ground or sea and would eventually be distintegrated into dust. No such hazardous process is seen continuously occurring on Earth. Again, it exists on paper and in the heads of mediaeval dogmatists and nowhere else.

3. The 'Coriolis Effect' and numerous other 'proofs' of Earth rotation are far more compatible with a fixed and stable Earth whose surface and whose atmosphere is affected by forces associated with the other moving bodies of the universe that are in constant motion around the Earth.

CONCLUSION

The Earth is fixed and stable. It is neither rotating on its axis at high speed nor is it revolving around the Sun. All other bodies of the universe are in constant motion around the Earth.

In verifiable terms a geocentric universe proves to be far superior to that of the heliocentric universe theory and there is no known experiment or demonstration in which the latter has ever been proved superior to the former. Countless demonstrations and experiments could be devised to show the superiority of the former and none for the latter. This fact is ignored by dogmatists.

(If lightweight seeds which float in the air over a meadow or field on a gentle breeze are also said to be floating in an Earth's atmosphere 'rotating at around 1,000 mph' that atmospheric rotation at high speed can only be as fictional as that of the 'rotating Earth' itself).

The absurdities and contradictions taught as 'science' become clear when their teachers repeatedly fail to provide verifiable proof of their dogmas under observation and when they resist continual criticism of the assumptions on which they are based.

1n50mn14

04-07-2010, 01:32 PM

Pics, or it didn't happen.

(I'M SORRY, I COULDN'T RESIST...)

BienvenuJDC

04-07-2010, 03:04 PM

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.

While we CAN witness the rotation of the earth, no one IS a witness to the so-called ancient age of the earth. There are major contradiction to the evidence of an old earth. But that is not part of this thread and should not be argued here.

The Comedian

04-07-2010, 03:12 PM

This is a thread truly suited to the serious discussion forum. I can only anticipate more of the kind. Some suggestions:

The oceans are really comprised entirely of CAT PISS!

Dinosaurs were skilled MATHEMATICIANS!

The core of the Earth is nothing more than TACO SALAD without SALSA!

Emil Miller

04-07-2010, 03:35 PM

[QUOTE=The Comedian;875403]This is a thread truly suited to the serious discussion forum. I can only anticipate more of the kind.

The oceans are really comprised entirely of CAT PISS! QUOTE]

That may be debatable but that all German beer made under license in the UK is similarly comprised most certainly isn't.

Musicology

04-07-2010, 04:37 PM

BienvenuJDC

04-07-2010, 04:53 PM

You can 'witness' the rotation of the Earth ? Wow !! Where ? On TV perhaps ?

Can you witness the 1,000 mph movement of the sea (west to east) in the ocean at the Equator ? Since I can provide tons of evidence that the ocean there is NOT moving at 1,000 mph.

Awaiting your evidence for both.

No amount of evidence would suit you. You would discredit any of it, just like any of us would who do not have faith in the evidence.

The creationists discredit the evidences provided by the evolutionists.
The evolutionists discredit the evidences provided by the creationists.
I have no faith in your so-called evidence, and you will without any doubt discredit anything that i could produce. So, I'm not playing your game. My response was to Mark, who I find to be more reasonable to argue with than you (yeah, really....go figure!! :yikes:)...

Musicology

04-07-2010, 05:13 PM

Bienvenu,

Here, as promised, is some evidence. Can you match this with measurements of the speed of the ocean being close to 1,000 mph at equatorial latitudes ?

Here is a map and description of the South Equatorial Currents (SSEC) - from which you can read for yourself -

''The SSEC is a broad sluggish flow with an average westward surface speed of 11.3 cm s-1. The highest average surface velocities were found between 9° and 10°S reaching 16.4 cm s-1.''

A small problem for your dogma, you may agree ? But hey, these are only documented measurements. They should in no way challenge your dogmas, of course !!! The idea that actual measurements, and verified readings should influence you is, of course, ridiculous ! Science doesn't work like that, does it ?

LOL !!!

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:8Ux41NiVXt0J:oceancurrents.rsmas.mi ami.edu/atlantic/south-equatorial.html+equatorial+currents+speed&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

BienvenuJDC

04-07-2010, 05:15 PM

1) the link doesn't work...
2) what is it supposed to prove?

Musicology

04-07-2010, 05:18 PM

Here it is again -

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:8Ux41NiVXt0J:oceancurrents.rsmas.mi ami.edu/atlantic/south-equatorial.html+equatorial+currents+speed&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

The Atheist

04-07-2010, 05:18 PM

Dinosaurs were skilled MATHEMATICIANS!

Don't be ridiculous.

Dinosaurs are an invention of evolutionists to try to refute the creation of earth by a god.

BienvenuJDC

04-07-2010, 05:27 PM

Don't be ridiculous.

Dinosaurs are an invention of evolutionists to try to refute the creation of earth by a god.

Why would creationists have a problem with dinosaurs? Maybe evolutionists interpretation of the information...yes, but not dinosaurs...

Scheherazade

04-07-2010, 05:27 PM

Don't be ridiculous.

Dinosaurs are an invention of evolutionists to try to refute the creation of earth by a god.Thought they were an invention of Hollywood, starting with "The Flintstones":

http://www.rwrinnovations.com/productpages/flintstones_cover.jpg

Musicology

04-07-2010, 05:31 PM

This thread is on the subject of 'The Earth is Fixed in Space'.

kiki1982

04-07-2010, 05:31 PM

So, you have agreed that the Sun has an orbit of 24 hours round the earth.

Tell me how it is then possible that the moon has not more than 3 phases every night? Or, if the moon also has an orbit of 24 hours, not more than 1 phase ever?

The Sun, in order to have an orbit of 24 hours, would have to cross the moon at least once a day if the moon has an orbit of 28 days. That would mean that the moon would not be visible for about 14 days of the month, as it would be on the other side of the earth than where one is standing. It would also mean that it would permanently stay in the sky, on the same spot, all day and all night if it was visible. Which is clearly not the case as it comes up and goes down again during the day/night (mainly).

This would also mean that at least 14 times a month there would a total or partial eclipse of the sun. That is clearly not the case. or is it every month so.

If it has an orbit of 24 hours and moves at the same pace as the sun, it would have always the same phase as the sun would always be in the same spot in relation to the moon, which is clearly also not backed up by things one can see.

This model would mean that a total or partial eclipse would equally happen at a regular frequency. This is clearly also not the case.

Conclusion:

Unless the moon has a light bulb in it, it cannot generate light but by reflecting the light of the sun. The light of the sun can only be reflected in certain patterns if that is mathemetically possible. The earth which is fixed in space does not provide such a possibility as clearly shown above.

Conclusion 2:

The geocentric theory is total nonsense as it does not even back up that one simple thing we can see in the sky every night. The earth cannot stand still for the arguments above.

One can turn it how one wants, it is impossible.

Musicology

04-07-2010, 05:32 PM

So -

Bienvenu,

Here, as promised, is some evidence. Can you match this with measurements of the speed of the ocean being close to 1,000 mph at equatorial latitudes ?

Here is a map and description of the South Equatorial Currents (SSEC) - from which you can read for yourself -

''The SSEC is a broad sluggish flow with an average westward surface speed of 11.3 cm s-1. The highest average surface velocities were found between 9° and 10°S reaching 16.4 cm s-1.''

A small problem for your dogma, you may agree ? But hey, these are only documented oceanographic measurements. They should in no way challenge your dogmas, of course !!! The idea that real measurements, and verified readings should influence you is, of course, ridiculous ! 'Science' doesn't work like that, does it ?

LOL !!!

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Lulim

04-07-2010, 05:49 PM

Déjà-vu (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=875494&postcount=259)

Do you believe this gets any more convincing by endlessly repeating it?

Musicology

04-07-2010, 05:50 PM

Lulim,

It may not be for you but here is another - do yourself the compliment of considering other points of view. Because, so far, your dogmas are a complete nonsense. And it goes on page after page. A wise person considers criticism. And a dogmatist ignores it.

http://www.fixedearth.com/subject_areas/subject_area_1.htm

http://www.fixedearth.com/knowledge%20impact.htm

Thank You

Déjà-vu (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=875494&postcount=259)

Do you believe this gets any more convincing by endlessly repeating it?

The Atheist

04-07-2010, 06:09 PM

Why would creationists have a problem with dinosaurs? Maybe evolutionists interpretation of the information...yes, but not dinosaurs...

Yeah, I know. Creationists tend to claim that they were just left off the Ark and only lived 6000 years ago.

To me, that's tantamount to denying their existence.

This thread is on the subject of 'The Earth is Fixed in Space'.

No, it's moved well into the realms of comedy.

Your "evidence" is simply a list of ever more absurd attempts to use a set of rules of physics that you make up from your own imagination.

Seriously, asking why the oceans don't have currents moving in accordance with the spinning of the earth is just lunacy, because you can prove that your hypothesis is bunkum as simply as taking a train and jumping while train is in motion.

You will not be carried backwards and slam into the back wall.

Give it a go.

But please, don't try to get anyone to take you, your attempts at evidence, or this thread, seriously.

The Atheist

04-07-2010, 06:09 PM

A wise person considers criticism. And a dogmatist ignores it.

This, however, is pure gold.

BienvenuJDC

04-07-2010, 06:23 PM

Yeah, I know. Creationists tend to claim that they were just left off the Ark and only lived 6000 years ago.

To me, that's tantamount to denying their existence.

Actually, while some may use that claim, I do not. I affirm that they WERE on the ark. However, this is not the place for this discussion.

Lulim

04-07-2010, 06:24 PM

Gilliatt Gurgle

04-07-2010, 11:06 PM

Hello Musicology,
Long time no here!
It’s your old backup sparring partner from the great Mozart and Coronado campaigns.
Once again, my hat is off to you. You’ve really stirred up the pot with this one.

About the only thing I can offer at the moment regarding the cosmos is an old saying my mother would always tell me each morning at breakfast:

“Gilliatt, no matter where you stand, you will always be the center of your universe”

cue Sammy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-3SCH5tLlQ&feature=related

Gilliatt

prendrelemick

04-08-2010, 03:25 AM

Meanwhile back here in the real world, the satellite Cryosat 2 is about to be launched. Designed to measure changes to the polar ice caps, it will have a low polar orbit.

Unfortunately it relies on the earth's revolution to scan a different piece of ice cap on each orbit. What a mistake a to make a.

Musicology

04-08-2010, 05:38 AM

No, it doesn't rely on the Earth's rotation. It depends on the simple fact that every body in the atmosphere is attracted to return to the Earth and will do so after gravity and other forces have acted upon it.

What we want are actual facts to support the 'rotation of the Earth'. And all we have are dogmas.

We want actual facts that the ocean is moving 1,000 mph at the equator. But the actual facts say the opposite.

We want actual facts the atmosphere is moving at around 1,000 mph at the equator. But the actual facts say the opposite.

Are you interested in actual facts ?

:crash:

Meanwhile back here in the real world, the satellite Cryosat 2 is about to be launched. Designed to measure changes to the polar ice caps, it will have a low polar orbit.

Unfortunately it relies on the earth's revolution to scan a different piece of ice cap on each orbit. What a mistake a to make a.

Hi there Gilliat Gurgle,

We've got a generation of corporatised students here who believe something because everyone else believes it. Ask them for some actual evidence (which is supposed to be the issue) and they have nothing but their textbook dogmas.

I mean, how funny does it get. Let's do actual measurements, actual tests. But they go back to the dogmas.

Great fun, yes ? You dear mother was right. And so was everybody else till the occultist 'new science' took over. Since which time they never question the TV.

Regards

Hello Musicology,
Long time no here!
It’s your old backup sparring partner from the great Mozart and Coronado campaigns.
Once again, my hat is off to you. You’ve really stirred up the pot with this one.

About the only thing I can offer at the moment regarding the cosmos is an old saying my mother would always tell me each morning at breakfast:

“Gilliatt, no matter where you stand, you will always be the center of your universe”

cue Sammy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-3SCH5tLlQ&feature=related

Gilliatt

If the Earth is fixed in space we would be able to fly planes of the same flight speed from Miami to Los Angeles in around the same total time as Los Angeles to Miami (allowing for headwinds etc). And we do !

Fixed Earth 1
Science Fiction 0

If the Earth is fixed in space we would find the ocean moving slowly at the equators at the rate of only a few miles an hour in its currents. Not at 1,000 mph. And we do !

Fixed Earth 2
Science Fiction 0

If the Earth is fixed in space a 1,000 mile long cloud would be crossed by a plane travelling at 500 mph in exactly 2 hours. And we do. Because the atmosphere is not rotating at near 1,000 mph.

Fixed Earth 3
Science Fiction 0

LOL, it's embarrasing.

:crash:

Lokasenna

04-08-2010, 06:32 AM

LOL, it's embarrasing.

:crash:

Oh, you're right. Absolutely right.

Musicology

04-08-2010, 06:52 AM

Well Lokasenna,

If Science, real science, proves its teachings by impartial and fair measurements and by actual tests it's striking how one and only one side of this discussion finds the support of reality. Maybe you can find a single test where the two rival versions can be compared that will prove the opposite in respect of -

1. The Alleged Rotation of the Earth
2. The Alleged Rotation of the Earth's Atmosphere
3. The Alleged Revolving of the Earth around the Sun

Textbooks 0
Reality 389

You ARE interested in reality, aren't you ? :blush:

Oh, you're right. Absolutely right.

kiki1982

04-08-2010, 07:08 AM

Now, reality is tricky...

Taking your theory, the moon would either have three phases a night with an orbit of 28 days and not be visible for about 14 days of the month, or, with an orbit of 24 hours, would only have one phase ever.

Unless the earth turns round and the sun stays in a fixed position in relation to the moon which orbits around the earth, all phases are mathematically impossible.

Other things you can deny, but not what is plainly in the sky at night for everyone to see.

Medieval dogma 365
geocentric nonsense 0.

Musicology

04-08-2010, 07:20 AM

Kiki is playing his tricks again.

He tells us 'reality is tricky'. Then he tells us (and I quote) -

'Other things you can deny, but not what is PLAINLY in the sky at night for everyone to behold'.

This is how the deceivers operate. They say one thing and then flatly contradict themselves. Either this issue is settled by measurements and observations or it is not. He says it is.

OK, let's return to measurements and actual observations already discussed. Here they are. A few of them. Any comments Kiki ?

1. If the Earth is fixed in space we would be able to fly planes of the same flight speed from Miami to Los Angeles in around the same total time as one flying from Los Angeles to Miami (allowing for headwinds etc). And we do ! Any comment ?

Fixed Earth 1
Science Fiction 0

2. If the Earth is fixed in space we would find the ocean moving slowly at the equators at the rate of only a few miles an hour in its currents. Not at 1,000 mph. And we do ! Any comment ?

Fixed Earth 2
Science Fiction 0

3. If the Earth is fixed in space a 1,000 mile long cloud would be crossed by a plane travelling at 500 mph in exactly 2 hours. And we do. Because the atmosphere is clearly not rotating at near 1,000 mph. Any comment ?

Fixed Earth 3
Science Fiction 0

So, Kiki, since this thread is on the 'Fixed Earth' you will agree the measurements and the observations in all of the above cases are plain and indisputable, won't you ? Tell us you agree with them and we can move on to discuss what we see in the night sky.

Can't get fairer than that, can I ?

You really are interested in the subject of this thread, aren't you ?

Now, reality is tricky...

Taking your theory, the moon would either have three phases a night with an orbit of 28 days and not be visible for about 14 days of the month, or, with an orbit of 24 hours, would only have one phase ever.

Unless the earth turns round and the sun stays in a fixed position in relation to the moon which orbits around the earth, all phases are mathematically impossible.

Other things you can deny, but not what is plainly in the sky at night for everyone to see.

Medieval dogma 365
geocentric nonsense 0.

kiki1982

04-08-2010, 07:42 AM

:hand: :hand:

This is not about the speed of the earth turning, this is about the concept alone.

I said, and I repeat: an earth fixed in space is IMPOSSIBLE because it does not account for the phases of the moon which are not 3 a night, or one ever, but a cycle of 28 days as everyone knows and can see. So you too.

Unless the moon has a light bulb in it and can actually turn herself off and on, even partly, at will, it is IMPOSSIBLE.

Denying reality are we, Musicology?

:hand:

Embarrassing isn't it?

Nothing in the hands, nothing in the sleeves, only a brain in the head.

medieval dogma: 365 * 2 = 730
geocentric nonsense: 0 * 0 = still 0

Musicology

04-08-2010, 08:02 AM

Kiki,

Unless/until you accept the measured, verified, indisputable facts of the Earth already given you are like a child who cannot accept ABC. Why don't you accept the facts already given ? Then we can move on to DEF and the rest of the alphabet.

Because planes travelling at the same speed between two cities DO arrive at around the same time. Allowing for headwinds etc. That is plain fact. Because a cloud really is crossed by a plane travelling at a known constant speed exactly on time as predicted. And because the ocean currents at the Equator have already been measured and published many times. They are published facts. All of these are welll established, measured, verifiable FACTS of our Earth. They require no theories. They are plain, indisputable facts.

Tell us you accept all of them and we can move on. But if you do not accept these measured, published, indisputable facts you are not only ignorant but willingly ignorant. Show us they are wrong. You cannot. And therefore you have nothing left than your dogma. Yours is a 'science' which simply ignores plain, measured, verifiable facts. And you are proving this to us with every post you make.

:hand: :hand:

This is not about the speed of the earth turning, this is about the concept alone.

I said, and I repeat: an earth fixed in space is IMPOSSIBLE because it does not account for the phases of the moon which are not 3 a night, or one ever, but a cycle of 28 days as everyone knows and can see. So you too.

Unless the moon has a light bulb in it and can actually turn herself off and on, even partly, at will, it is IMPOSSIBLE.

Denying reality are we, Musicology?

:hand:

Embarrassing isn't it?

Nothing in the hands, nothing in the sleeves, only a brain in the head.

medieval dogma: 365 * 2 = 730
geocentric nonsense: 0 * 0 = still 0

kiki1982

04-08-2010, 08:15 AM

haha,

the ABC? You are not even come to A, my friend, let alone to B and C or even D.

There is one thing you cannot accept, and that is that the geocentric model cannot possibly account for the thing in the sky which we see every single night.

The rest you can deny, by all means, only, that one simple thing, there, staring at you through the night when you look at it is reminding you of the FACT that our earth turns around, because otherwise, it is IMPOSSIBLE to have the course it has and which you can observe.

I challenge you:

draw it on a paper and see how impossible it is. It cannot be or the speed of both the sun and moon would have to be different every single hour of every single day which is impossible as neither the planets, nor the sun, nor the moons, no the stars have gear-sticks or gaz-pedals, nor breaks.

Face it and come to terms with it.

Medieval dogma: still 730
geocentric nonsense: still big f/phat 0

Musicology

04-08-2010, 08:52 AM

No problem.

The dogma says that a plane from Miami to Los Angeles will arrive hours earlier than a plane of the same speed from Los Angeles to Miami. Due to the 'rotation of Earth' below it, west to east. But that isn't what happens. Is it ? And that's a fact. They both take around the same time (with allowance for head winds etc).

The dogma says the ocean is rotating at a speed of 1,000 mph at the Equator. But the actual, verifiable fact is the ocean at the Equator is moving at walking speed. Confirmed by the documented results of oceanographic surveys by the dozen.

The dogma says a long cloud at the Equator is revolving west to east around a revolving Earth at a speed of about 1,000 mph. But a plane flying at 500 mph east to west takes 2 hours to pass through such a cloud. This too is a demonstratable, verfiable fact.

And since science, real science, is proved by demonstratable/verifiable facts (and not by dogmas which ignore them) these facts remain, and will forever remain testimony to what is real and what is dogma.

I am sorry you cannot accept these published findings. They are there for anyone to see. You were repeatedly invited to accept them as plain and documented facts. But you prefer your dogmas, your theories, and not realities. So we reach the limits of any conversation on this issue.

Regards

kiki1982

04-08-2010, 09:03 AM

And?

It is not because that seems strange to you, that it is not possible.

What is plainly there, in the sky, all year and every day, is clearly reality, or is that not the case? It is true, yet it is not? That is not a good thing to start with, is it. The moon has not three different phases that are the same every night, nor has it one phase all year round. It has different phases through the month, never disappears. So, the sun must be in another place in relation to it to have its light refected differently As the eart does no move, it must be the sun or moon, but they both havean orbit round the earth ad that makes it IMPOSSIBLE. So are eclipses if both sun and moon were orbitting round the earth. Yet, they are clearly there. How then?

If that is impossible, then what? Someone must be wrong, and it is not reality in the (night) sky.

All this focus on silly detail is not going to get you out of the discussion as your model is totally and utterly mathematically impossible.

No ifs and buts, just plainly, utterly, mathematically impossible.

Unless you can come up with an explanation of course, but I would say that is impossible too as mathematics are pretty clear.

medieval dogma: still 730
geocentric nonsense: still big f/phat horribly frightening 0

Katy North

04-08-2010, 09:21 AM

spin a bucket of water over your head.

Wow! The water stays inside!

centrifugal force. Gotta love it.

If the earth STOPPED spinning we'd bounce around everywhere.

Actually, the speed of the earth at 1000 miles an hour is evident in that, at the equator, one cannot shoot a cannon ball at a target and hit it straight on. One must aim slightly to the left, or the spin of the earth will make it swerve off course.

I know it is quite useless to argue with you, Music... :frown2: you've already made up your mind and enjoy calling scientists fools too much to change... but I thought Kiki could do with some back up...

and by the way did you ever do that experiment I suggested?

Musicology

04-08-2010, 09:29 AM

A house built on sand will sink. A house built on rock will stand. That is the difference. The foundations of this conversation on the Earth and its fixed position are not agreed to by you and me. Therefore no further conversation would make sense.

The facts are as presented. I am again reminding you of them. You have only your dogmatic interpretations which are plainly in violation of these already established, verifiable, proven and simple facts. Further progress on this issue has been ruled out by your attitude to these same established, verifiable, measured and proven facts. Facts you can see for yourself and which you can find in all of the above cases. Facts which contradict your own dogmas. They are not interpretations of facts but are facts themselves.

You refuse to discuss this issue within the context of these plain, established and verifiable facts. In fact, you have no way of denying them. You are forced to impose on the subject only what you have learned from others who have the same dogmatic attitudes. And so you are trapped in a paradigm, unable to accept these findings of science and are determined to impose on others your dogmas of an occultist, pseudo-science.

Accept these facts given above and I will gladly converse with you on others. But, if not, we are all dragged in to your circular arguments. And that would not be honest. Not consistent with science and not fair on yourself.

Thanks

MarkBastable

04-08-2010, 09:40 AM

M, no one is saying that a flight from Miami to Los Angeles doesn't take much the same time as a flight from Los Angeles to Miami. And no one is saying that the ocean at the equator does not act in the way you say it does. And no one is saying that a plane flying through a cloud does not take the time to do so that you suggest it should. Everyone agrees that these are observable phenomenon.

But everyone also says that the heliocentric model not only explains these things, but predicts them. In fact, these things are completely consistent with the model. So it's no use saying that these things disprove the heliocentric model, because that model - right or wrong - is sophisticated enough to account for them. If you want to prove that the geocentric model is the truth, you not only have to show how it fits the observable facts, but you have to show why the heliocentric model doesn't.

And to do that, you have to understand the heliocentric model - you have to engage with the way it explains the phenomena you cite. Because it does explain them, just as yours does.

But if you're not prepared to do that, you must at least stop demanding that we agree that a plane journey in either direction takes about the same amount of time - no one's saying otherwise, because not only is it observably true, it's also consistent with both models.

kiki1982

04-08-2010, 09:45 AM

{edit}The geocentric model is MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE as the moon has not three phases nor only one during the night, every single night of the year.

You can keep denying other facts like tornados, what Katy North has just told you, whatever other people say, but you cannot, I repeat cannot, deny the moon with its cycle of 28 days as that is there for everyone to see. That is reality and reality by default is true. You can deny the effects that we feel of the earth turning under the pretence that they are a prodct of that thought, but you cannot deny what is in the sky now can you.

It is simply impossible to deny it as it is evidently in the sky. Keep denying that, and your house will sink into the sand of stupidity.

I repeat, and will also keep repeating that, unless you can come up with an explanation on that, your geocentric model is built on sand. Beside that, it is naturally, only you have to see the foundations collapse before you will acknowledge it and that will be very very painful. {edit}

medieval dogma: still 730
geocentric nonsense: still big f/phat horribly frightening, terrifying 0

Scheherazade

04-08-2010, 09:56 AM

~

Please do not personalise your arguments.

If you find that you are unable to accept/agree with other posters, please feel free to ignore this thread.

Posts containing personal/inflammatory comments will be deleted without any further notice.

~

BienvenuJDC

04-08-2010, 09:56 AM

If the earth is sitting in the middle of the earth in a FIXED location, then the calculations that NASA used to 'slingshot' Apollo 13 around the moon, back to a specified location (based on their belief of our solar system's movements that NASA upholds), would have ended that crew (and really any crew that had ever experienced space flight) in their ultimate demise.

But I imagine that all of the space flights, satellites, the moon walk, and NASA is just a conspiracy of events that have never happened...

Musicology

04-08-2010, 10:52 AM

Mark Bastable,

You are saying these three things are completely consistent with a rotating Earth ?

OK.

Let's test this.

Q1. Does your model suggest the land of America is rotating from West to East around 900 miles an hour during the 5 hours or so a plane takes to cross from Miami to Los Angeles and that a plane headed in the opposite direction takes from Los Angeles to Miami ? (A total change of around 4,500 miles). Give or take for head winds etc. Please give a simple Yes or No please ?

and -

Q2. Do you accept that the actual distance between Miami (Florida) and Los Angeles (California) is around 2348 miles (3778 kilometres) ? Yes or No please ?

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_miles_is_it_from_Miami_Florida_to_Los_Ang eles_California

Thank You

M, no one is saying that a flight from Miami to Los Angeles doesn't take much the same time as a flight from Los Angeles to Miami. And no one is saying that the ocean at the equator does not act in the way you say it does. And no one is saying that a plane flying through a cloud does not take the time to do so that you suggest it should. Everyone agrees that these are observable phenomenon.

But everyone also says that the heliocentric model not only explains these things, but predicts them. In fact, these things are completely consistent with the model. So it's no use saying that these things disprove the heliocentric model, because that model - right or wrong - is sophisticated enough to account for them. If you want to prove that the geocentric model is the truth, you not only have to show how it fits the observable facts, but you have to show why the heliocentric model doesn't.

And to do that, you have to understand the heliocentric model - you have to engage with the way it explains the phenomena you cite. Because it does explain them, just as yours does.

But if you're not prepared to do that, you must at least stop demanding that we agree that a plane journey in either direction takes about the same amount of time - no one's saying otherwise, because not only is it observably true, it's also consistent with both models.

Would I be the first to agree with the view that the NASA space programme is entirely falsified ? No, I would not.

But this thread, fortunately, is on another subject. Isn't it ?

If the earth is sitting in the middle of the earth in a FIXED location, then the calculations that NASA used to 'slingshot' Apollo 13 around the moon, back to a specified location (based on their belief of our solar system's movements that NASA upholds), would have ended that crew (and really any crew that had ever experienced space flight) in their ultimate demise.

But I imagine that all of the space flights, satellites, the moon walk, and NASA is just a conspiracy of events that have never happened...

Hurricane

04-08-2010, 11:25 AM

Would I be the first to agree with the view that the NASA space programme is entirely falsified ? No, I would not.

But this thread, fortunately, is on another subject. Isn't it ?

Isn't it totally relevant? NASA put men into space and brought them back using physics and calculations that you're saying aren't valid. If what you saying is true, Captain Lovell and his crew would still be floating around in space twiddling their thumbs.

Musicology

04-08-2010, 11:53 AM

MarkBastable

04-08-2010, 11:59 AM

Q1. Does your model suggest the land of America is rotating from West to East around 900 miles an hour during the 5 hours or so a plane takes to cross from Miami to Los Angeles and that a plane headed in the opposite direction takes from Los Angeles to Miami ? (A total change of around 4,500 miles). Give or take for head winds etc. Please give a simple Yes or No please ?

Q2. Do you accept that the actual distance between Miami (Florida) and Los Angeles (California) is around 2348 miles (3778 kilometres) ? Yes or No please ?

If I answer yes or no these, will you answer two for me - without prevarication, delay, just-hang-ons or any other intervening conversation?

Musicology

04-08-2010, 12:01 PM

Yes, if they are relevant to the observable, published, and verifiable facts of science in respect of this thread. Of course. Since your delay in answering mine are already prevarication, delay and hang-ons, aren't they ?

If I answer yes or no these, will you answer two for me - without prevarication, delay, just-hang-ons or any other intervening conversation?

kiki1982

04-08-2010, 12:11 PM

Well, as if you are going to answer them... We have seen what happened last time.

Still, you have not come up with an adequate explanation for the FACT that the moon has not several phases in the night sky, or only one ever every day.

Still denying relatity, are we.

Is that expanation still coming or do you admit that geocentrism is nonsense?

medieval dogma: still a immense 730
geocentric nonsense: still an amazing frightfully terrifyingly small, tiny in fact, 0

Musicology

04-08-2010, 12:14 PM

Well, Kiki, the clock is ticking. Let's see how fast we finally get an answer to my two questions. It has been several hours since they were posted as everyone can see. And guess which side is delaying ?

You've guessed it !! :blush:

Here are the two questions again -

Q1. Does your model suggest the land of America is rotating from West to East around 900 miles an hour during the 5 hours or so a plane takes to cross from Miami to Los Angeles and that of a plane headed in the opposite direction takes from Los Angeles to Miami ? (A total change of around 4,500 miles). Give or take for head winds etc. Please give a simple Yes or No please ?

and -

Q2. Do you accept that the actual distance between Miami (Florida) and Los Angeles (California) is around 2348 miles (3778 kilometres) ? Yes or No please ?

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_m...les_California

lol !

Well, as if you are going to answer them... We have seen what happened last time.

Still, you have not come up with an adequate explanation for the FACT that the moon has not several phases in the night sky, or only one ever every day.

Still denying relatity, are we.

Is that expanation still coming or do you admit that geocentrism is nonsense?

medieval dogma: still a immense 730
geocentric nonsense: still an amazing frightfully terrifyingly small, tiny in fact, 0

kiki1982

04-08-2010, 12:25 PM

I asked my question about phases even days ago. Let's see how fast you are. Slower than a slug in my opinion, but there you go.

What do you think my model suggests?

I know the geocentric model suggests nonsense as I repeat again: it is MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for the moon and the sun to orbit the earth at respectively a cycle of 28 days and 24 hours, or respectively a cycle of 24 hours both because of what we see in the sky.

If that is impossible, therefore the geocentric model is also IMPOSSIBLE because it is not backed up by the moon in the night sky.

Show that it is possible.

Musicology

04-08-2010, 12:30 PM

And I have asked that we first agree on the 3 situations that have already been described. That of the Earth 'rotation', the speed of the ocean at the equator, and the long cloud being entered by a plane headed at constant speed in the opposite direction to the alleged rotation of Earth and its atmosphere. None of which you recognise as being relevant. Although they are the subject of this thread. 'The Earth is Fixed in Space'. And all 3 of them able to be verified by measured, agreed, published data.

So our conversation is not possible without that agreement.

All we have are answers to my two questions. Still awaited at this time from another poster (Mark Bastable) who promises to answer them. Let's hope he answers fast, without further delay, since I am due to go out soon myself !

I asked my question about phases even days ago.

Let's see how fast you are. Slower than a slug in my opinion, but there you go.

What do you think my model suggests?

I know the geocentric model suggests nonsense as I repeat again: it is MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for the moon and the sun to orbit the earth at respectively a cycle of 28 days and 24 hours, or respectively a cycle of 24 hours both because of what we see in the sky.

If that is impossible, therefore the geocentric model is also IMPOSSIBLE because it is not backed up by the moon in the night sky.

Show that it is possible.

kiki1982

04-08-2010, 12:47 PM

I asked my question before you asked yours, so first come first serve. I am not as gullible as Bastable and I require an answer to my question first as I have now exposed your model for the nonsense it is.

As you choose to ignore my question (firstly arguing it was irrelevant, now you seem to have changed your opinion somehow), you acknowledge that your model is nonsense as I say it is.

I repeat: the geocentric model is MATHEMAICALY IMPOSSIBLE due to the appearance of the phases of the moon in the night sky. They are not compatible with a fixed earth and an orbit of sun and moon around it.

There should not even be a conversation about this actually. But, you still have a chance to come up with an explanation, which I am naturally confident you will not be able to as it is MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

mediaval dogma: still 730, maybe already 1000
geocentric nonsense: big f/phat 0

MarkBastable

04-08-2010, 12:47 PM

Yes, if they are relevant to the observable, published, and verifiable facts of science in respect of this thread. Of course. Since your delay in answering mine are already prevarication, delay and hang-ons, aren't they ?

We won't know whether they are relevant until we get he answers, will we? So I'll take that as a 'no'. You have previous on this.

Musicology

04-08-2010, 12:49 PM

We won't know whether your two questions are relevant until we receive your two questions, will we ?

And still the clock is ticking. When do we finally get a straight Yes or No to the two questions you have promised to answer ? Here they are for the third time -

Q1. Does your model suggest the land of America is rotating from West to East around 900 miles an hour during the 5 hours or so a plane takes to cross from Miami to Los Angeles and a plane headed in the opposite direction at the same speed from Los Angeles to Miami ? (A total change of around 4,500 miles). Give or take for head winds etc. Please give a simple Yes or No please ?

and -

Q2. Do you accept that the actual distance between Miami (Florida) and Los Angeles (California) is around 2348 miles (3778 kilometres) ? Yes or No please ?

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_m...les_California

We won't know whether they are relevant until we get he answers, will we? So I'll take that as a 'no'. You have previous on this.

Musicology

04-08-2010, 01:06 PM

Still no answer.

kiki1982

04-08-2010, 01:07 PM

My question is clearly relevant, yet it is not answered, even after days of discussion.

I guess you cannot answer it because you are unable because your model is nonsense, as I have exposed it.

Hurricane

04-08-2010, 01:09 PM

Hurricane,

You say NASA put men into space (beyond the Van Allen Belt) and brought them back again. You are of course entitled to believe this and I respect your right to believe this. I do not. Since space beyond the Van Allen Belt would not be survived by Lovell or anyone else. Nor were any precautions taken to survive it. Space is utterly beyond the manned Apollo missions.

Captain Lovell and his crew never went into outer space. They were in low orbit of the Earth and never went outside of the Earth's atmosphere. But if you have evidence to the contrary which can be verified please present it on a different thread. Since this thread (as you can see) is on the subject of the Earth being fixed in space.

Regards

So we didn't land on the moon or send men into space? Um, okay. I'm sorry, but I trust the integrity of Lovell and the math of the major enginerds of NASA over "they just couldn't do it" from someone who doesn't seem to have much in the way of astronautical engineering degrees. The Apollo Missions (and Mercury, and pretty much anything NASA has done) were phenomenal feats of engineering, but they were possible and did happen, even though we had to learn how the hard way.
Most of the arguments I've heard that state we didn't land on the moon are based off of bad gouge and a poor understanding of science. For example: the Van Allen belt does contain high levels of radiation, which could conceivably kill a man, if he stays there long enough. However, it turns out you move pretty fast when you've been punted into space on the top of a Saturn V rocket, and the Apollo astronauts got through quickly and dodged any severe effects.
(Evidence: http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm)
I think this is completely relevant to the discussion. The fact that humans have survived space travel, to include orbiting and landing on the moon, based off the calculations of a heliocentric model, proves that the earth is not fixed in space, doesn't it?

Musicology

04-08-2010, 01:11 PM

Kiki,

This is now the third time today I have told you the issues already under discussion first require your agreement before we examine these other issues beyond the Earth. This thread being on the Earth. (These three issues are related to the Earth, the atmosphere of the Earth, and the ocean of the Earth because that is the subject of this thread). Data on all three of them is freely available and can be verified from published sources. So this is the last time I am asking you to accept it. Outside of which I will not waste my time.

Confronted with reality you just can't accept it, can you ? And Mark Bastable still can't answer the two questions already given hours before with a simple Yes or No.

What a demolition of dogma !

My question is clearly relevant, yet it is not answered, even after days of discussion.

I guess you cannot answer it because you are unable because your model is nonsense, as I have exposed it.

kiki1982

04-08-2010, 01:49 PM

And it is the umpteenth time I have asked you this week to explain to me the phases of the moon and still you keep ignoring my request under the pretence that you have asked one first which is just not true.

Now, the phases of the moon are a FACT and it does not comply with your model.

Turn it how you want it, it will NEVER comply because your model is FALSE and it will stay FALSE until eternity because it IS FALSE in a mathematical way. It is just IMPOSSIBLE MATHEMIATICALLY to have the phases as they are AND an orbit of sun and moon around the earth. And I will keep repeating it.

The geocentric model is FALSE clearly, empirically proven by the phases of the moon and the heliocentric model is proven by other empirical evidence which is then faultily explained by the fixed earth people who are desperate to prove their model is right. Yet, there is one thing they will never be able to explain an which they never do and that is the moon staring at them in its various positions and phases all night long.

Turn it how you want, the geocentric model is as false as the universe is big.

But accepting it will take a lot of effort I see.

Musicology

04-08-2010, 02:01 PM

Thanks to the Moderators of this Forum for allowing this thread on 'The Earth is Fixed in Space'.

Readers will draw their own conclusions. And that's fine.

Regards

Hurricane,

I respect your opinion. But it's an opinion you've been given by powerful, hugely financed corporations. For decades. Whose interests are far above those of ordinary men and women.

There is already a ton of evidence Man did not walk on the Moon. Some of it is compelling. Still, I leave only one example from thousands. Actual NASA film. Not released until recently. Judge for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sxe_Mm-vUNE&feature=related

Best wishes

So we didn't land on the moon or send men into space? Um, okay. I'm sorry, but I trust the integrity of Lovell and the math of the major enginerds of NASA over "they just couldn't do it" from someone who doesn't seem to have much in the way of astronautical engineering degrees. The Apollo Missions (and Mercury, and pretty much anything NASA has done) were phenomenal feats of engineering, but they were possible and did happen, even though we had to learn how the hard way.
Most of the arguments I've heard that state we didn't land on the moon are based off of bad gouge and a poor understanding of science. For example: the Van Allen belt does contain high levels of radiation, which could conceivably kill a man, if he stays there long enough. However, it turns out you move pretty fast when you've been punted into space on the top of a Saturn V rocket, and the Apollo astronauts got through quickly and dodged any severe effects.
(Evidence: http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm)
I think this is completely relevant to the discussion. The fact that humans have survived space travel, to include orbiting and landing on the moon, based off the calculations of a heliocentric model, proves that the earth is not fixed in space, doesn't it?

kiki1982

04-08-2010, 02:34 PM

You call that evidence?

It is a film on YouTube no more, no less. :crash:

Thatis neither scientific, nor even credible, if it were only for the music and the voice. :crash:

The Atheist

04-08-2010, 03:10 PM

Actually, while some may use that claim, I do not. I affirm that they WERE on the ark. However, this is not the place for this discussion.

Crikey, I can't imagine anywhere better myself!

_________

FTW!

“Gilliatt, no matter where you stand, you will always be the center of your universe”

:lol:

spin a bucket of water over your head.

Wow! The water stays inside!

I was going to use that!

So we didn't land on the moon or send men into space?

No we did not!

But don't say it near Buzz Aldrin!

Thanks to the Moderators of this Forum for allowing this thread on 'The Earth is Fixed in Space'.

Readers will draw their own conclusions. And that's fine.

Regards

Readers will indeed draw their own conclusions.

_______________________________________

I thought this might be a very good time to close your "argument" once and for all.

I'm thoroughly impressed by your night time-lapse photos, so I have a nice, easy task for you which will categorically, undeniably, photographically prove to you that your premise is sillier than a silly thing wearing woad under a Ronald MacDonald outfit.

It doesn't even require you to do any mathematics at all.

Set up your camera in a FIXED position.

Set it to take one exposure every 30 minutes from 9 pm to 5 am every night for two or three weeks. At the same time, plot the path of the moon through the sky.

Make sure you camera is aiming at where either Venus, Mars, Jupiter or Saturn appear in your night sky. If you can get the moon in as well, so much the better.

When you look at the pictures in sequence, you can track the planets and note that among all of the universe orbiting the earth, the planets are going in a totally different direction, as well as the moon going in a different direction to the rest of the universe and the planets, thus refuting your premise.

If the photographic evidence alone isn't sufficient, you can extrapolate the tracks onto a piece of paper - or even better, a simple CAD program - and plot the tracks of everything!

Once you have grasped the simple idea that the earth isn't actually the centre of the universe, I will be more than happy to simply explain the physics which allows the ocean to stay still in the face of 1000mph revolutions, why the coriolis effect actually exists, why days are longer in summer and shorter in winter and all of the myriad other myteries which arise out of earth not being the centre of the entire universe.

kiki1982

04-08-2010, 03:23 PM

:D Couldn't have said it better myself :D

Hurricane

04-08-2010, 04:01 PM

No we did not!

But don't say it near Buzz Aldrin!

For the sake of those who don't get the reference and also because it's awesome, here's the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUI36tPKDg4

Edited to add: I'm not convinced by a blurry video. If they showed the ENTIRE video, without the "spooky" music and the narration and let it stand on it's own, I'm sure it would tell a very different tale.

Musicology

04-08-2010, 04:59 PM

Hi there Hurricane,

The blurry video issue. Well, there is one of Neil Armstrong 'walking on the moon' which did not convince you also, yes ? And that was not in colour but even more blurry black and white.

As for the video posted here, it's part of a much larger DVD. Taken from (as you can see) NASA Apollo material itself. You can see for yourself the light streaming into the window from outside. How could that happen 'half way to the moon' ? And you can see the cabin has been darkened as the film of the apparently circular Earth is being filmed. With movement clearly seen of men and equipment between the camera and the supposed image of that receding Earth. I think a fair minded person would agree these facts in combination tend to speak for themselves. This material coming (as is shown) from NASA footage obtained decades after these events. The Apollo missions were faked. Or, so I and others believe. And for various reasons.

Part of a much bigger documentary on the subject. How these images can fit in to your beliefs of the genuiness of those Apollo missions is an interesting question but I will respectfully leave it there. Since I do respect your opinions and have my own.

Regards

For the sake of those who don't get the reference and also because it's awesome, here's the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUI36tPKDg4

Edited to add: I'm not convinced by a blurry video. If they showed the ENTIRE video, without the "spooky" music and the narration and let it stand on it's own, I'm sure it would tell a very different tale.

BienvenuJDC

04-08-2010, 06:05 PM

Crikey, I can't imagine anywhere better myself!

I would think that a thread devoted to dinosaurs would be more appropriate.

Niamh

04-08-2010, 06:42 PM

I respect your opinion. But it's an opinion you've been given by powerful, hugely financed corporations. For decades. Whose interests are far above those of ordinary men and women.

:confused: what do corporations have to do with astronomy and astrophysics? Nothing.

I would think that a thread devoted to dinosaurs would be more appropriate.

Ah Dinosaurs! I cant help but think of Bill Hicks skit on Dinosaurs!

The Atheist

04-08-2010, 06:48 PM

Actually, while some may use that claim, I do not. I affirm that they WERE on the ark. However, this is not the place for this discussion.

Just in case you're not joking, here it is (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52174)!

Hurricane

04-08-2010, 07:22 PM

You showed me a ten minute clip of a what? Sixty minute video? The timestamps aren't visible, and the only context given is from the narrator. I don't buy it. From an article debunking Bart Sibrel's "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon":

Sibrel attempts to describe to the viewers of his documentary what is going on inside the darkened Command Module while the crew was attempting to give the TV viewers back the best possible view of earth with the primitive handheld color TV camera carried aboard Apollo 11. The problem with his explanation is basically that he does not know what he is talking about. Sibrel may know a lot about current video editing and production technology, but he does not have expertise about Apollo. In order to provide 1969 TV viewers back on earth with the best possible view of our planet from space, it was necessary to eliminate the glaring reflected light and direct sunlight that was streaming into the spacecraft and interfering with the shot. The official Apollo 11 mission documentation from 1969 contains astronaut Michael Collins' own discussion of these lighting problems and the difficulties he experienced with the window shades in the Apollo spacecraft. Unfortunately for Bart Sibrel, he is obviously unaware of astronaut Mike Collins documented statements. The astronauts shuttered most of the capsule windows with special shades that blocked most of the glaring direct and reflected sunlight coming off of the bright, shiny Lunar Module which was docked in close proximity to the location of the windows.

Anyways, you're kind of missing the big picture: how could an entire government agency, employing thousands of people, employing thousands more people for production of very specialized equipment, successfully have everybody keep their mouth shut that it was a fraud for forty years? Especially considering the level of fame/money a NASA employee would get for "exposing a hoax", I don't buy it. NASA is a very political organization and alliances change, and people get fired for dumb reasons, yet no "disgruntled employee" has come forward to bilge on the moon landings, or any of the Apollo missions. We didn't land on the moon once, we did it several times. So are you saying each time we did this, we made this insane, elaborate hoax? Why? By your logic, we already "did it" once, why keep doing it unless we were actually going to the moon?
I know engineers, all too many of them (I go to an engineering school that, coincidentally enough, has produced more astronauts than any other undergraduate institution). They love to pick things apart and see how they work to minute levels of detail. They love to explain things and find mistakes and tell you why every single decision was made in building/designing a certain thing. I find it hard to believe that no respected astronautical or aeronautical engineers have done peer-reviewed, thorough reports on this "hoax."
Scanning a list of "prominent" moon hoax advocates, I see a very small number of engineers. There's one nuclear engineer (not aero or astro), a couple Russians (who used bad math), a couple "self taught engineering buffs" (yeah, great credentials), and one guy who worked in admin (a librarian, specifically) of one of the companies that produced the F-1 rocket engine. The rest are TV types or tin-hat conspiracy buffs with no scientific background. For a contrast, pretty much every other engineer educated in the last forty years believes it's possible to land on the moon and that we did it.
The easiest way to get people to believe you is to do what you've told them, whether that's picking up groceries or landing on the moon, and the simplest answer is usually the correct one. Why does it look like we went to be moon? Oh, I dunno. Maybe because we did.

I'm sorry this is so long, but it really makes me annoyed when people dismiss all of this as a hoax. Hundreds of thousands of people gave so much for this effort, and a not insignificant amount of people died in horrible accidents. The story of the moon landings and Mercury/Gemini/Apollo Missions is one of, yes, bureaucracy, red tape, and headaches, but also of thousands of people, brilliant science and engineering, all combining to sling a few heroic men towards the moon, something that had been nothing but fantasy for thousands of years and representing some of the best of humanity.

kevinthediltz

04-08-2010, 07:48 PM

I have another question to add to my clicker which is at 7 at the moment.....

What causes everything to rotate around the earth? Us crazy educated people would claim that the force that ties all objects together (called gravity :yikes:!) causes the planets to rotate around the sun, the sun to rotate around in the milky way, and so on. The more mass the object has, the more force it pulls in. So my question is..... How and why does such a relitively small planet such as the earth cause the whole of the universe to spin around it? Including stars and solar systems billions of miles away? Considering the further an object gets away from another object the force of gravity drops EXPONENTIALLY.... Hmmm? Oh and why is the moon so special that it gets a rotation of roughly 28 hours where as everything else is about 24 hours? That will bring my clicker to 9. Oh and as you say "LOL" Quote: I do not ignore questions. Hrumph!

MarkBastable

04-09-2010, 02:08 AM

And still the clock is ticking. When do we finally get a straight Yes or No to the two questions you have promised to answer ? Here they are for the third time -

Q1. Does your model suggest the land of America is rotating from West to East around 900 miles an hour during the 5 hours or so a plane takes to cross from Miami to Los Angeles and a plane headed in the opposite direction at the same speed from Los Angeles to Miami ? (A total change of around 4,500 miles). Give or take for head winds etc. Please give a simple Yes or No please ?

and -

Q2. Do you accept that the actual distance between Miami (Florida) and Los Angeles (California) is around 2348 miles (3778 kilometres) ? Yes or No please ?

And here are mine.

Q1. Do you accept that the earth is approximately spherical?

Q2. Do you accept that the stars - the movement of which you cite in your opening post - are many light years away?

I'll answer yes or no to yours, if you will then answer yes or no to mine - without any intervening discussion, prevarication, qualification or general LOLing all over the shop.

prendrelemick

04-09-2010, 02:14 AM

Can I mention the solar wind yet? Or Geostationary orbiting satellites? Or do I have to get in line?

kiki1982

04-09-2010, 03:58 AM

You can mention whatevr you want, only you'll never get an answer as answering these nasty questions that doesn't suit him.

Lokasenna

04-09-2010, 04:28 AM

A scientist friend sent me this...

Another demonstration of Earth's orbital motion is the aberration of starlight. Astronomical observations and celestial mechanics indicate that Earth should have a 16-19 mi/sec (25-30 km/sec) orbital velocity around the solar system's center which continuously changes its direction due to the gravitational effect of the Sun. James Bradley's (1693-1762) attempt to determine the parallaxes of stars starting in 1725 with a telescope rigidly fixed in a chimney soon found that the apparent positions of the stars shifted along elliptical paths. These ellipses were 90° out of phase with the parallax ellipse for a nearby star on a distant background that is expected to be produced by Earth's motion around the Sun. Moreover the ellipses' semi-major axes were always 20.5", with no variation from the different distances of the stars. These same size ellipses were soon understood to be the yearly paths of the aberrations of the apparent positions of the stars caused by the addition of Earth's constantly changing orbital velocity to the vacuum velocity of the light arriving from the stars (whose true positions are at the centers of the aberrational ellipses). These ellipses show that Earth does indeed have the expected orbital velocity around the solar system's center of mass.

Final proof of the heliocentric theory for the solar system came in 1838, when F.W. Bessel (1784-1846) determined the first firm trigonometric parallax for the two stars of 61 Cygni (Gliese 820). Their parallax (difference in apparent direction of an object as seen from two different points) ellipses were consistent with orbital motion of Earth around the Sun.

Well, I'm no scientist, but I know plenty of people who are, and this seems to sway them!

Musicology

04-09-2010, 06:14 AM

Babbalanja

04-09-2010, 11:01 AM

Am I the only one who notices that Robert keeps hammering away at his pet factoid and ignores the questions people have asked him? That is, doesn't anyone else think it's relevant that faraway stars would have to be moving at completely impossible speeds to orbit a fixed Earth daily? And the question Kiki brought up is the nail in the fixed-Earth coffin: what other model of our solar system could explain and predict the moon's current set of phases? If what we call moonlight is merely the Sun's light reflected off the moon, the Sun couldn't conceivably be orbiting a fixed Earth daily. End of story.

But I daresay Robert is doing the exact same thing here as in his Mozart thread: foisting his weird theories on amateurs and bullying and insulting them when they try to engage him. Why isn't he making these claims on a board for astronomers or physicists, pray tell? Perhaps because it's easier to stymie discussion with weird factoids when he's talking to laymen?

Disgraceful.

Regards,

Istvan

Hurricane

04-09-2010, 11:39 AM

No more theories. Here are some more facts. Here is a photograph of the sky and stars above the North Pole. Taken with an 8 hour 'time lapse' camera.

Television Studio

''We better censor this ! Our corporate sponsor will not be happy''

! :crash:

- Pause -

(Nervous rustling of papers)

- Margarine Advertisement - Cornflakes Advertisement -

- Pause -

'Welcome back (nervous voice) - sorry for the interruption - and now some golf news.... '.

(Seems some of those stars near the North Pole are completing their orbits within 8 hours !! These are remarkable paths traced by stars as they swarm around the North Pole over a period of only about eight hours ! As the nearest bright star to the Pole, Polaris appears as the small bright crescent in the center of the image. An image that can be taken by anyone.

How does this prove anything? The earth is spinning, so of course the stars appear to move. The stars and our sun do move as well, but at such an incredibly slow speed (one rotation around the center of the galaxy per 200 million years) it's hard for the human eye to tell. The motion of, for example, the moon is seen clearly because it's orbit only takes around twenty-seven days. Unless any of us live to 200 million, it's a little harder to tell their motion.
Also, do really believe that there's some sort of sinister corporate astrophysics agenda that seeks to quash the inconvenient "truth" of Geo-centrism? Because that's patently silly.

For an explanation from an astrophysicist, see here:
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970518.html

The entire site has some really interesting information on the motion of stars and planets in general. But since it's from NASA, I'm sure it's part of the evil astrophysics lobby. Oh well.

The Earth is NOT rotating. It is fixed and at rest in space.

False. Also, I'm interested if you have a response to my post on the Apollo program.

Musicology

04-09-2010, 11:44 AM

Babbalaja,

Welcome aboard Copernican Airways Flight 007. From Los Angeles to Miami. Here is some flight data.

1. We will be taking off in 10 minutes.

2. The Earth below us will be rotating (as usual) from West to East. At a speed close to 900 miles an hour.

3. Thus, Miami will actually be travelling at 900 mph and headed AWAY from us at the time we get into the air pointed at it. Our speed will be around half of this rotation speed. At best. Miami itself will be rotated with the rest of the Earth (of course !!) but you will eventually see your destination the next day appear beneath us coming from behind and we will arrive there in Miami when that city finally appears under us.

4. Those who are flying here to Los Angeles from Miami will however arrive here in less than 3 hours from now. Because they have the advantage of the Earth rotating towards their plane at over 900 miles per hour during their flight. So they finish their flight today and you finish yours tomorrow.

5. We apologise for this inconvenience but sleeping bags have been provided.

Enjoy your flight !!!

:hat:

Am I the only one who notices that Robert keeps hammering away at his pet factoid and ignores the questions people have asked him? That is, doesn't anyone else think it's relevant that faraway stars would have to be moving at completely impossible speeds to orbit a fixed Earth daily? And the question Kiki brought up is the nail in the fixed-Earth coffin: what other model of our solar system could explain and predict the moon's current set of phases? If what we call moonlight is merely the Sun's light reflected off the moon, the Sun couldn't conceivably be orbiting a fixed Earth daily. End of story.

But I daresay Robert is doing the exact same thing here as in his Mozart thread: foisting his weird theories on amateurs and bullying and insulting them when they try to engage him. Why isn't he making these claims on a board for astronomers or physicists, pray tell? Perhaps because it's easier to stymie discussion with weird factoids when he's talking to laymen?

Disgraceful.

Regards,

Istvan

Babbalanja

04-09-2010, 11:46 AM

Unwillingness to address the moon's phases duly noted.

Regards,

Istvan

Musicology

04-09-2010, 11:53 AM

Babbalanja

04-09-2010, 12:01 PM

You will pardon me with dealing with the basic issues first of the fixed Earth, without which other issues such as the moon's phases can hardly be discussed, let alone agreed about. But make a thread and we can get to them too.

Regards
If the Earth is fixed, the moon and the Sun both orbit the Earth. Thus, this issue is crucial to your theory of a fixed Earth. The moon appears to orbit the Earth monthly while the Sun appears to orbit Earth daily. But if this were true, we would expect the moon to go through its phases nightly. Why doesn't it?

It's called disconfirming evidence. You won't deal with it.

Regards,

Istvan

Hurricane

04-09-2010, 12:18 PM

Babbalaja,

Welcome aboard Copernican Airways Flight 007. From Los Angeles to Miami. Here is some flight data.

1. We will be taking off in 10 minutes.

2. The Earth below us will be rotating (as usual) from West to East. At a speed close to 900 miles an hour.

3. Thus, Miami will actually be travelling at 900 mph and headed AWAY from us at the time we get into the air pointed at it. Our speed will be around half of this rotation speed. At best. Miami itself will be rotated with the rest of the Earth (of course !!) but you will eventually see your destination the next day appear beneath us coming from behind and we will arrive there in Miami when that city finally appears under us.

4. Those who are flying here to Los Angeles from Miami will however arrive here in less than 3 hours from now. Because they have the advantage of the Earth rotating towards their plane at over 900 miles per hour during their flight. So they finish their flight today and you finish yours tomorrow.

5. We apologise for this inconvenience but sleeping bags have been provided.

Enjoy your flight !!!

:hat:

Let's try another one: Hurricane and Papa Hurricane are in the backyard playing catch. Unfortunately, they run through an endless supply of baseballs, because every time Papa Hurricane throws one, it zooms by at 900 mph. I'm even worse off, since mine never reach him. This is applying the same logic you used to describe flight.
The atmosphere is effectively part of earth, sort of like the skin on an apple, and so rotates with the earth. Right now, sitting at my desk, I am moving at 900 mph, but I don't feel it because so is everything else. When I go for a jog, I am technically running at 908 mph, but only 8 mph can be noticed on earth because everything is also moving at 900 mph.
Let's demonstrate the catch experiment again: My father and I are currently playing catch in the cargo bay of a C-17 aircraft flying at 20,000 feet and 350 knots. When I throw a baseball, relative to the earth, it's moving at 350 kts + whatever velocity I threw it at, say for a total velocity of 400 kts. However, my Dad can still catch it since relative to the aircraft, it's only going 50 kts. Relative to the universe, the baseball is moving at 1300+ kts. Make sense?

Musicology

04-09-2010, 12:49 PM

Hurricane,

Thank you for your scenario. It is very attractive. And how do you know you are running at 908 miles an hour. (900 mph plus 8 mph). ? Did you read it in a book ? Did you see it on TV ? Did you measure it yourself ? Or did somebody else ?

When oceanographers have measured the speed of the sea they found it to be (usually) a few miles per hour. When physicists have studied the atmosphere they find clouds to be travelling at a few miles per hour. Depending on the local wind speed etc. And when planes fly between different cities (to and from the same two cities) they take around the same time to arrive in both cases. There is no atmosphere moving around 1,000 mph against them in either case. Nor do we see any evidence of an atmosphere moving 1,000 mph anywhere.

So, if you can show us this legendary atmosphere moving, or having observable and measurable effects I'll believe in it, the same as you. Having examined the findings of science on this point I've not found any such measurements. In fact, the fastest ever recorded phenomenon in the atmosphere as far as movements of the Earth's atmosphere are concerned were all localised storms. In Australia a wind gust reached 350 mph. That's a record. But you believe the entire atmosphere of the Earth is moving many times this speed all the time. Wow !

I'm sure you must be hiding these measurements from us. Will you kindly share them with us ?

That would definitely settle the issue.

Thanks

Let's try another one: Hurricane and Papa Hurricane are in the backyard playing catch. Unfortunately, they run through an endless supply of baseballs, because every time Papa Hurricane throws one, it zooms by at 900 mph. I'm even worse off, since mine never reach him. This is applying the same logic you used to describe flight.
The atmosphere is effectively part of earth, sort of like the skin on an apple, and so rotates with the earth. Right now, sitting at my desk, I am moving at 900 mph, but I don't feel it because so is everything else. When I go for a jog, I am technically running at 908 mph, but only 8 mph can be noticed on earth because everything is also moving at 900 mph.
Let's demonstrate the catch experiment again: My father and I are currently playing catch in the cargo bay of a C-17 aircraft flying at 20,000 feet and 350 knots. When I throw a baseball, relative to the earth, it's moving at 350 kts + whatever velocity I threw it at, say for a total velocity of 400 kts. However, my Dad can still catch it since relative to the aircraft, it's only going 50 kts. Relative to the universe, the baseball is moving at 1300+ kts. Make sense?

MarkBastable

04-09-2010, 12:56 PM

Ah, there you are.

Let's try that again....

Originally Posted by Musicology
And still the clock is ticking. When do we finally get a straight Yes or No to the two questions you have promised to answer ? Here they are for the third time -

Q1. Does your model suggest the land of America is rotating from West to East around 900 miles an hour during the 5 hours or so a plane takes to cross from Miami to Los Angeles and a plane headed in the opposite direction at the same speed from Los Angeles to Miami ? (A total change of around 4,500 miles). Give or take for head winds etc. Please give a simple Yes or No please ?

and -

Q2. Do you accept that the actual distance between Miami (Florida) and Los Angeles (California) is around 2348 miles (3778 kilometres) ? Yes or No please ?

And here are mine.

Q1. Do you accept that the earth is approximately spherical?

Q2. Do you accept that the stars - the movement of which you cite in your opening post - are many light years away?

I'll answer yes or no to yours, if you will then answer yes or no to mine - without any intervening discussion, prevarication, qualification or general LOLing all over the shop.

Musicology

04-09-2010, 01:01 PM

Babbalanja

04-09-2010, 01:12 PM

Unwillingness to address the moon's phases duly noted.

If the Earth is fixed, the moon and the Sun both orbit the Earth. Thus, this issue is crucial to your theory of a fixed Earth. The moon appears to orbit the Earth monthly while the Sun appears to orbit Earth daily. But if this were true, we would expect the moon to go through its phases nightly. Why doesn't it?

It's called disconfirming evidence. You won't deal with it.

Regards,

Istvan

Musicology

04-09-2010, 01:32 PM

You may duly note that I've already replied to you. Several times. And you may duly note that I've suggested you open a thread on it. Since this particular thread is dealing with 'The Earth is Fixed in Space'.

Now, I realise you may have difficulty telling the difference between the Earth and the Moon but they are different bodies.

Would you kindly note this and stay on the subject of this thread ?

Yours duly noted

Unwillingness to address the moon's phases duly noted.

If the Earth is fixed, the moon and the Sun both orbit the Earth. Thus, this issue is crucial to your theory of a fixed Earth. The moon appears to orbit the Earth monthly while the Sun appears to orbit Earth daily. But if this were true, we would expect the moon to go through its phases nightly. Why doesn't it?

It's called disconfirming evidence. You won't deal with it.

Regards,

Istvan

PeterL

04-09-2010, 01:34 PM

I am shocked that this silliness is still going. I ran into the same thing elsewhere, and it quickly became clear that the thread started was joking. He didn't even know what a frame of reference was, and then concept of the atmosphere and the oceans being part of the Earth were way beyond him.

Has Musicology demonstrated that the Coriolis Effect doesn't have anything to do with a rotating frame of reference?

Babbalanja

04-09-2010, 01:37 PM

You may duly note that I've already replied to you. Several times. And you may duly note that I've suggested you open a thread on it. Since this particular thread is dealing with 'The Earth is Fixed in Space'.

Now, I realise you may have difficulty telling the difference between the Earth and the Moon but they are different bodies.

Would you kindly note this and stay on the subject of this thread ?

It is the subject of this thread. If both the moon and the Sun orbit a fixed Earth, why doesn't the moon go through all of its phases nightly?

Answer: the Earth is not fixed. End of discussion.

Your continued evasion of this disconfirming evidence is once again noted.

Regards,

Istvan

Musicology

04-09-2010, 02:40 PM

Thank you for your repeated invitation to leave the solid ground of what this thread is so clearly about. Whose title can hardly be more clear. I remain fixed on the main subject of this thread. An essential foundation for resolving various other issues that deal with the Moon, the Sun, the stars and other phenomena. 'The Earth is Fixed in Space'. If you can actually deal with this subject as it stands that's fine.

I understand you cannot help floating up in to space to divert us from the subject. I even sympathise with your need to find some actual, verifiable evidence that will support your dogma. But none exists except in your textbooks and there are already lots of examples of here, right here on Earth, where your dogmas are contradicted by the actual, measured, agreed, findings of science. You have not addressed any of these and are unable to provide evidence to the contrary. Such is the record.

Regards

It is the subject of this thread. If both the moon and the Sun orbit a fixed Earth, why doesn't the moon go through all of its phases nightly?

Answer: the Earth is not fixed. End of discussion.

Your continued evasion of this disconfirming evidence is once again noted.

Regards,

Istvan

Babbalanja

04-09-2010, 02:44 PM

Your repeated evasion of the problem of observations of the moon's phases from a fixed Earth is once again, and with great amusement, noted.

Regards,

Istvan

Musicology

04-09-2010, 02:48 PM

So be it. But if you cannot even resolve the problems of you dogma which you find here on Earth with the measured and agreed facts of this Earth why trust you with your ideas of the Moon, the Sun and the stars ?

And still my two questions remain unanswered on this thread.

Q1. Does your model suggest the land of America is rotating from West to East around 900 miles an hour during the 5 hours or so a plane takes to cross from Miami to Los Angeles and during which a plane headed in the opposite direction at the same speed travels on the same course and at the same speed (allowing for headwinds etc) from Los Angeles to Miami ? (A total change by 'rotation' in that time (so we are told) of around 4,500 miles. Please give a simple Yes or No please ?

and -

Q2. Do you accept the distance between Miami (Florida) and Los Angeles (California) is around 2348 miles (3778 kilometres) ? Yes or No please ?

Anyway, thanks for the 'conversation'.

Your repeated evasion of the problem of observations of the moon's phases from a fixed Earth is once again, and with great amusement, noted.

Regards,

Istvan

Still no answer to the two questions repeatedly posed on the subject of this thread to Mark Bastable.

I suppose this ends my contribution here. Thanks Mark !

Regards

Babbalanja

04-09-2010, 02:58 PM

'The Earth is Fixed in Space'. If you can actually deal with this subject as it stands that's fine. Right back atcha.

If The Earth is Fixed in Space, then the moon orbits the Earth every month and Sun orbits the Earth every day.

From this Fixed Earth, we would expect to observe the moon going through its phases nightly.

Do we, in fact, observe this?

If not, why not?

Doesn't this constitute disconfirming evidence against the theory that The Earth is Fixed in Space?

If not, why not?

Regards,

Istvan

Musicology

04-09-2010, 03:08 PM

Babbalanja,

If you can provide here some verifiable data on the subject of Earth 'rotation' (from any science at all, and available here in measured, verifiable data) we can move forward. To date its been nothing but continual evasion of the actual, measured, verifiable facts of science and of the subject of this thread. And you have nothing to answer in respect of the problems these facts of science (already presented here) cause you.

That's the true context of this thread. And it shows. I will decline your invitation to go round and round in circles.

Thanks

Right back atcha.

If The Earth is Fixed in Space, then the moon orbits the Earth every month and Sun orbits the Earth every day.

From this Fixed Earth, we would expect to observe the moon going through its phases nightly.

Do we, in fact, observe this?

If not, why not?

Doesn't this constitute disconfirming evidence against the theory that The Earth is Fixed in Space?

If not, why not?

Regards,

Istvan

BienvenuJDC

04-09-2010, 03:20 PM

Musicology,

I will concede to your basic premise. I have thought about it, that the earth only moves in reference to the other bodies...and the other bodies only move in reference to other perspectives. However, there is much that I disagree with you on, but I will allow you the first inch.

The Atheist

04-09-2010, 03:23 PM

No more theories. Here are some more facts. Here is a photograph of the sky and stars above the North Pole. Taken with an 8 hour 'time lapse' camera.

Yes. we've seen the pretty pictures, and since the first, and most obvious refutation of your point is that if you're right, some of those stars are travelling at speeds exponentially faster than light, you are merely trumpeting one mistake as evidence while ignoring every single question put to you.

Why isn't he making these claims on a board for astronomers or physicists, pray tell?

I can answer that.

Every scientific, rational and astronomy board has rules which would disallow this kind of behaviour.

I suppose this ends my contribution here. Thanks Mark !

Regards

I'm pleased to see from your very next post that you were only joking.

Musicology

04-09-2010, 03:29 PM

Hi there BienvenuJDC,

I struggled with this for some time myself. Not because it was complex but because it was so darned simple. It literally goes against our culture, our 'education'. But not against the discoveries of those who work in these scientific fields. So that we end up with the 'authority' of those who disagree with it ranged against the actual, verifiable facts of the Earth on which we live.

It says a lot you are willing to examine both views. Regardless of your conclusions.

I've also seen the following link -

http://sites.google.com/site/earthdeception/

Best wishes

Musicology,

I will concede to your basic premise. I have thought about it, that the earth only moves in reference to the other bodies...and the other bodies only move in reference to other perspectives. However, there is much that I disagree with you on, but I will allow you the first inch.

BienvenuJDC

04-09-2010, 03:34 PM

What do you understand about the Non-Euclidean Geometry?

I guess to dispute the basic concept would beg one question...

Which point in space have we confirmed is (without doubt) FIXED?

Babbalanja

04-09-2010, 03:37 PM

I can answer that.

Every scientific, rational and astronomy board has rules which would disallow this kind of behaviour.Yes, they would expect someone flying in and making outrageous claims to understand the concept of 'disconfirming evidence.' And to answer direct questions about his theory instead of evading them.

Ever notice that Robert always makes claims that by his own admission "fly in the face of everything we know"? Is it through some sort of delusion of grandeur that Robert feels he has penetrated the veil of propaganda and reached a Truth that has eluded the rest of us? And what gives him the right to browbeat and insult those of us who try to point out the problems with his bold but not particularly coherent claims?

Regards,

Istvan

PeterL

04-09-2010, 04:15 PM

Ever notice that Robert always makes claims that by his own admission "fly in the face of everything we know"? Is it through some sort of delusion of grandeur that Robert feels he has penetrated the veil of propaganda and reached a Truth that has eluded the rest of us? And what gives him the right to browbeat and insult those of us who try to point out the problems with his bold but not particularly coherent claims?

I have come to the conclusion that the poster is not serious at all, and the silly claims were made simply for amusement.It becomes funny when people treat the silly claims as serious, because people are so overly polite and serious minded that they don't simply laugh at the idea that the Earth might be "fixed in the heavens".

kiki1982

04-09-2010, 04:30 PM

So,we can definitely repeat again:

It is MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for the earth to be fixed in space as it is impossible for the sun and moon to orbit the earth for the evidence cited above.

When will you finally acknowledge this, Mus?

Musicology

04-09-2010, 04:50 PM

'We' have not confirmed anything. What we have shown is that the exponents of a 'rotating Earth' cannot provide a single measured, verifiable fact to support their view of a 'rotating Earth'. While those who believe in a stable, fixed Earth, have produced example after example which is consistent with the Earth being fixed. At rest.

The evidence indicates that the Earth is fixed in space in the sense discussed here at some length (at least) that it is not rotating on its axis.

Since that is the limit of what we have tried to discuss here. (It is fixed in other ways. But these we have not discussed).

So, I guess, we can summarise by saying the Earth is fixed in the sense it is not proved by any evidence presented here to be rotating on its axis at a speed of around 1,000 mph (West to East) as we are taught in textbooks. Since nobody has any verifiable, measurable facts to support that view. And what we have, instead, indicates that the Earth is at rest. Not rotating, as described above.

What do you understand about the Non-Euclidean Geometry?

I guess to dispute the basic concept would beg one question...

Which point in space have we confirmed is (without doubt) FIXED?

BienvenuJDC

04-09-2010, 04:54 PM

Is space fixed? Is that a question that we can even entertain?

kiki1982

04-09-2010, 05:00 PM

The evidence indicates that the Earth is fixed in space in the sense discussed here at some length (at least) that it is not rotating on its axis.

Oh, yes? Which evidence is that?

Certainly not the one of the moon EVERY NIGHT in the sky! Because that is MATHEMIATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. So, is reality mathematically impossible? I don't think so.

Think again.

Musicology

04-09-2010, 05:41 PM

Since time had a 'beginning' it will have an 'end'. So, in this sense, space has a beginning and an end. But in my view we are far from knowing much of space or what space actually is. It is the context within what we know of the universe occurs. So that it may be, in some way or ways a manifestation of time itself.

Is space fixed? Is that a question that we can even entertain?

MarkBastable

04-09-2010, 07:04 PM

Q1 - Yes, I accept the Earth is approximately spherical
Q2 - As to whether the stars are many light years away or only a few is of secondary importance to the fact they create effects which we can observe and even measure from here on Earth.

Those are my answers.

May we finally have yours ?

My answers are Yes and Yes.

So - as you seem unsure of whether the stars are many or few light years away, let's say they are all one light year away. That's 5,865,696,000,000 miles. Assuming you know basic maths, we can say that the circumference of the circle the star has to travel to get around the earth would be given by 2*pi*r where r is a light year.

Give or take a significant figure, that's 36,648,868,000,000 miles. As we're going to divide this by twenty-four to get miles per hour, let's call it 36,000,000,000,000.

So, in order to make a full circle around the earth in twenty-four hours, a star only one light year away would have to travel at 150,000,000,000mph.

Or 416,666,666 miles per second. Which is - and this is the bit that confuses me - two thousand times the speed of light.

Now - are you prepared to go to the next stage, where I explain the apparent paradox of the flight-times each way between Miami and Los Angeles on a spinning globe, and you explain the apparent paradox of stars travelling at more than the speed of light in order to get around the earth in twenty-four hours?

kevinthediltz

04-09-2010, 07:13 PM

My clicker is at nine Musicology..... Seriously, answer my damn questions and I'll play your little game.

1. Why doesn't the moon go through all its phases in one day if the sun passes it each day?

2. What causes the whole of the universe to rotate around the earth?

3. Why does it take the moon longer than the REST OF THE UNIVERSE to rotate around us?

9

skib

04-09-2010, 07:21 PM

hey kevvy. Don't you think that's a little harsh? I mean, asking him to explain how everything works in one post? This stuff has got to take YEARS to explain and understand. Just accept it and don't ask questions, and it will all make sense!

kevinthediltz

04-09-2010, 07:23 PM

Just accept it and don't ask questions, and it will all make sense!

Religion at its finest.

skib

04-09-2010, 08:09 PM

After reading this thread through and through, I suddenly understand why my ancestors fled Europe.

BienvenuJDC

04-09-2010, 09:13 PM

Religion at its finest.

Wow..that is a major generalization...

kevinthediltz

04-09-2010, 09:32 PM

Wow..that is a major generalization...

One that I firmly believe. But lets not get into that.
I don't want to be attacked for what I believe and I don't want to attack someone personally for what they believe.

Unless of course that attack is full proof that the earth is NOT fixed in space. :p

The Atheist

04-10-2010, 03:48 AM

Is space fixed? Is that a question that we can even entertain?

Yes, we can entertain it - we can even answer it.

No, space is not fixed.

kiki1982

04-10-2010, 05:06 AM

After reading this thread through and through, I suddenly understand why my ancestors fled Europe.

Well, we would be able to say 'good riddance' about that, but all in all we are not really rid of them, because they come on forums like these to tell us their nonsense.

Point is that they continue to get us 'proof' that is ridiculous and laughable as it is foremost mathematically impossible that the earth if fixed.

Musicology

04-10-2010, 05:12 AM

TheFifthElement

04-10-2010, 06:53 AM

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 ?

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).

It's an interesting point. I have a couple of queries concerning the observed flight times assuming the Earth is fixed and not rotating on its axis. Firstly, I'd have thought it would be reasonable to assume that the flight time East-West and West-East would be identical if the Earth was not rotating on its axis. But as we have observed the flight times are not identical. There is a difference of 50 minutes in a flight from Miami to Los Angeles compared to the return flight.

The same marked difference in flight times is not observed, however, on North-South, South-North flights. For example, a flight from London to Johannesburg takes 11 hours 5 minutes whereas the return flight takes 11 hours 20 minutes. A difference of only 15 minutes over a distance of 5617 miles. Can you explain why, in the context of a fixed Earth, flight times differ a greater amount when an aeroplane is traveling East to West or vice versa, compared to North to South?

Secondly, can you extrapolate your explanation of the affect of headwinds on the East-West, West-East flight? What I don't understand is why headwinds affect flights only in one direction, as the advertised flight time for Miami to Los Angeles is always 5 hours 45 minutes, and the advertised return flight time is always 4 hours 55 minutes, assuming we are looking at direct flights. Is wind affect predictable because the Earth is fixed? This does not appear to correlate with my own observational experience. For example, where I live today there is no wind, but two days ago there was a strong North wind. So, why does is the flight time not exactly the same, with some margin for error either way due to unpredictable weather conditions?

TheFifthElement

04-10-2010, 07:33 AM

As a separate question, just turning to your star trails, which I love:
http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh81/BillT_photos/Startrails-8-8-09_filtered-640.jpg

again, working on the basis that the Earth is fixed in space wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that if the stars are circling a fixed Earth I would see the same stars all of the time, as my position vis-a-vis the stars never changes? If so, why do I see different stars in the autumn than I do in the spring? For example, I can see the constellation Pegasus in autumn but I can't see it in spring. And I can see Orion in winter, but not in summer. Why is that?

Musicology

04-10-2010, 07:44 AM

Hi there FifthElement,

1. You are of course right that flight times between two cities (Los Angeles and Miami and vice-versa) usually vary by 50 minutes or so. And, yes, seasonal wind and weather trends adequately account for these differences. Headwinds etc.

2. In answer to your second question, I suppose there are two factors at play here. Schedulers of flight programmes may tend to generalise the estimated flight times. The actual times tending to vary slightly and gradually throughout the season. And, secondly, the seasons are of course not changing abruptly but gradually, as the Sun continues its constantly altering relationship with the Earth. So the changing Sun/Earth relationship is the source of seasonal weather/prevailing wind and current changes.

The really great thing is we now have two systems to compare and on which to arrive at a verdict on these issues. Which, when we do, I believe, fully supports the view the Earth is fixed in space and the elegant motion of the Sun and stars are entirely consistent with a non-rotating Earth and with the actual findings of those who have fairly examined these issues.

http://sites.google.com/site/earthdeception/

Regards

It's an interesting point. I have a couple of queries concerning the observed flight times assuming the Earth is fixed and not rotating on its axis. Firstly, I'd have thought it would be reasonable to assume that the flight time East-West and West-East would be identical if the Earth was not rotating on its axis. But as we have observed the flight times are not identical. There is a difference of 50 minutes in a flight from Miami to Los Angeles compared to the return flight.

The same marked difference in flight times is not observed, however, on North-South, South-North flights. For example, a flight from London to Johannesburg takes 11 hours 5 minutes whereas the return flight takes 11 hours 20 minutes. A difference of only 15 minutes over a distance of 5617 miles. Can you explain why, in the context of a fixed Earth, flight times differ a greater amount when an aeroplane is traveling East to West or vice versa, compared to North to South?

Secondly, can you extrapolate your explanation of the affect of headwinds on the East-West, West-East flight? What I don't understand is why headwinds affect flights only in one direction, as the advertised flight time for Miami to Los Angeles is always 5 hours 45 minutes, and the advertised return flight time is always 4 hours 55 minutes, assuming we are looking at direct flights. Is wind affect predictable because the Earth is fixed? This does not appear to correlate with my own observational experience. For example, where I live today there is no wind, but two days ago there was a strong North wind. So, why does is the flight time not exactly the same, with some margin for error either way due to unpredictable weather conditions?

Hi there Fifth Element,

The stars themselves (the entire night sky we see) are themselves in their rotation with the whole night sky revolving throughout the year. With these stars in their own rotations. Appearing to us, as observers, here on Earth, as 'proof' that we here on Earth are rotating. But, in fact, we are fixed and are observing these rotating stars and constellations revolving throughout the year. So that in some seasons we see certain constellations but not in others. Depending on the time of year.

Regards

As a separate question, just turning to your star trails, which I love:
http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh81/BillT_photos/Startrails-8-8-09_filtered-640.jpg

again, working on the basis that the Earth is fixed in space wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that if the stars are circling a fixed Earth I would see the same stars all of the time, as my position vis-a-vis the stars never changes? If so, why do I see different stars in the autumn than I do in the spring? For example, I can see the constellation Pegasus in autumn but I can't see it in spring. And I can see Orion in winter, but not in summer. Why is that?

1n50mn14

04-10-2010, 09:27 AM

BienvenuJDC

04-10-2010, 09:30 AM

Yes, we can entertain it - we can even answer it.

No, space is not fixed.

Space is not fixed....in reference to WHAT?

PeterL

04-10-2010, 10:02 AM

Since time had a 'beginning' it will have an 'end'.

Do you have any evidence for that, or are you simply making another irrational claim? If you do have evidence then provide it.

So, in this sense, space has a beginning and an end. But in my view we are far from knowing much of space or what space actually is. It is the context within what we know of the universe occurs. So that it may be, in some way or ways a manifestation of time itself.

This says little, but it does tell us that you do not know what time is.

Musicology

04-10-2010, 10:10 AM

Bienvenu,

If we are interested in the actual discoveries and actually verifiable, measured facts of science on 'Earth Rotation' and on 'The Earth Revolving Around the Sun' there was and is only one answer. Neither are actually happening.

This thread could remain open for a century and nobody will ever post any verifiable, scientifically published evidence in support of Earth Rotation. It does not exist. It has never existed. Nor would it be funded by mainstream 'science'. It's only an invented story.

Here are 4 further proofs the Earth is truly fixed in space. This time from documents that have been published that relate to these subjects.

1. Michelson/Morely Experiment (1880's) -

The negative results of the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiments conducted in Europe and the U.S. in the 1880’s consistently showed no orbital motion of the Earth around the sun. No motion. Period.

2. Michelson- Gale Experiment (1925)
(Source - ‘Astrophysical Journal’ 1925, Vol, 61 pages 140-5)

(This too acknowledged there is no verifiable evidence from astronomy or any other science to indicate that the Earth is rotating on its axis daily nor revolving around the Sun).

3. Airey’s Failure

In the published 'Proceedings of the Royal Society' London Volume 20, page 35 (which reads as follows) -

‘The experiments of Airey with telescopes clearly indicated it is the stars which are moving relative to a stationary Earth and not vice-versa’.

4. The Sagnac Experiment (1913)
‘Comptes Rendus‘ -
Volume 5 page 708-710. And pages 1410-1413.

‘’Sagnac rotated a table complete with mirrors with light being passed in opposite directions between the mirrors. He detected the movement of the table by the movement of the interference fringes on the target where they were recombined. This proved there IS an ether that all light has to pass through and completely destroys Einstein’s Theory of Relativity which says there is no such ether. It is for this reason that this same experiment is completely ignored by mainstream science. More recently Kantor has proved exactly the same with similar apparatus. ‘’

CONCLUSION

There has never been verifiable evidence from any Science that the Earth is rotating on its axis at the speed of one revolution of the Earth per day. Nor is there or has there ever been any verifiable measurement or scientific evidence that the Earth is revolving around the Sun once a year.

Add the above documents to this conversation, to the mountain of evidence from oceanography, from all of the above cases (ocean tide speeds, flight times, cloud flights, etc etc etc) and we arrive at the amazing fact that ALL the scientifically verifiable data supports the stable and fixed Earth in space around which the stars are moving and the Sun.

What we have is a giant dogma. One protected by an academic, broadcasting and publishing mafia who refuse to allow the actual facts to be publicly appreciated on these issues.

Unless/until some documentary/verifiable evidence is at last presented which contradicts any or all of the above I think you see who is being dogmatic and who is not.

Space is not fixed....in reference to WHAT?

PeterL

04-10-2010, 10:11 AM

Guys, we need to go and burn down the Hubble, and all their research, and all of NASA's research- after reading the above posts by Musicology, they are clearly feeding us lies and blasphemy! PM me for more info ;)

Yes, a crowd of people could storm its way into the Hubble's orbit and burn it in the airlessness of space.

1n50mn14

04-10-2010, 10:23 AM

^Okay, so my planning is lacking...

Musicology

04-10-2010, 10:27 AM

Becca T,

Why do you bother posting here if you've nothing to contribute to this discussion ?

^Okay, so my planning is lacking...

PeterL

04-10-2010, 10:27 AM

^Okay, so my planning is lacking...

It's a simple matter to build a huge ship into which the crowd could force the Hubble, then they could burn it. Actyally, I think that it would be easier to smash it into small pieces. ;)

PeterL

04-10-2010, 10:28 AM

Becca T,

Why do you bother posting here if you've nothing to contribute to this discussion ?

She contributed as much, or more, useful information as you have.

Musicology

04-10-2010, 11:50 AM

Really ?

OK, let's test this.

Can you show us some verifiable evidence from any science that the Earth is rotating on its axis once every 24 hours ? Just ONE published, verifiable, scientific study. Even one ?

Can you show us some verifiable evidence from science the Earth is revolving around the Sun every 365 days. Just ONE published, verifiable, scientific study. Even one ?

ALL the verifiable, published, scientific, measured evidence suggests the opposite. Show us differently.

Clock Ticking..... now !!!

She contributed as much, or more, useful information as you have.

caesar

04-10-2010, 12:39 PM

Wow! You have managed to keep this thread (topic) alive for 10 days with 377 comments and still counting. That's incredibly impressive Musicology!

I don't know whether you really believe in what you are saying or not, but, the number of comments you have received, certainly gives a valuable insight into human behaviour. I was myself, initially, tempted to put forth an argument. The first argument that came to my mind was: "waaaha, ha, ha, HA, HA":smilielol5: But on second thought, the effort is too impressive to be scoffed at, notwithstanding my convictions.

Musicology

04-10-2010, 01:01 PM

Hi there Caesar,

The winner is you Caesar. And me, and everyone else who want these things to be settled in the light of actual, verifiable, published evidence.

'They' can't provide it. They never have. And they never will. Because it doesn't exist. The emperor has no clothes. LOL !!

How great is that ? !!!! Testimony to the fact that, at the end of the day, what is true is true. And what is not is and has always been a counterfeit.

Regards

Wow! You have managed to keep this thread (topic) alive for 10 days with 377 comments and still counting. That's incredibly impressive Musicology!

I don't know whether you really believe in what you are saying or not, but, the number of comments you have received, certainly gives a valuable insight into human behaviour. I was myself, initially, tempted to put forth an argument. The first argument that came to my mind was: "waaaha, ha, ha, HA, HA":smilielol5: But on second thought, the effort is too impressive to be scoffed at, notwithstanding my convictions.

Scheherazade

04-10-2010, 01:19 PM

R e m i n d e r

Please note that discussion threads are open to all members
as long as they do not break the Forum Rules.

Discouraging anyone from contributing is considered bullying and will not be tolerated.

If you do not want to read certain members' posts, please add them to your ignore list.

~

Musicology

04-10-2010, 01:35 PM

The Moderator is completely right.

We welcome ANY verifiable evidence that the Earth is rotating on its axis every day and completes one rotation in that time. We also welcome ANY verifiable evidence the oceans at the equator are moving at more than 1,000 mph. And we welcome ANY verifiable evidence the atmosphere is rotating around 1,000 mph anywhere on Earth.

We also welcome evidence the Earth stops rotating at more than 900 mph for passengers who are travelling between Miami and Los Angeles. And for passengers flying between Los Angeles and Miami.

Regards

MarkBastable

04-10-2010, 01:52 PM

Mark Bastable has answered the two following questions -

Q1. Does your model suggest the land of America is rotating from West to East around 900 miles an hour during the 5 hours or so a plane takes to cross from Miami to Los Angeles and during which a plane headed in the opposite direction at the same speed travels on the same course and at the same speed (allowing for headwinds etc) from Los Angeles to Miami ? (A total change by 'rotation' in that time (so we are told) of around 4,500 miles.

ANSWER - YES

and again -

Q2. Do you accept the distance between Miami (Florida) and Los Angeles (California) is around 2348 miles (3778 kilometres) ?

ANSWER - YES

//

Great ! So a plane from Miami arrives in Los Angeles in a few hours and a plane from Los Angeles to Miami arrives the next day. If both planes are flying at the same speed. Since the rotation of the Earth makes one flight last many more times than the other.

Glad we sorted that out.

//

Now - are you prepared to go to the next stage, where I explain the apparent paradox of the flight-times each way between Miami and Los Angeles on a spinning globe, and you explain the apparent paradox of stars travelling at more than the speed of light in order to get around the earth in twenty-four hours?

In fact, I'll go further than that. If you will explain to me the paradox of stars travelling at more than the speed of light in order to get around the earth in twenty-four hours, I will renounce my belief in the heliocentric universe and sign up to the geocentric model. And I'll do it here, in public, in a post that you can copy and paste as often as you wish.

Musicology

04-10-2010, 03:02 PM

Mark,

At the twentieth time of asking, let's just get some firm, verifiable, checkable, published evidence from Science that the Earth is rotating on its axis in the first place. Just one report. One study. One body of measurements that are able to be checked/verified.

Can you provide any ? Just one ? From any scientific source you wish to use. A rather easy question.

And if you can produce it I will believe in a rotating Earth. Rotating around 1,000 mph at the equator. Together with the atmosphere.

See how easy I'm making it ?

Now - are you prepared to go to the next stage, where I explain the apparent paradox of the flight-times each way between Miami and Los Angeles on a spinning globe, and you explain the apparent paradox of stars travelling at more than the speed of light in order to get around the earth in twenty-four hours?

In fact, I'll go further than that. If you will explain to me the paradox of stars travelling at more than the speed of light in order to get around the earth in twenty-four hours, I will renounce my belief in the heliocentric universe and sign up to the geocentric model. And I'll do it here, in public, in a post that you can copy and paste as often as you wish.

PeterL

04-10-2010, 03:14 PM

At the twentieth time of asking, let's just get some firm, verifiable, checkable, published evidence from Science that the Earth is rotating on its axis in the first place. Just one report. One study. One body of measurements that are able to be checked/verified.

See how easy I'm making it ?

I. Foucault's Pendulum. 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.

2)A more modern proof of the rotation is shown by the orbits of artificial satellites. A satellite is launched from the Kennedy Space Center at a 30 degree angle to an orbit 100 mi (161 km) above Earth. Its orbit stays at approximately the same plane in space. If Earth did not rotate, the satellite would pass over Cape Canaveral each time it completed an orbit, but it does not. As it completes the first orbit, it flies over Alabama and over Louisiana on the third. Each time the satellite passes over locations in the United States, it is 1,000 mi (1,609 km) farther to the west. Tracking stations have made this observation with hundreds of satellites.
http://science.jrank.org/pages/2222/Earth-s-Rotation.html

See how easy it is to prove.

Lokasenna

04-10-2010, 03:22 PM

The Atheist

04-10-2010, 03:22 PM

If this goes on much longer, I'll have to mention comets.

Space is not fixed....in reference to WHAT?

Everything in existence above the atomic level.

MarkBastable

04-10-2010, 03:25 PM

Mark,

And if you can produce it I will believe in a rotating Earth. Rotating around 1,000 mph at the equator. Together with the atmosphere.

See how easy I'm making it ?

I'm not asking you to believe it. I'm trying to start from a neutral position, unaligned with either model. I'm hoping you'll convince me of the reality of the geocentric model. If you will explain to me the paradox of stars travelling at more than the speed of light in order to get around the earth in twenty-four hours, I'll sign up to the geocentric model. And I'll do it here, in public, in a post that you can copy and paste as often as you wish.

PeterL

04-10-2010, 03:32 PM

If this goes on much longer, I'll have to mention comets.

Don't even consider it. that would make too much sense.

Musicology

04-10-2010, 05:08 PM

Foucaults Pendulum does NOT prove the Rotation of the Earth. Why do you believe it does ? Because you have assumed from the outset that the Earth is rotating, haven't you ? A completely circular argument. Focaults Pendulum proves no such thing. The Sun is in a moving relationship to the Earth. So is the moon.

Show us some verifiable, proveable evidence of Earth's rotation on its axis in 24 hours. Show us evidence of 1,000 mph oceans. Show us evidence of 1,000mph atmospheric rotation. Show us evidence of the continents revolving on the Earth round in a circle in 24 hours. You cannot do it. Because ALL the data says the very opposite. Ask oceanographers, pilots of planes, geographers, honest men. The data says the Earth stands still and bodies rotate around it. ALL the data says so. NONE disagrees with it. The findings of science are clear, unanimous, unanswerable.

Satellites are themselves in rotation of the Earth. That does not prove the Earth is rotating, does it ?

Gee ! How easy does it get ?

So, where are your 1,000 mph rotating landmasses, atmosphere, and oceans ?

Page 9939 and still counting.

I. Foucault's Pendulum. 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.

2)A more modern proof of the rotation is shown by the orbits of artificial satellites. A satellite is launched from the Kennedy Space Center at a 30 degree angle to an orbit 100 mi (161 km) above Earth. Its orbit stays at approximately the same plane in space. If Earth did not rotate, the satellite would pass over Cape Canaveral each time it completed an orbit, but it does not. As it completes the first orbit, it flies over Alabama and over Louisiana on the third. Each time the satellite passes over locations in the United States, it is 1,000 mi (1,609 km) farther to the west. Tracking stations have made this observation with hundreds of satellites.
http://science.jrank.org/pages/2222/Earth-s-Rotation.html

See how easy it is to prove.

Mark,

I am not asking you to sign up to a geocentric model. I am asking you to provide ONE, just ONE evidence of oceans moving at 1,000 mph at the equator, of landmasses moving at around 1,000 mph at the equator, and of the Earth's atmosphere moving at around 1,000 mph near the equator. Surely, surely, there are measured, verifiable, reports from science to confirm this.

Can you produce one. Just one ?

I'm not asking you to believe it. I'm trying to start from a neutral position, unaligned with either model. I'm hoping you'll convince me of the reality of the geocentric model. If you will explain to me the paradox of stars travelling at more than the speed of light in order to get around the earth in twenty-four hours, I'll sign up to the geocentric model. And I'll do it here, in public, in a post that you can copy and paste as often as you wish.

kiki1982

04-10-2010, 05:38 PM

Show us some verifiable, proveable evidence of Earth's rotation on its axis in 24 hours. Show us evidence of 1,000 mph oceans. Show us evidence of 1,000mph atmospheric rotation. Show us evidence of the continents revolving on the Earth round in a circle in 24 hours. You cannot do it. Because ALL the data says the very opposite. Ask oceanographers, pilots of planes, geographers, honest men. The data says the Earth stands still and bodies rotate around it. ALL the data says so. NONE disagrees with it. The findings of science are clear, unanimous, unanswerable.

By default, there is still this big light thing called the moon in the sky every night which confirms the rotation of the earth and CANNOT MATHEMATICALLY BE THERE if the earth were fixed in space like you claim. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

But of course you keep ignoring that, because that is the only thing you cannot possibly deny without ridiculously denying realitiy itself. I wonder wen it is finally going to hit you.

But don't worry I will keep mentioning it until you acknowledge it.

Musicology

04-10-2010, 05:42 PM

Lulim

04-10-2010, 05:49 PM

So take a look at this (http://www.astro.uni-bonn.de/~deboer/plansystmass/plansystmass.html#erddrehung).

kiki1982

04-10-2010, 05:59 PM

The fact remains that ZERO evidence has been produced for 1,000 mph Ocean movements. For 1,000 mph atmospheres moving. Or for 1,000 mph landmass rotations.

There are none. They have never existed.

And that completes my posts here.

Believe what you like. The facts of science say Earth Rotation is fantasy science.

So you call the moon not evidence?

I'd like to know whether it exists or not.

I think it doesn't, then it is convenient. Although I bl**dy well know it stares at me all night, every night, all year.

Or, or, I know, it's got a light bulb so it can switch itself off and on.

Embarrassing, isn't it, denying reality?

:smilielol5:

The Atheist

04-10-2010, 06:14 PM

The fact remains that ZERO evidence has been produced for 1,000 mph Ocean movements.

This is complete bunkum, although as you dispute moon landings, it mightn't count.

Photographic evidence from the moon clearly shows the rotation of the earth, giving you the 1000 mph oceans.

But since it was all staged in Hollywood, I somehow doubt that will be sufficient.

When I get really bored I'm going to count up the number of different pieces of evidence you've ignored to date.

MarkBastable

04-11-2010, 01:31 AM

Mark,

I am not asking you to sign up to a geocentric model.

As you keep saying, the title of this thread is The Earth is FIXED in Space. You repeatedly and justifiably insist that we return to that topic. Surely if you wanted to debunk the heliocentric model, you'd've called the thread The Earth IS NOT REVOLVING in Space. Your argument throughout has been that the heliocentric model is too absurd even to merit serious consideration. Because, as the title of the thread proposes, The Earth is FIXED in Space

I see your point. If your model is tenable, then no other model will matter. There will be no need to look further. Which is why I'm not interested in anything other than learning more about the geocentric model. I want to understand it.

So, given that the Earth is fixed in Space, could you please do me the favour of explaining the paradox of stars travelling at more than the speed of light in order to get around the earth in twenty-four hours? This is absolutely fundamental to the geocentric model, and completely relevant because your opening post concerned the movement of the stars around the earth. Explaining that movement is surely a very simple thing to do.

You see how easy I'm making it for you?

Lokasenna

04-11-2010, 03:22 AM

kiki1982

04-11-2010, 04:46 AM

:smilielol5:

circular argument indeed!

I think we have scared him off... :(

Musicology

04-11-2010, 05:16 AM

Would you buy a used car from these jokers ?

ZERO verifiable evidence has been produced for 1,000 mph Ocean movements. From oceanography. ZERO verifiable evidence has come from physicists and weather experts for 1,000 mph atmospheres rotating the Earth. And ZERO verifiable evidence is available from anyone for 1,000 mph landmass rotations. Figures from all of these sciences are however available. They show the opposite.

In the meatime aircraft flights between any two cities in the entire world that are thousands of miles apart continue to take around the very same time to complete in either direction - allowing for headwinds. (Because the Earth obviously stops rotating at around 1,000 mph during those kind of flights. The Earth only starts rotating again around 1,000 mph when passengers are out of the airport at their destination after their baggage has been checked).

Courtesy of British Airways and Copernican Airways.

IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT

'Ladies and Gentlemen,

Welcome aboard Copernican Airways Flight 007. From Los Angeles to Miami. Two cities separated by several thousand miles. Here is some flight data.

1. We will be taking off in 10 minutes.

2. The Earth below us would normally be rotating from West to East. At a speed close to 900 miles an hour. Miami is 2348 miles away from us. This Earth rotation is now cancelled - for health and safety reasons.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=uk

3. Thus, Miami will be NOT travelling at 900 mph and headed AWAY from us fast at the time we get into the air pointed at it. For health and safety reasons. Our flight speed will be around half of this usual Earth rotation speed. At best. Miami will NOT be rotated with the rest of the Earth below us. For health and safety reasons.

4. Those who are flying here to Los Angeles from Miami will NOT arrive here in less than 3 hours from now. For health and safety reasons. (Because the Earth rotation is being stopped for them too . So they finish their flight today and you can finish yours today also).

5. Coffee and tea are of course available.

Enjoy your flight !!!

:santasmil

prendrelemick

04-11-2010, 05:47 AM

2. The Earth below us would normally be rotating from West to East. At a speed close to 900 miles an hour. Miami is 2348 miles away from us. Fortunately we too are rotating in a likewise manner whether in the air or on the ground, so it will not make a ha'penny of difference.

3. Passengers are reminded there will be a small charge for the tea and coffee as we operate in the real world

The Atheist

04-11-2010, 06:16 AM

2. The Earth below us would normally be rotating from West to East. At a speed close to 900 miles an hour. Miami is 2348 miles away from us. Fortunately we too are rotating in a likewise manner whether in the air or on the ground, so it will not make a ha'penny of difference.

Silly man!

If the earth were really rotating, Miami would be going much faster than say, Liverpool and would quickly pass it, making GMT a complete farce.

kiki1982

04-11-2010, 06:47 AM

Seems like we after all didn't scare him off.

:party:

Still the evidence is staring you in he face every night in the desguise of the moon which is mathemitically impossble to appear in the same way it does if the earth were standing still, but you don't like to face reality, do you, Musicology?

prendrelemick

04-11-2010, 07:23 AM

Silly man!

If the earth were really rotating, Miami would be going much faster than say, Liverpool and would quickly pass it, making GMT a complete farce.

Liverpool and its people, know all the short cuts.

Musicology

04-11-2010, 07:33 AM

It's like a thief caught in the headlights with his hand in the cookie jar !

Ask for documentary, verifiable, measured proof of 'Earth Rotation' and he starts to get abusive.

Let him find some from Earth Sciences. Does he produce any ? Of course not. He wants to divert us away from the subject.

So we stay right here and ask him to provide some. When the evidence is totally against his dogma.

Can't get more clear than that.

Welcome to Copernican Airways ! Earth Rotation stops until you check out your baggage at your airport destination.

MarkBastable

04-11-2010, 07:48 AM

M - waste no more time pointing out the fallacies of the revolving earth. Instead, educate us - well, me, as I seem to be the only one who's interested - in the workings of the geocentric model. As you keep saying, the title of this thread is The Earth is FIXED in Space. You repeatedly and justifiably insist that we return to that topic - and so we should. Which is why I'm not interested in anything other than learning more about the geocentric model. I want to understand it.

So, given that the Earth is fixed in Space, could you please do me the favour of explaining the paradox of stars travelling at more than the speed of light in order to get around the earth in twenty-four hours? This is absolutely fundamental to the geocentric model, and completely relevant because your opening post concerned the movement of the stars around the earth. Explaining that movement is surely a very simple thing to do.

Musicology

04-11-2010, 07:57 AM

Mark Bastable,

Since you wish to learn a subject that is new to you may I say that it requires you to accept first that the Rotation of the Earth (supposed) lacks any scientific, measured, verifiable, evidence in its support ? Since none has been presented here and I've tried hard to establish that as a foundation for our discussion. As you see.

Which, if you can accept as a true record of this thread so far I will also accept as the basis for a post/discussion on the stars.

Regards

M - waste no more time pointing out the fallacies of the revolving earth. Instead, educate us - well, me, as I seem to be the only one who's interested - in the workings of the geocentric model. As you keep saying, the title of this thread is The Earth is FIXED in Space. You repeatedly and justifiably insist that we return to that topic - and so we should. Which is why I'm not interested in anything other than learning more about the geocentric model. I want to understand it.

So, given that the Earth is fixed in Space, could you please do me the favour of explaining the paradox of stars travelling at more than the speed of light in order to get around the earth in twenty-four hours? This is absolutely fundamental to the geocentric model, and completely relevant because your opening post concerned the movement of the stars around the earth. Explaining that movement is surely a very simple thing to do.

Katy North

04-11-2010, 07:58 AM

I find it extremely interesting how Folcum's pendulum, the phases of the moon, centrifugal force, and my interesting cannonball argument are all ignorable, when they are in fact central to the argument.

Especially since Centrifugal force explains this 1000 mph ocean/airplane argument he keeps repeating ad nauseum... :shocked:

I am also awaiting with interest a post from him that doesn't contain one ad hominem fallacy... though that might be completely impossible.... :toetap05:

Musicology

04-11-2010, 08:13 AM

Hi there Katy North,

Let us ignore nothing. Let us stand back from what we believe in respect of the pendulum, the phases of the moon, centrifugal force, and your interesting cannonball argument to ask ourselves whether those things are interpreted by us within a dogmatic paradigm we have imposed upon them, or not. (By reason of our education or ignorance). Since, if one person believes these things to be proofs of Earth Rotation another sees them as explainable within the context of a fixed Earth and of the gravity of bodies moving in association with the Earth. So that we are no further forward.

May I also suggest the findings of Earth Sciences, physicists, oceanographers, and other scientists (which are available in measured, specific, documentary and verifiable form) are of great relevance also. So that if the ocean, for example, is really rotating at a speed of 1,000 mph the evidence of ocean speeds (which are freely available from oceanographic surveys) will confirm this one way or the other. That the evidence from those who have studied the atmosphere in respect of cloud speeds or any rotation of its atmosphere are of equal importance. And the actual flight times taken by planes to/from distant cities are also evidence of a highly specific, verifiable and relevant kind in this process. So that the body of evidence obtained without any need to impose on them a paradigm of any kind may be of one and the same kind - complementary, in fact, to determining whether, in fact, the Earth, its Oceans, and its Atmosphere are in rotation at high speed or not. Since, it is only by accomodating the findings of these measurements, surveys, and verifiable results that we can and must arrive at our conclusions.

Without which we are imposing on ourselves a predetermined outcome - a dogma or paradigm - outside of which we cannot or will not be prepared to consider the alternative.

And so the simple question arises of whether science (in all its measurable, verifiable forms) supports, or tends to support the view that the Earth is at rest, or whether it supports, or tends to support the view that the Earth is in rotation at a speed of 1,000 miles an hour at the equator. Since, in the final analysis, we can prove a thing only to a point of it being true beyond fair and reasonable doubt, subject to the receipt of other facts which may contradict it.

Regards

I find it extremely interesting how Folcum's pendulum, the phases of the moon, centrifugal force, and my interesting cannonball argument are all ignorable, when they are in fact central to the argument.

Especially since Centrifugal force explains this 1000 mph ocean/airplane argument he keeps repeating ad nauseum... :shocked:

I am also awaiting with interest a post from him that doesn't contain one ad hominem fallacy... though that might be completely impossible.... :toetap05:

PeterL

04-11-2010, 09:42 AM

PeterL

04-11-2010, 09:49 AM

I am also awaiting with interest a post from him that doesn't contain one ad hominem fallacy... though that might be completely impossible.... :toetap05:

That's the only argument that he has left. Proof has been provided that the Earth rotates on its axis, but he refuses to believe that. Perhaps he that is an example of compulsive behavior.

MarkBastable

04-11-2010, 10:00 AM

Mark Bastable,

Since you wish to learn a subject that is new to you may I say that it requires you to accept first that the Rotation of the Earth (supposed) lacks any scientific, measured, verifiable, evidence in its support ? Since none has been presented here and I've tried hard to establish that as a foundation for our discussion. As you see.

Which, if you can accept as a true record of this thread so far I will also accept as the basis for a post/discussion on the stars.

Regards

Okay. I accept that the Rotation of the Earth lacks any scientific, measured, verifiable evidence in its support. I think you've made that point admirably.

Now I'm looking for a new model to explain - amongst other things - the observed movement of celestial bodies. I can understand the idea that the earth is fixed and that the stars are going round once a day, but I don't understand how a star even a single light year away can move fast enough to make that circular trip. Until that can be cleared up, I find it difficult to embrace the geocentric explanation. Currently I am adrift, without any cohesive model to cling to.

Babbalanja

04-11-2010, 10:17 AM

Since, in the final analysis, we can prove a thing only to a point of it being true beyond fair and reasonable doubt, subject to the receipt of other facts which may contradict it.
But you're merely ignoring facts that contradict it.

And this just goes to show to what extent you misunderstand the aims of scientific endeavor. Nothing is ever proved in science. Your idea of science seems to be nothing but a bucket of factoids dumped out to stymie discussion. However, science doesn't depend on haphazardly collected data points: it formulates a theory to systematize the data in context. The theory is best that forms an explanatory framework for the majority of the available data and serves as a framework for future research. It's easy for you to say you don't see disconfirming evidence of your theory of a fixed Earth when you close your eyes whenever it's presented to you.

The geocentric model doesn't explain things like the phases of the moon or the apparent retrograde motion of other planets. This is why you keep avoiding our requests that you explain them according to your geocentric theory. The model of a rotating Earth which orbits the Sun has the explanatory and predictive power your model lacks.

Regards,

Istvan

Musicology

04-11-2010, 10:46 AM

Babbalanja,

I am 'ignoring' no facts. You are confusing two different things. You are interpreting a series of experiments as supporting your theory (learned from textbooks and in schools) that the Earth is rotating.

This question, (a valid question), is settled by the published, verified, measured findings of the Earth sciences themselves. Is it not ? Which, sad to say, provide no support whatsoever for your belief. In fact they consistently say the very opposite to what you believe. And, since the Earth sciences are what proves or disproves theories in respect of the Earth's alleged rotation you might see you have, in fact, only a set of experiments whose results are interpreted by you as fitting your own predetermined assumptions. The actual published data (measurements) from these Earth sciences contradicting this belief of yours so hugely and so consistently you cannot (in spite of your protests) provide a single, published, verifiable measurement or set of measurements which actually supports them. Thus, the findings of science contradict your assumptions in every single, measured, verifiable and documented case.

A fact just recognised by Mark.

So the problem is really of your own making. Whether you can escape from this academic paradigm of yours, and whether you can ever produce scientific data from the Earth which supports a Rotating Earth is surely being answered in the negative with each page of this thread.

Regards

But you're merely ignoring facts that contradict it.

And this just goes to show to what extent you misunderstand the aims of scientific endeavor. Nothing is ever proved in science. Your idea of science seems to be nothing but a bucket of factoids dumped out to stymie discussion. However, science doesn't depend on haphazardly collected data points: it formulates a theory to systematize the data in context. The theory is best that forms an explanatory framework for the majority of the available data and serves as a framework for future research. It's easy for you to say you don't see disconfirming evidence of your theory of a fixed Earth when you close your eyes whenever it's presented to you.

The geocentric model doesn't explain things like the phases of the moon or the apparent retrograde motion of other planets. This is why you keep avoiding our requests that you explain them according to your geocentric theory. The model of a rotating Earth which orbits the Sun has the explanatory and predictive power your model lacks.

Regards,

Istvan

Babbalanja

04-11-2010, 10:54 AM

Once again, your continued evasion of addressing this disconfirming evidence is duly noted. If at any time you see fit to explain the apparent retrograde motion of planets or the phases of the moon within the theory of an Earth Fixed In Space, we will be waiting.

Regards,

Istvan

Musicology

04-11-2010, 10:55 AM

Mark Bastable,

Thank you for your post. I will try to post on the subject of the stars tomorrow. This may be a little easier now we agree the available data from Earth sciences do not, in fact, support a rotating Earth and that in fact, they are consistent with opposite view, and that some other solution (able to account for the movements of the stars etc) must exist. So what is verifiably measured and proved on Earth in respect of the Earth and what is seen in the night sky in respect of stellar movements are not contradictory but may both be seen as equally consistent with a geocentric universe.

Regards

Okay. I accept that the Rotation of the Earth lacks any scientific, measured, verifiable evidence in its support. I think you've made that point admirably.

Now I'm looking for a new model to explain - amongst other things - the observed movement of celestial bodies. I can understand the idea that the earth is fixed and that the stars are going round once a day, but I don't understand how a star even a single light year away can move fast enough to make that circular trip. Until that can be cleared up, I find it difficult to embrace the geocentric explanation. Currently I am adrift, without any cohesive model to cling to.

Musicology

04-11-2010, 11:04 AM

I am evading nothing. What is evading yourself is evidence from the Earth sciences in terms of published, measured, verifiable data for the alleged Rotation of the Earth. Since that data from those Earth Sciences consistently proves the opposite. Further confirmed by your failure to provide any that support your assumptions.

In such a case we can only see that you are not interested in the actual, published, verifiable, measured findings of the Earth sciences. And that the findings of these are obviously unacceptable to you and your beliefs.

Show us some supporting evidence from the Earth sciences that support a Rotating Earth and your credibility will instantly increase.

Once again, your continued evasion of addressing this disconfirming evidence is duly noted. If at any time you see fit to explain the apparent retrograde motion of planets or the phases of the moon within the theory of an Earth Fixed In Space, we will be waiting.

Regards,

Istvan

MarkBastable

04-11-2010, 11:04 AM

Musicology

04-11-2010, 11:09 AM

All right.

I will try to put together some information on this tomorrow.

Thank you. I shall look forward to it.

Katy North

04-11-2010, 02:02 PM

And so the simple question arises of whether science (in all its measurable, verifiable forms) supports, or tends to support the view that the Earth is at rest, or whether it supports, or tends to support the view that the Earth is in rotation at a speed of 1,000 miles an hour at the equator. Since, in the final analysis, we can prove a thing only to a point of it being true beyond fair and reasonable doubt, subject to the receipt of other facts which may contradict it.

Regards

Thank you for listening, Musicology.

Science does indeed support the view that the Earth is in rotation at a speed of 1000 miles an hour at the equator.

1) centrifugal force is such that the earth spins, but the spin itself has no effect on the ocean or air within the earth's atmosphere. Just as a bucket of water does not slosh or splash around when it is being spun over your head, the earth's oceans do not splash and airplanes in the atmosphere do not have additional wind drag on them... personally I am no expert in physics, but I wouldn't be surprised if the atmosphere of the earth itself has something to do with the centrifugal force and the earth's spin.

2) There is a certain amount of force generated by the earths spin at the equator, that is demonstrated by the cannonball argument I discussed earlier. There is no such phenomenon on the earth's poles, but the closer you get the the equator (and that 1000 mph spin you were talking about) the more it becomes apparent. when one is shooting a cannonball and probably any other projectile, the projectile veers slightly to one side. Thus, during WWII when the Germans were fighting in Africa, the found they needed to adjust the aim of the cannons -- they could only hit their targets if they were aiming slightly to the left. I chat with a pilot online, and the next time I see her on I'll see if she has to adjust her plane to account for the force from the earths spin close to the equator... that will be interesting to find out.

OTHER EVIDENCE FOR A ROTATING EARTH

3) Folcault's Pendulum: I am not a science expert. However, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum (This Wikipedia Page) includes explanations and, if it suits your taste, mathematics.

4) Equatorial Bulge and Flattening of the Poles: I hope we can all agree that gravity exists, which is what makes the earth a sphere. However, because of the rotation of the earth, the equator bulges about 26 miles, and the north and south poles are slightly flattened. You can find this out by measuring the circumference of the earth. Music, now would be an excellent time to go on a vacation to the equator to measure the bulge for yourself. All you need is a http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_ideas/Astro_p018.shtml (yardstick).

5) The path of the planets and the stars: Apparently in Ancient Greece, people had this nifty idea that earth was the center of the universe, or at least that everything rotated around it, similar to your argument. Well, the nice Greek people tried EVERYTHING to map the path of the celestial bodies and a nice guy called Ptolmey came up with something like this:

http://microcosmos.uchicago.edu/ptolemy/images/shatir500.gif
(This is a later islamic picture)

This map ONLY attempts to explain the revolutions of the planet Mercury. This method was extremely complex, and was still unable to full explain the celestial movements.

Someone called Copernicus, on the other hand, came up with this:

http://cosmicdiary.org/blogs/arif_solmaz/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/solar_system1.jpg

Which was easily explained by both physics and mathematics.

I'll leave the phases of the moon to someone else who better knows what they're talking about.

If you claim I am not an expert, you would be correct... I'm not. However, I know when something makes sense. Considering the massive amounts of scientific evidence pointing to a rotating earth, my conclusion is that the earth rotates.

My suggestion to you musicology, is that if you are so determined to prove that the earth is in fact fixed in space, have more evidence available than "you can see it with your own eyes!". When it comes to the solar system and the stars, there are layers of atmosphere which creates illusion, and even cameras create illusions. Unless you do your own experiments and set out proof here on this thread that make sense both as they relate to physics and mathematics, no one here will believe you, unless they already believed your dogma anyway.

I am not a physics student, or a math student, I am a literature and philosophy student. That is my area of expertise. People called Physicists and Mathematicians are trained SPECIFICALLY to explain and tell people in other areas of expertise the phenomenon of the universe. There is no conspiracy, because such a conspiracy would have to be so widespread that millions of people would be keeping secrets from millions of other people. My own sister, who is studying to be a physicist, would be keeping all kinds of dark and foggy secrets from myself and our family, and my nice fundamentalist Christian friend from college who was both a math and physics major would have had to keep his mouth shut about the fact that the Bible was right and the earth is indeed the center of the universe!

Your ad hominem against scientists is ridiculous. If you are going to continue this argument, please stop using it.

Musicology

04-11-2010, 02:53 PM

Katy North,

Thank you for taking the time to write such a long letter. But what a pity you end it with the following -

''Your ad hominem against scientists is ridiculous. If you are going to continue this argument, please stop using it''.

May I point out that Earth scientists have made extensive measurements, calculations, surveys of the Earth's oceans, landmasses and the atmosphere whose findings are today available by the ton. None of which you have quoted in your letter. What do THEY think of your ad hominem against them ? You just continue with your dogmatic interpretations. With your core assumptions. And so you seem determined to continue in this way. Though the findings of these scientists themselves are now piled against you. Isn't this dogmatism, plain and simple ? And how can you claim it's me who is attacking them ??? !

You insist - 'Science does indeed support the view that the Earth is in rotation at a speed of 1000 miles an hour at the equator'.

Really ? Let's test this. With some evidence.

Please, please, please (!) present this forum with some published, measured, verifiable evidence of the Earth actually rotating at the speed of 1,000 miles an hour at the Earth's equator. Since you have so far provided none. Have you ? Isn't this getting a little silly ? Please provide from the science of oceanography published and verifiable measurements of actual ocean speeds at the Earth's equator. Please also provide from physics and other verifiable, measured surveys evidence of the Earth's atmosphere actually rotating at 1,000 mph at the Earth's equator. And please provide measured, verifiable, published surveys showing landmasses at the Equator rotating at a speed of 1,000 mph. Not one of which you have so far supplied. And it's becoming obvious you are determined to avoid providing any such evidence. Do you have any ??

We already know your theory. Please provide some FACTS. From scientific, published, verifiable data of any/all of the above. Then we can proceed. Since there is all the difference between a theory and an established, verifiable fact, isn't there ??

At the risk of boring all of us you surely admit you have done nothing so far to provide the actual, verifiable, published evidence that would bring some credibility to your dogma on these basic issues of the Earth and its alleged rotation at 1,000 mph at the equator.

Please try again ! Page 28 and still counting......

Thank You

PeterL

04-12-2010, 08:53 AM

You have already been given verifiable evidence of the rotation of the Earth.

The question is: Do you have any verifiable evidence for your assertion that the Earth is fixed in space. If you have nothing more than what you have posted, then we know that you do not have vqalid evidence to support your assertion, and you can just admit that you were mistaken.

Musicology

04-12-2010, 10:45 AM

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

04-12-2010, 11:37 AM

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

04-12-2010, 02:04 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

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

Musicology

04-12-2010, 02:27 PM

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

04-12-2010, 03:03 PM

applepie

04-12-2010, 03:04 PM

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

04-12-2010, 03:25 PM

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

04-12-2010, 03:32 PM

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

04-12-2010, 03:33 PM

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

04-12-2010, 03:47 PM

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

04-12-2010, 03:47 PM

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 :D 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.