Printable View
Yes, and you know what a toy plane flying at a constant speed from one end of a moving train would take the same amount of time as another toy plane flying at the same speed going in the opposite direction. I don't see what you fail to understand about this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
I am not 'refusing' to answer your question. I am trying to find out first if you can accept the Earth is not 'revolving' at between 900 and 1,000 mph. And I am trying to find out whether you agree a plane travelling from Miami to Los Angeles flies that route in approximately the same time as a plane doing the very opposite which is flying at the same speed. (Allowing of course for wind etc).
If you can confirm these simple questions we can progress from there.
Regards
True. Since the train is not revolving at between 900 and 1,000 mph.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
Let us say a surfer is surfing a wave at the speed of the wave. Can he surf in the opposite direction at the same speed ?
The Earth, you say, is revolving, moving, at between 900 to 1,000 mph. On its axis. Thus, anything which moves in the opposite direction must meet resistance to its moving.
And, since you tell us the Earth's atmosphere is also moving with a rotating Earth and at around the same speed as the Earth's rotation how do we explain a plane flies regularly from Miami to Los Angeles in almost the same time as plane flies at the same speed from Los Angeles to Miami ?
The solution, Dr Watson, is that the Earth is NOT rotating. And that the difference between a plane flight time between Miami and Los Angeles and one going in the opposite direction is merely that of wind speeds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
You have consistently ignored my question 'can you explain the phases of the moon and the planets to me.' I haven't got an answer from you yet, so you must not have answered it then.
I asked you a question:
As you accept that the day-cycle (dark and light) takes 24 hours, you also accept that the orbit of the sun is 24 hours round the earth as the earth des not turn round is own ax? Yes?
You will soon find out whether the answer to your question is yes or no.
And you still haven't explained how other planets, most specifically the sun have an atmosphere?
And I have consistently explained that you have been invited to answer basic questions about the supposed 'rotation of the Earth', and the supposed 'rotation of the Earth's atmosphere'. Two things which, you believe, are closely related.
Which makes me ask you, for the third time, how a flight from Miami to Los Angeles is made by a plane in the same time as one flying the same route in the opposite direction at around the same speed.
The flight from Los Angeles to Miami should be far faster than the opposite flight if, in fact, the Earth is moving between 900 mph to 1,000 mph. But this simple fact has escaped you without any explanation.
What has also escaped you is if the atmosphere is really moving with the 'rotation of the Earth' and at a similar speed it must be very hard for a plane to fly against the speed of that rotating atmosphere when it flies from Miami to Los Angeles.
Yet it does so in approximately the same time if both planes are measured to be flying at around the same speed. The explanation for this has also not been offered by you. Is it possible your theory is a load of mediaeval nonsense !!! ????????
:crash:
No, since a child learns ABC before they learn the rest of the alphabet. And you seem to be struggling with ABC.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
Quote:
Originally Posted by papayahed
It could be possible if one only believes what one sees.
So, I may presume that you accept that the sun takes 24 hours to make its orbit round the earth as the earth itself does not turn round, that is right, isn't i?
You started this no reason to get frustrated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
It seems to me that if the earth having an atmosphere is your major reasoning why the earth is fixed in space you would be able to explain why other objects with the same properties (atmosphere) as earth are not fixed.
M, of all your correspondents here, and even given my initial dismissive post, I think I have engaged with your argument most seriously.
So - two things.
First, it is not good intellectual rigour to do what you're doing - which is to refute arguments from the position that what you say is the only explanation. To insist that your model is a precursor is to nullify argument. And that's true of those who argue against you too. The only way to get anywhere is to say "This is what's obviously observed. What might explain it?" And, given the plane and the cloud, your model does explain it. And so does Pip's. You require a static Earth. He requires inertia. To say that his model is an invention is as pointless as him saying yours is. And that's why I ask you to explain my bee thing in your terms. And I'll ask Pip to do the same. The models have to be proven against a hypothetical test.
Second - I assume you take part because you want to convince. If that's true, you must address the arguments that are ranged against you. You must analyse, argue closely, question not only the models others present, but also your own. You must, in fact, make more effort to defeat your own argument than anyone's.
So - I ask you to apply your theory to this problem. It's the last time I shall ask you. I don't do it from the position of my own education, or with any preconceived ideas of the four hundred years of propaganda of which I am a victim. I ask only that you explain - in the terms of what you believe - a circumstance that you know to be observationally the case.
And, just so it's very plain, if you refuse to do this - which is to engage in the to-and-fro of scientific debate, the consideration of theory applied to practical situations, the explanation of what we see through the medium of what we think - then I'll leave this discussion. Not because I think you're wrong, but because you're unwilling to engage in debate.
Here we go...
Imagine a train carriage one mile long, travelling north at a hundred miles and hour.
At the back end - the southern end - is a bee, dragging a banner half a mile long. It starts to fly towards the front end of the carriage at one mile an hour. So it is travelling, actually, at one hundred and one miles an hour.
At the front end there's another bee, which starts to fly towards the back end of the train at one mile an hour.
When the bees meet, how long will it take the second bee, travelling at one mile an hour, to pass the banner?
You sir are a genius. :smilielol5: :reddevil:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lokasenna
Four and three quarter hours.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
They meet in the dining car and stop for a few beers.
This thread should be sent to the Department of Education as a case for increasing science education in our schools.
There was this grown man I was arguing with about the atomic model and he objected to it because "nobody has never seen an atom." Oh so I suppose Hiroshima and Naggasaki was done by dropping magical bombs made by wizards, right?
Fortunately the Earth is much larger than an atom. And the proof, one way or the other, can easily be found. But they can't even agree to a test of the two rival theories.
The last 3 posts are clear proof the dummies have run out of steam. They and their dogmas make them post more nonsense. They've read in a book the Earth rotates at around 900 to 1,000 mph. And that Father Christmas comes down the chimmney to deliver them presents. When they are asked for this theory of theirs (which they've never once questioned nor ever seen evidence for) to be tested they go back to silly posts. Never answering questions and filling pages with basic errors. All the while insisting they are right and others wrong. A true picture of ignorance piled on ignorance ! Asked to name any two cities from anywhere on the entire Earth which they can choose as a test they have no answer to that too !! The farce goes on.
Shall we summarise this thread and save them from even more embarrassment ? It's laughable. Sort of tragic, really.
:crash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielBenoit
Insults aside - my post was the fourth. Will you address it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
That's a pretty good summation of the entire thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
Laughable that someone can try to make others accept the most ridiculous assertion of all time, tragic that it is genuinely believed to be true.
Here's another question for you to avoid:
Since the bible is literally true - this being the only evidence you have - how do you cope with the completely contradictory bits?
So far six of mine and a lot more of yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I've answered just about everyone of their questions and they have yet to answer a single of mine.
Hmmmmmm.....
To the OP. Maybe you should pick up a book other than the bible for once. :D