Next we will be hearing the earth is flat!
Printable View
Next we will be hearing the earth is flat!
You have still not got us any proof of that apart from Bible verses of thousands and thousands of years old.
What did people know then?
It is sad :bawling:
No Janine,
May I relieve you of that aspect of your fertile and unfounded imagination ? Try this, for example, which the pagan world found hard to accept. Just as the pagans of today find it difficult to accept the findings of modern science. In the Old Testament we read of -
"the circle of the earth" - lit. the ('sphere' of the Earth)
(Isaiah 40.22)
Isaiah lived around 500 years BC. The bible is not going to change any time soon. Which is exactly what we have in fact, isn't it ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Proof that Earth indeed is the center of the universe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gc8AN6TIbm4
You clearly have no idea, Kiki. Sorry! ;)
So, if I can find a book that says the opposite, are we even?Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
So glad you agree. Since that is the fact of it. A fact nobody here has evidence against because there is none. What we have instead are people unable to show differently. And it shows. So much for the dogmas of the past 400 years, yes ?
If you can find a book which shows that the Earth revolves around the Sun (which is what you believe) we will all marvel. It will be more marvellous than your education, in fact, since, at this time you cannot produce a shred of evidence to support your beliefs. Many hours later. Your beliefs lack any support. And it shows.Quote:
Originally Posted by Satan
So, yes, please provide some proof from a book that says the opposite to what has been said. We wish to see it. Take your time. It will be really interesting to see it. Centuries of proofs must exist in all these textbooks, yes ? LOL !! I mean, you wouldn't believe science fiction, would you ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
Read more: Earth's Rotation http://science.jrank.org/pages/2222/...#ixzz0jy3K6h2qQuote:
The rotation of Earth can be proven in several ways. One is the Foucault experiment. This was first conducted in 1851, by the Frenchman Léon Foucault. He suspended a heavy iron ball from a 200 ft (61 m) wire, creating a pendulum, from the dome of the Pantheon in Paris. He put sand underneath the pendulum, and placed a pin on the bottom of the ball, so it would leave a mark on its swing from side to side. On each swing, over the course of 24 hours, the mark in the sand would move to the right. The direction in the path showed movement of the earth against the swing of the pendulum.
And:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/que...php?number=190Quote:
There was no straightforward proof for the motion of Earth until 1725 when James Bradley discovered stellar aberration. This is (apparent) yearly change in positions of all stars in the sky due to Earth's own motion. Aberration arises due to adding up of the speed of light coming from the star and Earth's own speed. This is a very complex phenomenon and its description requires some math.
Another, much simpler, consequence of Earth's motion is stellar parallax. If Earth changes its position relative to the stars, than the stars should appear to change position in the course of the year.....
...Parallax of a star was first measured by Bessel in 1838. It was not measured before because this change of star's apparent position is very small (the stars are very far from us). This was a very important discovery because Aristotle himself mentioned the lack of observable stellar parallax as the proof that the Earth is not moving (he didn't have a telescope and didn't know that the stars are so distant).
A third discovery proving Earth's motion was that of Doppler effect. Wavelength of the light that we receive from objects moving relative to us becomes a little shorter (i.e. bluer) when we approach the source and becomes longer (i.e. redder) when we move away from the source. When Earth moves toward a star, the star will appear slightly bluer (only high-tech instruments can measure this) while it will appear redder when Earth is on the other side of the orbit and moves in the opposite direction. This effect proves that Earth has a velocity relative to the stars, similar to aberration.
Sorry, but you have been misinformed. Just as the Moon affects tides, so also do heavenly bodies affect the Earth, including the Sun. All of these bodies rotating the Earth. Thus, your 'evidence' of alleged 'Earth rotation' is nothing of the kind. It is the effect of gravity between the Earth and those heavenly bodies which (as said) are continually rotating around it. Planets, stars and the Sun.
Can you provide some better evidence of the 'rotation of the Earth' ? Explaining, as you do, how the atmosphere of the Earth remains with us if the entire Earth is moving and rotating at great velocity ?
A speed of rotation said (by your textbooks) to be -
About 1,038 miles per hour. The atmosphere at the equator is also slightly thicker due to rotation, and you weigh slightly less. At mid-latitudes, the speed of the Earth's rotation decreases to 700 to 900 miles per hour.
So, what happens to Earth's atmosphere if the Earth is really rotating at close to 1,000 mies per hour in some places but at far slower speeds in others ? And what is your firm evidence of that rotation ? Since I often see cloud formations which move little in hours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by papayahed
Gravity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
Tja, it's always the others that are mad, eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Satan
Uh, it's called gravity...Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
You see planets with low gravity like Mars have very tiny atmospheres, planets like Jupiter with a lot of mass have high gravity and very large atmospheres. Even the Moon has an atmosphere, it's just so sparse it is practically a vacuum.
:iagree:Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
Just as good existed before evil and darkness before light, the eternal words of religious scriptures far outweigh the conflicting words of scientific dogma. What I find quite amusing is if Earth isn't a static object, how do those snobbish scientists send probes to other planets? But who needs logic anyway!
What did people know then ?
Why not build the Great Pyramid and tell us yourself ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
If, as you say the other planets are rotating around us how does Venus and Mars have an atmosphere? How do the atmosphere's of the gas giants like Jupiter or Saturn (and for that matter Saturn's rings) stay with those planets?
And how do lunar astronauts walk on the film studio, oops, lunar surface ? :crash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Satan
But you haven't provided proof from a book - you've provided a statement from a book, without any evidential back-up of the statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
That is to assume that the 'atmospheres' of Venus and Mars exist. And that the 'gas' to who which you refer is gas and not dust or other matter. But, if possible, let us stay with the evidence presented here from Earth. Since we can easily be diverted from the images and evidence already presented here of Earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by papayahed
The answer is gravity again...Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
You know that pesky force of attraction based on the masses of two objects multiplied by each other and divided by the square of the distance between them and subsequently multiplied by the gravitational constant? Well that's Newtonian mechanics which is technically only a functional approximation.
Jesus, I think elementary school children have a better understanding of physics and chemistry than you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
Are you refering to that well known occultist and alchemist - Isaac Newton ? (Who shot to fame with the assistance of the Venetian occultists who supported him). The Royal Society of London being stuffed with them from the early years of its formation ? Or to the occultist Charles Darwin, whose grandfather was member of the occultist Lunar Society ? And Charles Darwin, close associate of the occultist teachings of population control occultists. Social Darwinism, in fact. Ask Malthus, his close friend. 'Survival of the fittest', yes ? And what of Abbe G. Ortes, founder of eugenics in the century before, whose writings were greatly admired by Darwin's own friends. Or perhaps you are refering to occultist A. Einstein ? Credited with having invented a 'theory' on relativity based on the dogmatic assumption that the Earth is moving at great speed round the sun ? A dogma used to conceal the plainest facts.
I dare to say children in schools are not aware of these things too. But their teachers and parents may care. At least, we hope. Since, in all cases, their dogmas are not allowed to be publicly exposed as fiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
And it is no mere co-incidence that even Newton was seduced with an apple just as in case with Adam and Eve. I have always presented this argument against using Apple products, but that requires its own dedicated thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
Thank you for opening my eyes. "Truth shall set you free."
Don't attack the lives of these people. Show facts to prove them wrong. Something in all your arguements that you have not done. You are trying to distract people from their own points. Who gives a damn that Isaac Newton was an alchemist? Does that prove him wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
You need to focus on the issue. Whether Newton (or anyone for that matter) was an occultist or not has NO bearing on the simple laws of physics. There is gravitational pull. If there is gravitational pull, then there also is a counter force made my a centrifugal action. without one we would see catastrophic results. I think that you need to end your rants by closing this thread, it is as ridiculous as the Dark Ages.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
:rant:
Whether Newton was a raving lunatic makes no difference to the fact that he was a raving lunatic. And the same is true of Abbe Ortes of Venice, of Charles Darwin, of Malthus and of countless other scam merchants of 'modern science'.
The Dark Ages are another invention.
Tell us plainly what happens to the Earth's atmosphere if the Earth is revolving at around 1,000 miles per hour. Just do this, can you ? And do give us your interpretation of the stellar images posted at the start of this thread. Which seem to have escaped your attention.
Thanks
Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
Oh god no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
I can. :) The atmosphere of earth travels (and get this) at the same speed as the earth does, held by gravity. Amazing isn't it? And I believe that The Atheist explained those pictures very clearly, a post which YOU ignored and have not replyed to, the same as all of my replys. :) I see you are ignoring any answers that you cannot argue against. Very clever... actually not really. I am still waiting on replys to several of my questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
As a matter of interest, why are all these people engaged in this huge fraud? What's in it for them?
As you have not actually proved anyone really wrong yet, I have not yet found an answer to my phases which have to do with the movement of the planets and the earth.
I think you just don't know, no, you don't, I just know it. :rolleyes:
You just continuously go off on some rant instead of discussing. Just because the fact that you cannot explain yourself, and you know it. You cannot face it and cannot understand the facts.
'Truth will set you free', that is true... It is sad that so many people are still wrapped up in a lie.
But thank you for experiencing rampant ignorance. It enlightens me regarding my brother-in-law. I am learning to ask the right questions an detecting certain tactics. It is not going to work :hand:.
People have been showing facts to the Darwinist establishment since 1859, the year of the 'Origin of Species'. They don't want facts. They want their own dogmas. And to hell with the facts.
Who cares whether Newton was an alchemist and an occultist, supported by the alchemists and occultists of Venice ? That he stole virtually anything 'he' did from men like Leibnitz of Germany and claimed them as his own discoveries ? Really ? In such a case Neil Armstrong becomes a hero of the state. Is it not time to say that what is worthy of our belief is seen to be true and is seen to be subject to fair criticism ? If not, we are ignorant, and worse than ignorant. We are then willingly ignorant men.
Regards
Then show us your best evidence for the Earth revolving around the Sun. This thread has been running all of today and we are still waiting for the evidence. From 400 years of publications you surely have some evidence, don't you ?Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinthediltz
And you have still not told us your view of these stellar images which have been taken thousands of times from all over the world.
Which side is open to criticism ? And which side is producing evidence ? You have your answer. And, as long as this thread runs it will always be the same.
What's in it for them ? Well, it's a club. Academic studies tend to be. The conventions decree that careerists do not question the conventions. That they are never examined fairly and openly in the light of modern discoveries. Welcome to the Darwinian paradigm and that of the universe constructed around 400 years of mere assumption. The issue is this - are the conventions able to explain the discoveries of those who disagree with them ? That standard applies to almost everything we claim to be science. And, if it does not, we are sure to become deluded and are dogmatic fools. I do not want to be in that category. But I see academic dogmas all around me. So must you. That's why we can and must question these things. We can and must invite criticism. And welcome it. Because only with criticism can we claim what we study is worthy of our belief and is better than the views of our critics. Not to argue. But to share the facts, such as we have of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
Regards
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
:hand:
tsh, We are still waiting for yours. I can't see it coming yet :rolleyes:.
You ignore most of our evidence anyway under the pretence you can't (don't want to) see it, so I'm asking for yours so that we can finally see how deep your mind is and the mind of people who put this into your mind. Obvisouly it is very shallow.
But, you see, I still haven't got an explanantion of phases. Still waiting, although I think I will have to wait a long time. You won't get out of it. :hand:
Is it gonna come or not? You can do it man (I hope :D).
Okay. What's in it for the club? When this club was first formed with intention of deliberately misleading the world about how the universe worked, what advantage did the founders see in that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
Kiki,
You have 400 plus years of 'evidence' that the Earth revolves around the Sun. You have nearly 150 years of photography. You have every possible advantage. You have a head start (you claim) and you surely, surely have overwhelming evidence that the Earth revolves around the Sun, with the Sun as the centre of the Universe. Where is your evidence ? When, in fact, these stellar images, and these facts already presented clearly do not support your assumptions. Let's start there. But if that's too difficult, well, in that case, study what has been posted. Closely. And then we can agree to disagree.
Regards
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
:hand:
Still no explanation about phases.
I wonder whether you are not blind in one eye...
You can't explain, can you?
I'll tell you what, as you are so clever you have all possible advantage, why don't you explain the phases of the moon to me?
I'm really enjoying my time here. :hat:
Control !
Control of what is taught, believed, consumed, spoken of, admitted into textbooks, libraries, colleges, universities etc. Control of money, of governments, of banks, of culture and of 'science' (so-called). I think it's called 'control'.
Mark,Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
How about this idea. Set up a time lapsed camera session pointed at the stars. And then judge the results for yourself.
It won't convince many people. But it may well convince you. And if it does so you deserve the credit, having examined a view which, till now, you had not considered. That's the fruits of a fair conversation.
Regards
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
But they could just as easily exercise that control with your science couldn't they? Why does mendacious science give them control that real science doesn't?Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
Well, no.
Since, if you set up such an experiment yourself I would have no input into it. The results would be entirely your own. And, when you have such results, see how they will be treated by your colleagues.
'Mendacious science' is easily identified by its failure to allow major criticism of its underlying assumptions. And with that Darwinian/Copernican backdrop I think you have your answer.
At least, so I believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
As refusing to answer a simple question is an admittance of wrong :D
I think you misunderstand. I entirely accept that if I were to set up that camera, I'd end up with exactly the photo that you suggest - and that I expect. I'd expect it because this model predicts it. It predicts the photo exactly as well as your model predicts it. So - what are we to do about incompatible models that adequately explain the same phenomenon?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
The pictures were explained ages ago, it's created by the rotation of the Earth.
In such a case, Mark, we must call on other evidence which proves to be completely incompatible with one or both of those models. How about the outcome of attempts to measure the speed of light ? Which, it was assumed, would be influenced in their results by the Earth travelling around the Sun and rotating at 1,000 miles per hour as it did so. The notorious experiments of the Mickelson experiment. To the astonishment of those involved the results showed no change at all. It showed only constant speed.
The "scientific" community panicked when the Michelson-Morey experiment showed no variation in the speed of light due to the supposed rapid movement of the Earth around the Sun! And THAT was the true reason for the invention of "Professor" Einstein and his theory of relativity which eliminated the ether!!
As already posted. So, once again, here are results which do not support the conventions you subscribe to. And which clearly did not conform to expectations also. The possibility the Earth stands still was, of course, instantly dismissed. Although nobody had reason to do so. They still don't. Such is the power of dogma. And of convention.
Enter Stage left, Einstein. To muddy the waters still more. Thus filling the embarrasing gap, the logical conclusion, that the Earth, in fact, stands still and that the Sun and stars move around it. A view entirely compatible with the known facts and contrary to none of them.
So, there, since you ask for it, is one simple example of the elegant solution and superiority of the view that the Earth really IS fixed in space and that the Sun and starts really DO act as said.
Numerous other powerful proofs indicate the same. Some of which have already been posted here. I began with time-lapsed images taken of stars above the North Pole. Here too we find the same. Again, what of the atmosphere if the Earth is really rotating at 1,000mph. Is it, the Earth's atmosphere tied to, fixed to, the Earth ? Does it, the Earth's atmosphere, revolve at around 1,000 mph too ? These are basic questions you may consider. Since, if a plane enters a cloud flying in the direct opposite direction to the alleged rotation of the Earth and its atmosphere how long would it take such a plane to leave that cloud on the other side of it ? Either the cloud is travelling at 1,000 mph or it is not. Either the Earth's atmosphere is travelling at 1,000 mph or it is not. Which ?
Rgds
You have invented the rotation of the Earth to explain it. Since the alternative is deemed to be unthinkable. By you.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
You seem capable of amazing feats of delusion. The Michelson experiment was an attempt to prove the existence of the ether, and it failed miserably because the ether doesn't exist. This didn't rock the foundations of science since the ether was already widely doubted. For the Earth not to be moving you would have to disprove Foucault's pendulum.
So, you believe Newton's theory about an ether being needed to propagate light over Einstein, but then you reject Newton as an occultist when it suits you. :smilielol5: you're quite special.
Orphan Pip,
Tell us this. The Earth (you say) is rotating at around 1,000 mph. Are the clouds in the sky also rotating at around the same speed as the Earth below them ? Fixed to the Earth by some invisible umbilical chord ? Or are they moving far slower ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip