Printable View
One that I firmly believe. But lets not get into that.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
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
Yes, we can entertain it - we can even answer it.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
No, space is not fixed.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by skib
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.
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.
//
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
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?
As a separate question, just turning to your star trails, which I love:
http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/h...ltered-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?
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
Hi there Fifth Element,Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
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 ;)
Space is not fixed....in reference to WHAT?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Do you have any evidence for that, or are you simply making another irrational claim? If you do have evidence then provide it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
This says little, but it does tell us that you do not know what time is.Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
Yes, a crowd of people could storm its way into the Hubble's orbit and burn it in the airlessness of space.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeccaT
^Okay, so my planning is lacking...
Becca T,
Why do you bother posting here if you've nothing to contribute to this discussion ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeccaT
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. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by BeccaT