Mark,
You therefore believe the clouds above our heads are rotating with the Earth at around the same speed as the Earth itself below them.
Yes or No ?
I will then answer your question.
Printable View
Mark,
You therefore believe the clouds above our heads are rotating with the Earth at around the same speed as the Earth itself below them.
Yes or No ?
I will then answer your question.
:hand:
The answer is simple for you: you refuse to answer the question because you cannot. Or you refuse to answer it because you are afraid that the answer is as it is and that geocentrism does not apply.
So you continuously evade answering.
Can you finally answer my question about the phases of the moon and the planets as you are so clever?
You are constantly going to be reminded of your ignorance, I am sorry. :bigear:
Yes. Now - before you get to your next point - answer my question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
Not so fast Mark !
If the clouds above us are rotating at approximately the same speed as the Earth below them your colleague's answer of 2 hours is a nonsense. Isn't it ?
A 1,000 mile long cloud would, if rotating at around the same time as the Earth below, also be rotating at around 1,000 mph. Would it not ? According to your own belief. Thus, if a plane enters a 1,000 mile long cloud cloud headed in the direct opposite direction to that rotation travelling at 500 mph, it would within that same hour, emerge from the other side of that cloud, even if the plane stood still in the air. But it, the plane is travelling at 500 mph. Thus, the plane must be free of that cloud in far less than 1 hour. A fact you must surely agree to. Such is the cost of your bizzare belief about clouds and the alleged rotation of the Earth !
Since this is a clear example of the nonsense your education so obviously produces, I will leave it here as a monument to your 'education' and that of your colleague and will gladly answer your own question. But not before offering you again, even at this moment of your confusion, a final chance to rescue your education. Have you nothing more to say on the subject of the Earth's atmosphere in respect of the alleged rotation of the Earth ?
If not, then I rest my case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
You reneged on the deal.Quote:
You therefore believe the clouds above our heads are rotating with the Earth at around the same speed as the Earth itself below them.
Yes or No ?
I will then answer your question.
No, I have not reneged on the 'deal'. You may, if honest, admit that you and your colleague are in total confusion in respect of this issue of the Earth and its atmosphere allegedly revolving at around 1,000 mph. But if you cannot admit to this fact, fine. I give you a final chance to admit to it. But if you cannot do this it remains the outcome of that discussion for all to see. So, which is it to be, my attempted answer to your question or your honest admission on the subject of my own ? Common sense says you deserve one last chance to be honest. After which I must keep my word and answer your own (later) question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
I answered 'yes'.Quote:
You therefore believe the clouds above our heads are rotating with the Earth at around the same speed as the Earth itself below them.
Yes or No ?
I will then answer your question.
You did not then answer my question.
You reneged.
You answered 'yes', but you cannot deny you are answering yes to a nonsense of your own invention. And that of your colleague. Since a plane travelling 500 mph into a 1,000 mile long cloud cannot emerge from the other side in 2 hours if the cloud is itself travelling in the directly opposite direction at nearly 1,000 mph.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
Right or wrong - I answered.Quote:
You therefore believe the clouds above our heads are rotating with the Earth at around the same speed as the Earth itself below them.
Yes or No ?
I will then answer your question.
You reneged.
No, I have not reneged. I have twice, in the last 30 minutes, asked you to admit the nonsense of your answer and that of your colleague with whom you say you agree. Do so and I will gladly move on to the later subject of your own question to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
That is a very straightforward proposition. I answered. You did not then do what you said you would do.Quote:
You therefore believe the clouds above our heads are rotating with the Earth at around the same speed as the Earth itself below them.
Yes or No ?
I will then answer your question.
Mark Bastable,
Kiki seems to have abandoned you with the baby and has left the building. I will not rub your nose in to the problem but will, as a compromise, say nothing more of clouds, the alleged rotation of the Earth, of its atmosphere, nor anything of banners in trains. So that we can both withdraw with some dignity - you with your beliefs and me with mine.
Regards
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
No. Answer the question as you promised you would.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
Since this thread is on the 'The Earth is FIXED in Space' and since you cannot admit to making a complete 'pig's ear' of the subject (and your colleague) it would be pointless to proceed to your question unless/until we fairly and honestly agree to conclude on the subject already under discussion. Unless, of course, you have more information on it to offer.
We close one subject before we start another. Or else one nonsense becomes another.
The point of conversation is to exchange views, and, having done so, agree we have learned in the process. I am not convinced you or Kiki have learned anything except, perhaps, the absurdity of your 'education'. This, however, is not admitted to by you or your colleague and you wish to fly away to another question not directly related to this thread. It is in this context I wish to summarise our discussion on this first (and relevant) question before proceeding as promised to the (irrelevant) second.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
Nevertheless, you said you would answer if I gave a yes or no. And I did that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
Now - answer the question as you promised you would.
Your first post on this thread described the contents of my first post as (and I quote) -
A 'pretty infallible indicator' of 'crap'
Now, who is supplying the 'crap' ? This thread is entitled 'The Earth is FIXED in Space' and you and your colleague have been trashed with your nonsense of clouds moving around 1,000 miles an hour !! You've been given three chances to admit to your nonsense. Each time dogmatically repeating a question on a totally unrelated issue.
Unless/until you accept this fact I see no reason to move on to address your question which was (and still is) irrelevant to the subject of this thread. I have even agreed to answer it but only, and when, you agree to the 'crap' you and your colleague have here reluctantly given on this the actual issue - the alleged rotation of the Earth and that of the atmosphere and clouds above it. But not until then. Since my first obligation was and is to this thread, and to letting readers see where the 'crap' is really, really coming from. It's coming from men like you. That is now clear to anyone with common sense. Yourself and your colleague not included, of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
So - you won't discuss the issue unless I say I agree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
What, exactly, did you mean then, when you said this....?
If you live up to that, I promise I shall explain how my question is relevant to the consideration of yours. And I shall keep that promise.Quote:
You therefore believe the clouds above our heads are rotating with the Earth at around the same speed as the Earth itself below them.
Yes or No ?
I will then answer your question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
Jupiter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaWMp...eature=related
You forget that the sun is not solid, it has an atmosphere:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkKPPuGKb8E&NR=1
How is it possible for these two bodies, that have atmospheres (as can be seen in both videos), to be moving through space if, as you posit, the earth can't be moving in space because of our atmosphere?
(PS. This is like a train wreck, I know I should move on but I just can't look away)
God, no. This is fun. I do this with Jehovah's Witnesses at the front door too. I keep them there for hours. I consider it a service to the local community.Quote:
Originally Posted by papayahed
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
:D You do have a point..
Fight the good fight my friend!
I've done it with mormans regarding geology, archaeology and paleontology. its fun! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
I was dead certain that this was going to end up an aprils fools joke... but it appears i was mistaken...
I like to invite them in, offer them a cup of tea, and then sweetly and quietly ask them whether they've ever considered letting Satan into their lives...Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
Works like a charm - you don't see another one for months!
Well since I already answered his question, but he either didn't see it or ignored it.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
Kiki's answer was a little wrong, but not for the reason music assumes. The clouds are moving because of air currents so to take a plane going at 500 mph going into a 1000 mile cloud which let's say is traveling at 50 mph in the opposite direction of the plane.
So, distance = velocity by time
500h= 1000 - 50h
550h = 1000
h = 1000/550
h = 1.81
It would take the plane 1.81 hours to go through this 1000 mile cloud under these circumstances.
However, all this is completely irrelevant because these speeds are all relative to the inertial frame of reference which is the Earth rotation.
Edit: To be fair to Kiki though, music didn't provide a value for the clouds velocity.
Wins thread!Quote:
Originally Posted by prendrelemick
Pardon, have I left the building and left Mark in it?
:hand:
I don't think so, my ignorant saddo. I had just left to do more interesting stuff.
Am I still going to get an answer on the phases or not?
By the way, just to have you know, I am still solvingyour question with 500 miles/h x 2 = 1000 miles
How does the speed of the plane change from on the ground into orbit around the earth then?
Haha, yes I didn't account for a cloud that was moving into the opposite direction that the plane was moving.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
So you are right.
I love how the fastest growing thread on litnet, two days and eleven pages already, is all about the question of whether the earth is in a fixed position or not. I love it.
(Btw, you guys should check out the homepage to that website. "Read all about the Copernican and Darwinian Myths!" It's one think to call evolution a myth, but to call Copernican heliocentric astronomy a myth is just laughable madness.)
Hi there Daniel Benoit,
To describe Copernican heliocentric astronomy as a myth is not 'laughable madness' - it's simply rejecting a theory first put forward by Copernicus (1473-1543) more than 400 years ago in a more ignorant age and which you yourself have provided no evidence of being true. You believe it because everyone else believes it, right ? Therefore everyone who believes differently from you must be mad. Right ? Imagine the ignorance of such an attitude ? If you have evidence of Copernicus being true why not offer some ? Is it just a coincidence nobody has done so here ? All they've done is make complete fools of themselves.
At the time of Copernicus people believed in all kinds of nonsense things. We have learned a lot in the last few centuries. One of the things we have learned is no 16th century theory deserves to be taught if it cannot survive criticism and has no verifiable evidence in its support.
This, to you, is 'laughable madness'. What's more crazy than that ? I think it's called Dogma.
Kiki,Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielBenoit
You have returned to the building ? Great.
Yes, you did not account for a cloud that was moving in the opposite direction to that of the plane. A strange error, yes ? Viva Copernicus, right ?
Do you also believe all clouds are travelling at around 900 to 1000 miles per hour ? And isn't this slightly embarrasing for the supporters of Copernicus to be so riddled with errors ? :blush:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
I won't do what Mark did and humour you.
:hand:
No, I didn't account for it. Someone didn't mention the speed, now did he?
Why don't you tell me how the phases of the planets and the moon work and then I will answer your question.
And I asked you a second one: explain to me how the speed of a plain differentiates from its initial speed on earth (500mph) to in the heavens (?). I would be interested to know.
At any rate my answer seems to be more to the point than yours if it comes to Pip's assessment.
Orphan Pip says,
It would take the plane (travelling at 500 miles per hour) 1.81 hours to go through a 1000 mile cloud which is travelling 1,000 mph in the opposite direction.
No, that is false !
A plane would fly only 333.33 miles at 500 mph before it emerged if it entered a 1,000 mile cloud that is travelling in the opposite direction at 1,000 mph. Around 40 minutes or so.
Far less than one hour !
:crash:
Quote of the Week -
Kiki's Gem of Wisdom,
'' However, all this is completely irrelevant because these speeds are all relative to the inertial frame of reference which is the Earth rotation'' .
Yeh, right ? What nonsense is this ? The original 'circular argument'.
It is obvious a plane entering a 1,000 mile long cloud will pass through that cloud in less than 1 hour if that cloud is itself travelling at 1,000 mph in the opposite direction and if that plane is travelling at 500 mph.
Your 'inertial frame of reference' is sheer nonsense. Humbug and invention. Since there are only two references, the plane and the cloud.
Oh, my goodness !!!! :crash:
Which bring us neatly back to the bees on the train - only two references: the bee with the banner, and the bee going the other way. Please apply your theory of planes and clouds, as you said you would. I can see the logic of your model - is it universal? Does it apply to the problem I described?Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
You did promise. And, whatever else I may think of you, I've hitherto assumed you are an honourable man.
This thread is a thing of beauty.
Hahahahaha!!! That's the song that was stuck in my head all day after I read this thread yesterday!Quote:
Originally Posted by prendrelemick
My God, please feel free to get on a train and walk down the aisle and come back and tell me inertial frames of reference are sheer nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
I didn't say that, note that you didn't say anything about the speed of the cloud. You keep making the false assumption that the cloud's relative movement is due to the rotation of the Earth, when it is in fact due to air movement. Note that I did the calculation with the cloud moving at 50mph and you're insane, please seek medical attention.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
Hello!Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
Since you seem to want to persist with this nonsense, can I direct you to two questions you have avoided so far.
For the sake of clarity, I will put them up again for you:
1 Why do cyclonic systems spin in opposite directions in different hemispheres if the earth isn't spinning on its axis.
2 How can the stars possibly travel fast enough to appear to orbit us?
It certainly is; I hope it stands forever as a metaphor for single-mindedness.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
@The Atheist:
Not to forget my phases :D
Whoa - Kiki, Atheist. Just a planet-spinnin' minute there, Muskie.
You can't simply saunter in at the top of the thread trying to direct his attention to your questions. Goddammit, you've got to put in the long hours of dogged persistence. You've got to pay your dues, bub. Now, I don't say that I'm any closer to success than I was this time yesterday - but at least I have a promise from M that he'll answer my question, and I yet sustain hope that he'll stick to his word.
So the last thing I need, frankly, is you two swanning around the joint with your lunar phases and your counterclockwise hurricanes distracting M from the much more comprehensible issue of my bees on a train. I mean - whatcha trying to do - confuse the guy?
Now get to the back of the line and wait your turn. My number is about to be called - my bees and I are ready to be ushered into the Presence of Truth.
How can you rely on bees? They're communists! Thats worse than Alchemy.
and Athiest your calculations are flawed because they rely on heathen math (pi= 3.14...etc)
*Facepalm*
We're STILL talking about this?
:sosp:
Of course! As long as our ignorant denying friend keeps going, we keep going (until he gives up or sees the light).
I'm not sure whether he is catually going to understand the argument of the bees though.
I'm sure he will. Anyway - it's me that has to understand it, not him. I'm hoping he'll explain it to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982