The Earth is FIXED in Space

The solution is rather simple.

Take a large cloud of known size. Let us say, one of 100 miles length or so. Fly a plane through its length in the opposite direction to that of the supposed 'rotation of Earth', and at a plane speed which is already known and agreed. And let us note the exact time when that plane first appears from the opposite side of that cloud.

If the plane appears from the far end of that cloud at around the time suggested by a fixed and stable Earth/atmosphere then it, the fixed earth and atmosphere viewpoint obviously wins the argument. But if the plane emerges from such a cloud far faster the rotating Earth theory wins the argument.

Both cannot be true. Since the cloud is either moving (as you claim) with the 'Earth's rotation' (i.e. at a speed of between 900 and 1,000 mph) or it is not.

A simple challenge !

Or, take an even more simple test. Choose two cities on an atlas, separated from each other by thousands of miles. Fly a plane between them in a straight line and at a fixed and known speed. Does the plane finish that flight in a time suggested by

a) Earth Rotation Theory ?

OR

b) The Fixed Earth Theory ?


Let's see whether Mr Copernicus and your 'rotating Earth' theory passes such a simple test. Choose any two cities on the entire atlas of the world. Separated by several thousands of miles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

Or, take an even more simple test. Choose two cities on an atlas, separated from each other by thousands of miles. Fly a plane between them in a straight line and at a fixed and known speed. Does the plane finish that flight in a time suggested by Earth rotation or by the fixed Earth theory ?

Let's see if Mr Copernicus and your rotating Earth theory passes the test.

---

Actually, he's got a point here. Two glasses of Bordeaux and a Mandrax, and everything is the same distance away.

OK Mark,

Choose two cities of the world separated by several thousands of miles. Any two. You choose them. And let's test both theories. Still feeling confident 'the Earth is rotating at between 900 and 1,000 mph' ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

Actually, he's got a point here. Two glasses of Bordeaux and a Mandrax, and everything is the same distance away.

---

OK Kiki, why not accept the same test ?

Choose any two cities in the entire world separated by several thousands of miles.

Let's see if a plane flying at an agreed constant speed travels between them in the time predicted by fixed Earth theory or your mediaeval dogmas ? Any response ?

:blush:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

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.

---

We are still talking about it because posters like you have nothing to say about it. Maybe you like posting about nothing ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Katy North

*Facepalm*

We're STILL talking about this?

:sosp:

---

You don't seem to understand that the plane is being moved with the Earth's rotation as well, and that the cloud's movement is due to air currents not to the Earth's rotation. Your trolling isn't very interesting if you don't even bother to address the challenges.

BTW space shuttles and rockets do take off in the direction of the rotations of the Earth, and as near to the equator as possible (Florida for the USA, Kazhakstan for the Russians) because it make escape velocity easier to reach there.

Orphan Pip,

Let us assume we both need to understand reality. The reality is as follows -

1. The 'air currents' we find in the atmosphere are not 900 to 1,000 mph. Are they ? And, if there are strong air currents let us account for them when we time the flight in question.

2. You say 'the plane is being moved with the Earth's Rotation as well'. Really ? Why ? What proof do you have of this ? None at all. Please provide some. You DO have evidence of this, don't you ?

3. Since you are posting complete nonsense (out of ignorance rather than trolling) please choose any two cities of the entire world, separated from each other by several thousands of miles. The choice is entirely yours from an atlas and is those of your colleagues. Let us see if a plane flying at constant speed from one to the other city completes the arrival of a flight between them at the time suggested by the fixed Earth or by your dogma that the Earth is revolving at between 900 to 1,000 mph.

Fancy the challenge ?

Mediaeval Copernicus Dogma 0
Fixed Earth Reality 1

:crash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

You don't seem to understand that the plane is being moved with the Earth's rotation as well, and that the cloud's movement is due to air currents not to the Earth's rotation. Your trolling isn't very interesting if you don't even bother to address the challenges.

BTW space shuttles and rockets do take off in the direction of the rotations of the Earth, and as near to the equator as possible (Florida for the USA, Kazhakstan for the Russians) because it make escape velocity easier to reach there.

---

Its gone awfully silent in the land of mediaeval dogmas, right ?:blush:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

Its gone awfully silent in the land of mediaeval dogmas, right ?:blush:

---

Yeah, it seems so.

http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/7986/hurrdurrn.png

You're not going to get anywhere with that question with me, i'm afraid...

Ok, you accept that it gets light and dark every day and that that takes 24 hours to complete its cycle? Yes?

Kiki,

Any reader of this thread can see for themselves that the evidence is always being presented by only one side. The other side refusing to answer. And, when they do, filled with basic errors and mistakes. That's the record.

Now you say you refuse to answer the simple question of how long it takes a plane to fly between two cities on the atlas !

You were even given the choice of the cities from anywhere in the entire atlas !!!! And still you can't answer the question !

Well, let me make it very simple. If the Earth is rotating at between 900 and 1000 mph it will, in several hours, rotate several thousand miles, according to your own dogma. Regardless of the choice of your two cities.

Let others see clearly who is hiding from reality. Isn't it already obvious ? You duck the issue, yet again.

Yes, I accept it gets light and dark every day. Again, nobody disputes this.

So, once again, you have had your question answered and refuse to answer the simple tests of others. That's plain dogma, isn't it ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

You're not going to get anywhere with that question with me, i'm afraid...

Ok, you accept that it gets light and dark every day and that that takes 24 hours to complete its cycle? Yes?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

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.

---

You know the late, legendary Edmund Hillary was a beekeeper before he took up climbing ridiculously high moutains with archaic equipment?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prendrelemick

How can you rely on bees? They're communists! Thats worse than Alchemy.

---

Another bee fact: they're dying off!

We are dead-set going to run out of apples if we're not careful.

The bee population of the world is down by 15-odd percent and here's bleeding Mark Bastable trying to teach them to fly down trains, for god's sake!

It just ain't right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prendrelemick

and Athiest your calculations are flawed because they rely on heathen math (pi= 3.14...etc)

---

India, once upon a time decided that 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288 was just too much trouble and officially changed the value to 3.2 for ease of computation.

Never buy an Indian car.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

Orphan Pip,

Let us assume we both need to understand reality. The reality is as follows -

1. The 'air currents' we find in the atmosphere are not 900 to 1,000 mph. Are they ? And, if there are strong air currents let us account for them when we time the flight in question.

---

Now, I know you're ignoring my questions, but I'll just pop in here and ask if the bible allows for space (that black stuff we see above the earth at night) is able to be just space (as in, empty)?

Once you've accepted that there is nothing, not even gas, above the earth's atmosphere, all you need is an elementary lesson in physics, with special attention to objects moving and friction, so I'll give you that now:

Run a bath and when there's some water in it, swish your hand through the water. First off, do it with palm flat and try to sweep water with your flat hand. Fingers lying stright out next to each other. See how you can feel the water pushing back at you? Also, you can confirm this by looking at the wake of a boat, water has to be physically pushed out of the way to go through it.

Air actually works exactly the same way, although it's a lot thinner than water. This is why we can breathe airm, but not water. To confirm this, you need to get in a car and get up to 60 mph/100 kmh.

Once you reach that speed, open you window and put the same flt palm facing the direction you're travelling in. See how the wind pushes against your hand the same way?

Amazing stuff, this physics!

Now, in a near-vacuum, like that space above the atmosphere, there is nothing at all to push against!

This means there is nothing pushing against the air of our atmosphere, so it doesn't make a 1000 mph wind at the top.

Bizarre but true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

Its gone awfully silent in the land of mediaeval dogmas, right ?:blush:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

all you need is an elementary lesson in physics,

---

I make my point.

Atheist,

Great post and totally irrelevant !

Nobody says the atmosphere of the Earth is moving at 1,000 mph except the mediaeval dogmatists themselves !!! In fact, nobody says it all. Only those who believe clouds are moving at virtually the same speed as their own idea of a 'rotating earth'. An Earth, they say, which is rotating at between 900 and 1,000 mph. They also believe the Earth's atmosphere is moving at around the same speed ! And so we asked them about a plane flight time through a long cloud if the plane is flying directly opposite to the alleged rotation of the Earth. They bungled that one. As usual. And then these fools were asked to choose two cities of their very own choice for a test flight to see how long that flight takes - in any direction that they choose. As long as their two chosen cities are several thousands of miles apart. They can't even answer that too !!!

When we even ask them to choose two cities thousands of miles apart for a test of their mediaeval dogma they can't even do that !!! I mean, what planet do these people live on ???

It's hilarious ! The picture that emerges here is a Mickey Mouse 'education'. Isn't it ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

Athiest,

Great post and totally irrelevant.

Nobody says that the atmosphere is moving at 1,000 mph except the mediaeval dogmatists themselves !!! In fact, nobody says it all. Only those who believe that clouds are moving at virtually the same speed as the 'rotating earth'.

When we ask them to choose two cities thousands of miles apart for a test of their dogma they can't even do that !!!

It's hilarious !

---

Once again I point you towards inertial frames of reference because you appear to not be able to understand how something can be at rest relative to one frame and moving relative to another. I.e. a person in a moving train. From outer space I am currently moving at the same speed as the rotating Earth. However, with the Earth as frame of reference I am currently at rest. The movement of the clouds relative to me at rest right now is due to being pushed by air currents, not to the rotation of the Earth. From outer space once again, the clouds would appear to be moving at a different speed because you would be in a different frame of reference. Is this concept so difficult for you to understand?

Orphan Pip writes -

Once again I point you towards inertial frames of reference because you appear to not be able to understand how something can be at rest relative to one frame and moving relative to another. I.e. a person in a moving train. From outer space I am currently moving at the same speed as the rotating Earth. However, with the Earth as frame of reference I am currently at rest. The movement of the clouds relative to me at rest right now is due to being pushed by air currents, not to the rotation of the Earth. From outer space once again, the clouds would appear to be moving at a different speed because you would be in a different frame of reference. Is this concept so difficult for you to understand ?

OK, let's examine this latest nonsense from Orphan Pip.

Let me repeat that paragraph with underlinings and comments to follow -

''Once again I point you towards inertial frames of reference because you appear to not be able to understand how something can be at rest relative to one frame and moving relative to another. I.e. a person in a moving train. From outer space I am currently moving at the same speed as the rotating Earth. However, with the Earth as frame of reference I am currently at rest. The movement of the clouds relative to me at rest right now is due to being pushed by air currents, not to the rotation of the Earth. From outer space once again, the clouds would appear to be moving at a different speed because you would be in a different frame of reference. Is this concept so difficult for you to understand'' ?

LOL !!!!!:crash:

May I remind you, when you are in outer space you can be travelling at ANY speed or direction. Why do you say 'From outer space I am currently moving at the same speed as the rotating Earth' ? Why do you say this ? From outer space I can be moving at any speed that I like, and in any direction. I am not tied to Earth because I am already OUTSIDE of the Earth's atmosphere. Why ? Because I'm in OUTER SPACE !!!!!!!!! I don't have a frame of reference because I'm in OUTER SPACE. I have my speed and my direction. Those are my references in OUTER SPACE. Right ?

:crash::crash:

Now, let's get back to Earth again. Choose two cities from the entire map of the world. Separated from each other by several thousands of miles. And fly a plane at constant speed between them in a straight line. If your 'rotation theory' is true that rotation will massively affect the flight time. Right ?

What's so difficult ? You can't even name two distant cities on planet Earth can you ?

:crash::crash::crash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

May I remind you, when you are in outer space you can be travelling at ANY speed or direction. Why do you say 'From outer space I am currently moving at the same speed as the rotating Earth' ? Why do you say this ? From outer space I can be moving at any speed that I like, and in any direction. I am not tied to Earth because I am already OUTSIDE of the Earth's atmosphere. Why ? Because I'm in OUTER SPACE !!!!!!!!! I don't have a frame of reference because I'm in OUTER SPACE. I have my speed and my direction. Those are my references in OUTER SPACE. Right ?

---

Ug, from a frame of reference not my physical body in outerspace moron. i.e. looking down at me from a fixed point in space I would not be at rest I would be moving with the rotating Earth. If the solar system is my inertial frame of reference then I would be rotating with the Earth, but with the Earth as my inertial frame of reference I'm at rest.

Shall I start keeping count of how many times my questions have been ignored?

Orphan Pip,

I have the pleasant task of saying the following -

The average commercial flight time from Miami, FL to Los Angeles, CA is approximately -

5 hours and 45 minutes.

Source - http://66.102.9.132/search?q=cache:U...&ct=clnk&gl=uk


AND -

The average flight time from Los Angeles to Miami (i.e. a journey in the exact opposite direction) is around the same (allowing for head winds etc)

Is

?????????

WAIT A MINUTE !!! ISN’T THE EARTH SUPPOSED TO BE ‘ROTATING’ AT ALMOST 1,000 MILES AN HOUR BELOW US ? AND IN ONLY ONE DIRECTION ? WHAT ON EARTH............ ???????????????

:crash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

Ug, from a frame of reference not my physical body in outerspace moron. i.e. looking down at me from a fixed point in space I would not be at rest I would be moving with the rotating Earth. If the solar system is my inertial frame of reference then I would be rotating with the Earth, but with the Earth as my inertial frame of reference I'm at rest.

---

I am about to jump up in the air and when I land I will be in my neighbour's garden, due to the 'rotation of the Earth'. Try it sometime. Last time I did this I landed on their cabbages and their potatoes. Highly recommended experiment.

:hat:

lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

I am about to jump up in the air and when I land I will be in my neighbour's garden, due to the 'rotation of the Earth'.

:yikes:

---

Tell me, if you're riding on a train going at a constant speed and you jump in the air do you slam into the back wall? No, because of inertia, I've already explained that the movements of clouds and planes are relative to the Earth's rotation.

You are also refusing to answer my question about phases, then I can also accuse you of wanting to ignore reality. But let's not go down the mud-route and keep it civilised, shall we.

So, you accept that the cycle of the sun takes one day and that it gets light and dark because you can see it.

Second 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? Yes?

So, a plane flying between Miami and Los Angeles takes approximately the same time as a plane of the same speed travelling from Los Angeles to Miami ? (Allowing for head winds, etc).

YES OR NO ? :blush:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

Tell me, if you're riding on a train going at a constant speed and you jump in the air do you slam into the back wall? No, because of inertia, I've already explained that the movements of clouds and planes are relative to the Earth's rotation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

So, a plane flying between Miami and Los Angeles takes approximately the same time as a plane of the same speed travelling from Los Angeles to Miami ?

YES OR NO ? :blush:

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

You are also refusing to answer my question about phases, then I can also accuse you of wanting to ignore reality. But let's not go down the mud-route and keep it civilised, shall we.

So, you accept that the cycle of the sun takes one day and that it gets light and dark because you can see it.

Second 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? Yes?

---

True. Since the train is not revolving at between 900 and 1,000 mph.

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

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.

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

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.

---

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 papayahed

And you still haven't explained how other planets, most specifically the sun have an atmosphere?

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

No, since a child learns ABC before they learn the rest of the alphabet. And you seem to be struggling with ABC.

---

You started this no reason to get frustrated.


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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lokasenna

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...

Works like a charm - you don't see another one for months!

---

You sir are a genius. :smilielol5: :reddevil:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

When the bees meet, how long will it take the second bee, travelling at one mile an hour, to pass the banner?

---

Four and three quarter hours.

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

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?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

The last 3 posts are clear proof the dummies have run out of steam.

---

Insults aside - my post was the fourth. Will you address it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

It's laughable. Sort of tragic, really.

---

That's a pretty good summation of the entire thread.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Shall I start keeping count of how many times my questions have been ignored?

---

So far six of mine and a lot more of yours.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

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 ?

---

This is quite simple: it doesn't take the same time. A direct flight from Miami to Los Angeles takes 5 hours 45 minutes and a direct return flight from Los Angeles to Miami takes 4 hours 55 minutes. That's quite a significant difference in flight time.

I'm curious Musicology, is it your contention that the atmosphere is also 'fixed' or do you accept that the atmosphere is 'moving'?

So, I asked:

Quote:

---

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?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kevinthediltz

So far six of mine and a lot more of yours.

---

Good on you for keeping count.

I have to admit that it's unusual to find one that just completely ignores the question. I'm more used to seeing even more absurd answers as to why it's a stoopid argument. Kind of "All the starz are the same distance from earth !LOL!!" or something along those lines, but finding them entirely too hard is quite new.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kevinthediltz

I've answered just about everyone of their questions and they have yet to answer a single of mine.

Hmmmmmm.....

---

Precisely!

Once I had been to the websites linked through the OP and gathered that:

A. This isn't an elaborate joke and
B. FIXED earths is just the beginning,

I had a quick think about how many blindingly obvious ways there were of showing that the whole premise is exactly equivalent to your flat earth thread and there are just so many ridiculously obvious ones that I couldn't begin to count them.

If you haven't checked out the man behind the OP yet, I commend you to do so. David Icke meets Lutherian Rosicrucians; quite superb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kevinthediltz

To the OP. Maybe you should pick up a book other than the bible for once. :D

---

Great segue!

My very next trick was to cover the bible literalism, because it's an old faithful and Musicology is clearly a literalist.

I am therefore assuming that he is a bearded chap who never eats ham or crayfish, lives his life according to Leviticus and who has no trouble with worshipping a god whose tricks include killing 42 kids for calling some old geezer "baldy" but who was unable to protect his favoured humans from iron chariots!

You can't pay for this kind of stuff.

The Fifth Element,

Thank you for your post. You've made a valuable contribution. It's the first progress we've had on the subject for about 3 days. So I will ignore the dunces and focus on what you have posted. And, whether we agree or not, thank you sincerely for your post. 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 ?

OK, let's look at this.

We are told by the textbooks the Earth is rotating on its axis at between 900 and 1,000 mph. Everyone believes this. (Because everyone else believes this. And everyone else believes it because everyone before them learned it in their class). Thus, a plane flying between these two cities is in the air for some 5 hours 25 minutes, give or take 25 minutes or so. During which time, we believe, the Earth below us must have rotated on its axis around 4,500 to 5,000 miles. Since it's said to be rotating in one direction (and not in all directions) this means our plane taking off from Miami only needs to fly in circles and eventually Los Angeles must appear within easy reach of our plane. So we can land. In Los Angeles.

Similarly, according to the same theory, you can jump up in your garden and land on the pumpkin patch of your next door neighbour if he has one. Because we are told the Earth is already rotating below us as we jump up and during the time we are in the air. So says the dogma.

But if I jump up from a moving car the car will disappear below me and I will fall behind that car on the road and be injured. Likewise, if I jump up from my garden while it is in rotation I will arrive on my next door neighbour's cabbage patch. Thus, my garden is not and cannot be moving.

As for the idea the atmosphere must be moving at the same speed as this alleged rotation of the Earth, no, I don't believe that also. Since, if the Earth atmosphere is linked to Earth rotation and is moving itself at roughly the same speed and direction as this alleged rotation of the Earth we would have atmospheric resistance to any flight occurring in the direct opposite direction of that Earth rotation. But we do not. I assure you that if you are sitting on a 'merry go round' and were able to jump up from its seat you would land in another seat when you come down again. (It's not a good idea to try this).

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).

And the Earth has definitely not moved 5,000 miles in the time they were flying, has it ? Except in the textbooks.

Thus, the Earth is not, and cannot be moving at between 900 and 1,000 mph. And nor is the atmosphere. Since the winds of the Earth atmosphere are not at those speeds and there is no evidence that plane flights of the kind above are much shorter or longer in either direction. A small problem for the mediaeval dogmatists, you may agree.


Regards

I think I'm beginning to feel something not unakin to admiration.