The Earth is FIXED in Space

Hints ? Ah, yes, more Copernican hints from our corporate sponsors !! :smilielol5:

Thus, we believe what we believe although we haven't a clue what we are believing. Hints, nudges, and winks are enough. LOL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

Come on chaps and chappeses get the hint ;-)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

It was my understanding that the SUN was in its own orbit with at least nine planets orbiting the sun, each (or at least most) having their own natural satellites (moons) orbiting them. So...with all this complexity of orbits...WHAT is actually the center of the sun's orbit, and is THAT object in an orbit of its own too?

---

Sun, with its entire solar system, orbits around the center of our galaxy Milky Way at an average velocity of 800,000kms per hour. We are roughly 26-28,000 light-years away from the center of the galaxy, which is supposed to be a supermassive black hole.

http://img682.imageshack.us/img682/8117/sunmilkyway.jpg

It seems you have no such book to refer us to that would answer thse fundamental questions. May I recommend you buy one yourself ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Satan

Why don't you do us all a G*I*A*N*T favor and buy yourself a book on fundamental physics? Stop embarrassing yourself. It's not even funny anymore.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

Kiki,

Let me ask more or less the same question.

If the Earth is really rotating at approximately 1,000 mph do the clouds above the Earth also rotate at the same speed ? With the Earth ?

If so, what happens if a 1,000 mile long cloud is entered by a plane travelling in the direct opposite direction to that rotation of the Earth ? How long would it take such a plane to get out of that cloud if it, the plane, is only travelling at 500 mph ?

---

Okay I guess I'm going to have to explain inertial frames of reference.

Have you ever been on a train. Well let's say you're on a train going at a steady 50 mph, and while you're on that train you drop a ball. The ball still drops straight down despite you being on the train because of inertia, likewise it wouldn't take you any more strength than if you were standing still to throw that ball down the aisle in the direction the train is going. This changes if the train were accelerating.

In the broader world the Earth's rotation is the inertial frame of reference. As to your cloud question, you're thinking of it as if we look up and see the clouds move because of the rotation of the Earth. However, the clouds move due to air currents, so your question is flawed. (Although, tangentially the rotation of the Earth is related to how air currents form)

I'm pretty sure that this is a joke. If not, then... well... it's still kind of a joke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

It seems you have no such book to refer us to that would answer thse fundamental questions. May I recommend you buy one yourself ?

---

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/970...dfacepalmi.jpg

1. Learn to ask questions the smart way.
2. Have at least some basic understanding of the topic.
3. Think before you post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Satan

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/970...dfacepalmi.jpg

1. Learn to ask questions the smart way.
2. Have at least some basic understanding of the topic.
3. Think before you post.

---

That's not the posters aim ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by satan

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/970...dfacepalmi.jpg

1. Learn to ask questions the smart way.
2. Have at least some basic understanding of the topic.
3. think before you post.

---

priceless pic!!!!

Picture a bee in a train...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

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 ?

---

Oops...sorry. Pip's ahead of me. As you were.


Where in London do you live, by the way, M? Because I'm starting to feel that it's got to be worth meeting you for a beer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

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

---

You did not answer my question or any of my questions from earlier posts. You just attacked people you have never met. Including me. Which I take offense to. By the way have you seen my thread "The earth is flat" ? Its very similar to yours. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kevinthediltz

By the way have you seen my thread "The earth is flat" ?

---

You mean to say that the earth is FLAT too?
:yikes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

You mean to say that the earth is FLAT too?
:yikes:

---

OF COURSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Here is a link to the conclusive scientific babble that I privately researched. I'm surprised you are in the dark as well over this one.

http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=52044

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

Mkhockenberry,

Are you suggesting these images are not evidence of the stars moving in a roughly circular path over the time-lapsed exposure of those images ? I mean, let's start with that. You do agree with this, don't you ?

And since we are not talking of woman being made from a single rib, pardon me for staying on the topic of 'The Earth is Fixed in Space'.

You may have evidence to the contrary. That would be great.

What are posted here are actual time-lapsed pictures. How do these equate with your assumptions, your education ?

---

I am indeed suggesting that it is not evidence that the stars are moving, all simultaneously mind you, around the Earth. The pictures provided are also found in every astronomy text book that you can find to show the apparent shift of celestial bodies on a nightly basis as the planet revolves. I enjoy watching similar effects as I watch the constellation Orion move through the sky each night. Both of these could arguably be explained by the theory that the Universe revolves around the Earth (Though I suppose it is a bit pretentious in assuming our planet is the center of the universe and all things revolve around us)

What can not be explained by this theory (As formulated by Ptolemy and then perpetuated in more modern times by various religions) is that not only do stars, planets, the moon, and the sun all appear to revolve around the Earth, but they also seem to be in different positions depending on the time of year. It also provides no explanation for why our planet is hotter during some parts of the year than others. As other LitNet folks, have already stated, it provides no explanation for the seasons. The theory of Copernicus explained some of this. It explained the retrograde motion that you find in photos like this time lapse of Mars where planets seemingly move forward and then in reverse

http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2006/..._tezel_c51.jpg

It did not explain Seasons as well since it had yet to be theorized in the 16th century that the Earth's axis is tilted and that the orbit is elliptical in nature instead of spherical. These are things that would later come from observations made by Galileo Lalilei and others. Interestingly enough, Galileo was excommunicated from the Catholic Church for his support of Copernican theory as evidenced by his own observations. This was later revoked by Pope John Paul II in light of relatively recent astronomical finds brought on by trips into space.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

Hockenberry,

Before the Hubble Telescope was ever constructed you believed that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Didn't you ? It's found in all the textbooks. This was widely believed from the time of Copernicus. And what IS the evidence of this ? You now say it can be provided by images of the Hubble Telescope. Did Copernicus have a Hubble Telescope ? He did not, so what, exactly, is the evidence that has supported this teaching of yours for centuries ? Do tell us please.

Your reply is to retreat from the discussion altogether !!! You write -

I find little reason to do so myself. I'm more than happy to provide you with a link to a site that would certainly prove the contrary. http://www.nasa.gov/

Great ! So you have nothing to provide us except a vague reference to the Hubble Telescope !!! Isn't that a circular argument ? What evidence can you provide from the last 400 years of astronomy and from other sciences that the Earth actually revolves around the Sun ? And how do you interpret these time-lapsed images of the stars which have been posted here ? The answer is only your silence. Your refusal to provide evidence of any kind.

This looks decidedly awkward for you, doesn't it ? You believe something but cannot provide evidence in its support. In science this is called dogmatism, isn't it ? 'The Earth revolves around the Sun' because, well, because you insist 'the Earth revolves round the Sun'. Isn't that the sum total of your argument ? With no actual evidence to support your argument and these images completely suggesting the opposite !

---

I would not consider my reply as a retreat from the discussion. In fact I put the same amount of effort into formulating my own argument as you did in presenting your own. It's not terribly awkward, but I imagine that it is for you being caught either understanding the point and taking things out of context or simply not understanding something that was a rather blatantly stated as this

Quote:

---

I will be more than happy to come back later with scientific proof like images from the Hubble space telescope, but since you didn't offer up your own argument instead of providing links to a site, I find little reason to do so myself. I'm more than happy to provide you with a link to a site that would certainly prove the contrary. http://www.nasa.gov/ Enjoy your reading

---

Now that I have that off my chest I feel better. It seems to me that you are basing your argument entirely upon religious dogma and you are arguing scripture as irrefutable proof while discounting any sort of scientific explanation. What is it that makes scripture from the Bible any more irrefutable than science texts? It was written by individuals the same is as scientific theories, and as such it is equally subject to question.

Best troll thread ever - 110+ posts in a little over 24 hours.

I don't seem to have seen an answer as to how a planet that isn't spinning on its axis displays the coriolis effect by cyclones/hurricanes spinning in opposite directions in opposite hemispheres.

Was that question too hard?

Well, that was some entertaining reading!

Thanks guys :D