But of course...Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
/Claes
Printable View
But of course...Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
/Claes
Glad we agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaesGefvenberg
This thread just gets more and more ridiculous! I love it.
I think there may be some confusion here as to who the troll is according to Musicology's perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
edit that- i'll save it for later.
I have a question to add to my clicker of ignored questions....
Why are you ignoring my questions?
That will make 7 when you don't answer it.
Why would we want it to die? It's quite harmless and endlessly entertaining.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
Though, just to be sure, which side of it do you think is ludicrous? I only ask because I seem to remember that you think the concept of Earth being many millions of years old is also ludicrous.
I think my question got lost somewhere:
As you can see it, do you agree that the moon has a cycle of 28 days round the earth as the earth does not turn round its own aksis?
Well, duh!Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
Since it rises & sets just over every 24 hours, it's obviously orbiting daily, along with the rest of the universe. It proves the FIXED earth theory, because it orbits at a slightly slower rate than everything else.
PWND!
It orbits slightly more slowly than more distant bodies because it's closer to the earth's static atmosphere, and therefore the moon itself - and not just the light reflected from it - is susceptible to the treacle effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
What would have happened to him? It's becoming very silent at the other end. Would 'medieval dogma' have scared him off?
Er, no offense or anything, but do you believe in anything that's not got a wacko explanation? When you sit down to eat a cheese sandwich do you examine it very closely? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
I'm sure he responded excellently to what would once again appear to be a quite "ridiculous" thread - but I didn't read far enough until I gave it a big no, no. :nonod: :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Lokasenna
SIMPLE EXAMPLES OF THE SUPERIORITY OF A GEOCENTRIC UNIVERSE IN RESPECT OF THE ALLEGED 'ROTATION OF EARTH'
1. If the Earth is really rotating on its axis at a speed of around 1,000 mph at its equator, travelling from 'west to east' and its rotation completes 1 cycle per terrestrial day the effects of that rotation would be seen by everyone on the landmass of the Earth and on the sea. They would be the most dominant and observable effects on the Earth next to those of gravity. But no such effects are actually known and there is no hard evidence of them even existing. They exist on pieces of paper, in the heads of mediaeval professors and nowhere else.
2. If Earth is truly rotating at around a speed of 1,000 mph at its equator such a rotation would have the obvious effect of removing from the Earth surface all bodies not fixed to its surface. These now displaced bodies would continually be bounced around the surface of the Earth and into the lower atmosphere at a speed of 1,000 mph from the ground or sea and would eventually be distintegrated into dust. No such hazardous process is seen continuously occurring on Earth. Again, it exists on paper and in the heads of mediaeval dogmatists and nowhere else.
3. The 'Coriolis Effect' and numerous other 'proofs' of Earth rotation are far more compatible with a fixed and stable Earth whose surface and whose atmosphere is affected by forces associated with the other moving bodies of the universe that are in constant motion around the Earth.
CONCLUSION
The Earth is fixed and stable. It is neither rotating on its axis at high speed nor is it revolving around the Sun. All other bodies of the universe are in constant motion around the Earth.
In verifiable terms a geocentric universe proves to be far superior to that of the heliocentric universe theory and there is no known experiment or demonstration in which the latter has ever been proved superior to the former. Countless demonstrations and experiments could be devised to show the superiority of the former and none for the latter. This fact is ignored by dogmatists.
(If lightweight seeds which float in the air over a meadow or field on a gentle breeze are also said to be floating in an Earth's atmosphere 'rotating at around 1,000 mph' that atmospheric rotation at high speed can only be as fictional as that of the 'rotating Earth' itself).
The absurdities and contradictions taught as 'science' become clear when their teachers repeatedly fail to provide verifiable proof of their dogmas under observation and when they resist continual criticism of the assumptions on which they are based.
Pics, or it didn't happen.
(I'M SORRY, I COULDN'T RESIST...)
While we CAN witness the rotation of the earth, no one IS a witness to the so-called ancient age of the earth. There are major contradiction to the evidence of an old earth. But that is not part of this thread and should not be argued here.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
This is a thread truly suited to the serious discussion forum. I can only anticipate more of the kind. Some suggestions:
The oceans are really comprised entirely of CAT PISS!
Dinosaurs were skilled MATHEMATICIANS!
The core of the Earth is nothing more than TACO SALAD without SALSA!
[QUOTE=The Comedian;875403]This is a thread truly suited to the serious discussion forum. I can only anticipate more of the kind.
The oceans are really comprised entirely of CAT PISS! QUOTE]
That may be debatable but that all German beer made under license in the UK is similarly comprised most certainly isn't.
You can 'witness' the rotation of the Earth ? Wow !! Where ? On TV perhaps ?
Can you witness the 1,000 mph movement of the sea (west to east) in the ocean at the Equator ? Since I can provide tons of evidence that the ocean there is NOT moving at 1,000 mph.
Awaiting your evidence for both.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
No amount of evidence would suit you. You would discredit any of it, just like any of us would who do not have faith in the evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
The creationists discredit the evidences provided by the evolutionists.
The evolutionists discredit the evidences provided by the creationists.
I have no faith in your so-called evidence, and you will without any doubt discredit anything that i could produce. So, I'm not playing your game. My response was to Mark, who I find to be more reasonable to argue with than you (yeah, really....go figure!! :yikes:)...
Bienvenu,
Here, as promised, is some evidence. Can you match this with measurements of the speed of the ocean being close to 1,000 mph at equatorial latitudes ?
Here is a map and description of the South Equatorial Currents (SSEC) - from which you can read for yourself -
''The SSEC is a broad sluggish flow with an average westward surface speed of 11.3 cm s-1. The highest average surface velocities were found between 9° and 10°S reaching 16.4 cm s-1.''
A small problem for your dogma, you may agree ? But hey, these are only documented measurements. They should in no way challenge your dogmas, of course !!! The idea that actual measurements, and verified readings should influence you is, of course, ridiculous ! Science doesn't work like that, does it ?
LOL !!!
http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=uk
1) the link doesn't work...
2) what is it supposed to prove?
Here it is again -
http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=uk
Don't be ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Comedian
Dinosaurs are an invention of evolutionists to try to refute the creation of earth by a god.
Why would creationists have a problem with dinosaurs? Maybe evolutionists interpretation of the information...yes, but not dinosaurs...Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Thought they were an invention of Hollywood, starting with "The Flintstones":Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
http://www.rwrinnovations.com/produc...ones_cover.jpg
This thread is on the subject of 'The Earth is Fixed in Space'.
So, you have agreed that the Sun has an orbit of 24 hours round the earth.
Tell me how it is then possible that the moon has not more than 3 phases every night? Or, if the moon also has an orbit of 24 hours, not more than 1 phase ever?
The Sun, in order to have an orbit of 24 hours, would have to cross the moon at least once a day if the moon has an orbit of 28 days. That would mean that the moon would not be visible for about 14 days of the month, as it would be on the other side of the earth than where one is standing. It would also mean that it would permanently stay in the sky, on the same spot, all day and all night if it was visible. Which is clearly not the case as it comes up and goes down again during the day/night (mainly).
This would also mean that at least 14 times a month there would a total or partial eclipse of the sun. That is clearly not the case. or is it every month so.
If it has an orbit of 24 hours and moves at the same pace as the sun, it would have always the same phase as the sun would always be in the same spot in relation to the moon, which is clearly also not backed up by things one can see.
This model would mean that a total or partial eclipse would equally happen at a regular frequency. This is clearly also not the case.
Conclusion:
Unless the moon has a light bulb in it, it cannot generate light but by reflecting the light of the sun. The light of the sun can only be reflected in certain patterns if that is mathemetically possible. The earth which is fixed in space does not provide such a possibility as clearly shown above.
Conclusion 2:
The geocentric theory is total nonsense as it does not even back up that one simple thing we can see in the sky every night. The earth cannot stand still for the arguments above.
One can turn it how one wants, it is impossible.
So -
Bienvenu,
Here, as promised, is some evidence. Can you match this with measurements of the speed of the ocean being close to 1,000 mph at equatorial latitudes ?
Here is a map and description of the South Equatorial Currents (SSEC) - from which you can read for yourself -
''The SSEC is a broad sluggish flow with an average westward surface speed of 11.3 cm s-1. The highest average surface velocities were found between 9° and 10°S reaching 16.4 cm s-1.''
A small problem for your dogma, you may agree ? But hey, these are only documented oceanographic measurements. They should in no way challenge your dogmas, of course !!! The idea that real measurements, and verified readings should influence you is, of course, ridiculous ! 'Science' doesn't work like that, does it ?
LOL !!!
http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=uk
Déjà-vu
Do you believe this gets any more convincing by endlessly repeating it?
Lulim,
It may not be for you but here is another - do yourself the compliment of considering other points of view. Because, so far, your dogmas are a complete nonsense. And it goes on page after page. A wise person considers criticism. And a dogmatist ignores it.
http://www.fixedearth.com/subject_ar...ect_area_1.htm
http://www.fixedearth.com/knowledge%20impact.htm
Thank You
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lulim
Yeah, I know. Creationists tend to claim that they were just left off the Ark and only lived 6000 years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
To me, that's tantamount to denying their existence.
No, it's moved well into the realms of comedy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
Your "evidence" is simply a list of ever more absurd attempts to use a set of rules of physics that you make up from your own imagination.
Seriously, asking why the oceans don't have currents moving in accordance with the spinning of the earth is just lunacy, because you can prove that your hypothesis is bunkum as simply as taking a train and jumping while train is in motion.
You will not be carried backwards and slam into the back wall.
Give it a go.
But please, don't try to get anyone to take you, your attempts at evidence, or this thread, seriously.
This, however, is pure gold.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
Actually, while some may use that claim, I do not. I affirm that they WERE on the ark. However, this is not the place for this discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
what a pity you don't live up to your own standards. You might like that: Matth. 7, 4-5Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
Hello Musicology,
Long time no here!
It’s your old backup sparring partner from the great Mozart and Coronado campaigns.
Once again, my hat is off to you. You’ve really stirred up the pot with this one.
About the only thing I can offer at the moment regarding the cosmos is an old saying my mother would always tell me each morning at breakfast:
“Gilliatt, no matter where you stand, you will always be the center of your universe”
cue Sammy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-3SC...eature=related
Gilliatt
Meanwhile back here in the real world, the satellite Cryosat 2 is about to be launched. Designed to measure changes to the polar ice caps, it will have a low polar orbit.
Unfortunately it relies on the earth's revolution to scan a different piece of ice cap on each orbit. What a mistake a to make a.
No, it doesn't rely on the Earth's rotation. It depends on the simple fact that every body in the atmosphere is attracted to return to the Earth and will do so after gravity and other forces have acted upon it.
What we want are actual facts to support the 'rotation of the Earth'. And all we have are dogmas.
We want actual facts that the ocean is moving 1,000 mph at the equator. But the actual facts say the opposite.
We want actual facts the atmosphere is moving at around 1,000 mph at the equator. But the actual facts say the opposite.
Are you interested in actual facts ?
:crash:
Hi there Gilliat Gurgle,Quote:
Originally Posted by prendrelemick
We've got a generation of corporatised students here who believe something because everyone else believes it. Ask them for some actual evidence (which is supposed to be the issue) and they have nothing but their textbook dogmas.
I mean, how funny does it get. Let's do actual measurements, actual tests. But they go back to the dogmas.
Great fun, yes ? You dear mother was right. And so was everybody else till the occultist 'new science' took over. Since which time they never question the TV.
Regards
If the Earth is fixed in space we would be able to fly planes of the same flight speed from Miami to Los Angeles in around the same total time as Los Angeles to Miami (allowing for headwinds etc). And we do !Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilliatt Gurgle
Fixed Earth 1
Science Fiction 0
If the Earth is fixed in space we would find the ocean moving slowly at the equators at the rate of only a few miles an hour in its currents. Not at 1,000 mph. And we do !
Fixed Earth 2
Science Fiction 0
If the Earth is fixed in space a 1,000 mile long cloud would be crossed by a plane travelling at 500 mph in exactly 2 hours. And we do. Because the atmosphere is not rotating at near 1,000 mph.
Fixed Earth 3
Science Fiction 0
LOL, it's embarrasing.
:crash:
Oh, you're right. Absolutely right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
Well Lokasenna,
If Science, real science, proves its teachings by impartial and fair measurements and by actual tests it's striking how one and only one side of this discussion finds the support of reality. Maybe you can find a single test where the two rival versions can be compared that will prove the opposite in respect of -
1. The Alleged Rotation of the Earth
2. The Alleged Rotation of the Earth's Atmosphere
3. The Alleged Revolving of the Earth around the Sun
Textbooks 0
Reality 389
You ARE interested in reality, aren't you ? :blush:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lokasenna
Now, reality is tricky...
Taking your theory, the moon would either have three phases a night with an orbit of 28 days and not be visible for about 14 days of the month, or, with an orbit of 24 hours, would only have one phase ever.
Unless the earth turns round and the sun stays in a fixed position in relation to the moon which orbits around the earth, all phases are mathematically impossible.
Other things you can deny, but not what is plainly in the sky at night for everyone to see.
Medieval dogma 365
geocentric nonsense 0.
Kiki is playing his tricks again.
He tells us 'reality is tricky'. Then he tells us (and I quote) -
'Other things you can deny, but not what is PLAINLY in the sky at night for everyone to behold'.
This is how the deceivers operate. They say one thing and then flatly contradict themselves. Either this issue is settled by measurements and observations or it is not. He says it is.
OK, let's return to measurements and actual observations already discussed. Here they are. A few of them. Any comments Kiki ?
1. If the Earth is fixed in space we would be able to fly planes of the same flight speed from Miami to Los Angeles in around the same total time as one flying from Los Angeles to Miami (allowing for headwinds etc). And we do ! Any comment ?
Fixed Earth 1
Science Fiction 0
2. If the Earth is fixed in space we would find the ocean moving slowly at the equators at the rate of only a few miles an hour in its currents. Not at 1,000 mph. And we do ! Any comment ?
Fixed Earth 2
Science Fiction 0
3. If the Earth is fixed in space a 1,000 mile long cloud would be crossed by a plane travelling at 500 mph in exactly 2 hours. And we do. Because the atmosphere is clearly not rotating at near 1,000 mph. Any comment ?
Fixed Earth 3
Science Fiction 0
So, Kiki, since this thread is on the 'Fixed Earth' you will agree the measurements and the observations in all of the above cases are plain and indisputable, won't you ? Tell us you agree with them and we can move on to discuss what we see in the night sky.
Can't get fairer than that, can I ?
You really are interested in the subject of this thread, aren't you ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982