The Earth is FIXED in Space

:hand: :hand:

This is not about the speed of the earth turning, this is about the concept alone.

I said, and I repeat: an earth fixed in space is IMPOSSIBLE because it does not account for the phases of the moon which are not 3 a night, or one ever, but a cycle of 28 days as everyone knows and can see. So you too.

Unless the moon has a light bulb in it and can actually turn herself off and on, even partly, at will, it is IMPOSSIBLE.

Denying reality are we, Musicology?

:hand:

Embarrassing isn't it?

Nothing in the hands, nothing in the sleeves, only a brain in the head.

medieval dogma: 365 * 2 = 730
geocentric nonsense: 0 * 0 = still 0

Kiki,

Unless/until you accept the measured, verified, indisputable facts of the Earth already given you are like a child who cannot accept ABC. Why don't you accept the facts already given ? Then we can move on to DEF and the rest of the alphabet.

Because planes travelling at the same speed between two cities DO arrive at around the same time. Allowing for headwinds etc. That is plain fact. Because a cloud really is crossed by a plane travelling at a known constant speed exactly on time as predicted. And because the ocean currents at the Equator have already been measured and published many times. They are published facts. All of these are welll established, measured, verifiable FACTS of our Earth. They require no theories. They are plain, indisputable facts.

Tell us you accept all of them and we can move on. But if you do not accept these measured, published, indisputable facts you are not only ignorant but willingly ignorant. Show us they are wrong. You cannot. And therefore you have nothing left than your dogma. Yours is a 'science' which simply ignores plain, measured, verifiable facts. And you are proving this to us with every post you make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

:hand: :hand:

This is not about the speed of the earth turning, this is about the concept alone.

I said, and I repeat: an earth fixed in space is IMPOSSIBLE because it does not account for the phases of the moon which are not 3 a night, or one ever, but a cycle of 28 days as everyone knows and can see. So you too.

Unless the moon has a light bulb in it and can actually turn herself off and on, even partly, at will, it is IMPOSSIBLE.

Denying reality are we, Musicology?

:hand:

Embarrassing isn't it?

Nothing in the hands, nothing in the sleeves, only a brain in the head.

medieval dogma: 365 * 2 = 730
geocentric nonsense: 0 * 0 = still 0

---

haha,

the ABC? You are not even come to A, my friend, let alone to B and C or even D.

There is one thing you cannot accept, and that is that the geocentric model cannot possibly account for the thing in the sky which we see every single night.

The rest you can deny, by all means, only, that one simple thing, there, staring at you through the night when you look at it is reminding you of the FACT that our earth turns around, because otherwise, it is IMPOSSIBLE to have the course it has and which you can observe.

I challenge you:

draw it on a paper and see how impossible it is. It cannot be or the speed of both the sun and moon would have to be different every single hour of every single day which is impossible as neither the planets, nor the sun, nor the moons, no the stars have gear-sticks or gaz-pedals, nor breaks.

Face it and come to terms with it.

Medieval dogma: still 730
geocentric nonsense: still big f/phat 0

No problem.

The dogma says that a plane from Miami to Los Angeles will arrive hours earlier than a plane of the same speed from Los Angeles to Miami. Due to the 'rotation of Earth' below it, west to east. But that isn't what happens. Is it ? And that's a fact. They both take around the same time (with allowance for head winds etc).

The dogma says the ocean is rotating at a speed of 1,000 mph at the Equator. But the actual, verifiable fact is the ocean at the Equator is moving at walking speed. Confirmed by the documented results of oceanographic surveys by the dozen.

The dogma says a long cloud at the Equator is revolving west to east around a revolving Earth at a speed of about 1,000 mph. But a plane flying at 500 mph east to west takes 2 hours to pass through such a cloud. This too is a demonstratable, verfiable fact.

And since science, real science, is proved by demonstratable/verifiable facts (and not by dogmas which ignore them) these facts remain, and will forever remain testimony to what is real and what is dogma.

I am sorry you cannot accept these published findings. They are there for anyone to see. You were repeatedly invited to accept them as plain and documented facts. But you prefer your dogmas, your theories, and not realities. So we reach the limits of any conversation on this issue.

Regards

And?

It is not because that seems strange to you, that it is not possible.

What is plainly there, in the sky, all year and every day, is clearly reality, or is that not the case? It is true, yet it is not? That is not a good thing to start with, is it. The moon has not three different phases that are the same every night, nor has it one phase all year round. It has different phases through the month, never disappears. So, the sun must be in another place in relation to it to have its light refected differently As the eart does no move, it must be the sun or moon, but they both havean orbit round the earth ad that makes it IMPOSSIBLE. So are eclipses if both sun and moon were orbitting round the earth. Yet, they are clearly there. How then?

If that is impossible, then what? Someone must be wrong, and it is not reality in the (night) sky.

All this focus on silly detail is not going to get you out of the discussion as your model is totally and utterly mathematically impossible.

No ifs and buts, just plainly, utterly, mathematically impossible.

Unless you can come up with an explanation of course, but I would say that is impossible too as mathematics are pretty clear.

medieval dogma: still 730
geocentric nonsense: still big f/phat horribly frightening 0

spin a bucket of water over your head.

Wow! The water stays inside!

centrifugal force. Gotta love it.

If the earth STOPPED spinning we'd bounce around everywhere.

Actually, the speed of the earth at 1000 miles an hour is evident in that, at the equator, one cannot shoot a cannon ball at a target and hit it straight on. One must aim slightly to the left, or the spin of the earth will make it swerve off course.

I know it is quite useless to argue with you, Music... :frown2: you've already made up your mind and enjoy calling scientists fools too much to change... but I thought Kiki could do with some back up...

and by the way did you ever do that experiment I suggested?

A house built on sand will sink. A house built on rock will stand. That is the difference. The foundations of this conversation on the Earth and its fixed position are not agreed to by you and me. Therefore no further conversation would make sense.

The facts are as presented. I am again reminding you of them. You have only your dogmatic interpretations which are plainly in violation of these already established, verifiable, proven and simple facts. Further progress on this issue has been ruled out by your attitude to these same established, verifiable, measured and proven facts. Facts you can see for yourself and which you can find in all of the above cases. Facts which contradict your own dogmas. They are not interpretations of facts but are facts themselves.

You refuse to discuss this issue within the context of these plain, established and verifiable facts. In fact, you have no way of denying them. You are forced to impose on the subject only what you have learned from others who have the same dogmatic attitudes. And so you are trapped in a paradigm, unable to accept these findings of science and are determined to impose on others your dogmas of an occultist, pseudo-science.

Accept these facts given above and I will gladly converse with you on others. But, if not, we are all dragged in to your circular arguments. And that would not be honest. Not consistent with science and not fair on yourself.

Thanks

M, no one is saying that a flight from Miami to Los Angeles doesn't take much the same time as a flight from Los Angeles to Miami. And no one is saying that the ocean at the equator does not act in the way you say it does. And no one is saying that a plane flying through a cloud does not take the time to do so that you suggest it should. Everyone agrees that these are observable phenomenon.

But everyone also says that the heliocentric model not only explains these things, but predicts them. In fact, these things are completely consistent with the model. So it's no use saying that these things disprove the heliocentric model, because that model - right or wrong - is sophisticated enough to account for them. If you want to prove that the geocentric model is the truth, you not only have to show how it fits the observable facts, but you have to show why the heliocentric model doesn't.

And to do that, you have to understand the heliocentric model - you have to engage with the way it explains the phenomena you cite. Because it does explain them, just as yours does.

But if you're not prepared to do that, you must at least stop demanding that we agree that a plane journey in either direction takes about the same amount of time - no one's saying otherwise, because not only is it observably true, it's also consistent with both models.

{edit}The geocentric model is MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE as the moon has not three phases nor only one during the night, every single night of the year.

You can keep denying other facts like tornados, what Katy North has just told you, whatever other people say, but you cannot, I repeat cannot, deny the moon with its cycle of 28 days as that is there for everyone to see. That is reality and reality by default is true. You can deny the effects that we feel of the earth turning under the pretence that they are a prodct of that thought, but you cannot deny what is in the sky now can you.

It is simply impossible to deny it as it is evidently in the sky. Keep denying that, and your house will sink into the sand of stupidity.

I repeat, and will also keep repeating that, unless you can come up with an explanation on that, your geocentric model is built on sand. Beside that, it is naturally, only you have to see the foundations collapse before you will acknowledge it and that will be very very painful. {edit}

medieval dogma: still 730
geocentric nonsense: still big f/phat horribly frightening, terrifying 0

~

Please do not personalise your arguments.

If you find that you are unable to accept/agree with other posters, please feel free to ignore this thread.

Posts containing personal/inflammatory comments will be deleted without any further notice.

~

If the earth is sitting in the middle of the earth in a FIXED location, then the calculations that NASA used to 'slingshot' Apollo 13 around the moon, back to a specified location (based on their belief of our solar system's movements that NASA upholds), would have ended that crew (and really any crew that had ever experienced space flight) in their ultimate demise.

But I imagine that all of the space flights, satellites, the moon walk, and NASA is just a conspiracy of events that have never happened...

Mark Bastable,

You are saying these three things are completely consistent with a rotating Earth ?

OK.

Let's test this.

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 that a plane headed in the opposite direction takes from Los Angeles to Miami ? (A total change of around 4,500 miles). Give or take for head winds etc. Please give a simple Yes or No please ?

and -

Q2. Do you accept that the actual distance between Miami (Florida) and Los Angeles (California) is around 2348 miles (3778 kilometres) ? Yes or No please ?

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_m...les_California



Thank You

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

M, no one is saying that a flight from Miami to Los Angeles doesn't take much the same time as a flight from Los Angeles to Miami. And no one is saying that the ocean at the equator does not act in the way you say it does. And no one is saying that a plane flying through a cloud does not take the time to do so that you suggest it should. Everyone agrees that these are observable phenomenon.

But everyone also says that the heliocentric model not only explains these things, but predicts them. In fact, these things are completely consistent with the model. So it's no use saying that these things disprove the heliocentric model, because that model - right or wrong - is sophisticated enough to account for them. If you want to prove that the geocentric model is the truth, you not only have to show how it fits the observable facts, but you have to show why the heliocentric model doesn't.

And to do that, you have to understand the heliocentric model - you have to engage with the way it explains the phenomena you cite. Because it does explain them, just as yours does.

But if you're not prepared to do that, you must at least stop demanding that we agree that a plane journey in either direction takes about the same amount of time - no one's saying otherwise, because not only is it observably true, it's also consistent with both models.

---

Would I be the first to agree with the view that the NASA space programme is entirely falsified ? No, I would not.

But this thread, fortunately, is on another subject. Isn't it ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

If the earth is sitting in the middle of the earth in a FIXED location, then the calculations that NASA used to 'slingshot' Apollo 13 around the moon, back to a specified location (based on their belief of our solar system's movements that NASA upholds), would have ended that crew (and really any crew that had ever experienced space flight) in their ultimate demise.

But I imagine that all of the space flights, satellites, the moon walk, and NASA is just a conspiracy of events that have never happened...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

Would I be the first to agree with the view that the NASA space programme is entirely falsified ? No, I would not.

But this thread, fortunately, is on another subject. Isn't it ?

---

Isn't it totally relevant? NASA put men into space and brought them back using physics and calculations that you're saying aren't valid. If what you saying is true, Captain Lovell and his crew would still be floating around in space twiddling their thumbs.

Hurricane,

You say NASA put men into space (beyond the Van Allen Belt) and brought them back again. You are of course entitled to believe this and I respect your right to believe this. I do not. Since space beyond the Van Allen Belt would not be survived by Lovell or anyone else. Nor were any precautions taken to survive it. Space is utterly beyond the manned Apollo missions.

Captain Lovell and his crew never went into outer space. They were in low orbit of the Earth and never went outside of the Earth's atmosphere. But if you have evidence to the contrary which can be verified please present it on a different thread. Since this thread (as you can see) is on the subject of the Earth being fixed in space.

Regards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurricane

Isn't it totally relevant? NASA put men into space and brought them back using physics and calculations that you're saying aren't valid. If what you saying is true, Captain Lovell and his crew would still be floating around in space twiddling their thumbs.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

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 that a plane headed in the opposite direction takes from Los Angeles to Miami ? (A total change of around 4,500 miles). Give or take for head winds etc. Please give a simple Yes or No please ?



Q2. Do you accept that the actual distance between Miami (Florida) and Los Angeles (California) is around 2348 miles (3778 kilometres) ? Yes or No please ?

---

If I answer yes or no these, will you answer two for me - without prevarication, delay, just-hang-ons or any other intervening conversation?

Yes, if they are relevant to the observable, published, and verifiable facts of science in respect of this thread. Of course. Since your delay in answering mine are already prevarication, delay and hang-ons, aren't they ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

If I answer yes or no these, will you answer two for me - without prevarication, delay, just-hang-ons or any other intervening conversation?

---

Well, as if you are going to answer them... We have seen what happened last time.

Still, you have not come up with an adequate explanation for the FACT that the moon has not several phases in the night sky, or only one ever every day.

Still denying relatity, are we.

Is that expanation still coming or do you admit that geocentrism is nonsense?

medieval dogma: still a immense 730
geocentric nonsense: still an amazing frightfully terrifyingly small, tiny in fact, 0

Well, Kiki, the clock is ticking. Let's see how fast we finally get an answer to my two questions. It has been several hours since they were posted as everyone can see. And guess which side is delaying ?

You've guessed it !! :blush:

Here are the two questions again -

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 that of a plane headed in the opposite direction takes from Los Angeles to Miami ? (A total change of around 4,500 miles). Give or take for head winds etc. Please give a simple Yes or No please ?

and -

Q2. Do you accept that the actual distance between Miami (Florida) and Los Angeles (California) is around 2348 miles (3778 kilometres) ? Yes or No please ?

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_m...les_California

lol !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

Well, as if you are going to answer them... We have seen what happened last time.

Still, you have not come up with an adequate explanation for the FACT that the moon has not several phases in the night sky, or only one ever every day.

Still denying relatity, are we.

Is that expanation still coming or do you admit that geocentrism is nonsense?

medieval dogma: still a immense 730
geocentric nonsense: still an amazing frightfully terrifyingly small, tiny in fact, 0

---

I asked my question about phases even days ago. Let's see how fast you are. Slower than a slug in my opinion, but there you go.

What do you think my model suggests?

I know the geocentric model suggests nonsense as I repeat again: it is MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for the moon and the sun to orbit the earth at respectively a cycle of 28 days and 24 hours, or respectively a cycle of 24 hours both because of what we see in the sky.

If that is impossible, therefore the geocentric model is also IMPOSSIBLE because it is not backed up by the moon in the night sky.

Show that it is possible.

And I have asked that we first agree on the 3 situations that have already been described. That of the Earth 'rotation', the speed of the ocean at the equator, and the long cloud being entered by a plane headed at constant speed in the opposite direction to the alleged rotation of Earth and its atmosphere. None of which you recognise as being relevant. Although they are the subject of this thread. 'The Earth is Fixed in Space'. And all 3 of them able to be verified by measured, agreed, published data.

So our conversation is not possible without that agreement.

All we have are answers to my two questions. Still awaited at this time from another poster (Mark Bastable) who promises to answer them. Let's hope he answers fast, without further delay, since I am due to go out soon myself !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

I asked my question about phases even days ago.

Let's see how fast you are. Slower than a slug in my opinion, but there you go.

What do you think my model suggests?

I know the geocentric model suggests nonsense as I repeat again: it is MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for the moon and the sun to orbit the earth at respectively a cycle of 28 days and 24 hours, or respectively a cycle of 24 hours both because of what we see in the sky.

If that is impossible, therefore the geocentric model is also IMPOSSIBLE because it is not backed up by the moon in the night sky.

Show that it is possible.

---

I asked my question before you asked yours, so first come first serve. I am not as gullible as Bastable and I require an answer to my question first as I have now exposed your model for the nonsense it is.

As you choose to ignore my question (firstly arguing it was irrelevant, now you seem to have changed your opinion somehow), you acknowledge that your model is nonsense as I say it is.

I repeat: the geocentric model is MATHEMAICALY IMPOSSIBLE due to the appearance of the phases of the moon in the night sky. They are not compatible with a fixed earth and an orbit of sun and moon around it.

There should not even be a conversation about this actually. But, you still have a chance to come up with an explanation, which I am naturally confident you will not be able to as it is MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

mediaval dogma: still 730, maybe already 1000
geocentric nonsense: big f/phat 0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

Yes, if they are relevant to the observable, published, and verifiable facts of science in respect of this thread. Of course. Since your delay in answering mine are already prevarication, delay and hang-ons, aren't they ?

---

We won't know whether they are relevant until we get he answers, will we? So I'll take that as a 'no'. You have previous on this.

We won't know whether your two questions are relevant until we receive your two questions, will we ?

And still the clock is ticking. When do we finally get a straight Yes or No to the two questions you have promised to answer ? Here they are for the third time -

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 a plane headed in the opposite direction at the same speed from Los Angeles to Miami ? (A total change of around 4,500 miles). Give or take for head winds etc. Please give a simple Yes or No please ?

and -

Q2. Do you accept that the actual distance between Miami (Florida) and Los Angeles (California) is around 2348 miles (3778 kilometres) ? Yes or No please ?

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_m...les_California

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

We won't know whether they are relevant until we get he answers, will we? So I'll take that as a 'no'. You have previous on this.

---

Still no answer.

My question is clearly relevant, yet it is not answered, even after days of discussion.

I guess you cannot answer it because you are unable because your model is nonsense, as I have exposed it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

Hurricane,

You say NASA put men into space (beyond the Van Allen Belt) and brought them back again. You are of course entitled to believe this and I respect your right to believe this. I do not. Since space beyond the Van Allen Belt would not be survived by Lovell or anyone else. Nor were any precautions taken to survive it. Space is utterly beyond the manned Apollo missions.

Captain Lovell and his crew never went into outer space. They were in low orbit of the Earth and never went outside of the Earth's atmosphere. But if you have evidence to the contrary which can be verified please present it on a different thread. Since this thread (as you can see) is on the subject of the Earth being fixed in space.

Regards

---

So we didn't land on the moon or send men into space? Um, okay. I'm sorry, but I trust the integrity of Lovell and the math of the major enginerds of NASA over "they just couldn't do it" from someone who doesn't seem to have much in the way of astronautical engineering degrees. The Apollo Missions (and Mercury, and pretty much anything NASA has done) were phenomenal feats of engineering, but they were possible and did happen, even though we had to learn how the hard way.
Most of the arguments I've heard that state we didn't land on the moon are based off of bad gouge and a poor understanding of science. For example: the Van Allen belt does contain high levels of radiation, which could conceivably kill a man, if he stays there long enough. However, it turns out you move pretty fast when you've been punted into space on the top of a Saturn V rocket, and the Apollo astronauts got through quickly and dodged any severe effects.
(Evidence: http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm)
I think this is completely relevant to the discussion. The fact that humans have survived space travel, to include orbiting and landing on the moon, based off the calculations of a heliocentric model, proves that the earth is not fixed in space, doesn't it?

Kiki,

This is now the third time today I have told you the issues already under discussion first require your agreement before we examine these other issues beyond the Earth. This thread being on the Earth. (These three issues are related to the Earth, the atmosphere of the Earth, and the ocean of the Earth because that is the subject of this thread). Data on all three of them is freely available and can be verified from published sources. So this is the last time I am asking you to accept it. Outside of which I will not waste my time.

Confronted with reality you just can't accept it, can you ? And Mark Bastable still can't answer the two questions already given hours before with a simple Yes or No.

What a demolition of dogma !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

My question is clearly relevant, yet it is not answered, even after days of discussion.

I guess you cannot answer it because you are unable because your model is nonsense, as I have exposed it.

---

And it is the umpteenth time I have asked you this week to explain to me the phases of the moon and still you keep ignoring my request under the pretence that you have asked one first which is just not true.

Now, the phases of the moon are a FACT and it does not comply with your model.

Turn it how you want it, it will NEVER comply because your model is FALSE and it will stay FALSE until eternity because it IS FALSE in a mathematical way. It is just IMPOSSIBLE MATHEMIATICALLY to have the phases as they are AND an orbit of sun and moon around the earth. And I will keep repeating it.

The geocentric model is FALSE clearly, empirically proven by the phases of the moon and the heliocentric model is proven by other empirical evidence which is then faultily explained by the fixed earth people who are desperate to prove their model is right. Yet, there is one thing they will never be able to explain an which they never do and that is the moon staring at them in its various positions and phases all night long.

Turn it how you want, the geocentric model is as false as the universe is big.

But accepting it will take a lot of effort I see.

Thanks to the Moderators of this Forum for allowing this thread on 'The Earth is Fixed in Space'.

Readers will draw their own conclusions. And that's fine.

Regards

Hurricane,

I respect your opinion. But it's an opinion you've been given by powerful, hugely financed corporations. For decades. Whose interests are far above those of ordinary men and women.

There is already a ton of evidence Man did not walk on the Moon. Some of it is compelling. Still, I leave only one example from thousands. Actual NASA film. Not released until recently. Judge for yourself.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sxe_M...eature=related

Best wishes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurricane

So we didn't land on the moon or send men into space? Um, okay. I'm sorry, but I trust the integrity of Lovell and the math of the major enginerds of NASA over "they just couldn't do it" from someone who doesn't seem to have much in the way of astronautical engineering degrees. The Apollo Missions (and Mercury, and pretty much anything NASA has done) were phenomenal feats of engineering, but they were possible and did happen, even though we had to learn how the hard way.
Most of the arguments I've heard that state we didn't land on the moon are based off of bad gouge and a poor understanding of science. For example: the Van Allen belt does contain high levels of radiation, which could conceivably kill a man, if he stays there long enough. However, it turns out you move pretty fast when you've been punted into space on the top of a Saturn V rocket, and the Apollo astronauts got through quickly and dodged any severe effects.
(Evidence: http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm)
I think this is completely relevant to the discussion. The fact that humans have survived space travel, to include orbiting and landing on the moon, based off the calculations of a heliocentric model, proves that the earth is not fixed in space, doesn't it?

---

You call that evidence?

It is a film on YouTube no more, no less. :crash:

Thatis neither scientific, nor even credible, if it were only for the music and the voice. :crash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

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.

---

Crikey, I can't imagine anywhere better myself!

_________


FTW!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilliatt Gurgle

“Gilliatt, no matter where you stand, you will always be the center of your universe”

---

:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Katy North

spin a bucket of water over your head.

Wow! The water stays inside!

---

I was going to use that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurricane

So we didn't land on the moon or send men into space?

---

No we did not!

But don't say it near Buzz Aldrin!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

Thanks to the Moderators of this Forum for allowing this thread on 'The Earth is Fixed in Space'.

Readers will draw their own conclusions. And that's fine.

Regards

---

Readers will indeed draw their own conclusions.

_______________________________________


I thought this might be a very good time to close your "argument" once and for all.

I'm thoroughly impressed by your night time-lapse photos, so I have a nice, easy task for you which will categorically, undeniably, photographically prove to you that your premise is sillier than a silly thing wearing woad under a Ronald MacDonald outfit.

It doesn't even require you to do any mathematics at all.

Set up your camera in a FIXED position.

Set it to take one exposure every 30 minutes from 9 pm to 5 am every night for two or three weeks. At the same time, plot the path of the moon through the sky.

Make sure you camera is aiming at where either Venus, Mars, Jupiter or Saturn appear in your night sky. If you can get the moon in as well, so much the better.

When you look at the pictures in sequence, you can track the planets and note that among all of the universe orbiting the earth, the planets are going in a totally different direction, as well as the moon going in a different direction to the rest of the universe and the planets, thus refuting your premise.

If the photographic evidence alone isn't sufficient, you can extrapolate the tracks onto a piece of paper - or even better, a simple CAD program - and plot the tracks of everything!

Once you have grasped the simple idea that the earth isn't actually the centre of the universe, I will be more than happy to simply explain the physics which allows the ocean to stay still in the face of 1000mph revolutions, why the coriolis effect actually exists, why days are longer in summer and shorter in winter and all of the myriad other myteries which arise out of earth not being the centre of the entire universe.

:D Couldn't have said it better myself :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

No we did not!

But don't say it near Buzz Aldrin!

---

For the sake of those who don't get the reference and also because it's awesome, here's the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUI36tPKDg4

Edited to add: I'm not convinced by a blurry video. If they showed the ENTIRE video, without the "spooky" music and the narration and let it stand on it's own, I'm sure it would tell a very different tale.

Hi there Hurricane,

The blurry video issue. Well, there is one of Neil Armstrong 'walking on the moon' which did not convince you also, yes ? And that was not in colour but even more blurry black and white.

As for the video posted here, it's part of a much larger DVD. Taken from (as you can see) NASA Apollo material itself. You can see for yourself the light streaming into the window from outside. How could that happen 'half way to the moon' ? And you can see the cabin has been darkened as the film of the apparently circular Earth is being filmed. With movement clearly seen of men and equipment between the camera and the supposed image of that receding Earth. I think a fair minded person would agree these facts in combination tend to speak for themselves. This material coming (as is shown) from NASA footage obtained decades after these events. The Apollo missions were faked. Or, so I and others believe. And for various reasons.

Part of a much bigger documentary on the subject. How these images can fit in to your beliefs of the genuiness of those Apollo missions is an interesting question but I will respectfully leave it there. Since I do respect your opinions and have my own.

Regards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurricane

For the sake of those who don't get the reference and also because it's awesome, here's the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUI36tPKDg4

Edited to add: I'm not convinced by a blurry video. If they showed the ENTIRE video, without the "spooky" music and the narration and let it stand on it's own, I'm sure it would tell a very different tale.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Crikey, I can't imagine anywhere better myself!

---

I would think that a thread devoted to dinosaurs would be more appropriate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

I respect your opinion. But it's an opinion you've been given by powerful, hugely financed corporations. For decades. Whose interests are far above those of ordinary men and women.

---

:confused: what do corporations have to do with astronomy and astrophysics? Nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

I would think that a thread devoted to dinosaurs would be more appropriate.

---

Ah Dinosaurs! I cant help but think of Bill Hicks skit on Dinosaurs!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

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.

---

Just in case you're not joking, here it is!

You showed me a ten minute clip of a what? Sixty minute video? The timestamps aren't visible, and the only context given is from the narrator. I don't buy it. From an article debunking Bart Sibrel's "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon":

Quote:

---

Sibrel attempts to describe to the viewers of his documentary what is going on inside the darkened Command Module while the crew was attempting to give the TV viewers back the best possible view of earth with the primitive handheld color TV camera carried aboard Apollo 11. The problem with his explanation is basically that he does not know what he is talking about. Sibrel may know a lot about current video editing and production technology, but he does not have expertise about Apollo. In order to provide 1969 TV viewers back on earth with the best possible view of our planet from space, it was necessary to eliminate the glaring reflected light and direct sunlight that was streaming into the spacecraft and interfering with the shot. The official Apollo 11 mission documentation from 1969 contains astronaut Michael Collins' own discussion of these lighting problems and the difficulties he experienced with the window shades in the Apollo spacecraft. Unfortunately for Bart Sibrel, he is obviously unaware of astronaut Mike Collins documented statements. The astronauts shuttered most of the capsule windows with special shades that blocked most of the glaring direct and reflected sunlight coming off of the bright, shiny Lunar Module which was docked in close proximity to the location of the windows.

---

Anyways, you're kind of missing the big picture: how could an entire government agency, employing thousands of people, employing thousands more people for production of very specialized equipment, successfully have everybody keep their mouth shut that it was a fraud for forty years? Especially considering the level of fame/money a NASA employee would get for "exposing a hoax", I don't buy it. NASA is a very political organization and alliances change, and people get fired for dumb reasons, yet no "disgruntled employee" has come forward to bilge on the moon landings, or any of the Apollo missions. We didn't land on the moon once, we did it several times. So are you saying each time we did this, we made this insane, elaborate hoax? Why? By your logic, we already "did it" once, why keep doing it unless we were actually going to the moon?
I know engineers, all too many of them (I go to an engineering school that, coincidentally enough, has produced more astronauts than any other undergraduate institution). They love to pick things apart and see how they work to minute levels of detail. They love to explain things and find mistakes and tell you why every single decision was made in building/designing a certain thing. I find it hard to believe that no respected astronautical or aeronautical engineers have done peer-reviewed, thorough reports on this "hoax."
Scanning a list of "prominent" moon hoax advocates, I see a very small number of engineers. There's one nuclear engineer (not aero or astro), a couple Russians (who used bad math), a couple "self taught engineering buffs" (yeah, great credentials), and one guy who worked in admin (a librarian, specifically) of one of the companies that produced the F-1 rocket engine. The rest are TV types or tin-hat conspiracy buffs with no scientific background. For a contrast, pretty much every other engineer educated in the last forty years believes it's possible to land on the moon and that we did it.
The easiest way to get people to believe you is to do what you've told them, whether that's picking up groceries or landing on the moon, and the simplest answer is usually the correct one. Why does it look like we went to be moon? Oh, I dunno. Maybe because we did.

I'm sorry this is so long, but it really makes me annoyed when people dismiss all of this as a hoax. Hundreds of thousands of people gave so much for this effort, and a not insignificant amount of people died in horrible accidents. The story of the moon landings and Mercury/Gemini/Apollo Missions is one of, yes, bureaucracy, red tape, and headaches, but also of thousands of people, brilliant science and engineering, all combining to sling a few heroic men towards the moon, something that had been nothing but fantasy for thousands of years and representing some of the best of humanity.

I have another question to add to my clicker which is at 7 at the moment.....

What causes everything to rotate around the earth? Us crazy educated people would claim that the force that ties all objects together (called gravity :yikes:!) causes the planets to rotate around the sun, the sun to rotate around in the milky way, and so on. The more mass the object has, the more force it pulls in. So my question is..... How and why does such a relitively small planet such as the earth cause the whole of the universe to spin around it? Including stars and solar systems billions of miles away? Considering the further an object gets away from another object the force of gravity drops EXPONENTIALLY.... Hmmm? Oh and why is the moon so special that it gets a rotation of roughly 28 hours where as everything else is about 24 hours? That will bring my clicker to 9. Oh and as you say "LOL" Quote: I do not ignore questions. Hrumph!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Musicology

And still the clock is ticking. When do we finally get a straight Yes or No to the two questions you have promised to answer ? Here they are for the third time -

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 a plane headed in the opposite direction at the same speed from Los Angeles to Miami ? (A total change of around 4,500 miles). Give or take for head winds etc. Please give a simple Yes or No please ?

and -

Q2. Do you accept that the actual distance between Miami (Florida) and Los Angeles (California) is around 2348 miles (3778 kilometres) ? Yes or No please ?

---

And here are mine.

Q1. Do you accept that the earth is approximately spherical?

Q2. Do you accept that the stars - the movement of which you cite in your opening post - are many light years away?


I'll answer yes or no to yours, if you will then answer yes or no to mine - without any intervening discussion, prevarication, qualification or general LOLing all over the shop.