Can I mention the solar wind yet? Or Geostationary orbiting satellites? Or do I have to get in line?
Printable View
Can I mention the solar wind yet? Or Geostationary orbiting satellites? Or do I have to get in line?
You can mention whatevr you want, only you'll never get an answer as answering these nasty questions that doesn't suit him.
A scientist friend sent me this...
Well, I'm no scientist, but I know plenty of people who are, and this seems to sway them!Quote:
Another demonstration of Earth's orbital motion is the aberration of starlight. Astronomical observations and celestial mechanics indicate that Earth should have a 16-19 mi/sec (25-30 km/sec) orbital velocity around the solar system's center which continuously changes its direction due to the gravitational effect of the Sun. James Bradley's (1693-1762) attempt to determine the parallaxes of stars starting in 1725 with a telescope rigidly fixed in a chimney soon found that the apparent positions of the stars shifted along elliptical paths. These ellipses were 90° out of phase with the parallax ellipse for a nearby star on a distant background that is expected to be produced by Earth's motion around the Sun. Moreover the ellipses' semi-major axes were always 20.5", with no variation from the different distances of the stars. These same size ellipses were soon understood to be the yearly paths of the aberrations of the apparent positions of the stars caused by the addition of Earth's constantly changing orbital velocity to the vacuum velocity of the light arriving from the stars (whose true positions are at the centers of the aberrational ellipses). These ellipses show that Earth does indeed have the expected orbital velocity around the solar system's center of mass.
Final proof of the heliocentric theory for the solar system came in 1838, when F.W. Bessel (1784-1846) determined the first firm trigonometric parallax for the two stars of 61 Cygni (Gliese 820). Their parallax (difference in apparent direction of an object as seen from two different points) ellipses were consistent with orbital motion of Earth around the Sun.
No more theories. Here are some more facts. Here is a photograph of the sky and stars above the North Pole. Taken with an 8 hour 'time lapse' camera.
Television Studio
''We better censor this ! Our corporate sponsor will not be happy''
! :crash:
- Pause -
(Nervous rustling of papers)
- Margarine Advertisement - Cornflakes Advertisement -
- Pause -
'Welcome back (nervous voice) - sorry for the interruption - and now some golf news.... '.
(Seems some of those stars near the North Pole are completing their orbits within 8 hours !! These are remarkable paths traced by stars as they swarm around the North Pole over a period of only about eight hours ! As the nearest bright star to the Pole, Polaris appears as the small bright crescent in the center of the image. An image that can be taken by anyone.
(Similar time-lapse images - almost 3,000 of them - have been taken all over the world of different parts of the night sky).
Not good news for the 'rotating Earth' theory, is it ? Any explanation ? Try this one. The Earth is NOT rotating. It is fixed and at rest in space. The stars beyond the Earth's atmosphere are moving. And so is the Sun.
Am I the only one who notices that Robert keeps hammering away at his pet factoid and ignores the questions people have asked him? That is, doesn't anyone else think it's relevant that faraway stars would have to be moving at completely impossible speeds to orbit a fixed Earth daily? And the question Kiki brought up is the nail in the fixed-Earth coffin: what other model of our solar system could explain and predict the moon's current set of phases? If what we call moonlight is merely the Sun's light reflected off the moon, the Sun couldn't conceivably be orbiting a fixed Earth daily. End of story.
But I daresay Robert is doing the exact same thing here as in his Mozart thread: foisting his weird theories on amateurs and bullying and insulting them when they try to engage him. Why isn't he making these claims on a board for astronomers or physicists, pray tell? Perhaps because it's easier to stymie discussion with weird factoids when he's talking to laymen?
Disgraceful.
Regards,
Istvan
How does this prove anything? The earth is spinning, so of course the stars appear to move. The stars and our sun do move as well, but at such an incredibly slow speed (one rotation around the center of the galaxy per 200 million years) it's hard for the human eye to tell. The motion of, for example, the moon is seen clearly because it's orbit only takes around twenty-seven days. Unless any of us live to 200 million, it's a little harder to tell their motion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
Also, do really believe that there's some sort of sinister corporate astrophysics agenda that seeks to quash the inconvenient "truth" of Geo-centrism? Because that's patently silly.
For an explanation from an astrophysicist, see here:
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...rs/970518.html
The entire site has some really interesting information on the motion of stars and planets in general. But since it's from NASA, I'm sure it's part of the evil astrophysics lobby. Oh well.
False. Also, I'm interested if you have a response to my post on the Apollo program.Quote:
The Earth is NOT rotating. It is fixed and at rest in space.
Babbalaja,
Welcome aboard Copernican Airways Flight 007. From Los Angeles to Miami. Here is some flight data.
1. We will be taking off in 10 minutes.
2. The Earth below us will be rotating (as usual) from West to East. At a speed close to 900 miles an hour.
3. Thus, Miami will actually be travelling at 900 mph and headed AWAY from us at the time we get into the air pointed at it. Our speed will be around half of this rotation speed. At best. Miami itself will be rotated with the rest of the Earth (of course !!) but you will eventually see your destination the next day appear beneath us coming from behind and we will arrive there in Miami when that city finally appears under us.
4. Those who are flying here to Los Angeles from Miami will however arrive here in less than 3 hours from now. Because they have the advantage of the Earth rotating towards their plane at over 900 miles per hour during their flight. So they finish their flight today and you finish yours tomorrow.
5. We apologise for this inconvenience but sleeping bags have been provided.
Enjoy your flight !!!
:hat:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbalanja
Unwillingness to address the moon's phases duly noted.
Regards,
Istvan
You will pardon me with dealing with the basic issues first of the fixed Earth, without which other issues such as the moon's phases can hardly be discussed, let alone agreed about. But make a thread and we can get to them too.
Regards
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbalanja
If the Earth is fixed, the moon and the Sun both orbit the Earth. Thus, this issue is crucial to your theory of a fixed Earth. The moon appears to orbit the Earth monthly while the Sun appears to orbit Earth daily. But if this were true, we would expect the moon to go through its phases nightly. Why doesn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
It's called disconfirming evidence. You won't deal with it.
Regards,
Istvan
Let's try another one: Hurricane and Papa Hurricane are in the backyard playing catch. Unfortunately, they run through an endless supply of baseballs, because every time Papa Hurricane throws one, it zooms by at 900 mph. I'm even worse off, since mine never reach him. This is applying the same logic you used to describe flight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
The atmosphere is effectively part of earth, sort of like the skin on an apple, and so rotates with the earth. Right now, sitting at my desk, I am moving at 900 mph, but I don't feel it because so is everything else. When I go for a jog, I am technically running at 908 mph, but only 8 mph can be noticed on earth because everything is also moving at 900 mph.
Let's demonstrate the catch experiment again: My father and I are currently playing catch in the cargo bay of a C-17 aircraft flying at 20,000 feet and 350 knots. When I throw a baseball, relative to the earth, it's moving at 350 kts + whatever velocity I threw it at, say for a total velocity of 400 kts. However, my Dad can still catch it since relative to the aircraft, it's only going 50 kts. Relative to the universe, the baseball is moving at 1300+ kts. Make sense?
Hurricane,
Thank you for your scenario. It is very attractive. And how do you know you are running at 908 miles an hour. (900 mph plus 8 mph). ? Did you read it in a book ? Did you see it on TV ? Did you measure it yourself ? Or did somebody else ?
When oceanographers have measured the speed of the sea they found it to be (usually) a few miles per hour. When physicists have studied the atmosphere they find clouds to be travelling at a few miles per hour. Depending on the local wind speed etc. And when planes fly between different cities (to and from the same two cities) they take around the same time to arrive in both cases. There is no atmosphere moving around 1,000 mph against them in either case. Nor do we see any evidence of an atmosphere moving 1,000 mph anywhere.
So, if you can show us this legendary atmosphere moving, or having observable and measurable effects I'll believe in it, the same as you. Having examined the findings of science on this point I've not found any such measurements. In fact, the fastest ever recorded phenomenon in the atmosphere as far as movements of the Earth's atmosphere are concerned were all localised storms. In Australia a wind gust reached 350 mph. That's a record. But you believe the entire atmosphere of the Earth is moving many times this speed all the time. Wow !
I'm sure you must be hiding these measurements from us. Will you kindly share them with us ?
That would definitely settle the issue.
Thanks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurricane
Ah, there you are.
Let's try that again....
And here are mine.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 ?
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.
Q1 - Yes, I accept the Earth is approximately spherical
Q2 - As to whether the stars are many light years away or only a few is of secondary importance to the fact they create effects which we can observe and even measure from here on Earth.
Those are my answers.
May we finally have yours ?
Unwillingness to address the moon's phases duly noted.
If the Earth is fixed, the moon and the Sun both orbit the Earth. Thus, this issue is crucial to your theory of a fixed Earth. The moon appears to orbit the Earth monthly while the Sun appears to orbit Earth daily. But if this were true, we would expect the moon to go through its phases nightly. Why doesn't it?
It's called disconfirming evidence. You won't deal with it.
Regards,
Istvan
You may duly note that I've already replied to you. Several times. And you may duly note that I've suggested you open a thread on it. Since this particular thread is dealing with 'The Earth is Fixed in Space'.
Now, I realise you may have difficulty telling the difference between the Earth and the Moon but they are different bodies.
Would you kindly note this and stay on the subject of this thread ?
Yours duly noted
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbalanja
I am shocked that this silliness is still going. I ran into the same thing elsewhere, and it quickly became clear that the thread started was joking. He didn't even know what a frame of reference was, and then concept of the atmosphere and the oceans being part of the Earth were way beyond him.
Has Musicology demonstrated that the Coriolis Effect doesn't have anything to do with a rotating frame of reference?
It is the subject of this thread. If both the moon and the Sun orbit a fixed Earth, why doesn't the moon go through all of its phases nightly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
Answer: the Earth is not fixed. End of discussion.
Your continued evasion of this disconfirming evidence is once again noted.
Regards,
Istvan
Thank you for your repeated invitation to leave the solid ground of what this thread is so clearly about. Whose title can hardly be more clear. I remain fixed on the main subject of this thread. An essential foundation for resolving various other issues that deal with the Moon, the Sun, the stars and other phenomena. 'The Earth is Fixed in Space'. If you can actually deal with this subject as it stands that's fine.
I understand you cannot help floating up in to space to divert us from the subject. I even sympathise with your need to find some actual, verifiable evidence that will support your dogma. But none exists except in your textbooks and there are already lots of examples of here, right here on Earth, where your dogmas are contradicted by the actual, measured, agreed, findings of science. You have not addressed any of these and are unable to provide evidence to the contrary. Such is the record.
Regards
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbalanja
Your repeated evasion of the problem of observations of the moon's phases from a fixed Earth is once again, and with great amusement, noted.
Regards,
Istvan
So be it. But if you cannot even resolve the problems of you dogma which you find here on Earth with the measured and agreed facts of this Earth why trust you with your ideas of the Moon, the Sun and the stars ?
And still my two questions remain unanswered on this thread.
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 during which a plane headed in the opposite direction at the same speed travels on the same course and at the same speed (allowing for headwinds etc) from Los Angeles to Miami ? (A total change by 'rotation' in that time (so we are told) of around 4,500 miles. Please give a simple Yes or No please ?
and -
Q2. Do you accept the distance between Miami (Florida) and Los Angeles (California) is around 2348 miles (3778 kilometres) ? Yes or No please ?
Anyway, thanks for the 'conversation'.
Still no answer to the two questions repeatedly posed on the subject of this thread to Mark Bastable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbalanja
I suppose this ends my contribution here. Thanks Mark !
Regards
Right back atcha.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
If The Earth is Fixed in Space, then the moon orbits the Earth every month and Sun orbits the Earth every day.
From this Fixed Earth, we would expect to observe the moon going through its phases nightly.
Do we, in fact, observe this?
If not, why not?
Doesn't this constitute disconfirming evidence against the theory that The Earth is Fixed in Space?
If not, why not?
Regards,
Istvan
Babbalanja,
If you can provide here some verifiable data on the subject of Earth 'rotation' (from any science at all, and available here in measured, verifiable data) we can move forward. To date its been nothing but continual evasion of the actual, measured, verifiable facts of science and of the subject of this thread. And you have nothing to answer in respect of the problems these facts of science (already presented here) cause you.
That's the true context of this thread. And it shows. I will decline your invitation to go round and round in circles.
Thanks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbalanja
Musicology,
I will concede to your basic premise. I have thought about it, that the earth only moves in reference to the other bodies...and the other bodies only move in reference to other perspectives. However, there is much that I disagree with you on, but I will allow you the first inch.
Yes. we've seen the pretty pictures, and since the first, and most obvious refutation of your point is that if you're right, some of those stars are travelling at speeds exponentially faster than light, you are merely trumpeting one mistake as evidence while ignoring every single question put to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
I can answer that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbalanja
Every scientific, rational and astronomy board has rules which would disallow this kind of behaviour.
I'm pleased to see from your very next post that you were only joking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
Hi there BienvenuJDC,
I struggled with this for some time myself. Not because it was complex but because it was so darned simple. It literally goes against our culture, our 'education'. But not against the discoveries of those who work in these scientific fields. So that we end up with the 'authority' of those who disagree with it ranged against the actual, verifiable facts of the Earth on which we live.
It says a lot you are willing to examine both views. Regardless of your conclusions.
I've also seen the following link -
http://sites.google.com/site/earthdeception/
Best wishes
Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
What do you understand about the Non-Euclidean Geometry?
I guess to dispute the basic concept would beg one question...
Which point in space have we confirmed is (without doubt) FIXED?
Yes, they would expect someone flying in and making outrageous claims to understand the concept of 'disconfirming evidence.' And to answer direct questions about his theory instead of evading them.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Ever notice that Robert always makes claims that by his own admission "fly in the face of everything we know"? Is it through some sort of delusion of grandeur that Robert feels he has penetrated the veil of propaganda and reached a Truth that has eluded the rest of us? And what gives him the right to browbeat and insult those of us who try to point out the problems with his bold but not particularly coherent claims?
Regards,
Istvan
I have come to the conclusion that the poster is not serious at all, and the silly claims were made simply for amusement.It becomes funny when people treat the silly claims as serious, because people are so overly polite and serious minded that they don't simply laugh at the idea that the Earth might be "fixed in the heavens".Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbalanja
So,we can definitely repeat again:
It is MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for the earth to be fixed in space as it is impossible for the sun and moon to orbit the earth for the evidence cited above.
When will you finally acknowledge this, Mus?
'We' have not confirmed anything. What we have shown is that the exponents of a 'rotating Earth' cannot provide a single measured, verifiable fact to support their view of a 'rotating Earth'. While those who believe in a stable, fixed Earth, have produced example after example which is consistent with the Earth being fixed. At rest.
The evidence indicates that the Earth is fixed in space in the sense discussed here at some length (at least) that it is not rotating on its axis.
Since that is the limit of what we have tried to discuss here. (It is fixed in other ways. But these we have not discussed).
So, I guess, we can summarise by saying the Earth is fixed in the sense it is not proved by any evidence presented here to be rotating on its axis at a speed of around 1,000 mph (West to East) as we are taught in textbooks. Since nobody has any verifiable, measurable facts to support that view. And what we have, instead, indicates that the Earth is at rest. Not rotating, as described above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
Is space fixed? Is that a question that we can even entertain?
Oh, yes? Which evidence is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
Certainly not the one of the moon EVERY NIGHT in the sky! Because that is MATHEMIATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. So, is reality mathematically impossible? I don't think so.
Think again.
Since time had a 'beginning' it will have an 'end'. So, in this sense, space has a beginning and an end. But in my view we are far from knowing much of space or what space actually is. It is the context within what we know of the universe occurs. So that it may be, in some way or ways a manifestation of time itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
My answers are Yes and Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
So - as you seem unsure of whether the stars are many or few light years away, let's say they are all one light year away. That's 5,865,696,000,000 miles. Assuming you know basic maths, we can say that the circumference of the circle the star has to travel to get around the earth would be given by 2*pi*r where r is a light year.
Give or take a significant figure, that's 36,648,868,000,000 miles. As we're going to divide this by twenty-four to get miles per hour, let's call it 36,000,000,000,000.
So, in order to make a full circle around the earth in twenty-four hours, a star only one light year away would have to travel at 150,000,000,000mph.
Or 416,666,666 miles per second. Which is - and this is the bit that confuses me - two thousand times the speed of light.
Now - are you prepared to go to the next stage, where I explain the apparent paradox of the flight-times each way between Miami and Los Angeles on a spinning globe, and you explain the apparent paradox of stars travelling at more than the speed of light in order to get around the earth in twenty-four hours?
My clicker is at nine Musicology..... Seriously, answer my damn questions and I'll play your little game.
1. Why doesn't the moon go through all its phases in one day if the sun passes it each day?
2. What causes the whole of the universe to rotate around the earth?
3. Why does it take the moon longer than the REST OF THE UNIVERSE to rotate around us?
9
hey kevvy. Don't you think that's a little harsh? I mean, asking him to explain how everything works in one post? This stuff has got to take YEARS to explain and understand. Just accept it and don't ask questions, and it will all make sense!
Religion at its finest.Quote:
Originally Posted by skib
After reading this thread through and through, I suddenly understand why my ancestors fled Europe.
Wow..that is a major generalization...Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinthediltz