The Earth is FIXED in Space

[MarkBastable]

We close one subject before we start another. Or else one nonsense becomes another.

Nevertheless, you said you would answer if I gave a yes or no. And I did that.

Now - answer the question as you promised you would.

[Musicology]

Your first post on this thread described the contents of my first post as (and I quote) -

A 'pretty infallible indicator' of 'crap'

Now, who is supplying the 'crap' ? This thread is entitled 'The Earth is FIXED in Space' and you and your colleague have been trashed with your nonsense of clouds moving around 1,000 miles an hour !! You've been given three chances to admit to your nonsense. Each time dogmatically repeating a question on a totally unrelated issue.

Unless/until you accept this fact I see no reason to move on to address your question which was (and still is) irrelevant to the subject of this thread. I have even agreed to answer it but only, and when, you agree to the 'crap' you and your colleague have here reluctantly given on this the actual issue - the alleged rotation of the Earth and that of the atmosphere and clouds above it. But not until then. Since my first obligation was and is to this thread, and to letting readers see where the 'crap' is really, really coming from. It's coming from men like you. That is now clear to anyone with common sense. Yourself and your colleague not included, of course.

Nevertheless, you said you would answer if I gave a yes or no. And I did that.

Now - answer the question as you promised you would.

[MarkBastable]

Unless/until you accept this fact I see no reason to move on to address your question which was (and still is) irrelevant to the subject of this thread. I have even agreed to answer it but only, and when, you agree to the 'crap' you and your colleague have here reluctantly given on this the actual issue - the alleged rotation of the Earth and that of the atmosphere and clouds above it. But not until then. Since my first obligation was and is to this thread, and to letting readers see where the 'crap' is really, really coming from. It's coming from men like you. That is now clear to anyone with common sense. Yourself and your colleague not included, of course.

So - you won't discuss the issue unless I say I agree with you.

What, exactly, did you mean then, when you said this....?

You therefore believe the clouds above our heads are rotating with the Earth at around the same speed as the Earth itself below them.

Yes or No ?

I will then answer your question.

If you live up to that, I promise I shall explain how my question is relevant to the consideration of yours. And I shall keep that promise.

[papayahed]

Now, who is supplying the 'crap' ? This thread is entitled 'The Earth is FIXED in Space' and you and your colleague have been trashed with your nonsense of clouds moving around 1,000 miles an hour !! You've been given three chances to admit to your nonsense. Each time dogmatically repeating a question on a totally unrelated issue.

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

You forget that the sun is not solid, it has an atmosphere:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkKPPuGKb8E&NR=1


How is it possible for these two bodies, that have atmospheres (as can be seen in both videos), to be moving through space if, as you posit, the earth can't be moving in space because of our atmosphere?



(PS. This is like a train wreck, I know I should move on but I just can't look away)

[MarkBastable]

..train wreck...

God, no. This is fun. I do this with Jehovah's Witnesses at the front door too. I keep them there for hours. I consider it a service to the local community.

[papayahed]

God, no. This is fun. I do this with Jehovah's Witnesses at the front door too. I keep them there for hours. I consider it a service to the local community.

You do have a point..


Fight the good fight my friend!

[Niamh]

God, no. This is fun. I do this with Jehovah's Witnesses at the front door too. I keep them there for hours. I consider it a service to the local community.

I've done it with mormans regarding geology, archaeology and paleontology. its fun!

I was dead certain that this was going to end up an aprils fools joke... but it appears i was mistaken...

[Lokasenna]

God, no. This is fun. I do this with Jehovah's Witnesses at the front door too. I keep them there for hours. I consider it a service to the local community.

I like to invite them in, offer them a cup of tea, and then sweetly and quietly ask them whether they've ever considered letting Satan into their lives...

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

[OrphanPip]

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)

Well since I already answered his question, but he either didn't see it or ignored it.

Kiki's answer was a little wrong, but not for the reason music assumes. The clouds are moving because of air currents so to take a plane going at 500 mph going into a 1000 mile cloud which let's say is traveling at 50 mph in the opposite direction of the plane.

So, distance = velocity by time
500h= 1000 - 50h
550h = 1000
h = 1000/550
h = 1.81

It would take the plane 1.81 hours to go through this 1000 mile cloud under these circumstances.

However, all this is completely irrelevant because these speeds are all relative to the inertial frame of reference which is the Earth rotation.

Edit: To be fair to Kiki though, music didn't provide a value for the clouds velocity.

[The Atheist]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44DlSj6bnn4

Wins thread!

[kiki1982]

Pardon, have I left the building and left Mark in it?



I don't think so, my ignorant saddo. I had just left to do more interesting stuff.

Am I still going to get an answer on the phases or not?

By the way, just to have you know, I am still solvingyour question with 500 miles/h x 2 = 1000 miles

How does the speed of the plane change from on the ground into orbit around the earth then?

Well since I already answered his question, but he either didn't see it or ignored it.

Kiki's answer was a little wrong, but not for the reason music assumes. The clouds are moving because of air currents so to take a plane going at 500 mph going into a 1000 mile cloud which let's say is traveling at 50 mph in the opposite direction of the plane.

So, distance = velocity by time
500h= 1000 - 50h
550h = 1000
h = 1000/550
h = 1.81

It would take the plane 1.81 hours to go through this 1000 mile cloud under these circumstances.

However, all this is completely irrelevant because these speeds are all relative to the inertial frame of reference which is the Earth rotation.

Edit: To be fair to Kiki though, music didn't provide a value for the clouds velocity.

Haha, yes I didn't account for a cloud that was moving into the opposite direction that the plane was moving.

So you are right.

[DanielBenoit]

I love how the fastest growing thread on litnet, two days and eleven pages already, is all about the question of whether the earth is in a fixed position or not. I love it.

(Btw, you guys should check out the homepage to that website. "Read all about the Copernican and Darwinian Myths!" It's one think to call evolution a myth, but to call Copernican heliocentric astronomy a myth is just laughable madness.)

[Musicology]

Hi there Daniel Benoit,

To describe Copernican heliocentric astronomy as a myth is not 'laughable madness' - it's simply rejecting a theory first put forward by Copernicus (1473-1543) more than 400 years ago in a more ignorant age and which you yourself have provided no evidence of being true. You believe it because everyone else believes it, right ? Therefore everyone who believes differently from you must be mad. Right ? Imagine the ignorance of such an attitude ? If you have evidence of Copernicus being true why not offer some ? Is it just a coincidence nobody has done so here ? All they've done is make complete fools of themselves.

At the time of Copernicus people believed in all kinds of nonsense things. We have learned a lot in the last few centuries. One of the things we have learned is no 16th century theory deserves to be taught if it cannot survive criticism and has no verifiable evidence in its support.

This, to you, is 'laughable madness'. What's more crazy than that ? I think it's called Dogma.

I love how the fastest growing thread on litnet, two days and eleven pages already, is all about the question of whether the earth is in a fixed position or not. I love it.

(Btw, you guys should check out the homepage to that website. "Read all about the Copernican and Darwinian Myths!" It's one think to call evolution a myth, but to call Copernican heliocentric astronomy a myth is just laughable madness.)

Kiki,

You have returned to the building ? Great.

Yes, you did not account for a cloud that was moving in the opposite direction to that of the plane. A strange error, yes ? Viva Copernicus, right ?

Do you also believe all clouds are travelling at around 900 to 1000 miles per hour ? And isn't this slightly embarrasing for the supporters of Copernicus to be so riddled with errors ?

Haha, yes I didn't account for a cloud that was moving into the opposite direction that the plane was moving.

So you are right.

[kiki1982]

I won't do what Mark did and humour you.



No, I didn't account for it. Someone didn't mention the speed, now did he?

Why don't you tell me how the phases of the planets and the moon work and then I will answer your question.

And I asked you a second one: explain to me how the speed of a plain differentiates from its initial speed on earth (500mph) to in the heavens (?). I would be interested to know.

At any rate my answer seems to be more to the point than yours if it comes to Pip's assessment.

[Musicology]

Orphan Pip says,

It would take the plane (travelling at 500 miles per hour) 1.81 hours to go through a 1000 mile cloud which is travelling 1,000 mph in the opposite direction.

No, that is false !

A plane would fly only 333.33 miles at 500 mph before it emerged if it entered a 1,000 mile cloud that is travelling in the opposite direction at 1,000 mph. Around 40 minutes or so.

Far less than one hour !



Quote of the Week -

Kiki's Gem of Wisdom,

'' However, all this is completely irrelevant because these speeds are all relative to the inertial frame of reference which is the Earth rotation'' .

Yeh, right ? What nonsense is this ? The original 'circular argument'.

It is obvious a plane entering a 1,000 mile long cloud will pass through that cloud in less than 1 hour if that cloud is itself travelling at 1,000 mph in the opposite direction and if that plane is travelling at 500 mph.

Your 'inertial frame of reference' is sheer nonsense. Humbug and invention. Since there are only two references, the plane and the cloud.

Oh, my goodness !!!!