I find it extremely interesting how Folcum's pendulum, the phases of the moon, centrifugal force, and my interesting cannonball argument are all ignorable, when they are in fact central to the argument.
Especially since Centrifugal force explains this 1000 mph ocean/airplane argument he keeps repeating ad nauseum...
I am also awaiting with interest a post from him that doesn't contain one ad hominem fallacy... though that might be completely impossible....
Hope is that thing with feathers that perches in the soul and sings the tune without the words and never stops... at all. ~Emily Dickinson
I ask not for a lighter burden, but for broader shoulders. ~Jewish Proverb
Hi there Katy North,
Let us ignore nothing. Let us stand back from what we believe in respect of the pendulum, the phases of the moon, centrifugal force, and your interesting cannonball argument to ask ourselves whether those things are interpreted by us within a dogmatic paradigm we have imposed upon them, or not. (By reason of our education or ignorance). Since, if one person believes these things to be proofs of Earth Rotation another sees them as explainable within the context of a fixed Earth and of the gravity of bodies moving in association with the Earth. So that we are no further forward.
May I also suggest the findings of Earth Sciences, physicists, oceanographers, and other scientists (which are available in measured, specific, documentary and verifiable form) are of great relevance also. So that if the ocean, for example, is really rotating at a speed of 1,000 mph the evidence of ocean speeds (which are freely available from oceanographic surveys) will confirm this one way or the other. That the evidence from those who have studied the atmosphere in respect of cloud speeds or any rotation of its atmosphere are of equal importance. And the actual flight times taken by planes to/from distant cities are also evidence of a highly specific, verifiable and relevant kind in this process. So that the body of evidence obtained without any need to impose on them a paradigm of any kind may be of one and the same kind - complementary, in fact, to determining whether, in fact, the Earth, its Oceans, and its Atmosphere are in rotation at high speed or not. Since, it is only by accomodating the findings of these measurements, surveys, and verifiable results that we can and must arrive at our conclusions.
Without which we are imposing on ourselves a predetermined outcome - a dogma or paradigm - outside of which we cannot or will not be prepared to consider the alternative.
And so the simple question arises of whether science (in all its measurable, verifiable forms) supports, or tends to support the view that the Earth is at rest, or whether it supports, or tends to support the view that the Earth is in rotation at a speed of 1,000 miles an hour at the equator. Since, in the final analysis, we can prove a thing only to a point of it being true beyond fair and reasonable doubt, subject to the receipt of other facts which may contradict it.
Regards
Originally Posted by Katy North
I find it extremely interesting how Folcum's pendulum, the phases of the moon, centrifugal force, and my interesting cannonball argument are all ignorable, when they are in fact central to the argument.
Especially since Centrifugal force explains this 1000 mph ocean/airplane argument he keeps repeating ad nauseum...
I am also awaiting with interest a post from him that doesn't contain one ad hominem fallacy... though that might be completely impossible....
Last edited by Musicology; 04-11-2010 at 08:26 AM.
You are wrong. You have requested proof of the rotation of the Earth, and I provided it. Now you will have to give a good reason why something that has been known for more than 150 years to prove that the Earth rotates on its axis does not. Your objections are just noise.
Since I have provided verifiable proof that the Earth rotates on its axis, it is in your court. You have written drivel that falsely claimed that the Earth does not rotate. Why don't you see if you can prove that? I already know the answer to that question. You don't prove it, because your claims are false.Show us some verifiable, proveable evidence of Earth's rotation on its axis in 24 hours. Show us evidence of 1,000 mph oceans. Show us evidence of 1,000mph atmospheric rotation. Show us evidence of the continents revolving on the Earth round in a circle in 24 hours. You cannot do it. Because ALL the data says the very opposite. Ask oceanographers, pilots of planes, geographers, honest men. The data says the Earth stands still and bodies rotate around it. ALL the data says so. NONE disagrees with it. The findings of science are clear, unanimous, unanswerable.
I don't know where you are, but at the equator, the Earth is rotating on its axis at about 1000 mph, and it is taking the atmosphere and the oceans with the land. The Earth is a single thing and it includes the wat and air.So, where are your 1,000 mph rotating landmasses, atmosphere, and oceans ?
If you have any good evidence for your ignorant position, then post it. If you don't then accept that your were posting for humor.
That's the only argument that he has left. Proof has been provided that the Earth rotates on its axis, but he refuses to believe that. Perhaps he that is an example of compulsive behavior.I am also awaiting with interest a post from him that doesn't contain one ad hominem fallacy... though that might be completely impossible....
Okay. I accept that the Rotation of the Earth lacks any scientific, measured, verifiable evidence in its support. I think you've made that point admirably.
Now I'm looking for a new model to explain - amongst other things - the observed movement of celestial bodies. I can understand the idea that the earth is fixed and that the stars are going round once a day, but I don't understand how a star even a single light year away can move fast enough to make that circular trip. Until that can be cleared up, I find it difficult to embrace the geocentric explanation. Currently I am adrift, without any cohesive model to cling to.
But you're merely ignoring facts that contradict it.
And this just goes to show to what extent you misunderstand the aims of scientific endeavor. Nothing is ever proved in science. Your idea of science seems to be nothing but a bucket of factoids dumped out to stymie discussion. However, science doesn't depend on haphazardly collected data points: it formulates a theory to systematize the data in context. The theory is best that forms an explanatory framework for the majority of the available data and serves as a framework for future research. It's easy for you to say you don't see disconfirming evidence of your theory of a fixed Earth when you close your eyes whenever it's presented to you.
The geocentric model doesn't explain things like the phases of the moon or the apparent retrograde motion of other planets. This is why you keep avoiding our requests that you explain them according to your geocentric theory. The model of a rotating Earth which orbits the Sun has the explanatory and predictive power your model lacks.
Regards,
Istvan
"It is time we realized that to presume knowledge where one has only pious hope is a species of evil."
— Sam Harris
Babbalanja,
I am 'ignoring' no facts. You are confusing two different things. You are interpreting a series of experiments as supporting your theory (learned from textbooks and in schools) that the Earth is rotating.
This question, (a valid question), is settled by the published, verified, measured findings of the Earth sciences themselves. Is it not ? Which, sad to say, provide no support whatsoever for your belief. In fact they consistently say the very opposite to what you believe. And, since the Earth sciences are what proves or disproves theories in respect of the Earth's alleged rotation you might see you have, in fact, only a set of experiments whose results are interpreted by you as fitting your own predetermined assumptions. The actual published data (measurements) from these Earth sciences contradicting this belief of yours so hugely and so consistently you cannot (in spite of your protests) provide a single, published, verifiable measurement or set of measurements which actually supports them. Thus, the findings of science contradict your assumptions in every single, measured, verifiable and documented case.
A fact just recognised by Mark.
So the problem is really of your own making. Whether you can escape from this academic paradigm of yours, and whether you can ever produce scientific data from the Earth which supports a Rotating Earth is surely being answered in the negative with each page of this thread.
Regards
Last edited by Musicology; 04-11-2010 at 11:00 AM.
Once again, your continued evasion of addressing this disconfirming evidence is duly noted. If at any time you see fit to explain the apparent retrograde motion of planets or the phases of the moon within the theory of an Earth Fixed In Space, we will be waiting.
Regards,
Istvan
"It is time we realized that to presume knowledge where one has only pious hope is a species of evil."
— Sam Harris
Mark Bastable,
Thank you for your post. I will try to post on the subject of the stars tomorrow. This may be a little easier now we agree the available data from Earth sciences do not, in fact, support a rotating Earth and that in fact, they are consistent with opposite view, and that some other solution (able to account for the movements of the stars etc) must exist. So what is verifiably measured and proved on Earth in respect of the Earth and what is seen in the night sky in respect of stellar movements are not contradictory but may both be seen as equally consistent with a geocentric universe.
Regards
I am evading nothing. What is evading yourself is evidence from the Earth sciences in terms of published, measured, verifiable data for the alleged Rotation of the Earth. Since that data from those Earth Sciences consistently proves the opposite. Further confirmed by your failure to provide any that support your assumptions.
In such a case we can only see that you are not interested in the actual, published, verifiable, measured findings of the Earth sciences. And that the findings of these are obviously unacceptable to you and your beliefs.
Show us some supporting evidence from the Earth sciences that support a Rotating Earth and your credibility will instantly increase.
Thank you. I shall look forward to it.
All right.
I will try to put together some information on this tomorrow.
Thank you for listening, Musicology.
Science does indeed support the view that the Earth is in rotation at a speed of 1000 miles an hour at the equator.
1) centrifugal force is such that the earth spins, but the spin itself has no effect on the ocean or air within the earth's atmosphere. Just as a bucket of water does not slosh or splash around when it is being spun over your head, the earth's oceans do not splash and airplanes in the atmosphere do not have additional wind drag on them... personally I am no expert in physics, but I wouldn't be surprised if the atmosphere of the earth itself has something to do with the centrifugal force and the earth's spin.
2) There is a certain amount of force generated by the earths spin at the equator, that is demonstrated by the cannonball argument I discussed earlier. There is no such phenomenon on the earth's poles, but the closer you get the the equator (and that 1000 mph spin you were talking about) the more it becomes apparent. when one is shooting a cannonball and probably any other projectile, the projectile veers slightly to one side. Thus, during WWII when the Germans were fighting in Africa, the found they needed to adjust the aim of the cannons -- they could only hit their targets if they were aiming slightly to the left. I chat with a pilot online, and the next time I see her on I'll see if she has to adjust her plane to account for the force from the earths spin close to the equator... that will be interesting to find out.
OTHER EVIDENCE FOR A ROTATING EARTH
3) Folcault's Pendulum: I am not a science expert. However, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum includes explanations and, if it suits your taste, mathematics.
4) Equatorial Bulge and Flattening of the Poles: I hope we can all agree that gravity exists, which is what makes the earth a sphere. However, because of the rotation of the earth, the equator bulges about 26 miles, and the north and south poles are slightly flattened. You can find this out by measuring the circumference of the earth. Music, now would be an excellent time to go on a vacation to the equator to measure the bulge for yourself. All you need is a http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_ideas/Astro_p018.shtml.
5) The path of the planets and the stars: Apparently in Ancient Greece, people had this nifty idea that earth was the center of the universe, or at least that everything rotated around it, similar to your argument. Well, the nice Greek people tried EVERYTHING to map the path of the celestial bodies and a nice guy called Ptolmey came up with something like this:
(This is a later islamic picture)
This map ONLY attempts to explain the revolutions of the planet Mercury. This method was extremely complex, and was still unable to full explain the celestial movements.
Someone called Copernicus, on the other hand, came up with this:
Which was easily explained by both physics and mathematics.
I'll leave the phases of the moon to someone else who better knows what they're talking about.
If you claim I am not an expert, you would be correct... I'm not. However, I know when something makes sense. Considering the massive amounts of scientific evidence pointing to a rotating earth, my conclusion is that the earth rotates.
My suggestion to you musicology, is that if you are so determined to prove that the earth is in fact fixed in space, have more evidence available than "you can see it with your own eyes!". When it comes to the solar system and the stars, there are layers of atmosphere which creates illusion, and even cameras create illusions. Unless you do your own experiments and set out proof here on this thread that make sense both as they relate to physics and mathematics, no one here will believe you, unless they already believed your dogma anyway.
I am not a physics student, or a math student, I am a literature and philosophy student. That is my area of expertise. People called Physicists and Mathematicians are trained SPECIFICALLY to explain and tell people in other areas of expertise the phenomenon of the universe. There is no conspiracy, because such a conspiracy would have to be so widespread that millions of people would be keeping secrets from millions of other people. My own sister, who is studying to be a physicist, would be keeping all kinds of dark and foggy secrets from myself and our family, and my nice fundamentalist Christian friend from college who was both a math and physics major would have had to keep his mouth shut about the fact that the Bible was right and the earth is indeed the center of the universe!
Your ad hominem against scientists is ridiculous. If you are going to continue this argument, please stop using it.
Hope is that thing with feathers that perches in the soul and sings the tune without the words and never stops... at all. ~Emily Dickinson
I ask not for a lighter burden, but for broader shoulders. ~Jewish Proverb
Katy North,
Thank you for taking the time to write such a long letter. But what a pity you end it with the following -
''Your ad hominem against scientists is ridiculous. If you are going to continue this argument, please stop using it''.
May I point out that Earth scientists have made extensive measurements, calculations, surveys of the Earth's oceans, landmasses and the atmosphere whose findings are today available by the ton. None of which you have quoted in your letter. What do THEY think of your ad hominem against them ? You just continue with your dogmatic interpretations. With your core assumptions. And so you seem determined to continue in this way. Though the findings of these scientists themselves are now piled against you. Isn't this dogmatism, plain and simple ? And how can you claim it's me who is attacking them ??? !
You insist - 'Science does indeed support the view that the Earth is in rotation at a speed of 1000 miles an hour at the equator'.
Really ? Let's test this. With some evidence.
Please, please, please (!) present this forum with some published, measured, verifiable evidence of the Earth actually rotating at the speed of 1,000 miles an hour at the Earth's equator. Since you have so far provided none. Have you ? Isn't this getting a little silly ? Please provide from the science of oceanography published and verifiable measurements of actual ocean speeds at the Earth's equator. Please also provide from physics and other verifiable, measured surveys evidence of the Earth's atmosphere actually rotating at 1,000 mph at the Earth's equator. And please provide measured, verifiable, published surveys showing landmasses at the Equator rotating at a speed of 1,000 mph. Not one of which you have so far supplied. And it's becoming obvious you are determined to avoid providing any such evidence. Do you have any ??
We already know your theory. Please provide some FACTS. From scientific, published, verifiable data of any/all of the above. Then we can proceed. Since there is all the difference between a theory and an established, verifiable fact, isn't there ??
At the risk of boring all of us you surely admit you have done nothing so far to provide the actual, verifiable, published evidence that would bring some credibility to your dogma on these basic issues of the Earth and its alleged rotation at 1,000 mph at the equator.
Please try again ! Page 28 and still counting......
Thank You
Last edited by Musicology; 04-11-2010 at 03:09 PM.
You have already been given verifiable evidence of the rotation of the Earth.
The question is: Do you have any verifiable evidence for your assertion that the Earth is fixed in space. If you have nothing more than what you have posted, then we know that you do not have vqalid evidence to support your assertion, and you can just admit that you were mistaken.
Posting Permissions
