Does the Sun Revolve Around the Earth, or does the Earth Revolve Around the Sun?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04
At this particular time....I'm questioning EVERYTHING!

originally posted by: occrest

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: occrest
a reply to: WP4YT
I have flown a few times, and never saw a curve.

Even NASA, in their document "Derivation and Definition of a Linear Aircraft Model", on page 30, concludes their study 'Flying in a stationary atmosphere over a flat, non-rotating earth." Link to NASA pdf.

So am in to infer from your post that whatever assumptions NASA made for their model are true?

The first assumption is "stationary atmosphere". This means there's no wind, no tornadoes, no hurricanes. Do you think that's what they are trying to infer?

It also strikes me as odd you'd cite a NASA reference when NASA is the first one to tell you the Earth isn't flat. You can't see the curvature from a crop duster but you can see it from 40,000 feet so whether you saw the curvature depends on how high your plane went.

I think this is them doing a study on flight dynamics over a flat earth. The stationary atmosphere they speak of is without the wind shear one would get if the the earth were a globe with a spin of 1000 mph at the equator, which is what we are told.
I do not pretend to understand everything about the dynamics of a flat earth, and all that it entails. I have over 40 years of being inundated with globular thinking and indoctrination to overcome. There have been many physical experiments completed which point to a flat, geostationary earth. Airys' Failure, for one. Another is the Bedford level experiment. Here is a video for you containing 200 profs that the earth is not a spinning ball. Enjoy!

How do you explain the Lunar Eclipse? I'll give you a hint... the shadow

How do you explain Time Zones? (Day and Night). The fact that you cannot see the sun 24 hours a day? Remember if the earth was flat you would see the sun all day, it would just travel further away and act like a spot light.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04
I agree and show us how we position satellites to communicate with each other. Are they not positioned to be around a circular object.
Im with you.

originally posted by: cantsee4looking
then dont use suspect photos...then i cannot claim cgi....do it...a reply to: OccamsRazor04

None of them are suspect. You make wild accusations with no proof. A video was posted, what is suspect about it?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: chewi
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
Please do. AS if true and we live on a flat earth planet then with all the sink holes opening up I am beginning to believe we are being attacked from underneath. Sorry Australia I didn't mean you.
We really do think it is all for us don't we. If there is a god he must find our arrogance very amusing.

Show me how time zones are possible in a flat Earth.

From the video description--

This little animation shows a point light inside a sun sphere, going around the circle of the Flat Earth Azimuthal Equidistant (United Nations) map. In it, we can see how night and day (and timezones) are still possible. I did not include the moon in this model, but it would essentially follow a similar path, giving less light and moving at a different pace. From what I understand about the Flat Earther's perspective, the sun and moon will also deviate in their path for the different seasons. The Book of Enoch gives us tremendous detail explaining the course of the luminaries that rule the day and the night.

Divide the plane of the earth into quarters, then each quarter into six sections. Each section equals 1 hour, or 60 minutes of degrees. This is how you get your timezones.

originally posted by: occrest
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
At this particular time....I'm questioning EVERYTHING!

Don't be so open minded your brain falls out. Explain time zones on flat Earth.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

but if we assume for a moment that the earth is stationary in space, can the rest of the universe's movement be effectively expressed mathematically based on that?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

where is my wild acusation please?

a reply to: occrest

Three problems. Explain why the Sun, which is bright enough to light objects FAR further than Earth millions of miles away, cant light up parts of Earth 1,000 miles away?

Then explain how in that map you can travel from Australia to Antarctica and back in a few hours.

Now explain how the moon is illuminated.

Sorry. Does not work.

originally posted by: cantsee4looking
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

where is my wild acusation please?

Everything is CGI.

Please respond to the video already posted. Why won't you respond when I keep asking you to?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

the video show nothing....what was the video posted for?..to show what??

originally posted by: cantsee4looking
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

the video show nothing....what was the video posted for?..to show what??

It shows a rocket taking off from Earth and shows Earth not flat. What is your problem with that video, what makes it CGI?

originally posted by: angryhulk

originally posted by: occrest

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: occrest
a reply to: WP4YT
I have flown a few times, and never saw a curve.

Even NASA, in their document "Derivation and Definition of a Linear Aircraft Model", on page 30, concludes their study 'Flying in a stationary atmosphere over a flat, non-rotating earth." Link to NASA pdf.

So am in to infer from your post that whatever assumptions NASA made for their model are true?

The first assumption is "stationary atmosphere". This means there's no wind, no tornadoes, no hurricanes. Do you think that's what they are trying to infer?

It also strikes me as odd you'd cite a NASA reference when NASA is the first one to tell you the Earth isn't flat. You can't see the curvature from a crop duster but you can see it from 40,000 feet so whether you saw the curvature depends on how high your plane went.

I think this is them doing a study on flight dynamics over a flat earth. The stationary atmosphere they speak of is without the wind shear one would get if the the earth were a globe with a spin of 1000 mph at the equator, which is what we are told.
I do not pretend to understand everything about the dynamics of a flat earth, and all that it entails. I have over 40 years of being inundated with globular thinking and indoctrination to overcome. There have been many physical experiments completed which point to a flat, geostationary earth. Airys' Failure, for one. Another is the Bedford level experiment. Here is a video for you containing 200 profs that the earth is not a spinning ball. Enjoy!

How do you explain the Lunar Eclipse? I'll give you a hint... the shadow

How do you explain Time Zones? (Day and Night). The fact that you cannot see the sun 24 hours a day? Remember if the earth was flat you would see the sun all day, it would just travel further away and act like a spot light.

The lunar eclipse? I don't really know.

I posted video describing the night/day cycle and time zones. You are under the assumption that the Sun is 400 times larger than the earth and 93m miles away. I am under the assumption that the sun is approx 32 miles in diameter and only 3000 miles above the surface of the earth. Photographs of sunbeams thru the clouds tell me the sun is close, and not far away. Follow the light rays to where they converge above the clouds and you will see what i mean.

Never mind.

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: Arbitrageur

but if we assume for a moment that the earth is stationary in space, can the rest of the universe's movement be effectively expressed mathematically based on that?

That's a different question than your original question in the other thread, which was this:

"If one were to Assign the earth 0 motion and spin could not the rest of physics be expressed as the universe revolving around the earth?"

Two different (but related) questions have two different answers.
The "rest of physics" does not work, for example the Lagrangian point calculation would be part of the "rest of physics", and it does not work with assuming zero motion and spin of the Earth.

Your latest question doesn't ask about the rest of physics. According to relativity, we can transform one reference frame into another reference frame, and from this perspective all reference frames are valid, but details matter, as Phil Plaitt explains:

blogs.discovermagazine.com...

geocentrism is valid, but so is every other frame. This is the very basis of relativity! One of the guiding principles used by Einstein in formulating it is that there is no One True Frame. If there were, the Universe would behave very, very differently.

That’s where Geocentrism trips up. Note the upper case G there; I use that to distinguish it from little-g geocentrism, which is just another frame of reference among many. Capital-G Geocentrism is the belief that geocentrism is the only frame, the real one.

Geocentrists, at this point, fall into two cases: those who use relativity to bolster their claim, and those who deny it.

Those who use relativity say that geocentrism can be right and is just as valid as heliocentrism or any other centrism. That’s correct! But the problem is that using relativity by definition means that there is no One True Frame. So if you use relativity to say geocentrism can really be Geocentrism, you’re wrong. You’re using self-contradictory arguments.

Fail.

The other flavor of Geocentrist, those who deny relativity wholesale, are wrong as well. Relativity is one of the most well-tested and thoroughly solid ideas in all of science for all time. It is literally tested millions of times a day in particle accelerators. We see it in every cosmological observation, every star that explodes in the sky, every time a nuclear power plant generates even an iota of energy. Heck, without relativity your GPS wouldn’t work.

Relativity is so solid, in fact, that anyone who denies it outright at this point can be charitably called a kook†.

So — you guessed it — either way, Geocentrism is wrong.

a reply to: occrest

I asked three questions. Please answer them. I am under no assumptions.

a reply to: EternalSolace

Why would a plane ever go through space to reach those destinations?

originally posted by: occrest

originally posted by: angryhulk

originally posted by: occrest

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: occrest
a reply to: WP4YT
I have flown a few times, and never saw a curve.

Even NASA, in their document "Derivation and Definition of a Linear Aircraft Model", on page 30, concludes their study 'Flying in a stationary atmosphere over a flat, non-rotating earth." Link to NASA pdf.

So am in to infer from your post that whatever assumptions NASA made for their model are true?

The first assumption is "stationary atmosphere". This means there's no wind, no tornadoes, no hurricanes. Do you think that's what they are trying to infer?

It also strikes me as odd you'd cite a NASA reference when NASA is the first one to tell you the Earth isn't flat. You can't see the curvature from a crop duster but you can see it from 40,000 feet so whether you saw the curvature depends on how high your plane went.

I think this is them doing a study on flight dynamics over a flat earth. The stationary atmosphere they speak of is without the wind shear one would get if the the earth were a globe with a spin of 1000 mph at the equator, which is what we are told.
I do not pretend to understand everything about the dynamics of a flat earth, and all that it entails. I have over 40 years of being inundated with globular thinking and indoctrination to overcome. There have been many physical experiments completed which point to a flat, geostationary earth. Airys' Failure, for one. Another is the Bedford level experiment. Here is a video for you containing 200 profs that the earth is not a spinning ball. Enjoy!

How do you explain the Lunar Eclipse? I'll give you a hint... the shadow

How do you explain Time Zones? (Day and Night). The fact that you cannot see the sun 24 hours a day? Remember if the earth was flat you would see the sun all day, it would just travel further away and act like a spot light.

The lunar eclipse? I don't really know.

I posted video describing the night/day cycle and time zones. You are under the assumption that the Sun is 400 times larger than the earth and 93m miles away. I am under the assumption that the sun is approx 32 miles in diameter and only 3000 miles above the surface of the earth. Photographs of sunbeams thru the clouds tell me the sun is close, and not far away.

Follow the light rays to where they converge above the clouds and you will see what i mean.

Well you need to research the lunar eclipse.

I'm going to ask you again regarding the sun because you snowballed away from the question - If the earth was flat you would see the sun all day, it would just travel further away in a straight line, much like a spotlight. The sun actually circles around you during the day before sunset, which would clearly be impossible on a flat earth. Why is this so hard to understand?

Edit - Just looked at your video. So are you telling me the sun goes around in circles all day above the flat earth? So we could just use a high powered telescope to follow the sun all day, everyday without it disappearing from the same spot? Oh dear, how embarrassing your theory has become.

a reply to: angryhulk

I asked three questions, which are impossible to answer, and he will ignore them.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Meh, i don't know. I hit reply instead of preview where I usually hash things out before posting. I was trying to be as dumb as the continual assertion of a geocentric model.