Does the earth move and rotate on its axis?

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

I believe the calculations work either way, by either model.

I posted four experiments in physics that prove the earth is not moving.

Would anybody like to post some of their own experiments in physics that prove otherwise?

Yes, both models work! God and science have been proven, now let's get on with more important matters, like lunch.

reply to post by earthman4


Both models work for calculations, and the geocentric model actually works better and more consistently.

But that wasn't my question.

I said I posted four experiments in physics that prove the earth is not moving.

I asked if the helios had anything comparable to offer up.

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
I posted four experiments in physics that prove the earth is not moving.

You proved you don't even understand the experiments you referred to. Heck, one of them (en.wikipedia.org...) flat out proved the earth DOES rotate and detected its angular motion - you foolishly tried to use this to prove the existence of "aether" when in fact you're just assuming it exists a priori; Michelson-Gale was not designed to prove or disprove aether at all. Experiments designed to detect aether did not succeed - you incorrectly tried to use that to prove the earth doesn't rotate.

If the earth didn't rotate, the shuttle wouldn't be able to launch without crashing on almost any mission and the ISS's assembly would be absolutely impossible. Also, if the earth weren't rotating the shuttle (and therefore the ISS) would pass directly over its launch site on every single orbit. Lastly, there's a shuttle launch in less than 30 minutes that won't reach its intended altitude if the earth isn't rotating - Hubble missions push the shuttle to its maximum performance because of the required high altitude close to 600km. Let's see if the mission reaches the targeted altitude or not...

[edit on 11-5-2009 by ngchunter]

reply to post by ngchunter


Which of the four experiments in physics that I posted do you disagree with their findings?

You have never said you disagreed with any of the experiments I posted.

If you do, now is the time to say so. Tell me which one or ones you disagree with and why.

I agree with the OP that there are no experiments that prove the earth is turning and/or hurtling through space.

I agree with the OP that there ARE experiments in physics which prove the earth is in fact not moving at all, not rotating and not orbiting anything, just hanging in space as the Bible claimed it was all along.

This is what the experiments show, the experiments in physics. Four of them. Each demonstrates the earth is not moving.

Take these experiments I cited earlier, please, and tell me why these experiments are wrong. Show where they have been disproved, discredited, not accepted by science as being valid. If these four experiments have been disproved, discredited, this should be on record somewhere, yes?

For example, experiments were done which proved that life does not spontaneously arise from dead matter. This experiment was never disproved or discredited that I know of.

Same with these other four experiments I cited which prove the earth is not moving.

So please document for me where in the annuls of science any experiments were done which disproved any of these.

Thank you.

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
reply to post by ngchunter

 

Which of the four experiments in physics that I posted do you disagree with their findings?

I disagree with your faulty interpretation. I already explained the reasons and linked to the results which showed that earth rotates.

You have never said you disagreed with any of the experiments I posted.

And you continue to pretend that the experiments support your assertion. I already explained why they do not. You are either incapable or unwilling to understand why they do not. The fact that the shuttle just reached orbit and will soon attain the proper altitude of about 587km is further proof the earth rotates - the orbiter would be unable to reach its maximum altitude and rendezvous with hubble if it weren't able to exploit the earth's rotation to reduce the required delta v to reach orbit (and consequently the desired altitude).

[edit on 11-5-2009 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by ngchunter
you continue to pretend that the experiments support your assertion. I already explained why they do not. You are either incapable or unwilling to understand why they do not. The fact that the shuttle just reached orbit and will soon attain the proper altitude of about 587km is further proof the earth rotates - the orbiter would be unable to reach its maximum altitude and rendezvous with hubble if it weren't able to exploit the earth's rotation to reduce the required delta v to reach orbit (and consequently the desired altitude).

[edit on 11-5-2009 by ngchunter]

This is not an experiment in physics and can be explained by the geocentric model. I'm speaking here of experiments in physics, specifically the four I posted earlier in the thread and which you have not discussed. You offer proofs for the rotation of the earth which are not proofs. They are models.

We are discussing here proofs, which the OP stated in the beginning the helios have no proofs. Simple experiments in physics, four of them, that I laid out in my earlier post.

You had some critique from your own opinion about Airy's Failure but are you saying that this experiment has been officially discredited? I think this is not so.

You have not discussed any of the other three experiments at all.

And I'd like you to document some authority that discredits Airy's Failure. Far as I know this experiment has never been debunked.

[edit on 11-5-2009 by Salt of the Earth]

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
Uh-uh. You had some critique from your own opinion about Airy's Failure. That's it. You have not discussed any of the other experiments at all.

So now you're just going to resort to lying?
post by ngchunter
And I see you have no explanation as to why the shuttle launch was a complete success or why it won't be passing directly over its launch site on every orbit for the rest of the mission.

And I'd like you to document some authority that discredits Airy's Failure. Far as I know this experiment has never been debunked.

Only your interpretation needs debunking. When attempting to quantify the expected aberration of light in a telescope filled with water you neglected to account for the amount of drag the water induces in the light itself, something measureable in separate experiements not involving the rotation of the earth. Airy wasn't aware of this either, so he thought he was detecting parallax; he wasn't. Again:
post by ngchunter

[edit on 11-5-2009 by ngchunter]

reply to post by Salt of the Earth


Whilst it is usually pointless to attempt to educate a fundie, perhaps this can be explained by your strict adherence to the Dark Age Myth of a geocentric model of the Universe.

Sheesh!!! Even the Vatican eventually came around.....(and boy, do they owe the Galileo family some reparations!!!)



ETA this additional video:



[edit on 5/11/0909 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by ngchunter

Only your interpretation [of Airy's Failure] needs debunking. When attempting to quantify the expected aberration of light in a telescope filled with water you neglected to account for the amount of drag the water induces in the light itself, something measureable in separate experiements not involving the rotation of the earth. Airy wasn't aware of this either, so he thought he was detecting parallax; he wasn't. Again:
post by ngchunter

[edit on 11-5-2009 by ngchunter]

So then somebody should go back and rename this experiment Airy's Success? Has this actually been done? If not, why not? Why is it still referred to as Airy's FAILURE? Airy set out to prove the earth was moving and not the stars, and his experiment proved the opposite, so hence it was named Airy's Failure.

You say it actually did prove the earth is rotating? So do you have some documentation that this experiment has been reclassified, renamed from what it was originally perceived to be?

Originally posted by chan_chap

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by chan_chap

 

"I'll try....both vehicles (in your example) start out stationary relative to each other, and relative to the Earth's surface. With me? From the viewpoint of both cars, the earth is 'stationary'.... so the only 'relative' motion at work here is between the two cars. The Earth is essentially 'neutral'."


no both car dont start stationary if the earth is spinning.
u can play the relativity game all u want......
if the earth is spinning both cars would be in the speed of 1674 km/h then 1 car would ADD to that speed by going WITH the rotation and the other car woud go AGAINST that speed.
lol if the earth was really spinning the 2nd car would go backwards!
if the earh is rotating, it should take more energy to go against the rotation than to go with the rotation.
the cars are going in OPPOSITE directions... 1 car with the rotation 1 car against the rotation.


put a toy car on a spinning ball and then talk "relative motion"

Wow this logic is flawed. If your on a object traveling your speed is relative to that object. Lets try to explain it this way you get on a plane the plane is moving your abled to stand up in the cabin and go walking down the isle and then back to your seat. If the jet is moving 500 mph i dont have to run down the isle at 501 mph to return to my seat. The earth works the same way gravity holds us to the earth so any speed the earth is moving becomes irrelevant from are perspective.

Now as i saw pointed out earlier you can use the earths spin to help achieve orbit but even the shuttle is still moving with the earth. And the use of spin is simply to get the shuttle to a specific spot by having there earth traveling under neath,However if the earth was moving or not it would take just as much fuel because your fighting gravity which is not effected by the earths rotation.

Now there is no doubt that the earth is moving and does rotate just the fact we gave seasons proves that. There was many early attempts to make a working model of the solar system based on earth centric and they all ways fail to predict the movements of the solar system.

And one last point as i wasted my time reading this stupid theory borne out of the dark ages. I had to laugh because i kept seeing over and over life cant exist on a moving object. Next time you get in your car you might need to be careful because according to you just hitting the accelerator would kill you. because apparently the cars going to leave your driveway but you wont!

Do not ever again put ANYTHING into my quote that was not put there by me. You did not have my permission to put that there, even in brackets. I said your interpretation is the only thing needing debunking in general, not just of one experiment but of all of them, something I already did and relinked you to.

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
Airy set out to prove the earth was moving and not the stars, and his experiment proved the opposite, so hence it was named Airy's Failure.

Once again, your interpretation is deeply flawed, and as far as I can tell, only geocentrists like yourself give it a flowery name like "airy's failure." Real scientists don't title their work in that way.

You say it actually did prove the earth is rotating? So do you have some documentation that this experiment has been reclassified, renamed from what it was originally perceived to be?

I said you obviously don't understand the results or how to interpret them, especially in light of separate experiments measuring the drag of light in water.

Originally posted by ngchunter
Do not ever again put ANYTHING into my quote that was not put there by me. You did not have my permission to put that there, even in brackets. I said your interpretation is the only thing needing debunking in general, not just of one experiment but of all of them, something I already did and relinked you to.

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
Airy set out to prove the earth was moving and not the stars, and his experiment proved the opposite, so hence it was named Airy's Failure.

Once again, your interpretation is deeply flawed, and as far as I can tell, only geocentrists like yourself give it a flowery name like "airy's failure." Real scientists don't title their work in that way.

You say it actually did prove the earth is rotating? So do you have some documentation that this experiment has been reclassified, renamed from what it was originally perceived to be?

I said you obviously don't understand the results or how to interpret them, especially in light of separate experiments measuring the drag of light in water.

So should this experiment now be named Airy's Success rather than Airy's Failure? Does this experiment now prove nothing? Or does it prove what it set out to prove, that the earth is rotating and orbiting? With your new and improved technology you say the first experiment was lacking, does this experiment now turn out to prove what it intended to prove and sought to prove? Is this experiment now Airy's Success rather than Airy's Failure?

And where do you get the documentation to say that it was the geocentrists who named this experiment? Do you feel like you have the right to write history yourself without anything to back it up but your own opinion?

I figure that anybody who believes we went to the moon in a treehouse can't be half as smart as they think they are, so your opinions about the validity of experiments do not impress me. I'd like you to get me some documentation that this experiment was technically flawed, and that the basic premise for the experiment was flawed, meaning that this experiment will never prove if the earth is turning or not because it is flawed in its basic premise.

You say that I don't understand this experiment. This is not about me. This is about an experiment called Airy's Failure that is reported to have failed to prove the earth is rotating and orbiting, and instead proved the opposite. You claim this is not so. I say, where is your documentation other than your opinion? Airy's Failure is a well-known experiment in physics. If this was a fluke, then can you point me to some documentation in that regard other than your opinion?

I have the Bible to back up my claims that the earth is not rotating or orbiting. I also have four experiments in physics. I also have that the geocentric model predicts with precision the movements of Mars and Venus, which the heliocentric model cannot do.

What do YOU have to back up your claims for heliocentricity other than your narrow-minded closed mind which refuses to consider any other alternatives than what it has ever believed or been told?

reply to post by Salt of the Earth


Oh, Gawd!!!!

Here's how ridiculous the 'buybull' really is:

Just to make it as simple as possible, for anyone who thinks that the 'geocentric' model of planetary motion "...predits with precision the movement of Mars...":




AND then, this very telling representation of just WHY the 'geocentric' model is complete bullhooey:




In the quest for knowledge it is important to consider that which is uncomfortable, at first. Irrefutable evidence trumps dogmatic stubborness.

[edit on 5/12/0909 by weedwhacker]

Weedwacker, do you know anything about the four experiments I cited?

Specifically, do you know anything about Airy's Failure?

NgHunter says the experiment in physics was faulty from using bad equipment.

Are you aware of this?

With the new and modern equipment has the experiment proved the earth is turning and orbiting that you know of? Have they changed the name of the experiment to Airy's Success?

Does this mean that now the helios have at least one experiment in physics they can claim proves their theory that the earth turns on an axis and hurtles around the sun?

If you don't know the answer to this, do you know where I could find an answer? As far as I know, this experiment was bona fide, that it has never been tossed out for lack of proper equipment, and that its results have never been disproved, and that the experiment can be duplicated anytime, anywhere, which is the measure of true scientific data, is it not?

That it takes it out of the realm of theory and into the registry of known and proven fact.

Is this not true?

reply to post by Salt of the Earth


Airy, Sir George Biddell. (27JUL1801-2JAN1892)

He was an English Mathematician and Astronomer.

(According to Wiki...)
Mean density of the Earth
One of the most remarkable of Airy's researches was his determination of the mean density of the Earth. In 1826, the idea occurred to him of attacking this problem by means of pendulum experiments at the top and bottom of a deep mine. His first attempt, made in the same year, at the Dolcoath mine in Cornwall, failed in consequence of an accident to one of the pendulums. A second attempt in 1828 was defeated by a flooding of the mine, and many years elapsed before another opportunity presented itself. The experiments eventually took place at the Harton pit near South Shields in 1854. Their immediate result was to show that gravity at the bottom of the mine exceeded that at the top by 1/19286 of its amount, the depth being 383 m (1,256 ft) From this he was led to the final value of Earth's specific density of 6.566.[7] This value, although considerably in excess of that previously found by different methods, was held by Airy, from the care and completeness with which the observations were carried out and discussed, to be "entitled to compete with the others on, at least, equal terms." (The currently accepted value for Earth's density is 5.5153 g/cm³.)

As you can see, his "failures" involved a broken pendulum and a flooded mine...eventually he calculated the Earth's mean density, but got it a bit wrong.


(Also from Wiki):
Ether drag test
By means of a water-filled telescope, Airy in 1871 looked for a change in stellar aberration through the refracting water due to an ether drag.[8] His null result suggested a lack of a universal ether.[citation needed]

SO, he effectively proved the non-existence of the so-called 'aether'.



EDIT -- Mods, I found that I can copy/paste, but I know that isn't the right way to do it.

[edit on 5/12/0909 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by Salt of the Earth


As to proving the Earth's rotation....erm, I provided a video a couple of posts back that explains it quite well, along with another that thorougly explains the Earth's orbit as well.

Another definitve proof is by using two atomic clocks that are precisely synchronized.

The clocks are accurate to as much as 10 to the -9 seconds per day.

A portion of Einstien's Theory of Relativity was demonstrated by use of two clocks, one that stayed at one location, and another flown for some time on a jet. The clock that was travelling faster indicated a discrepancy from the 'control' clock...proving that Einstein's predictions of time passing more slowly as velocity increases was true.

The very same procedure could be (maybe has been? But, why waste the money to 'prove' it to Doubting Thomases?) used by locating one clock at the Equator and another at one of the poles. Then, after a period, compare the two clocks. The clock that remained at the Equator will be the slower one, since the surface of the Earth, at the Equator, is travelling at about 1,000MPH compared to the pole (this is ignoring the speed of Earth on orbit, since it woiuld have no effect in this demonstration).

AS TO the fact that Earth does orbit the Sun, we know this through very precise astronomical observations. Precision that was unavailable to Airy in the early 19th century.

reply to post by Salt of the Earth


Ok you want someone to take the time to disprove your fact no problem be happy to.

Sir George Airy, in 1871, built a water-telescope to prove the ether theory.  Because it was believed that aberration occurred inside the telescope (ether drag was known about, but was not generally believed at the time of his experiment)For planets and the moon and other objects that are inside of our sun’s ether drag, their light travels within the sun’s ether drag and thus because we are also within the sun’s ether drag, our telescopes do not need to be tilted for secular aberration.  For planets that are outside of the sun’s ether drag, the bending would occur many millions of miles away and the bend would be consistent (for a given location of the planet), thus celestial mechanics formulas would be calibrated for their apparent location, which would include secular aberration (This goes back to my earlier post about the car). This means that the earth is orbiting the sun inside of the calm ether ocean of the sun's ether drag.  This means that the aberration of starlight at the boundary of the earth's ether drag, is based solely on our earth's orbit velocity around the sun.

So what does this prove ? It proves that as long as your on a moving object the solar system you cannot measure drag we would have to observe it from outside of our solar system currently beyond are capabilities.

The Sagnac effect shows that light signals emitted upon a rotating disc do not travel at the same speed with and against the direction of rotation of the disc. It has been long debated whether this same effect applies in the case were light signals are emitted upon a body in uniform translational motion. For example :In one revolution of the earth, the area turns once; thus the angular velocity of the earth is also the angular velocity of the area in the test. In no way does this prove the earth is standing still it is beyond the scope of this experiment. So to use this as proof is silly at best.

So in conclusion you need to understand the science your trying to use to prove your theory. If you would like to discuss anything I mentioned I would be happy to explain further but I would say don't just go to some half baked geocentric website use Science to prove your point and the bible is not a valid source as I seen you mentioned earlier because that would be a matter of interpretation.

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
So should this experiment now be named Airy's Success rather than Airy's Failure? Does this experiment now prove nothing?

The only sources I can even find for your chosen name come from *shocker* conspiracy geocentrist websites! How about we drop the flowery names designed to imply things while glossing over the details (guess that would end your trollish fun though)? The important aspect is not what we name it, call it whatever you want, it really doesn't matter except to conspiracy theorists; the only thing that matters here is your flawed interpretation of what the experiment means.

Or does it prove what it set out to prove, that the earth is rotating and orbiting?

The logical fallacy of a false dilemna, the experiment is not restricted to proving or disproving the rotation of the earth, instead it was a part of a puzzle involving the dragging of light by water and the disproving of aether.

And where do you get the documentation to say that it was the geocentrists who named this experiment?

It's called google. I can't find any legitimate scientists that call it "airy's failrue." The correct name of the experiment, a name given by Airy himself, is "On the Supposed Alteration in the Amount of Astronomical Aberration of Light, Produced by the Passage of the Light through a Considerable Thickness of Refracting Medium”

Do you feel like you have the right to write history yourself without anything to back it up but your own opinion?

I didn't write it myself, it's recorded in "Proceedings of the Royal Society of London," V20 (1871-1872) It's geocentrists like yourself who have renamed it for your agenda while misinterpreting the results and ignoring all other evidence.

I figure that anybody who believes we went to the moon in a treehouse can't be half as smart as they think they are, so your opinions about the validity of experiments do not impress me.

Ad hominem. Your interpretation of the experiment is flawed, as is how you are attempting to apply it to a disproven theory.

I'd like you to get me some documentation that this experiment was technically flawed, and that the basic premise for the experiment was flawed, meaning that this experiment will never prove if the earth is turning or not because it is flawed in its basic premise.

I already did, I linked you directly to the post containing a link showing how water drags light with it regardless of whether it came from a star or a light in a lab. That is all the evidence anyone needs. You're just deflecting and running around in circular arguments, perhaps because you know you have nowhere left to run in your theory.

You say that I don't understand this experiment. This is not about me.

On the contrary, this IS all about you.

I have the Bible to back up my claims that the earth is not rotating or orbiting.

Another book you've misinterpreted badly.

I also have that the geocentric model predicts with precision the movements of Mars and Venus,

LOL, are you talking about that JPL link you used because you misunderstood the language? Their calculations are entirely heliocentric in the way you tend to think of helio vs geo. The use of the term "geocentric" only referred to the coordinate system because topocentric coordinates are observer-specific. "Geocentric" coordinates use the center of the earth as the arbitrary center of the coordinate system so that specific observers can translate it to apply to their topocentric location.

which the heliocentric model cannot do.

Oh yeah? Explain this:
www.shatters.net...

What do YOU have to back up your claims for heliocentricity other than your narrow-minded closed mind which refuses to consider any other alternatives than what it has ever believed or been told?

I'm the one who's close minded? I've been posting examples of the earth's rotation for days, you're the one who keeps ignoring ALL of them. Explain to me why it is I saw ISS in person last night, solar panels, hab modules and all, yet tonight if I tried to spot it passing through the same place over my local sky I would fail. That is why I must predict each pass using *shocker* a model of the rotating earth. If the earth weren't rotating, ISS would pass over the same points on the ground on every orbit, repeating the same spectacle every night at the same point in the sky.

[edit on 12-5-2009 by ngchunter]

I opened one of the links and this is one of the first lines I saw:

Thank the Triune God that the Earth is NOT moving!!
[..]
When the earth does move it is called an EARTHQUAKE!!

Normally I consider myself to be open-minded, but if this is one of your sources, I'm out.
If your arguments came partly from a site that confuses parts of the crust of the earth colliding with eachother, with the movement of the whole planet, I'm not sure whether any logic would stick at all.

Just to clarify: moving parts on the crust of a planet and a moving planet - those are different things.