Does the earth move and rotate on its axis?

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Do you know anything about satellite TV? Do you know how it works? Antennas, on Earth, point to satellites in orbit. The satellites must be in GEOSTATIONARY orbit.....they seem to stay fixed, in one place in the sky, when viewed from down here (otherwise, the dish antennae would have to move to track them...hopelessly complicated and unworkable, for consumer TV needs).

Ya so either the satellite and the Earth are both stationary, which is what it looks like.

Or....the satellite is speeding round the Earth at...what....10,000kmph? In perfect unison with the alledged Earth rotation? Whilst simultaneously keeping up with the Earths alledged orbit of the sun (but keeping its own orbit) at a further 70,000lmph?

With not the slightest hint of a vibration, warping...undulation...or anything to indicate that whatever the camera is mounted on is moving at all. I dont buy it.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
So, put a camera on one of THOSE Sats...and, the view in that video is what you will see......the Sat is moving, "hovering" directly above one spot on the ground....over the Equator, to be exact.

Well yeah...thats exactly what it looks like...its just hovering there. 'Parked' in space. It definately doesnt look like its moving. Everything is eerily still.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Guess, maybe, didn't notice the video of Earth filmed by the Galileo spacecraft??:

Erm....my video looks totally genuine and unedited. Just time lapsed.

Yours look TOTALLY fake and superedited. As many posters say in the youtoob comments section for the vid.

reply to post by ArmorOfGod


Sorry???

You mean, you weren't joking, earlier??

You seem to lack even the most basic understanding of science, physics, orbital mechanics (based on the silly claims about a satellite orbiting Earth having to "go faster" whilst the planet orbits the Sun! Balderdash....the EARTH is the primary focus for a satellite, due to the proximity difference!! ).

There are countless resources at your disposal, to dispel such ignorance. For instance, your "rough guess", was it? Of ~10,000 KPH for a geostationary satellite is well off.....look it up, try to better yourself by learning some science facts.....you can only be helping yourself, that way....

Yours look TOTALLY fake and superedited...

BULL!! (Oh, they aren't "mine", either! Why not check out other sources, using the information provided, before shooting off?)

A group of FOUR images taken by the Galileo spacecraft...not animated, just stills all combined into one, for comparison:



Available HERE: www.geolab.unc.edu...


NASA 'apod' (Astronomy Picture of the Day) posted May 14, 2007:



You combine the numbers of still photos taken by Galileo.....in sequence, as it DEPARTED on its mission to study the Solar System....so, as it left, the Earth grew smaller in the distance...as SEEN in the video.

That one, above? From LATE 1990! Here, read up:

Explanation: When passing Earth on your way to Jupiter, what should you look for? That question arose for the robotic Galileo spacecraft that soundlessly coasted past the Solar System's most photographed orb almost two decades ago. The Galileo spacecraft, although originally launched from Earth, coasted past its home world twice in an effort to gain speed and shorten the duration of its trip to Jupiter. During Galileo's first Earth flyby in late 1990, it made a majestically silent home movie of our big blue marble rotating by taking images almost every minute during a 25-hour period. The above picture is one frame from this movie -- clicking on this frame will put it in motion (in many browsers). ...

Go to this link, to see their embedded video described above: apod.nasa.gov...

Also, this is the direct link, from their site (needs Quicktime): apod.nasa.gov...

Why are you being so rude?

Well its still either animations of the Earth spinning or just photos of the Earth.

The video I posted looks completely real and untampered with...'cept for the time lapse obviously....

Everything you've produced is highly edited.

Are you saying that satellites arn't travelling through space at 70,000kmph relative to the sun?

reply to post by ArmorOfGod

Are you saying that satellites arn't travelling through space at 70,000kmph relative to the sun...

Relative to the Sun....everything orbiting the Earth (whether man-made, or natural) are moving at the same speed, relative to the Sun, as the Earth (allowing for very, very tiny differences, of course. Such as, in example, when you are on a moving train. It is going forward @ 100 KPH, say. You walk at 3 KPH in direction of train motion, then relative to a person outside watching, you are moving @103 KPH. Reverse, if you turn 'round and walk back). From YOUR point-of-view, you are either standing/sitting still, or walking relative to the train itself. Big difference is you are also ON the train, not above it, and affected by its gravitational attraction. A satellite MUST move, or else it will fall directly straight back to Earth. In fact, an orbit IS "falling"...just, the path of the fall happens to keep missing the Earth's surface, due to the planet being a globe.

Also, the Earth is faster than 70,000 KPH. It is just under 30 Km per second. Or, about 108,000 KPH. Relative to the Sun...but, the Sun is moving too....within the Galaxy, and the Galaxy is moving to, relative to other galaxies....this gets harder and harder to define, though....there is no "fixed" reference point in the Universe.

(Just for a discussion of Earth orbiting the Sun):

searchcio-midmarket.techtarget.com...

curious.astro.cornell.edu...


Now....if you wished to "brain exercise" it, as the Moon, for example orbits the Earth....when its orbit takes it on a side where it is moving, on its orbit, in the same direction the Earth is also moving, while travelling around the Sun...then the Moon is a bit faster, relative to the Sun...and vice versa when "retro-grade". But, this tiny extra relative speed, to the Sun, is not enough for the Sun to then "capture" the Moon, and have it then independently orbit the Sun. The Earth's gravitational influence is far, far more powerful...due to proximity and distance.

This is a 3-minute excerpt from a longer video (below) from NASA that, while dry ant not very exciting, is nonetheless very educational:

Basics of Kepler's Three Laws of Orbital Motion



The long version, gets complicated and technical in parts. But, has a nice animation to explain WHY and how something will orbit the planet, without falling back and landing on the ground again (Appear @ about: 5:00 to 8:45):

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Relative to the Sun....everything orbiting the Earth (whether man-made, or natural) are moving at the same speed, relative to the Sun, as the Earth (allowing for very, very tiny differences, of course. Such as, in example, when you are on a moving train. It is going forward @ 100 KPH, say. You walk at 3 KPH in direction of train motion, then relative to a person outside watching, you are moving @103 KPH. Reverse, if you turn 'round and walk back). From YOUR point-of-view, you are either standing/sitting still, or walking relative to the train itself. Big difference is you are also ON the train, not above it, and affected by its gravitational attraction. A satellite MUST move, or else it will fall directly straight back to Earth. In fact, an orbit IS "falling"...just, the path of the fall happens to keep missing the Earth's surface, due to the planet being a globe.

Also, the Earth is faster than 70,000 KPH. It is just under 30 Km per second. Or, about 108,000 KPH. Relative to the Sun...but, the Sun is moving too....within the Galaxy, and the Galaxy is moving to, relative to other galaxies....this gets harder and harder to define, though....there is no "fixed" reference point in the Universe.

So...bottom line is...that satellite is flying through the air at 100,000 klicks.

And when you figure in that it also must be zooming along at the same speed that this galaxy is supposed to be moving away from the bigbang....is it about half a million klicks?...well....it all gets very complicated...like you said. And still not even a flicker on the camera, and everything looks perfectly still. Odd.

Or we can just trust our senses and say everything is stationary. Which is much simpler, and lines up with real science, and observation........and the bible.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Now....if you wished to "brain exercise" it, as the Moon, for example orbits the Earth....when its orbit takes it on a side where it is moving, on its orbit, in the same direction the Earth is also moving, while travelling around the Sun...then the Moon is a bit faster, relative to the Sun...and vice versa when "retro-grade". But, this tiny extra relative speed, to the Sun, is not enough for the Sun to then "capture" the Moon, and have it then independently orbit the Sun. The Earth's gravitational influence is far, far more powerful...due to proximity and distance.

This is a 3-minute excerpt from a longer video (below) from NASA that, while dry ant not very exciting, is nonetheless very educational:

Basics of Kepler's Three Laws of Orbital Motion

Actually I dont wish to 'brain exercise' it thanks. Thats how peeps got themselves into this mess in the first place, by theorizing. Gravitas...simply means HEAVYNESS. Thats all it has ever meant. If it had anything to do with orbits..the apple would have fallen off the tree and orbited Newton's noggin.

It's not even a good theory anyhoot. If you really wanted me to brain exercise I would stick electromagnetism into the equation somehow. Makes much more sense. Push AND pull.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
The long version, gets complicated and technical in parts. But, has a nice animation to explain WHY and how something will orbit the planet, without falling back and landing on the ground again

I dont suppose you could summarise it in laymans terms. I have a very slow connection and I'm not much of a science expert. How does gravity dictate orbits, in simple terms? It's a one way force no?

Originally posted by chan_chap
NO EXPERIMENTS HAS EVER PROVEN THAT THE EARTH IS MOVING!!!!!!!

Except for all these??

curious.astro.cornell.edu...

i hope im not way off topic

but the whole debate here reminds me of the concept that an insect can fly perfectly inside a car that is travelling at an higher speed than that the insect can fly at.

but what happens to the insect if he flies out the car windows...




Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by AnotherYOU


Your example is moot because of our atmosphere....that the car is moving through.

IF you could envision that same fly (maybe in a tiny space suit? LOL...or a mutant fly that can live in vacuum) and there was no air, at all...just pure vacuum....then, once accelerated onboard the car ("magic car", too!) the fly would have the same velocity....and if it exited, would simply move along at the same velocity....until or unless influenced by a force of some sort, in some way.

Reply to post by weedwhacker

well my reply was cut short and i cant edit on mobile so im affraid i didnt explain myself in the correct way.

in no way i was trying to support the op's theory, i have no reason to doubt gravity and physics work as many have exposed here.

atmospheric pressure and flies on spacesuits aside(lol)

all i was trying to say is that to me i can understand the earth does move while it appears to be static to some, same way the fly can hover inside a fast moving car.

i compared, i didnt say it works the same.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by ArmorOfGod

And when you figure in that it also must be zooming along at the same speed that this galaxy is supposed to be moving away from the bigbang....is it about half a million klicks?...well....it all gets very complicated...like you said. And still not even a flicker on the camera, and everything looks perfectly still. Odd.

no - what is odd is that anyone would think it is odd.

Ever been in a car driving at 60mph/100kph with a bunch of other cars doing the same speed alongside and/or in front and behind you?

Ever walked beside someone and kept pace with them?

Or we can just trust our senses and say everything is stationary. Which is much simpler, and lines up with real science, and observation........and the bible.

Where does the bible say the Earth doesn't orbit the sun?

I dont suppose you could summarise it in laymans terms. I have a very slow connection and I'm not much of a science expert. How does gravity dictate orbits, in simple terms? It's a one way force no?

Gravity sucks objects towards the central body (whether it be the earth, sun, galactic centre or whatever), but their straight line motion makes them try to fly away tangentially.

Where the 2 forces are in balance they orbit. If the 2 forces do not balance they change their distance until they either do balance or one of them becomes too small to have any effect and the other "rules" - ie either the objct flies off (gravity is too small), or it descends to the surface of the central object if the tangential "force" is too small.

Simple enough yet?

Reply to post by AnotherYOU

like uh, you wont add the speed the car is moving to the speed of the fly inside the car and say the fly is super fast.

because in that case, the car speed is relative to the earth, but the fly's speed is relative to the car.

isnt that what you are trying to explain about sattelites to that other dude?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Reply to post by AnotherYOU

like uh, you wont add the speed the car is moving to the speed of the fly inside the car and say the fly is super fast.

because in that case, the car speed is relative to the earth, but the fly's speed is relative to the car.

isnt that what you are trying to explain about sattelites to that other dude?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by chan_chap
NO EXPERIMENTS HAS EVER PROVEN THAT THE EARTH IS MOVING!!!!!!!

Except for all these??

curious.astro.cornell.edu...

Theres no proof in there.

Parallax and abberation are the same thing, and it is only proof that EITHER the Earth is moving with respect to the stars OR the stars are moving with respect to the Earth.

If the stars are centred on the sun and the sun is orbiting the Earth daily (like we observe) then you get stellar parallax just the same.

Take note of this statement. There is NO I repeat NO kinematic difference between the geocentric and the heliocentric models. In fact you can put whaever celestial body you want at as the stationary centre of the system and you would observe the exact same relationships, geometry, distances between all physical bodies in the universe. No difference.

Anyone who wants to put forward:

- Stellar parallax
- Retrograde motions of Mars or other planets
- Phases of Venus
- Probes needing to dodge the sun (lol my favourite)

...or ANY other observtional factor as evidence that the Earth cannot be the stationary centre of the universe needs to call up NASA and ask them if they use geocentric or heliocentric math for their calculations. They will laugh at you and tell you theres no difference.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

no - what is odd is that anyone would think it is odd.

Ever been in a car driving at 60mph/100kph with a bunch of other cars doing the same speed alongside and/or in front and behind you?

Ever walked beside someone and kept pace with them?

Yeah? I have. Whats that got to do with anything? Look at the video. The Earth is stationary and so is the camera.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Where does the bible say the Earth doesn't orbit the sun?

I doesnt say that anywhere. It just teaches geocentrism in general.

If your a bible believer then I can show you, if not then it wont make any difference.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Gravity sucks objects towards the central body (whether it be the earth, sun, galactic centre or whatever), but their straight line motion makes them try to fly away tangentially.

Where the 2 forces are in balance they orbit. If the 2 forces do not balance they change their distance until they either do balance or one of them becomes too small to have any effect and the other "rules" - ie either the objct flies off (gravity is too small), or it descends to the surface of the central object if the tangential "force" is too small.

Simple enough yet?

Ya its simple but it doesnt make any sense at all.

Gravity describes how things fall on the floor when you drop them. It doesnt describe anything to do with orbits. Never been shown experimentally.

Gravity just....sucks....as an explanation.

A turning planck density style aether and electromagnetism makes more sense.

ROFL - and here we have another example of simple dismissal of science as if you had any idea what you were talking about.

so you say those experiments "prove nothing" - WRONG - they prove the earth moves. You blandly saying they prove nothing shows that you do not understand what it is you are reading.

clearly you didn't even understand my examples of orbit though you said you did.

If you drop something to the ground then the 2 forces of orbital trajectory and gravity ARE in play.

However since the orbital velocity is insufficient gravity has a much greater effect and the object falls to an equilibrium - in this case equilibrium is achieved by resting on the ground rather than achieving sufficient orbital velocity.

What your 2 posts have shown is that willful refusal to believe science cannot be overcoem by reason - blind faith is simply blind.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


>SIGH<

He thinks that "aberration" and "parallax" are the same??

(To repeat, for those who are blind....Aberration uses the FIXED speed of light, as a very accurate measurent of distance differences, as the Earth moves on orbit...AND as the entire Solar System moves, to a lesser degree. Parallax measures changes in the ANGLES measured. To a very, very precise and fine degree, in both cases. It is called "science".)

Hoo, boy!!

Did you tell him about the Foucault Pendulum???:










AND, of course....merely to prove the Earth is rotating, is Coriolis Effect:





(One is forced to wonder at the state of science class education of late.....in some parts of the Industrialized World....)

Coriolis is seen EVERY DAY, on this planet....in weather patterns.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
(To repeat, for those who are blind....Aberration uses the FIXED speed of light, as a very accurate measurent of distance differences, as the Earth moves on orbit...AND as the entire Solar System moves, to a lesser degree. Parallax measures changes in the ANGLES measured. To a very, very precise and fine degree, in both cases. It is called "science".)

Except this was TOTALLY REFUTED by 'Airy's Failure' like you have already been informed of.

The deflection of starlight known as stellar aberration is NOT due to the Earth’s motion, but is an external bending of light before reaching the telescope. i.e. It's caused by the movement of the ether.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Did you tell him about the Foucault Pendulum???:

So...the accepted heliocentrist view is that The Foucault Pendulum (FP) ‘appears’ to rotate because the Earth is rotating and the FP is merely maintaining its orientation with respect to the stars while the Earth rotates beneath it correct?

My question is..how does the FP detect where the stars are, the pole star or any others that would correlate
their orientation with the position of the FP’s plane of oscillation?

The only reasonable explantion is that the aether is dragging the pendulum around as the universe turns around us.

Eistein agrees its a valid possibility:

A June 25, 1913 letter from Einstein to Ernst Mach
concerning such forces from a relativistic point of view:

"[Y]our happy investigations on the foundations of mechanics, Planck's
unjustified criticism notwithstanding, will receive brilliant
confirmation. For it necessarily turns out that inertia originates in
a kind of interaction between bodies, quite in the sense of your
considerations on Newton's pail experiment. The first consequence is
on p. 6 of my paper. The following additional points emerge: (1) If
one accelerates a heavy shell of matter S, then a mass enclosed by
that shell experiences an accelerative force. (2) If one rotates the
shell relative to the fixed stars about an axis going through its
center, a Coriolis force arises in the interior of the shell, that is,
the plane of a Foucault pendulum is dragged around."

Originally posted by weedwhacker
AND, of course....merely to prove the Earth is rotating, is Coriolis Effect

OR...of course that the universe is rotating around the Earth.

Why isn't the FP subject to a sideways push by Coriolis? Are you suspending Newtons laws just for the FP?

I 'm sorry, I think someone put me in a time machine and I traveled in the past. It's 1500's all over again...

Originally posted by Imogene72
I 'm sorry, I think someone put me in a time machine and I traveled in the past. It's 1500's all over again...

Can you pick me up the most fasionable ruff you can find on your way back please?