[_ Old Earth _] the sun orbits the earth?

[Strangelove]

As you think simple geometry is quackery as well, you won't be surprised that I don't rate your opinion on this very highly.

Nope. Not surprised in the slightest. You cant even see that a triangle with one made up point is not real geometry. Infact I dont know why you are still talking to me if you think I'm such a crackpot. Why waste your time?

Ya....so....."science" & "knowledge" mean the same thing, so no need to mess around with translations really.

Eh, no they don't and no they didn't.

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge")

eh....yes they do mean the same thing. Unless you wanna find me another definition?

Anything that the theologian wishes to apply to it that sits comfortably with his/her own particular predelictions. I can so no relevance to your persisting with this line of questioning. Paul's opinion on what false knowledge might be is of virtually no importance at all.

The question is irrelevant.

Nicely dodged again. And now your saying Pauls opinion is of virtually no importance?? Ouch!

Why would you expect to be? Get in an airliner travelling at 450 knots, walk down the aisle and jump in the air as you do. If you are airborne for half-a-second, the aircraft will have travelled about 125 yards. Why haven't you smacked into the rear bulkhead of the cabin? I am beginning to suspect you may be a poe.

Thats not the same question. But I'll answer yours anyway. When you jump "up" in a plane your not really just jumping up because you and the plane are BOTH moving forward at a great speed. So up you go (and foward too even though you don't think so) and you drop back down much further ahead than from where you jumped up (same distance as the plane moved).

Now can you answer my helicopter question?

 

[Sparkey]

Satellite clocks are slowed by their orbital speed but sped up by their distance out of the Earth's gravitational well.

Please see below quote of part of the WIKI article on GPS:

Relativity

GPS positioning is one of the few everyday events in which relativistic effects must be accounted for.

For example, satellite clocks are tuned to 10.22999999543 MHz before launch, to compensate for the effects of gravitational time dilation and achieve a frequency of precisely 10.23 MHz once in orbit. Some other relativistic effects (such as gravitational time delays, frequency shifts of clocks in satellites due to earth's quadrupole potential, and space curvature) are too small to affect the system at current accuracy levels.[84]

Special and General Relativity

According to the theory of relativity, due to their constant movement and height relative to the Earth-centered, non-rotating approximately inertial reference frame, satellite clocks are affected by their speed. Special relativity predicts that the frequency of atomic clocks moving at orbital speeds tick more slowly than stationary ground clocks by a factor of

(( \frac{v^{2}}{2c^{2}}\approx 10 ^{-10} )), a delay of about 7 μs/day, where the orbital velocity is v = 4 km/s, and c = the speed of light. The time dilation effect has been measured and verified using GPS.

The gravitational frequency shift effect on GPS due to general relativity is that a clock closer to a massive object runs slower than a clock farther away. Applied to GPS, the receivers are much closer to Earth than the satellites, causing GPS clocks to be faster by a factor of 5×10−10, or about 45.9 μs/day.

When combining time dilation and gravitational frequency shift, the discrepancy is about 38 microseconds per day, a difference of 4.465 parts in 1010. Without correction (i.e. without the solution algorithm correction for the initial pseudorange errors), errors in position determination of roughly 10 km/day would accumulate. In addition the elliptical, rather than perfectly circular, satellite orbits cause the time dilation and gravitational frequency shift effects to vary with time. This eccentricity effect causes the clock rate difference between a GPS satellite and a receiver to increase or decrease depending on the satellite's velocity orbital altitude.

To offset the discrepancy, the frequency standard on board each satellite is given a rate offset prior to launch, making it run slightly slower than the desired frequency on Earth; specifically, at 10.22999999543 MHz instead of 10.23 MHz.[86] Tuning the atomic clocks on GPS satellites makes the system a real-world engineering application of relativity.

Placing atomic clocks on artificial satellites to test Einstein's general theory was proposed by Friedwardt Winterberg in 1955.

Now, some may ask, "How does this relate to the spin of the earth?"
Glad you asked!

A visual example of the GPS constellation in motion with the Earth rotating. Notice how the number of satellites in view from a given point on the Earth's surface, in this example at 45°N, changes with time.

 

[Strangelove]

Satellite clocks are slowed by their orbital speed but sped up by their distance out of the Earth's gravitational well.

Please see below quote of part of the WIKI article on GPS:


Now, some may ask, "How does this relate to the spin of the earth?"
Glad you asked!

A visual example of the GPS constellation in motion with the Earth rotating. Notice how the number of satellites in view from a given point on the Earth's surface, in this example at 45°N, changes with time.

How does this relate to the spin of the earth?

 

[Sparkey]

How does this relate to the spin of the earth?

lol - I posted an animation - did you not look? :shocked!

Wait - nevermind - here's more:

Check out Foucault's Pendulum:
YouTube - HOW THEY PROVE THE EARTH ROTATES (REVISED VERSION)
YouTube - Foucault's Pendulum (Version 1)

Or just Google it: Foucault's Pendulum

one more: About Foucault Pendulums
http://www.calacademy.org/products/pendulum/ <<---- the "link feature" doesn't seem to work, sry.

 

[lordkalvan]

Everyone else seems to be perfectly satisfied with my explanations.

Yes, I can see everyone queuing up to agree with you. By the same criteria, as no one other than you has expressed dissatisfaction with my explanation of the inferences to be drawn from stellar parallax and my critique of your 'refutation', then I can feel equally pleased with my arguments.

As for Doppler effect you havn't even shown how that indicates anything so nothing to see there.

I thought you were familiar with all these evidences already. As Earth rotates on its axis, the wavelength of light from a particular star is either blue- or red-shifted as it apparently recedes or approaches Earth; a similar shifting occurs in the course of Earth's orbit of the Sun.

Yup. It's called indoctrination.

Nope, just drawing reasoned inferences from presented evidence and the consequences of physics.

No I'll address Foucault with a scientific answer. Soon as you show how it is evidence for a spinning Earth.

The same principle as a gyroscope: the plane in which the pendulum swings seeks to retain a fixed direction in space, but as Earth turns under it the direction of the swing seems to rotate over time. At the North and South Poles, the oscillation plane is fixe;, at the Equator it stays fixed relative to Earth; at other latitudes it precesses relative to Earth, varying with latitude.

I'm impressed. You've been doing some reasearch Kalv.

Dan Brown and Kate Mosse are great resources.

Um....that photo isn't similar to the one I posted. Can you show me another that is? Thats level and close up to the module?

Do you have a point? What does 'level and close up' have to do with it? What about the other points I made that refute your assertions?

You've been watching too much Discovery channel.

Never watch it.

No that looks pristine. Infact it looks like a computer generated graphic. Yeah! definately CGI. Look at the textures on the flat grey area under the sat. dish. And why dont the shadow lines line up with eachother?

Its just a graphic of another 'piece of junk' unstreamlined, non-aerodynamic spacecraft with bits of kit and antennae hanging off it. The point is to wonder why you seem so amazed at the appearance of the LEM. Here's Soyuz:

Source: commons.wikimedia.org

 

[Sparkey]

Re: How the Rotation of the Earth Affects our Lives

How the Rotation of the Earth Affects our Lives

Navigators must allow for deviation to right when flying in northern hemisphere -- and to left in southern hemisphere.

created by high to low pressure have a right hand deflection that creates cyclones, hurricanes and typhoons, in the northern hemisphere.

The rotation of the earth creates special problems on flights to and from the moon.

the rotation of earth results in wider distribution of rain over the earth.

If no frequent spin, there would be a steady flow of cool air from pole to equator. The cool air would be near the surface; as it warmed, the air would gradually rise and flow back toward the the pole, dropping its water content as it again cooled. This would tend to produce constant rain near the equator and deserts in the northern and southern parts of the world. The rotation of the earth helps break up this north-south cycle by introducing an east (or west) deflection.

<CREDITS>



Original booklet A Scriptographic Booklet by Channing l. Bete Co., Inc. Greenfield, Mass., U.S.A., 1971 Edition ©1964 Web version by Zinaida Beynon
© 1999 California Academy of Sciences
http://www.calacademy.org/products/pendulum/page12.htm

 

[Strangelove]

lol - I posted an animation - did you not look?

So posting an animation of the Earth spinning is supposed to be evidence that the Earth spins? :D

Or just Google it: Foucault's Pendulum

I know all about Foucault's Pendulum thanks. But before I rebutt it why dont you summarise what it is and how it shows the Earth spins...................for the benefit of the thread. Just briefly.

 

[Strangelove]

Re: How the Rotation of the Earth Affects our Lives

How the Rotation of the Earth Affects our Lives


Navigators must allow for deviation to right when flying in northern hemisphere -- and to left in southern hemisphere.

created by high to low pressure have a right hand deflection that creates cyclones, hurricanes and typhoons, in the northern hemisphere.

The rotation of the earth creates special problems on flights to and from the moon.

the rotation of earth results in wider distribution of rain over the earth.
http://www.calacademy.org/products/pendulum/page12.htm#

If no frequent spin, there would be a steady flow of cool air from pole to equator. The cool air would be near the surface; as it warmed, the air would gradually rise and flow back toward the the pole, dropping its water content as it again cooled. This would tend to produce constant rain near the equator and deserts in the northern and southern parts of the world. The rotation of the earth helps break up this north-south cycle by introducing an east (or west) deflection.

All of these things basically boil down to the Coreolis Effect correct Sparra'?

 

[Strangelove]

Ok..In response to Foucault's Pendulum and Coriolis Effect...

I present this from the book "Galileo was Wrong" by Dr. Robert Sungenis and Dr. Robert Bennett. 650 pgs.

One can imagine why many who were looking for proof of a rotating Earth would appeal to the Foucault pendulum. It seems logical to posit that the reason the plane of the pendulum appears to be moving in a circle is that the Earth beneath it is rotating. In other words, the heliocentrist insists that the pendulum's circular motion is an illusion. The pendulum is actually moving back-and-forth in the same plane and the Earth is turning beneath it. Since the Earth is too big for us to sense its rotation, we instead observe the plane of the pendulum rotate. All one need do to prove the Earth is rotating, he insists, is to reverse the roles, that is, imagine the plane of the pendulum is stationary and the Earth beneath it is moving. This particular logic, however, doesn't prove that the Earth is rotating. One can begin the critique by asking this simple question: if the pendulum is constantly swinging in the same plane (while the Earth is rotating beneath it), what force is holding the pendulum in that stationary position? In other words, if the plane of the pendulum is stationary, with respect to what is it stationary? This is understood as an 'unresolved' force in physics. The only possible answer is: it is stationary with respect to the rest of the universe, since it is certainly not stationary with respect to the Earth. With a little insight one can see that this brings us right back to the problem that Einstein and the rest of modern physics faced with the advent of Relativity theory: is it the Earth that is rotating under fixed stars, or do the stars revolve around a fixed Earth? As Einstein said: 'The two sentences: the sun is at rest and the Earth moves, or the sun moves and the Earth is at rest, would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems.'

As such, it would be just as logical, not to mention scientifically consistent, to posit that the combined forces of the universe which rotate around the Earth are causing the plane of the pendulum to rotate around an immobile Earth. In other words, in the geocentric model the movement of the pendulum is not an illusion, it really moves. According to Einstein, there is no difference between the two models. Ernst Mach, from whom Einstein developed many of his insights, stated much the same. He writes: 'Obviously, it doesn't matter if we think of the Earth as turning round on its axis, or at rest while the fixed stars revolve round it. Geometrically these are exactly the same case of a relative rotation of the Earth and the fixed stars with respect to one another. But if we think of the Earth at rest and the fixed stars revolving round it, there is no flattening of the Earth, no Foucault's experiment, and so on..'.

Barbour and Bertotti proved that a large hollow sphere (representing the distant star fields) rotating around a small solid sphere inside (modeling the Earth) produced exactly the same pattern of Coriolis and centrifugal forces that are claimed as proof of Earth's spinning in space. If the hollow shell of matter accelerates or rotates, any object inside the shell will tend to be carried along with the acceleration or rotation to some extent. But they note this all-important fact: An object at the center of the hollow sphere will not be affected by the inertial forces. The space around the Earth will exhibit the inertial effects of the distant sphere, but not the Earth itself, if it is centrally located.

From Mach's principle we can conclude that inertia is a universal property, like gravity. But in Mach's principle the conventional interpretation of distant masses as causing inertial effects around the Earth is too restrictive. The cause of inertia could also logically be the properties of the space around each object, modified by the presence of the mass in or around that space. In other words the ether/firmament may be the source of inertia, which causes the gravity and inertial effects on bodies embedded in the ether. The ether's properties are changed by the masses (via feedback), but it is the ether that is the primary or first cause. Linear inertia is the resistance to motion of objects moving linearly caused by the ether drag.

Thoughts?

 

[Strangelove]

Really hate to quote Einstein but seeing as he admits here that Coreolis force can be created by the universe rotating around the Earth I thought you might be interested:::

Let's quote from a June 25, 1913 letter from Einstein to Ernst Mach
concerning such forces:

"Your 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 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."

 

[jasoncran]

Yes, I can see everyone queuing up to agree with you. By the same criteria, as no one other than you has expressed dissatisfaction with my explanation of the inferences to be drawn from stellar parallax and my critique of your 'refutation', then I can feel equally pleased with my arguments.

I thought you were familiar with all these evidences already. As Earth rotates on its axis, the wavelength of light from a particular star is either blue- or red-shifted as it apparently recedes or approaches Earth; a similar shifting occurs in the course of Earth's orbit of the Sun.

Nope, just drawing reasoned inferences from presented evidence and the consequences of physics.

The same principle as a gyroscope: the plane in which the pendulum swings seeks to retain a fixed direction in space, but as Earth turns under it the direction of the swing seems to rotate over time. At the North and South Poles, the oscillation plane is fixe;, at the Equator it stays fixed relative to Earth; at other latitudes it precesses relative to Earth, varying with latitude.

Dan Brown and Kate Mosse are great resources.

Do you have a point? What does 'level and close up' have to do with it? What about the other points I made that refute your assertions?

Never watch it.

Its just a graphic of another 'piece of junk' unstreamlined, non-aerodynamic spacecraft with bits of kit and antennae hanging off it. The point is to wonder why you seem so amazed at the appearance of the LEM. Here's Soyuz:

Source: commons.wikimedia.org

dont count me on those queing up with strangelove, i know better, i live near nasa and see all the launches. and know of the gps system and what sparrow said. theres is a time delay on the older gps. vs the new(the miltary ones are accurate enough that if wanted to bomb sl's toilet i could and if i wanted to put in on 10 digit grid i could.

 

[lordkalvan]

Nope. Not surprised in the slightest. You cant even see that a triangle with one made up point is not real geometry. Infact I dont know why you are still talking to me if you think I'm such a crackpot. Why waste your time?

The exercise in geometry is an attempt to help you grasp the idea that your claims concerning Polaris's fixed position in respect of Earth's axis of rotation providing evidence for a stationary Earth are quite simply wrong. You don't have to taint the purity of your beliefs by supposing that the trigonometry represents a 'real' situation: treat it as a theoretical exercise to help determine whether your argument holds water (hint: it doesn't).

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge")

eh....yes they do mean the same thing. Unless you wanna find me another definition?

Sorry, but knowledge and science are not interchangeable terms; they are not synonymous. Certainly a 1st Century writer would be quite unfamiliar with the modern usage of the word science. It can be first traced in English usage to the 14th Century, when it was used to refer to the knowledge of something acquired by study, but it was only in the 17th Century that it became understood to refer to what might be called non-arts studies, that is the fields of investigation that today are generally regarded as the sciences.

Nicely dodged again. And now your saying Pauls opinion is of virtually no importance?? Ouch!

I have given you a number of comments on the understanding that could be taken from these words. I see no relevance to them in this discussion at all. As to dodging questions, all I can say is pot, kettle, black.

Thats not the same question. But I'll answer yours anyway. When you jump "up" in a plane your not really just jumping up because you and the plane are BOTH moving forward at a great speed. So up you go (and foward too even though you don't think so) and you drop back down much further ahead than from where you jumped up (same distance as the plane moved).

No it's not the 'same' question, it's an analogy to help clarify understanding. And you seem to get it. When the helicopter takes off, it is acting in exactly the same way as you do when you jump up in an aircraft: both you and the helicopter retain all the momentum of the frame of reference in which you are operating. You could do the same with a flying model helicopter which you could keep hovering for an hour in your speeding airliner. This is exactly analogous to the example you are putting forward. In the case of the helicopter, it is retaining the frame of reference of the surrounding ambient air, which is being carried along by the rotation of Earth around its axis, its orbit around the Sun and the Solar System's orbit around the Galaxy.

Now can you answer my helicopter question?

I already have and you evidently 'got' it first time round.

 

[Strangelove]

The exercise in geometry is an attempt to help you grasp the idea that your claims concerning Polaris's fixed position in respect of Earth's axis of rotation providing evidence for a stationary Earth are quite simply wrong. You don't have to taint the purity of your beliefs by supposing that the trigonometry represents a 'real' situation: treat it as a theoretical exercise to help determine whether your argument holds water (hint: it doesn't).

So your asking me to please....pretty please...try and imagine that the Earth orbits the Sun to see that my non-moving Earth theory doesnt work? LOLZ!

Sorry, but knowledge and science are not interchangeable terms; they are not synonymous. Certainly a 1st Century writer would be quite unfamiliar with the modern usage of the word science. It can be first traced in English usage to the 14th Century, when it was used to refer to the knowledge of something acquired by study, but it was only in the 17th Century that it became understood to refer to what might be called non-arts studies, that is the fields of investigation that today are generally regarded as the sciences.

So you are basically flat out refusing the definition of science? Heres some more definitions::

1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena :

It's knowledge Kalvan. Like it or not.

So what is knowledge /science (or whatever you want to translate it as) non-arts studies....lolz....falsely so called as described in Timothy? Still waiting for an answer. This year would be nice.

No it's not the 'same' question, it's an analogy to help clarify understanding. And you seem to get it. When the helicopter takes off, it is acting in exactly the same way as you do when you jump up in an aircraft: both you and the helicopter retain all the momentum of the frame of reference in which you are operating. You could do the same with a flying model helicopter which you could keep hovering for an hour in your speeding airliner. This is exactly analogous to the example you are putting forward. In the case of the helicopter, it is retaining the frame of reference of the surrounding ambient air, which is being carried along by the rotation of Earth around its axis, its orbit around the Sun and the Solar System's orbit around the Galaxy.

Exactly analogous?? Lol. Even though the 2 examples couldn't be more different? i.e. In your plane example the plane is MOVING LATERALLY AT HIGH SPEED BY JET PROPULSION. And in my helicopter example it is NOT MOVING LATERALLY AT ALL??? Um......ok....except you seem to link the two together as being the same thing cos.....:::

....Lolz....finally after much dodging I've got that statement out of you so that we may start discussing it. The absolutely laughable idea that the atmosphere is magically velcroed to the Earth. And everything in the atmosphere.....the birds, clouds, planes, helicopters, weather balloons, tiny insects ....lolz....rain....etc...are somehow perfectly synchronised with the alledged rotation of the Earth?

So can you explain to me how while the entire atmosphere is whizzing around at a thousand miles per hour in one direction only,,,,,a gentle breeze can be wafting the other way, or a weather balloon thats anchored to the Earth can be completely unmoving in the sky or a fluffy cloud can be moving ever so slowly in the opposite direction the atmosphere is moving?

Can you please for one second step out of the years of indoctrination and approach the thought of an attached atmosphere spinning with the Earth and tell me if it sounds logical to you?


????>>>> Doc.

 

[lordkalvan]

Re: How the Rotation of the Earth Affects our Lives

How the Rotation of the Earth Affects our Lives

Nice find!

 

[Strangelove]

dont count me on those queing up with strangelove, i know better, i live near nasa and see all the launches. and know of the gps system and what sparrow said. theres is a time delay on the older gps. vs the new(the miltary ones are accurate enough that if wanted to bomb sl's toilet i could and if i wanted to put in on 10 digit grid i could.

Um.....excuse me.......?

 

[jasoncran]

sl the gps was made for and designed for the military not the civilians, russia has the same system.they even use the same style maps we use of all things. I used one of the old russian maps of my ao in country.

the 10 digit grid is nothing, i have seen them go to even tighter coordinates. 12 and 14 digits.

it goes like this. 4 digits(1 km sq)6digits(100m sq) 8 digits(10m sq)10 digits(1 m sq) 12 digits( 100 cm sq) and so on. that is used to find a place,person, target, call for arty on a tanks, buildings or BOMB.

its nothing new , very old tech to me.(20 plus yrs) for my level and use its mainly 8 digit as that close enough to find what i need to and guide arty in on.

 

[Strangelove]

sl the gps was made for and designed for the military not the civilians, russia has the same system.they even use the same style maps we use of all things. I used one of the old russian maps of my ao in country.

the 10 digit grid is nothing, i have seen them go to even tighter coordinates. 12 and 14 digits.

it goes like this. 4 digits(1 km sq)6digits(100m sq) 8 digits(10m sq)10 digits(1 m sq) 12 digits( 100 cm sq) and so on. that is used to find a place,person, target, call for arty on a tanks, buildings or BOMB.

its nothing new , very old tech to me.(20 plus yrs) for my level and use its mainly 8 digit as that close enough to find what i need to and guide arty in on.

Jason...I'm not really interested in all that gps gobbledegook////// I was just a little taken aback at your flipant remark regarding bombing my toilet. Not very nice.

 

[lordkalvan]

So your asking me to please....pretty please...try and imagine that the Earth orbits the Sun to see that my non-moving Earth theory doesnt work? LOLZ!

The only screw loose is the one in your own internal logic board that prevents you carrying out a straightforward trigonometrical calculation to show whether or not there would be any observable difference in Polaris's position if observed (a) from a stationary point and (b) from either end of a hypothetical baseline approximately 300 million kilometres in length. None of this requires you to risk your theological devotion by actually believing that Earth moves at all. Your neurotic resistance to carrying out such a calculation only suggests that you are afraid of the conclusion that it would lead to, i.e. that there would be no perceptible difference in position at all and the 'proof' you advanced does not bear scrutiny.

So you are basically flat out refusing the definition of science? Heres some more definitions

Nope, I'm saying that science and knowledge are not synonymous. Science subsumes the concept of knowledge about a subject, but knowledge is a term that embraces a breadth of understanding and learning beyond ‘just’ science. London taxi drivers have to take The Knowledge, substituting The Science would make no sense; you can have knowledge of a route from Paris to Rome, but you wouldn’t claim to have science of such a route; carnal knowledge of someone is not the same as carnal science of someone.

However, I suspect this a somewhat sterile discussion. It is certainly the case that the writer of the verse you are quoting was not referring to the term science in its modern usage, which is why, as I pointed out before, several translations prefer knowledge.

So what is knowledge /science (or whatever you want to translate it as) non-arts studies....lolz....falsely so called as described in Timothy? Still waiting for an answer. This year would be nice.

In the first place, I’ve given you a number of possible suggestions. If you don’t like them, that’s not my problem. In the second place, you still have failed to explain the importance of this point, so it seems of little relevance. In the third place, why would I care what one theologically-driven interpretation wants to import to the verse as opposed to another theologically-driven interpretation? There are more religious texts in the world than you can shake a stick at and I am no more impressed by one than any other.

Exactly analogous??

Yes. I’m surprised you don’t see why.

Even though the 2 examples couldn't be more different? i.e. In your plane example the plane is MOVING LATERALLY AT HIGH SPEED BY JET PROPULSION. And in my helicopter example it is NOT MOVING LATERALLY AT ALL???

Nice attempt at the ol’ bait ‘n’ switch there. Maybe you hope I’ll be distracted by the capitalization, which I presume is intended to make it appear as if your point is stronger than it actually is? The aircraft is not analogous to the helicopter, you are analogous to the helicopter; the aircraft is analogous to Earth.

Um......ok....except you seem to link the two together as being the same thing cos.....:::

Eh, no I don’t cos - I haven’t. That is just the spin you have attempted to impart to my analogy.

....Lolz....finally after much dodging I've got that statement out of you so that we may start discussing it. The absolutely laughable idea that the atmosphere is magically velcroed to the Earth. And everything in the atmosphere.....the birds, clouds, planes, helicopters, weather balloons, tiny insects ....lolz....rain....etc...are somehow perfectly synchronised with the alledged rotation of the Earth?

You may want to consider the Earth’s gravitational field, Newton’s laws of motion and the radial force exerted by Earth on objects within its gravitational field.

So can you explain to me how while the entire atmosphere is whizzing around at a thousand miles per hour in one direction only,,,,,a gentle breeze can be wafting the other way, or a weather balloon thats anchored to the Earth can be completely unmoving in the sky or a fluffy cloud can be moving ever so slowly in the opposite direction the atmosphere is moving?

See above: the mass of air in which you experience these effects is gravitationally ‘tied’ to Earth. At the Equator, for example, the centrifugal force of Earth’s rotation is equivalent to about 1% of the gravitational force exerted there. As you progress towards the Poles, this centrifugal force becomes less.

Can you please for one second step out of the years of indoctrination and approach the thought of an attached atmosphere spinning with the Earth and tell me if it sounds logical to you?

The levels to which your personal incredulity stretch are not my concern. Maybe you should try stepping out of your own dogma-constrained box, you know, the one which regards thought experiments in simple trigonometry as ‘quackery’.

 

[lordkalvan]

Ok..In response to Foucault's Pendulum and Coriolis Effect...

I present this from the book "Galileo was Wrong" by Dr. Robert Sungenis and Dr. Robert Bennett. 650 pgs.

Thoughts?

Well, given that Sungenis's degrees are in religion, religious studies and theology and I imagine Bennett has a similar background, why should I grant their theologically-driven interpretation of science any serious consideration at all?

By the way, is the Barbour and Bertotti 'proof' referred to in your lengthy extract that contained in their 1977 paper Gravity and Inertia in a Machian Framework? If so, as someone who has in the course of a number of posts inveighed against the 'false science' and the 'quackery' of theoretical science, on what grounds have you decided that Barbour and Bertotti's work constitutes neither 'false science' nor the inherent 'quackery' of theoretical science, not to mention deciding that the 'un-observed, un-measured and un-analysed non existant and totally theoretical evidence' on which it is all based happens not to be the case in this instance? It wouldn't be because their work can be used as promoting your own particular belief system, would it?

 

[Strangelove]

You may want to consider the Earth’s gravitational field, Newton’s laws of motion and the radial force exerted by Earth on objects within its gravitational field.

See above: The mass of air in which you experience these effects is gravitationally ‘tied’ to Earth. At the Equator, for example, the centrifugal force of Earth’s rotation is equivalent to about 1% of the gravitational force exerted there. As you progress towards the Poles, this centrifugal force becomes less.

So...let me get this straight. The "gravitational pull" of the Earth together with the "certifugal force" (which acts by inertia) of the rotation....."ties" the atmosphere to the Earth?

And while these forces are constantly sucking the atmosphere to the Earth....things like soap bubbles and feathers and kites can float effortlessly and slowly up...up.....up ....up....and away just from a light breeze, completely independent of these gigantic forces? So you have these nutty laws for the "mass of air" and yet you suspend the laws for things in the air?

Do you have any studies or any kind of documentation that supports this theory?

At what level of the atmosphere does it no longer spin with the Earth?

Mass of air gravitationally tied to Earth. Show me the study please. Where do you get this from? Gravity is just a word that describes heavyness. Nothing more. Newton was the first to admit that his laws didnt explain anything useful.

Seek God's guidance in this and He will show you the truth. Look to the Bible and see how it supports a non-moving Earth and a moving Sun in all instances. Look to your God given senses, go outside and look up into the sky, observe how everything rotates around us so perfectly in one sidreal day. Observe the perfect stillness of the sky on a calm day. Look at the star trails. Open your eyes and recognize the fallacies of modern theoretical science falsely so called.