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

[Strangelove]

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

Because theres nothing theoretical about it. It's an actual experiment. You rotate a shell around a fixed central ball and it creates a coreolis force on the surface of the ball. You can do it again and again with the same results. There are no assumptions. No theory's. Just real science. No quackery.

 

[Strangelove]

Introduction to Geocentrism - by Neville T. Jones, PhD (physics).

[FONT=arial,sans-serif]Geocentric means World-centred. In particular, a geocentric universe is one in which the centres of the World and of the (finite) universe coincide. Observational data, together with our instincts or senses, indicate to us that the universe is in reality geocentric. In addition, all physical experiments designed to demonstrate some alleged motion of the World have consistently produced a null result. Only theoretical ideas support a different interpretation of our surroundings than this...... We feel no motion of the World on which we all live. Furthermore, no experiment in all physics has ever demonstrated that the World moves around the Sun, or that it rotates on an axis. From the standpoint of our senses, therefore, it seems simply common sense to attribute the motion of the Sun, Moon, planets and stars to those objects themselves, rather than to some multi-component, contorted movement of the World. Certainly, to a good approximation, the stars appear to go around us as if they are each attached to the inner surface of a huge celestial sphere, which is itself rotating above our heads from east to west on a celestial north-south polar axis.

[/FONT]
​

​

​

 

[jasoncran]

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.

it was in jest, should i have said the knesset?

 

[Strangelove]

it was in jest, should i have said the knesset?

Uhm.....Lol?:ohwell

 

[Strangelove]

Incredibly goofy concept.

Is the air [atmosphere] velcroed to the Earth? Does it adjust its alleged rotational speed every inch one proceeds from the equator to the poles?? Do clouds not move in directions contrary to the alleged rotation?? You have no proof (science) that the Earth is rotating on an axis; you have a clever mathematical model based entirely on assumptions and in defiance of all observational evidence. A real scientist will stand back and take a hard look at the HISTORY OF FRAUD in the theoretical science establishment that has erected a virtual reality universe that is derived concept for concept from the “holy book†Zohar/Kabbala of the Pharisee Religion. If you are a Pharisee, let it be known. If you aren’t then you are duped into following that religion’s anti-Bible, anti-Christ alternate “creation scenario†which has used its totally controlled “academia†as your “citable sourceâ€.

Marshall Hall​

 

[Strangelove]

The[FONT=verdana,sans-serif]Ill-Darkinati'shttp://www.redicecreations.com/specialreports/2005/08aug/redshield.html religion is based upon the Kabbalah, the Luciferian Philosophy, AND THE WORSHIP OF THE SUN (as opposed to THE SON) which is why they present "Helio-centricity" (which means "Sun-centered") before the eyes of an uncritical, trusting, and gullible public. [/FONT]

​

Double devil horn flashing silhouette with SUN in background.​

Barack Hussein Obama a.k.a. Barry Davis: Prince Hall Mason, Boule Society (Sigma Pi Phi, motto: Advisors To The King), Baphomet (devil horn) Sign Flasher, Zionist-funded, Jesuit Coadjutor, Zbig Brzezinski hand-picked puppet, Master Hypnotist using NLP (Neurolinguistic Programming), MK-Ultra Monarch Slave User/Abuser, pathological liar with NO allegiance to U.S. Constitution/Bill of Rights, fiercely loyal to his Masonic Oaths and Jesuit-SMOM [Sovereign Military Order of Malta] Knights of Malta masters. Function: continue playing role of mid-level manager("President") convincingly…while neo-fascist twins Henry Kissinger/Zbig Brzezinski continue re-shaping world for "Global Elites" [Pharisaical Babylonian Talmudists]

 

[Strangelove]

I hope nobody here is one of those who are convinced that the trip to the moon was faked

Sparra' me lad,

Look at this picture I found of the "Eagle" Lunar Module.

I promise you I did not make this up. This is an authentic NASA photo, you can check it on their website.

The code is AS11-40-5922

Just look at it. It's ridiculous. It's garbage. The whole thing was staged on a sound set.

Seriously, it looks like a 7 year old knocked it up for a science project at school. The black stuff is obviously PAPER. You can see the scotch tape!!

 

[lordkalvan]

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?

No, I don't think you're got it straight. The centrifugal force absolutely does not 'tie' the atmosphere to Earth, gravity does that - in the same way as it ties the atmosphere of Mars to that planet (which I presume you acknowledge rotates about its axis and orbits the Sun?) so that winds to blow do not a thousand miles an hour or more as the planet rotates independently of the atmosphere that surrounds it.

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?

Nope, the 'things in the air' are in the same frame of reference as the air itself, just like the helicopter is so that it can fly and, if necessary for the purposes of your thought experiment, hover stationary for one hour and remain in the same relative position vis à vis the ground.

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

None that support your strawman version of these phenomenon. However, the basic principles can be found in any physics' or climatology textbook.

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

There is no simple, straightforward answer; the atmosphere is a complicated environment affected by numerous variables, including temperature, pressure and density. Studies have indicated that at altitudes of 200-400 kilometres, the atmosphere can actually rotate faster than Earth itself (see Super-rotation of the Upper Atmosphere by D.H. Weinstein and J. Keeney in Nature, 231.

Mass of air gravitationally tied to Earth. Show me the study please. Where do you get this from?

Again, this is pretty basic stuff. The atmosphere is made up of gases which are compressed by gravity, which is why the atmosphere is denser at lower altitudes. Earth’s gravity holds the atmosphere close to the surface; by contrast, the much weaker gravity of Mars means that the atmosphere is less compressed and therefore thinner than Earth’s. The Moon’s atmosphere is so tenuous as to be a near-vacuum, but it still exists. In contrast, the gravity of Jupiter produces atmospheric pressures exceeding 1000 bars, reaching as much as 4 million bars where liquid metallic hydrogen forms.

Gravity is just a word that describes heavyness. Nothing more.

I have no idea what you mean. Gravity is a force of attraction that operates between two masses. That attraction is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centres of mass. If you are saying that we do not know exactly what gravity is, you are right, but we can define how it behaves.

Newton was the first to admit that his laws didnt explain anything useful.

Hmmm, so when Newton wrote this in Principia mathematica -

And to us it is enough that gravity does really exist, and acts according to the laws which we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for all the motions of the celestial bodies, and of our sea.

- what he really meant was that the laws didn’t explain anything useful at all?

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.

Umm, I have no idea why you think I might be influenced by this piece of pious sermonising. I am afraid that seeing is not always believing and ‘common sense’ is not necessarily always the best guide to understanding what we see.

 

[lordkalvan]

Because theres nothing theoretical about it. It's an actual experiment. You rotate a shell around a fixed central ball and it creates a coreolis force on the surface of the ball. You can do it again and again with the same results. There are no assumptions. No theory's. Just real science. No quackery.

You mean just like you can actually repeat Foucault's pendulum experiment again and again at different latitudes and return results entirely consistent with the predictive consequences of the experiment?

You mean just like you can repeat measurements of stellar parallax time and again with different stars and return results entirely consistent with the hypothesis that Earth orbits the Sun at a distance of around 150 million kilometres?

You mean just like you can repeat experiments measuring the red- and blue-shift of light from the same star that shows that (a) Earth is rotating on ots axis and (b) orbiting the Sun?

You mean just like you can execute a thought experiment to demonstrate that there would be no perceptible observational difference in Polaris's apparent position whether Earth was stationary or orbiting the Sun at a distance of about 150 million kilometres?

So you are saying there is nothing theoretical at all in taking a lab experiment as you've described it and extrapolating it to encompass the entire Universe and lead to the inference that Earth is the stationary centre of that Universe?

By the way, you haven't clarified whether or not Barbour and Bernotti's work referred to in your lengthy extract is the paper I cited. Do you know?

 

[lordkalvan]

Look at this picture I found of the "Eagle" Lunar Module.

I promise you I did not make this up. This is an authentic NASA photo, you can check it on their website.

The code is AS11-40-5922

It would help if you could provide a reference to the actual web-page. Your posted image looks suspiciously identical to one on Jack White's website. Would this be the case?

Just look at it. It's ridiculous. It's garbage. The whole thing was staged on a sound set.

As you have so far answered none of the points I raised in response to your initial claims about the Apollo missions and the LEM, your apparent ignorance of what you are looking at is an unconvincing argument for persuading anyone that Moon landings were an elaborate, multilayered, NASA-wide conspiracy. Why do you regard what you are looking at as 'ridiculous' and 'garbage'?

Seriously, it looks like a 7 year old knocked it up for a science project at school.

Ridicule is not persuasive.

The black stuff is obviously PAPER.

Obviously? How, obviously? Do you imagine it's there as part of the structure of the LEM? What do you imagine it's there for? Evidence?

You can see the scotch tape!!

Just because you think it looks like you think scotch tape should look like doesn't mean it is scotch tape. Evidence?

 

[jasoncran]

the upper half of the eagle is at nasa on display, for the tourist.

strangelove , take a trip to the cape and post a pic when you do.

i have seen that craft, ducttape, notta chance.

 

[Pard]

Strangelove,

Would you be so kind as to post a theological defense for your geo-centric view in the Apologetic section? I'd be more then happy to discuss this topic on more familiar ground, but when it comes to science (outside the realm of creation/evolution stuff) I am slightly clueless. So as long as we stick to the Bible, which after all is what matters, I'd very much enjoy the talk.

 

[jasoncran]

Strangelove,

Would you be so kind as to post a theological defense for your geo-centric view in the Apologetic section? I'd be more then happy to discuss this topic on more familiar ground, but when it comes to science (outside the realm of creation/evolution stuff) I am slightly clueless. So as long as we stick to the Bible, which after all is what matters, I'd very much enjoy the talk.

i will iniate this.

 

[Strangelove]

No, I don't think you're got it straight. The centrifugal force absolutely does not 'tie' the atmosphere to Earth, gravity does that - in the same way as it ties the atmosphere of Mars to that planet (which I presume you acknowledge rotates about its axis and orbits the Sun?) so that winds to blow do not a thousand miles an hour or more as the planet rotates independently of the atmosphere that surrounds it.

Nope, the 'things in the air' are in the same frame of reference as the air itself, just like the helicopter is so that it can fly and, if necessary for the purposes of your thought experiment, hover stationary for one hour and remain in the same relative position vis à vis the ground.

This is your defence of this preposterous theory? That things in the air are in the same frame of reference as the air itself? Is that it? So we have a force (gravity) exerting its influence on the entire atmosphere, pulling it constantly towards the Earth but this force effects things flying in the air in the OPPOSITE direction completely independently because they are in the same frame of reference? Show me some science to back this up please.

None that support your strawman version of these phenomenon. However, the basic principles can be found in any physics' or climatology textbook.

Show us please.

There is no simple, straightforward answer; the atmosphere is a complicated environment affected by numerous variables, including temperature, pressure and density. Studies have indicated that at altitudes of 200-400 kilometres, the atmosphere can actually rotate faster than Earth itself (see Super-rotation of the Upper Atmosphere by D.H. Weinstein and J. Keeney in Nature, 231.

Cant find that article anywhere. Maybe seeing as you've read it you can summarise the main aspects for us. It wouldn't happen to assume that the Earth is spinning would it?

Again, this is pretty basic stuff. The atmosphere is made up of gases which are compressed by gravity, which is why the atmosphere is denser at lower altitudes. Earth’s gravity holds the atmosphere close to the surface; by contrast, the much weaker gravity of Mars means that the atmosphere is less compressed and therefore thinner than Earth’s. The Moon’s atmosphere is so tenuous as to be a near-vacuum, but it still exists. In contrast, the gravity of Jupiter produces atmospheric pressures exceeding 1000 bars, reaching as much as 4 million bars where liquid metallic hydrogen forms.

Again show us ANY scientific studies of how air is held to Earth and kept in sychronicity with its alledged rotation by gravity.

I have no idea what you mean. Gravity is a force of attraction that operates between two masses. That attraction is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centres of mass. If you are saying that we do not know exactly what gravity is, you are right, but we can define how it behaves.

Hmmm, so when Newton wrote this in Principia mathematica -

And to us it is enough that gravity does really exist, and acts according to the laws which we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for all the motions of the celestial bodies, and of our sea.

- what he really meant was that the laws didn’t explain anything useful at all?

He also said:

“I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.â€

 

[Strangelove]

You mean just like you can actually repeat Foucault's pendulum experiment again and again at different latitudes and return results entirely consistent with the predictive consequences of the experiment?

The results are also consistent with a Geocentric universe.

You mean just like you can repeat measurements of stellar parallax time and again with different stars and return results entirely consistent with the hypothesis that Earth orbits the Sun at a distance of around 150 million kilometres?

I'm just interested Kalvan. Are you familiar with the term "circular reasoning"?
If you are, can you give me an example please. Any example. Thanks.

You mean just like you can repeat experiments measuring the red- and blue-shift of light from the same star that shows that (a) Earth is rotating on ots axis and (b) orbiting the Sun?

You never showed us the science. You just keep stating it as fact.

You mean just like you can execute a thought experiment to demonstrate that there would be no perceptible observational difference in Polaris's apparent position whether Earth was stationary or orbiting the Sun at a distance of about 150 million kilometres?

You can also execute a thought experiment to demonstrate that Eddie Murphy is dancing around the rings of Saturn at 1,800,000000 mph with a monkey on his head whilst chugging on a strawberry milkshake.........but why would I want to waste my time with that?

So you are saying there is nothing theoretical at all in taking a lab experiment as you've described it and extrapolating it to encompass the entire Universe and lead to the inference that Earth is the stationary centre of that Universe?

Its about as non-theoretical as you can get.

By the way, you haven't clarified whether or not Barbour and Bernotti's work referred to in your lengthy extract is the paper I cited. Do you know?

No I dont know.

 

[Strangelove]

It would help if you could provide a reference to the actual web-page. Your posted image looks suspiciously identical to one on Jack White's website. Would this be the case?

Sure, here you go. This is NASA's own webpage. Paste into your address bar.

history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11prsci3-15.html

Its the link that says - AS11-40-5922 - Side of LM between +Y and -Z strut

Why do you regard what you are looking at as 'ridiculous' and 'garbage'?

Because I can see it with my own eyes.

Obviously? How, obviously? Do you imagine it's there as part of the structure of the LEM? What do you imagine it's there for? Evidence?

Just because you think it looks like you think scotch tape should look like doesn't mean it is scotch tape. Evidence?

Denial. The evidence is staring you in the face.

 

[Strangelove]

the upper half of the eagle is at nasa on display, for the tourist.

strangelove , take a trip to the cape and post a pic when you do.

i have seen that craft, ducttape, notta chance.

Jason, honestly,,,,,what is going to be more reliable evidence? The actual photo that NASA release at the time and has been unchanged for decades.......or a museum tourist piece that they can spruce up whenever they want?

 

[Strangelove]

Strangelove,

Would you be so kind as to post a theological defense for your geo-centric view in the Apologetic section? I'd be more then happy to discuss this topic on more familiar ground, but when it comes to science (outside the realm of creation/evolution stuff) I am slightly clueless. So as long as we stick to the Bible, which after all is what matters, I'd very much enjoy the talk.

I'm not really interested in launching into a massive debate over Biblical support for Geocentricity Pard.

Like I said in my first post......there is zero support for a moving Earth in the Bible and whenever there are verses there that MAY pertain to the movement or non-movement of the Earth, the Bible always indicates non-movement. Similarly it always indicates movement for the Sun. Thats all I'm claiming.

It's undeniable. Theres no debate. No-one disagreed with that statement when I made it.


I'll look over there if someone else wants to start it off though.

Doc.

 

[jasoncran]

Jason, honestly,,,,,what is going to be more reliable evidence? The actual photo that NASA release at the time and has been unchanged for decades.......or a museum tourist piece that they can spruce up whenever they want?

by that reasoning what makes you believe that i exist?

i meant with your conspiracist thinking and tendencies,one can conjure up what one wants to see.

i only follow conspiracies that actually have the person openly caught in the act, and easily verifiable.

you havent presented much contra-evidence to counter modern science. are all scientists liars to you, and that off? one might think that by now and honest areonautical engineer from nasa would come forward. especially now, since his or her job is done anyways with the defunding of nasa.

 

[Strangelove]

by that reasoning what makes you believe that i exist?

i meant with your conspiracist thinking and tendencies,one can conjure up what one wants to see.

i only follow conspiracies that actually have the person openly caught in the act, and easily verifiable.

you havent presented much contra-evidence to counter modern science. are all scientists liars to you, and that off? one might think that by now and honest areonautical engineer from nasa would come forward. especially now, since his or her job is done anyways with the defunding of nasa.

DISCERNMENT