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

[jasoncran]

i have operated in that gift and seen demons and demonically possesed. i dont call what you put forth discernment.

is there a conspiracy you dont believe in?

men lie, but if theres a chance to brag about sin they will, why is it that all the mastermind thief get caught.? they get complacent and make mistakes and or brag.

with wiki leaks just happened one would think that the moon conspiracy by now would have come forth.

 

[Strangelove]

i have operated in that gift and seen demons and demonically possesed. i dont call what you put forth discernment.

Your Pentacostal right? Just taking a wild guess.

is there a conspiracy you dont believe in?

Reptilian Overlords
Alien UFO's
Elvis living on the Moon
Stephen King killed John Lennon
Kentucky Fried Chicken makes black men impotent

Few off the top of my head.

men lie, but if theres a chance to brag about sin they will, why is it that all the mastermind thief get caught.? they get complacent and make mistakes and or brag.

Get real man. So no-one ever gets a way with a crime?

And anyway...even when they are caught, what happens then? They still have to go through the courts and prosecution to convince you?

with wiki leaks just happened one would think that the moon conspiracy by now would have come forth.

Why is wikileaks more dependable than the gazillion moon hoax websites that exist?

 

[Strangelove]

THE SUN IS A PLANET !

From - crownofchrist.net


What is a "Planet"?

The Greek root word "planao" means to go astray, wander or roam
about. The Bible warns about false teachers who deviate from the
truth of the Christian Faith. They are "wandering stars, to whom is
reserved the blackness of darkness forever" (Jude 13).

Early astronomers chose the word "planet" to describe celestial
bodies that seemed to deviate from simple rotation about the
earth. According to modern theories, the earth is the third planet
from the sun. The sun is just one mediocre star among billions.
We live on a speck in a vast, impersonal universe. Really?

Wise Solomon wrote about the futility of life. Everything seems to go in circles: human history, the sun, the jet stream and the water cycle: "One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth forever. The sun also ariseth,
and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. The wind goeth toword the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits. All the rivers run into the sea; yet
the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again" (Ecclesiastes 1:4-7)

The Psalmist compares the sun to a runner in a race around the earth: "...the sun...rejoiceth as a bridegroom to run his race. His going forth is from the end of heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof" (Psalm 19:4-6).

Are these Scripture verses "mere poetry"? Are they the silly myths of ancient, "primitive" peoples? The Bible nowhere teaches the modern theory that the earth is in motion around the sun. Christian heliocentrists, like "christian" evolutionists, must bring
their atheistic assumptions with them when they come to God's Word. A man stranded on an island with only a Bible could never dream up such things.

 

[lordkalvan]

This is your defence of this preposterous theory?

There's nothing preposterous about it. Again, your personal incredulity is not itself evidence of anything. I notice you still haven't answered the question concerning atmosphere and winds on Mars.

That things in the air are in the same frame of reference as the air itself? Is that it?

Pretty much, yes.

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?

How you take this as an understanding from what I have said, I have no idea. I must be a poor communicator. Or perhaps you're trying another bait 'n' switch. Anything in the atmosphere is in the same frame of reference as the atmosphere itself, just like you're in the same frame of reference of the airliner in which you're jumping up and down. The atmosphere is comprised of gas molecules, all of which have mass. Bodies which have mass are gravitationally attracted to each other. Gas molecules gravitationally attract Earth and Earth gravitationally attracts those gas molecules and they are thus gravitationally bound to each other. An object on Earth's surface has mass and is similarly gravitationally attracted to Earth and Earth to it. If it's a helicopter, to take your example, the gravitational frame of reference in which it flies remains the same, whether it is on the ground or in the air. When the helicopter takes off, it takes off with the same rotational speed as Earth, it does not magically lose this rotational speed immediately it breaks contact with the ground, any more than you lose the speed of the airliner when you jump in the air in the aisle.

Show me some science to back this up please.

Any textbook which deals with the basic principles of the laws of gravity will provide you with all the necessary background information you require.

Show us please.

What? You can't use your local library to find a basic physics' textbook that deals with gravity?

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?

No assumption necessary.

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

Would those be 'false science' studies or 'quackery' science studies? You may find Physics of the Earth by Frank D Stacey and Paul M Davis helpful.

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€

And how exactly does this show that, as you claimed, 'Newton was the first to admit that his laws didnt [sic] explain anything useful', and how does it show that what I quoted from Principia mathematica - which seems to show that he did see some usefulness in them after all - is incorrect?

 

[Strangelove]

There's nothing preposterous about it. Again, your personal incredulity is not itself evidence of anything. I notice you still haven't answered the question concerning atmosphere and winds on Mars.

I didnt answer it because your quote about Mars......:

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.

.......doesnt make any sense. Maybe you can clarify your question/point.

How you take this as an understanding from what I have said, I have no idea. I must be a poor communicator. Or perhaps you're trying another bait 'n' switch. Anything in the atmosphere is in the same frame of reference as the atmosphere itself, just like you're in the same frame of reference of the airliner in which you're jumping up and down. The atmosphere is comprised of gas molecules, all of which have mass. Bodies which have mass are gravitationally attracted to each other. Gas molecules gravitationally attract Earth and Earth gravitationally attracts those gas molecules and they are thus gravitationally bound to each other. An object on Earth's surface has mass and is similarly gravitationally attracted to Earth and Earth to it. If it's a helicopter, to take your example, the gravitational frame of reference in which it flies remains the same, whether it is on the ground or in the air. When the helicopter takes off, it takes off with the same rotational speed as Earth, it does not magically lose this rotational speed immediately it breaks contact with the ground, any more than you lose the speed of the airliner when you jump in the air in the aisle.

Any textbook which deals with the basic principles of the laws of gravity will provide you with all the necessary background information you require.

What? You can't use your local library to find a basic physics' textbook that deals with gravity?

No assumption necessary.

Would those be 'false science' studies or 'quackery' science studies? You may find Physics of the Earth by Frank D Stacey and Paul M Davis helpful.

Again I ask you to bring any scientific documentation forward. I'd like to see anything that talks about the atmospheres relationship with the axial rotation of the Earth from any of your sources....scientific or theoretical I dont care. Feel free to cut and paste your heart away. We cant just take your word for it can we? You seem so sure about all of this you must have read it somewhere no?

And how exactly does this show that, as you claimed, 'Newton was the first to admit that his laws didnt [sic] explain anything useful', and how does it show that what I quoted from Principia mathematica - which seems to show that he did see some usefulness in them after all - is incorrect?

The quote basically is him admitting that he never discovered real truth. It's self explanatory. Therefore his theories were not real truth. (goes without saying really....they are theories)

 

[lordkalvan]

The results are also consistent with a Geocentric universe.

And you know this how, as you do not appear to know which paper by Barbour and Bertotti is being used to support this argument.

I'm just interested Kalvan. Are you familiar with the term "circular reasoning"?

Yes, and you've quite failed to show that stellar paradox is such an example, and neither have you offered an alternative explanation for the observed phenomenon.

If you are, can you give me an example please. Any example. Thanks.

God exists - How do you know? - Because the Bible says so? - Why do you believe the Bible? - Because it is the word of God.

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

The Doppler effect caused by Earth's rotation is a factor in the performance of Earth-scanning space-based radars. From the abstract of Effect of earth's rotation and range foldover on space-based radar performance by S. Unnikrishna Pillai et al. in IEEE transactions on aerospace and electronic systems, Vol. 42, No.3, 2006.

Space-based radar (SBR) by virtue of its motion generates a Doppler frequency component to the clutter return from any point on the Earth as a function of the SBR-Earth geometry. The effect of the rotation of the Earth around its own axis also adds an additional component to this Doppler frequency. The overall effect of the rotation of the Earth on the Doppler turns out to be two correction factors in terms of a crab angle affecting the azimuth angle, and a crab magnitude scaling the Doppler magnitude of the clutter patch.

Pulsars demonstrate Doppler shifting as Earth's orbit round the Sun changes. From the 2001 paper Pulsar positions and the Earth's orbitby Emma de Oña Wilhelmi, Department of Atomic, Molecular and Nuclear Physics, University of Madrid:

Since the time of Roemer, who made observations of motion of Jupiter's satellites when the Earth was a different positions in its orbit, it has been known that light takes about 8 1/2 minutes to travel from the Sun to the Earth. Pulses from a pulsar lying in the plane of the ecliptic will therefore arrive earlier at the Earth than at the Sun when the Earth is closest to the pulsar, that is, when it is at the same heliocentric longitude. Six months later the pulses will arrive late by the same amount.

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?

I have no idea why you would want to consider these absurd ideas as on the same level of reasoned argument as carrying out a simple trigonometric exercise which, if you are correct in your assertion about the consequences of Earth orbiting the Sun resulting in a perceptible annual shift in Polaris's position and, indeed, completely different stars taking over Polaris's position. It seems you will imagine any excuse to avoid doing this and I can only conclude that this is because you are fully aware of the implications for your argument of such a calculation.

Its about as non-theoretical as you can get.

On what basis do you regard it as non-theoretical? Barbour himself notes on his website in respect of the paper in question that:

The basic idea behind these two papers is that only relative separations occur in the action principle of the universe....The main value of such theories is that they show how Mach’s Principle can be implemented, but they lead to anisotropic inertial masses, which are ruled out experimentally.

Source: Julian Barbour—Papers

Most of his work appears to be directed towards the field of theoretical physics. If time and motion are relative, as he argues, this does not mean that Earth is stationary and the Universe rotates around it or, for that matter, the reverse, only that for purposes of theoretical physics there is no purposeful distinction between the two frames of reference. I can see no indication on Barbour's website or in the papers I have scanned briefly that he believes the theoretical arguments in his and Bertotti's work lead to the practical conclusion that Earth does not orbit the Sun and does not rotate on its own axis. Why do you suppose that is?

No I dont know.

So is your understanding derived entirely from the dogma-driven arguments of two theologians with, as far as I am aware, no serious education in theoretical physics at all?

 

[lordkalvan]

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

Thanks.

Because I can see it with my own eyes.

Your opinion based on what you think you are looking at and your interpretation of that are not alone persuasive. You need to offer some evidential argument as to why you think that thermal insulation material is 'ridiculous' and 'garbage'. have you ever hiked? Have you ever used or seen an emergency thermal blanket? They will save your life in bad weather, weigh a few grammes and look like nothing so much as aluminium cooking foil or chocolate wrap. In other words, 'ridiculous' and 'garbage' as a life-saving piece of kit. They are derived from the thermal insulation developments of the US space programme in the 1960s.

Denial. The evidence is staring you in the face.

Self-delusion. You see what you want to see.

 

[Sinthesis]

One quick point:
For Neptune (much less anything else beyond it) to orbit the Earth every 24hrs, it would have to exceed the speed of light.
This would be a relatively neat trick.:rolling

 

[jasoncran]

Your Pentacostal right? Just taking a wild guess.



Reptilian Overlords
Alien UFO's
Elvis living on the Moon
Stephen King killed John Lennon
Kentucky Fried Chicken makes black men impotent

Few off the top of my head.



Get real man. So no-one ever gets a way with a crime?

And anyway...even when they are caught, what happens then? They still have to go through the courts and prosecution to convince you?



Why is wikileaks more dependable than the gazillion moon hoax websites that exist?

because men may die beacause of the intellegence leaks. that is a real problem for the dod. of course people get away with cirmes. but what you suggest would take more then one person to do this through the years and none getting caught and rolled. not that easy to do.

yes it would take alot more that what you have presented for me to believe.

i have personally seen the lander. someone would notice by now.

 

[Strangelove]

And you know this how, as you do not appear to know which paper by Barbour and Bertotti is being used to support this argument.

What is it that is crucial here? To know the exact reference number of the scientific paper? I'm not following you Kal, why is that so important to understanding the science of what they present.

Yes, and you've quite failed to show that stellar paradox is such an example, and neither have you offered an alternative explanation for the observed phenomenon.

God exists - How do you know? - Because the Bible says so? - Why do you believe the Bible? - Because it is the word of God.

Ok. Now we know that you are an atheist that makes your desperation to cling to theoretical science all the more clear. But lets use your heretical statement anyway and substitute a few words out so that it realates to Stellar parallax.

The Earth orbits the Sun- How do you know? - Because we can perform stellar parallax measurements ? - Why do you believe the stellar parallax measurements prove the orbit? - Because it uses the assumption that the Earth orbits the Sun to calculate the measurements.

Do you understand the concept now Kal? It's just as circular as your example. My 5 year old son can get this.

The Doppler effect caused by Earth's rotation is a factor in the performance of Earth-scanning space-based radars. From the abstract of Effect of earth's rotation and range foldover on space-based radar performance by S. Unnikrishna Pillai et al. in IEEE transactions on aerospace and electronic systems, Vol. 42, No.3, 2006.

Space-based radar (SBR) by virtue of its motion generates a Doppler frequency component to the clutter return from any point on the Earth as a function of the SBR-Earth geometry. The effect of the rotation of the Earth around its own axis also adds an additional component to this Doppler frequency. The overall effect of the rotation of the Earth on the Doppler turns out to be two correction factors in terms of a crab angle affecting the azimuth angle, and a crab magnitude scaling the Doppler magnitude of the clutter patch.

Pulsars demonstrate Doppler shifting as Earth's orbit round the Sun changes. From the 2001 paper Pulsar positions and the Earth's orbitby Emma de Oña Wilhelmi, Department of Atomic, Molecular and Nuclear Physics, University of Madrid:

Since the time of Roemer, who made observations of motion of Jupiter's satellites when the Earth was a different positions in its orbit, it has been known that light takes about 8 1/2 minutes to travel from the Sun to the Earth. Pulses from a pulsar lying in the plane of the ecliptic will therefore arrive earlier at the Earth than at the Sun when the Earth is closest to the pulsar, that is, when it is at the same heliocentric longitude. Six months later the pulses will arrive late by the same amount.

All measurements that these people make ALWAYS assume that every six months...the Earth has changed it's position by millions of miles. So all their calculations are off.

I have no idea why you would want to consider these absurd ideas as on the same level of reasoned argument as carrying out a simple trigonometric exercise which, if you are correct in your assertion about the consequences of Earth orbiting the Sun resulting in a perceptible annual shift in Polaris's position and, indeed, completely different stars taking over Polaris's position. It seems you will imagine any excuse to avoid doing this and I can only conclude that this is because you are fully aware of the implications for your argument of such a calculation.

The absurd Eddie Murphy example is just as absurd as assuming the Earth has changed its position by millions of miles. Quack is as quack does.

On what basis do you regard it as non-theoretical? Barbour himself notes on his website in respect of the paper in question that:

The basic idea behind these two papers is that only relative separations occur in the action principle of the universe....The main value of such theories is that they show how Mach’s Principle can be implemented, but they lead to anisotropic inertial masses, which are ruled out experimentally.

Source: Julian Barbour—Papers

Most of his work appears to be directed towards the field of theoretical physics. If time and motion are relative, as he argues, this does not mean that Earth is stationary and the Universe rotates around it or, for that matter, the reverse, only that for purposes of theoretical physics there is no purposeful distinction between the two frames of reference. I can see no indication on Barbour's website or in the papers I have scanned briefly that he believes the theoretical arguments in his and Bertotti's work lead to the practical conclusion that Earth does not orbit the Sun and does not rotate on its own axis. Why do you suppose that is?

I never said those were the practical conclusions. The practical conclusions were that Coreolis Effect can be created by a shell rotating around a fixed central ball and that this can be applied to our universe.

So is your understanding derived entirely from the dogma-driven arguments of two theologians with, as far as I am aware, no serious education in theoretical physics at all?

No, from common sence mostly....and the ability to discern between real science and assumption based science falsely so called. And belief in the Word of God which points to a stationary Earth and moving Sun.

 

[Strangelove]

One quick point:
For Neptune (much less anything else beyond it) to orbit the Earth every 24hrs, it would have to exceed the speed of light.
This would be a relatively neat trick.:rolling

Depends how far away Neptune is.....which depends on which method you use to measure it.....which goes back to the fundamental flaws of stellar parallax.

 

[Sinthesis]

Depends how far away Neptune is.....which depends on which method you use to measure it.....which goes back to the fundamental flaws of stellar parallax.

Which method do you suggest?

 

[Strangelove]

Which method do you suggest?

Well you could start by using trigonometric points that are actually real!

1) A point on one side of our stationary Earth

2) A point on the other side of our stationary Earth

3) The star / planet

Obviously this only gives us a baseline of 8,000 miles so this parallax is useful only for close objects such as the Moon and perhaps a few planets.

But it's a whole lot better than the "standard" for distance measurements that is arbitrarily set at 206,265 x 93,000,000 miles based on an 0.3 parallax taken from an observation point 186,000,000 miles away from the previous observation point...those measurements would produce a distance that is 23,250 times larger than a distance calculated from a stationary earth! (8000 x 23250=186,000,000)

Can you see what a nonsense it is Sinth? To use parallax measurements as proof that the Earth orbits the sun when the enitire method has to assume that the Earth orbits the Sun. It's circular. It's not science bud. It's hornswaggle.

The importance of what has happened here relevant to true measurement of distances in space can not be overstated! The only reason any parallax at all showed up for Bessel’s star 61 Cygni (0.3) was because the baseline for the observer was assumed to be One-Hundred and Eighty Six Million Miles further away than the baseline of the observer six months earlier...thus giving a baseline on a triangle of 186,000,000 miles instead of 8000 miles!

So, Sinth, going back to your original point about ridiculous speeds to get around the Earth....The proof that calculations of "nearby" star distances are dependent upon the heliocentric assumption of a rotating, orbiting Earth couldn’t be more clear. What we have here is mathematical tautology, pure and simple, viz.,: The earth orbits the sun and provides a parallax figure which pushes even the close stars out 23,250 times further than they would be if a non-moving earth parallax were used. Then the light-year distances derived from this slight of hand are used to "prove" that the earth cannot be stationary because the stars are too far away to get around nightly!


Doc.

 

[lordkalvan]

I didnt answer it because your quote about Mars.......doesnt make any sense. Maybe you can clarify your question/point.

I'm sorry; I was writing quite late at night and garbled the language a bit - although I thought the meaning was clear enough. However, as I know what I meant to say, maybe that just makes it more obvious to me! Anyway, my apologies for not being clearer. I'll try again.

First of all, I did not say that the centrifugal force of Earth's rotation ties the atmosphere to the planet. If that's the meaning you undertook from what I wrote, either you have misunderstood me or, again, I have been guilty of not stating my argument clearly enough. What I said was that the centrifugal force which results from Earth's rotation is a fraction of the gravitational force that results from Earth's mass. The centrifugal force pushes gas molecules of the atmosphere away from Earth, but the much grater gravitational force holds them close.

Secondly, you have elsewhere implied that Earth cannot be rotating on its axis because of observed features of the atmosphere (clouds moving contra the direction of rotation, still air, light breezes etc). I put forward the example of Mars, which has an atmosphere and has been observed to rotate on its axis (neither of which observations I have seen you disagree with), and yet Mars has weather which includes clouds moving contra the direction of rotation, still air and light breezes (summer winds at both Viking landing sites ranging from 0 to 22 mph, for example; autumn and winter winds increase velocity to 50 mph or more).

Again I ask you to bring any scientific documentation forward. I'd like to see anything that talks about the atmospheres relationship with the axial rotation of the Earth from any of your sources....scientific or theoretical I dont care. Feel free to cut and paste your heart away. We cant just take your word for it can we? You seem so sure about all of this you must have read it somewhere no?

Again, this is basic physics. What do you imagine is the relationship between axial rotation of Earth and its atmosphere? If Earth was not rotating, what would a model of the atmosphere look like? If it was rotating, what would the model look like? Anything that has mass has weight. The gas molecules in air have mass and consequently gravitationally interact with Earth (as do Earth and the Moon, for example). Simply put, the same force that acts on the Earth-Moon system acts on the Earth-Earth’s atmosphere system.

You may also want to consider the Chandler wobble,

Aleksander Brzezinski, Christian Bizourd and Sergei Petrov have addressed the Influence of the atmosphere on earh rotation[/] in a paper of the same name in Surveys in geophysics, Vol 23, No.1, 2002.

The quote basically is him admitting that he never discovered real truth. It's self explanatory. Therefore his theories were not real truth. (goes without saying really....they are theories)

So it doesn’t and - it doesn’t. Your assertion about the meaning of to be taken from the quotation is a leap too far. It’s a metaphorical observation: he had found out a little the smooth pebbles and sea-shells), but much remained to be discovered (the secrets of alchemy, for example).

 

[Strangelove]

Secondly, you have elsewhere implied that Earth cannot be rotating on its axis because of observed features of the atmosphere (clouds moving contra the direction of rotation, still air, light breezes etc). I put forward the example of Mars, which has an atmosphere and has been observed to rotate on its axis (neither of which observations I have seen you disagree with), and yet Mars has weather which includes clouds moving contra the direction of rotation, still air and light breezes (summer winds at both Viking landing sites ranging from 0 to 22 mph, for example; autumn and winter winds increase velocity to 50 mph or more).

So you are basing all your Mars weather facts on missions to Mars? Um.......we didnt even get to the Moon....so.......I'm throwing out the Viking missions too. Sorry Kal. We dont know anything about Mars other than its got a reddish tinge.......

Again, this is basic physics. What do you imagine is the relationship between axial rotation of Earth and its atmosphere? (there isn't one) If Earth was not rotating, what would a model of the atmosphere look like? (Still, just like we see it, with independent weather patterns) If it was rotating, what would the model look like? (It's anyones guess!) Anything that has mass has weight. The gas molecules in air have mass and consequently gravitationally interact with Earth (as do Earth and the Moon, for example). Simply put, the same force that acts on the Earth-Moon system acts on the Earth-Earth’s atmosphere system.

But that doesnt explain how the atmosphere rotates in perfect synchronicity with the rotation of the Earth. You just saying that molecules are tied to the Earth through heavyness. Which is screwy anyway because why doesnt the entire atmosphere fall down to Earth? It cant be the centrifugal force keeping the whole thing up cos you already stated that its a fraction of the gravitational pull>>?

Surely there must be a chapter in a science book that deals with the actual science of the Earths atmosphere's movement in relation to the axial rotatation of the Earth? You must be able to cite something dealing with this and post it here?

You may also want to consider the Chandler wobble,

Aleksander Brzezinski, Christian Bizourd and Sergei Petrov have addressed the Influence of the atmosphere on earh rotation[/] in a paper of the same name in Surveys in geophysics, Vol 23, No.1, 2002.

The Earth is stablished that it cannot be moved.

 

[lordkalvan]

What is it that is crucial here? To know the exact reference number of the scientific paper? I'm not following you Kal, why is that so important to understanding the science of what they present.

Well, what is 'the science of what they present'? As far as I can tell from the paper cited, it provides a theoretical framework for considering the 'relativeness' of time and motion. What it does not do is provide experimental or observational evidence that Earth is unique amongst cosmic bodies in that it alone fails to comply with all the known laws of physics.

Ok. Now we know that you are an atheist that makes your desperation to cling to theoretical science all the more clear.

Well, apart from your assumption that because I point to an example of circular reasoning that involves a bible-based belief this axiomatically means I am an atheist, there is no desperation at all and just because you say it is theoretical science (and thus ipso facto 'false' and 'quackery') - as opposed to the theoretical science of Barbour and Bartotti (which apparently is neither 'false' nor 'quackery' - that does not mean that it has no practical application.

But lets use your heretical statement anyway…

There’s nothing heretical in pointing out an example of circular reasoning.

…and substitute a few words out so that it realates to Stellar parallax.

The Earth orbits the Sun- How do you know? - Because we can perform stellar parallax measurements ? - Why do you believe the stellar parallax measurements prove the orbit? - Because it uses the assumption that the Earth orbits the Sun to calculate the measurements.

You’re muddling up hypotheses and assumptions. The hypothesis is that Earth orbits the Sun. The observed data is that provided by stellar parallax which will either provide confirming or falsifying evidence for the hypothesis; no assumption is made that Earth orbits the Sun, because evidence is being sought one way or the other. The observations support the hypothesis and it is thereby strengthened, as it is by other, independent, consilient evidence. There’s nothing circular about this. As I have yet to see an alternative explanation from yourself that provides an equally robust theory as to the cause of stellar parallax, I remain unpersuaded that you have anything to offer against the hypothesis other than ’taint so.

Do you understand the concept now Kal? It's just as circular as your example. My 5 year old son can get this.

Then your five-year old son is being misinformed as to how this is an example of circular reasoning.

All measurements that these people make ALWAYS assume that every six months...the Earth has changed it's position by millions of miles. So all their calculations are off.

So you say. Perhaps you can show how (and why) their calculations are ‘off’? Again, the observed data would not give the results they did if Earth’s position was not changing.

The absurd Eddie Murphy example is just as absurd as assuming the Earth has changed its position by millions of miles. Quack is as quack does.

I find it hugely entertaining that you conflate an exercise in simple trigonometry which should validate your arguments immediately if they are correct with some facile nonsense about Eddie Murphy. All I see is a rather sad case of dodging the question for apparently obvious reasons.

I never said those were the practical conclusions. The practical conclusions were that Coreolis Effect can be created by a shell rotating around a fixed central ball and that this can be applied to our universe.

As a theoretical exercise in better understanding the implications of time and motion, not as evidence that that is what actually happens. If the practical conclusions are not as I had supposed you were implying, then the conclusions are, presumably, quite theoretical and are of interest in mathematical models seeking to explore the implications and consequences of time and motion in the Universe as a whole.

No, from common sence mostly....

So common sense tells you that of the countless billions of cosmological bodies, Earth is the only one that does not ‘obey’ the laws of the Universe in which it resides in a minor backwater of a rather unremarkable galaxy?

….and the ability to discern between real science and assumption based science falsely so called.

I have seen nothing in your rhetoric and idiosyncratically explained examples that lead me to suppose that you have any such ability.

And belief in the Word of God which points to a stationary Earth and moving Sun.

The Old Testament was written by fallible men and, even if inspired by divine guidance, does not provide a reliable guide to very much about the natural world and Universe. Most Christian churches seem to disagree with you, but I suppose that just means their theological scholarship is generally third-rate?

 

[lordkalvan]

So you are basing all your Mars weather facts on missions to Mars? Um.......we didnt even get to the Moon....so.......I'm throwing out the Viking missions too. Sorry Kal. We dont know anything about Mars other than its got a reddish tinge.......

Your disbelief about any of these missions is not evidential. Until you can provide credible evidence to back up your unsupported assertions, they remain no more than conspiracy fantasies.

But that doesnt explain how the atmosphere rotates in perfect synchronicity with the rotation of the Earth. You just saying that molecules are tied to the Earth through heavyness.

Not 'heaviness', gravity.

Which is screwy anyway because why doesnt the entire atmosphere fall down to Earth? It cant be the centrifugal force keeping the whole thing up cos you already stated that its a fraction of the gravitational pull>>?

Gravitational force is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses concerned. In a way, the atmosphere is collapsed by the gravitational force of Earth (think how much more tenuous is the atmosphere of Mars, for example) so that the air is denser at lower altitudes as the gases of the atmosphere are compressed by that force. But because gravity is not the only force acting on those gases, compression does not 'flatten' the atmosphere to Earth's surface: there is the weak centrifugal force already referred to; in addition, the gas molecules have kinetic energy (temperature) and move in random directions because of this energy; some gas molecules are more massive than others and push them out of the way (which is why there isn't much free hydrogen in the atmosphere); and finally gas molecules are actually resistant to compression as described by the ideal gas law.

Surely there must be a chapter in a science book that deals with the actual science of the Earths atmosphere's movement in relation to the axial rotatation of the Earth? You must be able to cite something dealing with this and post it here?

You may find David Andrews' An Introduction to Atmospheric Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2000, ISBN 978-0521629584) sheds more light on this than I have apparently been able to do.

The Earth is stablished that it cannot be moved.

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what this sentence means.

 

[jasoncran]

sl, you point to the scriptures saying that the earth shall not be moved, and isnt that even considered not to be taken literally by the very writers of that book of psalms.

yet then you say theresnt in any sciptural reference to this geocentric view nor the movement of the sun.

which is it.? if it says in Hebrew poetry that verse. so that can be properly exegised.

 

[Strangelove]

Well, what is 'the science of what they present'? As far as I can tell from the paper cited, it provides a theoretical framework for considering the 'relativeness' of time and motion.

Your hero of ralativity Einstein seems to have understood. Even he had to admit:

(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."

Nope. No mention of 'relativeness' of time and motion. He sees it as simply an explanation for Coreolis and why the pendulum is dragged around. A GEOCENTRIC explanation. Are you so blinded by your indoctrination that you cannot accept this?

What it does not do is provide experimental or observational evidence that Earth is unique amongst cosmic bodies in that it alone fails to comply with all the known laws of physics.

Name one law of physics that our geocentric Earth doesn't comply with.

There’s nothing heretical in pointing out an example of circular reasoning.

There is when you say that the Bible does not provide evidence of the existance of God.

You’re muddling up hypotheses and assumptions.

It's the same thing unless the hypotheses can be scientifically tested. Which makes it a scientific hypotheses.

The hypothesis is that Earth orbits the Sun.

Yeah...It's an assumption because no real science has ever proved it.

The observed data is that provided by stellar parallax which will either provide confirming or falsifying evidence for the hypothesis;

The method uses the first assumption to collect the observed data. Circular reasoning.

no assumption is made that Earth orbits the Sun, because evidence is being sought one way or the other.

Lolz! HUH!?

The observations support the hypothesis and it is thereby strengthened, as it is by other, independent, consilient evidence. There’s nothing circular about this.

As I've shown, when the bedrock of the method of observation which supports the hypotheses......IS THE HYPOTHESES......it's circular. It's a perfect example of circular. You cant get more circular.....unlesss your talking about...um.....a circle

As I have yet to see an alternative explanation from yourself that provides an equally robust theory as to the cause of stellar parallax,

The cause of stellar parallax in your examples is false science and circular fallacies. I'm convinced your trolling now because no-one can be this dense. However, you are the only person willing to come up against me on this topic so I guess it gives me the opportunity to destroy your theoretical hornswaggle so others may see it for what it's worth. But just FYI......your overdoing the parallax thing now and making yourself look a tad silly.

So you say. Perhaps you can show how (and why) their calculations are ‘off’? Again, the observed data would not give the results they did if Earth’s position was not changing.(BOING! Circular again)

Sure bud. They assume that the Earth is 186 million miles from where it actually is every six months which means all their calculations are off by a ratio of 23,250 to one. Simples.

I find it hugely entertaining that you conflate an exercise in simple trigonometry which should validate your arguments immediately if they are correct with some facile nonsense about Eddie Murphy. All I see is a rather sad case of dodging the question for apparently obvious reasons.

Its not simple trigonometry when one of the points that make up the baseline is a pure assumption. It's false trig.

As a theoretical exercise in better understanding the implications of time and motion, not as evidence that that is what actually happens. If the practical conclusions are not as I had supposed you were implying, then the conclusions are, presumably, quite theoretical and are of interest in mathematical models seeking to explore the implications and consequences of time and motion in the Universe as a whole.

Lolz. Can you think of a less theoretical way? To your reasoning there IS no real science. When you measure the boiling point of a liquid, thats not real because it doesnt necessarily apply to a different batch of the same liquid? So everything is theoretical! Einstein seemed to be satisfied with the conclusions but your not? Why?

So common sense tells you that of the countless billions of cosmological bodies, Earth is the only one that does not ‘obey’ the laws of the Universe in which it resides in a minor backwater of a rather unremarkable galaxy?

Theres no evidence for countless billions of anything. We can see 6,000 stars with the naked eye and a handful of planets. Hubble sees billions of reflections, nothing more. Earth is the centre of Gods attention and the centre of His universe. Stationary and fixed as per scripture.

The Old Testament was written by fallible men and, even if inspired by divine guidance, does not provide a reliable guide to very much about the natural world and Universe.

Do you believe in God Kalvan? I ask in all sincerity.

Most Christian churches seem to disagree with you, but I suppose that just means their theological scholarship is generally third-rate?

Most christian churches are apostate so that doesn't worry me in the slightest. They follow all manner of funky doctrines.

 

[lordkalvan]

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?

Hmm, so NASA had the better part of a decade to prepare for the fake Moon mission and the best they could come up with in that time in the way of awesomely cool kit is what looks to you like black paper and Scotch tape? It's strange that the Soviets never pointed the finger of accusation at this hoax, but then perhaps their own Lunokhod missions were fakes too and they don't want to go around stirring up the mud? Hmm, but then how come the Lunokhod retroreflectors can be used to bounce back laser pulses from Earth-based telescopes? Oh, and who put out the retroreflectors that the Apollo astronauts deployed on the Lunar surface? And while I think about it, what about those faked photos of the Apollo 11, 15, 16 and 17 landers taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter? Exactly how far does this conspiracy extend?