It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Does the Sun Revolve Around the Earth, or does the Earth Revolve Around the Sun?

page: 7
22
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 08:32 AM
link   




posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 08:52 AM
link   

it should be a piece of cake to have one of their satellites monitor the Sun’s orbit (or the Earth’s). They would only need a few months worth of data to prove the point.

Why, do you reckon, has this not happened?


originally posted by: ConnectDots
To your knowledge, has NASA, in fact, done what the author suggests?
I can't think of a reason to do it, so why should they? It's not part of NASA's mission to determine if the Earth revolves around the sun. Scientists already figured that out a long time ago. They took pictures of the globe and the flat earthers don't believe that so what's the point in trying to convince a fringe element that can't be convinced anyway? It's pointless even if it was free and every satellite costs millions of dollars to launch, maybe hundreds of millions of dollars for satellites that leave Earth's orbit. The stereo mission mentioned below costs over $500 million, so tell me, how is a 500 million dollar mission "a piece of cake"? Just coming up with that much money is anything but a "piece of cake".

It wasn't part of Voyager's original mission to turn around and photograph Earth and the sun, but Carl Sagan convinced mission planners to do just that when it was about 4 billion miles from Earth. Here is the picture that resulted, where tick marks have been added to show the location of Earth because it's so hard to see and obviously much smaller than the sun:
Voyager photo of Earth, Venus, and sun


The sun, Venus and Earth as seen from 4 billion miles away in a photo snapped by the Voyager 1 space probe. White tick marks show the planets’ locations. They are minute indeed! For more on the twin Voyager missions click here. Photo: NASA


Even with the tick marks it's hard to see the Earth in that view. It's still hard to see in this view but not quite as hard, but you may want to visit the link to see the full size image:

www.nasa.gov...


This narrow-angle color image of the Earth, dubbed 'Pale Blue Dot', is a part of the first ever 'portrait' of the solar system taken by Voyager 1. The spacecraft acquired a total of 60 frames for a mosaic of the solar system from a distance of more than 4 billion miles from Earth and about 32 degrees above the ecliptic.

From Voyager's great distance Earth is a mere point of light, less than the size of a picture element even in the narrow-angle camera. Earth was a crescent only 0.12 pixel in size. Coincidentally, Earth lies right in the center of one of the scattered light rays resulting from taking the image so close to the sun.

This blown-up image of the Earth was taken through three color filters - violet, blue and green - and recombined to produce the color image. The background features in the image are artifacts resulting from the magnification.

For satellites that don't leave Earth orbit it may not matter too much which model is correct, but every time a satellite leaves orbit, NASA uses gravitational models to determine the satellite's trajectory after it leaves Earth's orbit. The models assume the sun has about 332946 times as much mass as the Earth. From the voyager picture above hopefully that seems more likely than the other way around. Based on those models, it would be impossible for the sun to orbit the Earth if it the sun is that much more massive. Examples of that you can easily see are Jupiter's small moons orbiting Jupiter; you don't see Jupiter orbiting a small moon.

So, you might ask, what if those models are wrong, and it's actually the Earth that's more massive than the sun? If you then assume other planets orbit the Earth, how do you explain their retrograde motion? But more to the point, here is a list of over 100 satellites that left Earth's orbit and none of them would have arrived at their destinations if NASA or other space agencies had the masses of the sun and Earth reversed, so from this sense I think we can say it's been proven over 100 times by these satellites (I didn't count them but it looks like over 100):

This is a list of all space probes that have left Earth orbit

Some of those are still active like solar observatories which wouldn't work right if the sun orbited the Earth. These two probes in particular I think would be impossible to explain if the sun orbited the Earth. The orbit the sun and photograph the sun from different angles:

STEREO

STEREO (Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatory) is a solar observation mission. Two nearly identical spacecraft were launched in 2006 into orbits around the Sun that cause them to respectively pull farther ahead of and fall gradually behind the Earth. This enables stereoscopic imaging of the Sun and solar phenomena, such as coronal mass ejections.



It's impossible to explain the orbits of those satellites with the sun orbiting the earth, or if someone thinks it's possible, I'd like to see them try.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

just to answer your question I would say the bottom one is considered perfectly round. My main point however was what Tyson Neil Degrasse says that the Earth is "pear" shaped.




Earth is not only oblate — wider at the equator than pole-to-pole, but pear shaped — slightly wider just south of the equator


- Tyson Neil Degrasse
edit on 12-10-2015 by HawkeyeNation because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-10-2015 by HawkeyeNation because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 04:39 PM
link   
For my own sanity, I'm going with the earth orbits the sun, just like all the planets in the solar system, and the earth revolves once every twenty four hours, according the stars 'revolving' around the pole star. (thank you Babylon Stew).



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: HawkeyeNation
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

just to answer your question I would say the bottom one is considered perfectly round. My main point however was what Tyson Neil Degrasse says that the Earth is "pear" shaped.



Earth is not only oblate — wider at the equator than pole-to-pole, but pear shaped — slightly wider just south of the equator


- Tyson Neil Degrasse

The top one is the perfect circle; the bottom one has a fatter bottom hemisphere than the top hemisphere.

As for Neil DeGrasse Tyson saying the Earth is pear-shaped...well, it is -- which was the point of the two circles I posted. The bottom circle has a 'southern' hemisphere that is fatter that the 'northern' hemisphere. However, the difference is so slight (28 miles over 8000 miles) that it cannot be noticed.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson even says this when he talks about the "pear shape" of the Earth. He says that the earth IS IN FACT fatter on the bottom like a pear is fatter on the bottom, but he also explains that the difference is too small to notice.

He say's cosmically speaking, the Earth is practically a perfect sphere. In this video, he mentions the pear-shape and he also also talks about how smooth the earth is:



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Clearly its settled since we have some blurs and dots and a nice graphic. Im not with the flat earthers but I can understand their skepticism. $500 million for a couple of blurs and dots huh? Whew money well spent. How many people did we feed with that knowledge? Sorry but NASA is just a giant drain sucking peoples money and creating science fiction.

edit on 12-10-2015 by NihilistSanta because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 10:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
It's not worth any effort try to make sense out of that source which is written by a currency guy who provided no sources.

Nevertheless, he asks an interesting question:


While Earthbound observation of the Sun can probably never conclusively show whether the Sun circles the Earth or vice versa, NASA should theoretically be able to do just that. Presumably, they are scouting the solar system as we speak and it should be a piece of cake to have one of their satellites monitor the Sun’s orbit (or the Earth’s). They would only need a few months worth of data to prove the point.

Why, do you reckon, has this not happened?

www.zengardner.com...


To your knowledge, has NASA, in fact, done what the author suggests?

To your knowledge has anyone spent a few hundred million dollars on FDA clinical trials to ensure water is safe to drink?

Why, do you reckon, has this not happened?



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 07:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Clearly its settled since we have some blurs and dots and a nice graphic.
It's not even a dot, the entire earth is only 1/8 of a dot in that Voyager pic, and that's using the highest power camera on the probe. The graphic isn't just a graphic, you can see the images of the sun from those solar observatories yourself, online.


$500 million for a couple of blurs and dots huh? Whew money well spent.
You didn't read very carefully. I said that imagery wasn't even part of the original mission, it was an afterthought. If you have no idea what those missions really did I regret your ignorance. They made amazing contributions to our knowledge.

We have much better pictures of the entire spherical earth for the flat Earthers, but no matter what kind of evidence is provided, if people don't want to believe the evidence from mainstream science, they will find a way to deny it.

edit on 20151013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I have an idea of what we are told those missions did so about as much as yourself. NASA has spent well over 1 trillion dollars and the best we have to show for it are satellites which are almost unnecessary for communication or GPS and Velcro .

I don't think you guys understand the skepticism of people who believe in a flat earth or myself. All of the information comes from basically 3 international government agencies. No one can verify anything (please don't mention commercial telescopes it is an insult). What we the public are shown are grainy pictures of blurs and dots and a crap load of CGI renderings or composite images.

Your "knowledge" of space is akin to that of a Star Trek fan. You might know all of the specifications, cultures, even speak the language and play some 3 tiered chess but its all a fantasy.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Does the Sun Revolve around the Earth, or does the Earth revolve around the sun?



I wonder how many people actually know the real answer?



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: NihilistSanta


I don't think you guys understand the skepticism of people who believe in a flat earth or myself. All of the information comes from basically 3 international government agencies.

Really? Which agencies are in charge of faking sunrise and sunset? How about the altitude of Polaris matching your latitude in the northern hemisphere and not even viewable from much below the equator? That can't happen on a flat Earth. No agency can hide this.

Flat Earth 'theories' are knuckleheaded conspiranoia, plain and simple.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Are you serious? They probably spend millions testing water all the time. People get sick from water consumption daily. People have over dosed on water and it kills them. Nice try though.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Never said I was a flat earther I am just a skeptic. To answer your question about the agencies though we have roscosmos , ESA, and NASA.

I find it funny that you poke fun at a model you yourself do not understand. Like I said I am not a flat earther but I have researched their claims and can tell you that they have workable models for tides, eclipses, seasons, etc all of the things you are relying on third parties to conclude for you. How about you research their claims before making your assumptions?



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Never said I was a flat earther I am just a skeptic. To answer your question about the agencies though we have roscosmos , ESA, and NASA.

I find it funny that you poke fun at a model you yourself do not understand. Like I said I am not a flat earther but I have researched their claims and can tell you that they have workable models for tides, eclipses, seasons, etc all of the things you are relying on third parties to conclude for you. How about you research their claims before making your assumptions?



Then why don't they publish their results and collect the Nobel Prize for showing that the Laws of Physics are wrong?



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: NihilistSanta


Never said I was a flat earther I am just a skeptic.
I didn't say you were, but you did say you understood their skepticism.



To answer your question about the agencies though we have roscosmos , ESA, and NASA.
Listing the agencies doesn't answer the question.

I gave you independently verifiable info. It's apparently beyond your comprehension. Nothing new.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Independently verified? You listed observing the sunset and rise and the pole star. People did that for thousands of years and concluded the earth was flat. So is that what we are supposed to conclude? Again I think you should do some research because flat earthers have logical explanations for those events. How can you be so against something you know so little about? on the other hand you are completely for something you know little about as well so not surprising. I think people should understand why the believe something not just blindly obey the dictates of "experts".

People instantly assume flat earthers are religious nutters. I know many who approached the matter as atheist. The only reason a flat earth model lends itself to any type of theism is that it would have been intelligently designed. They believe that NASA and government etc are hiding this fact from people. That big bang cosmology and space are fictions that are designed to enforce a materialist dogma of randomness. Others theorize that alien beings built the place as a habitat. Point being it is easy to write people off and act high and mighty with your indoctrinated regurgitation but you should at least try to understand their motivations and theories if you are truly open minded. You don't have to accept or reject anything but the dismissive attitude when you clearly have no knowledge of the alternative is kind of dogmatic.

Again I don't agree with all of their conclusions however I am skeptical of the hand fed information we receive regarding space. Neil DeGrasse Tyson can come on TV with swirling CGI all around him and state confidently that he knows everything going on trillions of miles away but you will have to forgive me if I take that with a grain of salt.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: NihilistSanta


Independently verified?
I said independently verifiable. No one needs to rely on any gov agency to verify what I said.




You listed observing the sunset and rise and the pole star.
I asked how they fake sunrise and sunset. They oppose the flat Earth theories. If you disagree, explain why they would occur in a FE scenario.

I said more than observing Polaris. It's the altitude matching your latitude and it's lack of visibility from the southern hemisphere. You can't explain that in a FE scenario.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Now remember I don't believe in the theory so my defense is merely that we should not throw out its observations because of some preconceived notions.



This is one explanation from one of the more prominent proponents. (mods please note this member was banned from ATS so I am not sure if we can link his vids). He says it is a matter of scale, perspective and sight lines. There are models of the FE that show the sun and moon revolving around the earth and the sun works like a flashlight projecting its light on the earth. FE theorist say the reason it appears to set is that it has merely moved from your line of sight.



There are conflicting theories within the FE community as well. Some believe the earth rest on an infinite plane with other pockets of life out past our circle. Some think the sky and such are a hologram. Some people have this view similar to the film Dark City. Some view the earth covered by a dome. Some think the earth is bowl shaped. Again I mention this because how can you debunk a theory if you don't understand what it proposes.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Independently verified? You listed observing the sunset and rise and the pole star. People did that for thousands of years and concluded the earth was flat. So is that what we are supposed to conclude? Again I think you should do some research because flat earthers have logical explanations for those events. How can you be so against something you know so little about? on the other hand you are completely for something you know little about as well so not surprising. I think people should understand why the believe something not just blindly obey the dictates of "experts".

People instantly assume flat earthers are religious nutters. I know many who approached the matter as atheist. The only reason a flat earth model lends itself to any type of theism is that it would have been intelligently designed. They believe that NASA and government etc are hiding this fact from people. That big bang cosmology and space are fictions that are designed to enforce a materialist dogma of randomness. Others theorize that alien beings built the place as a habitat. Point being it is easy to write people off and act high and mighty with your indoctrinated regurgitation but you should at least try to understand their motivations and theories if you are truly open minded. You don't have to accept or reject anything but the dismissive attitude when you clearly have no knowledge of the alternative is kind of dogmatic.

Again I don't agree with all of their conclusions however I am skeptical of the hand fed information we receive regarding space. Neil DeGrasse Tyson can come on TV with swirling CGI all around him and state confidently that he knows everything going on trillions of miles away but you will have to forgive me if I take that with a grain of salt.



Some might have concluded the earth is flat, the ancient Greeks new the earth is a globe, one guy proved it, just cannot remember his name. Probably in Google somewhere.
Sailors know the earth is round, watching the tops of masts, then the rest of the ship slowly coming into view.
Just how is it the American aircraft, the 'blackbird' can fly around the earth faster than it rotates, and beat the sunrise? Or sunset?



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

IMO Voyager is overpriced for what we got

The primary mission was the exploration of Jupiter and Saturn.Source

With that said this is a pic of Saturn from Voyager whilst on the mission
voyager.jpl.nasa.gov...

Here is a Pic from a amateur with what he sees with a telescope

www.skyandtelescope.com...

WTF?

Also that's supposed to be 1.2 billion kilometers away from us...



edit on 13-10-2015 by SynchronousSnake because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
22
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join