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: 9
22
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: NihilistSanta


I commended that poster for their stance because it takes balls to question accepted reality. How is that a back peddle?

Come on man, your games are really getting old. THAT isn't the backpedal. The backpedal is what seemed to be you backing away from those types of remarks I quoted from you, when you said


Almost everyone believes the earth to be spherical but only a tiny portion of people even know why.

I took that as an admission you were wrong about why we believe the Earth is not flat.



Regurgitating "facts" to pass test does not make you intelligent.

I regurgitated nothing but rather formed a simple argument from independently verifiable information, not relying upon any dreaded gov agency.

You can't overcome it. FET is not viable.




posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 06:43 PM
link   
if the earth was more or less stationary, and the sun revolved around it, then it would be mathematically provable. in order for this kind of solar system to be possible, we would need to rewrite physics. the conclusion that our solar system is helical with the sun at the centre is unavoidable when you look at the math and what is observable. the planets all revolve around the sun, trapped by its gravity. the sun in turn is revolving around our galaxy, pulling the planets with it.

this is basic, primary school physics we are talking about. a geocentric solar system is mathematically and physically impossible, as is a flat earth.

the earth does not orbit around the sun following a circle, but an ellipse (the sun is one of the two foci of the ellipse, not the center). of course, if one needs even more precision, the focus is not the center of the sun but the barycenter of the solar system, and the trajectory is not an ellipse but a more complicated movement influenced by other planets; actually the difference is negligible, and to be fair, earth's influence over sun's movement is negligible compared to the sun's one over us.

now we also know that this barycenter orbits the milky way galaxy in about 200 million years. this movement is negligible in calculating orbits in the solar system, because relativity proved that accelerations are absolute, but constant linear speed has no effect. the movement is circular, but the circle is so large it looks like a linear movement.

and if you really want to get technical: the Milky Way, together with the Andromeda Galaxy and an assortment of smaller galaxies in the "Local Group", orbit a common barycenter with a large number of other galaxies concentrated in the Vega Supercluster about 35 million light-years away.

if that's not good enough for you, there is dipole anisotropy in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation which equates to a motion of ~600 km/sec in the general direction of a gravitational anomaly dubbed "The Great Attractor". this includes the sum of the motions of the sun, the galaxy, the Local Group, and the Virgo Supercluster.

in essence, the movement of the earth and other planets around the sun is helical, and with the sun's movement around the Milky Way galaxy, looks something like a vortex:


if you want to prove something else, show me the math. work it out properly. rewrite physics from the ground up, explain to me your new law of gravity. otherwise, stop it.
edit on 13-10-2015 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: spygeek

what You suggest about such a task is ludicrous and only appeals to the argument that it's to big to fail



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: SynchronousSnake
a reply to: spygeek

what You suggest about such a task is ludicrous and only appeals to the argument that it's to big to fail


indeed, proving a geocentric model of the solar system is ludicrous, not because it's such a big job, but because the hypothesis itself is ludicrous and has not one iota of supporting physical or mathematical evidence. where is the faulty math in the currently accepted model? there isn't any. end of story.
edit on 13-10-2015 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 12:00 AM
link   
a reply to: spygeek

Seriously I shouldn't even post to You as it's obvious that You are so indoctrinated You don't even see the helical model You posted is a UNPROVEN theroy. full stop.end of story.

The faulty math is adressed in the questions i raised about the affects of gravity on Light in the last few pages. but nice try.



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 12:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
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.


Show me those FDA clinical trials then, thanks. You seem to be confused by the difference of testing whether water is contaminated and whether water itself is safe.



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 12:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
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.

Get out your telescope and watch the sun 24 hours a day if it's just a matter of distance.



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 12:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: SynchronousSnake

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: SynchronousSnake
a reply to: GetHyped

gtfo. gopro's have a fish eye lens

But you can see farther over the horizon the higher up you go. A ship that was invisible over the horizon will come into view as you go up in a balloon. Why would that happen on a flat Earth?



Why?Gravity.. Has it not be proven that the closer to the source of gravity (earth in this case) that light bends? Every thing you see is dependent on seeing light. If it bends with gravity over distance this is what gives that effect.

It could only bend aROUND an Earth that is ROUND.



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 12:58 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Just no.. It's not bending because of the earth being round. Einstein proved this. light bends when You are viewing it at distance due to gravity.



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 01:15 AM
link   
a reply to: SynchronousSnake

We could get off track on how Einstein's models would even work since gravity would necessitate a Round Earth.

But, I already debunked a FE many pages ago with questions that can't be answered in a FE model. So let's start over since you obviously ignored all that.

Explain time zones on a FE.



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 01:18 AM
link   
a reply to: SynchronousSnake

I'm sorry I'm Not here to answer Your questions about time zones on the flat earth model and your assumption alone that I have ALL the damn answers anyway just shows Your arrogance and ignorance as I made no mention of time zones anywhere in my post history or claim to be able to explain every thing to you.

wake Up. things don't add up. things are wrong with all the theories . I don't get it ..Your refuting Einstein now and his work on gravity and light?
edit on 14-10-2015 by SynchronousSnake because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 01:31 AM
link   
a reply to: SynchronousSnake

No, you are. If Einstein's theories are right Earth must be round by default. Gravity is what causes Earth to be round.

So basically you don't want to talk about anything that proves FE wrong, got it.

www.universetoday.com...

www.thenakedscientists.com...

If you want to claim the Earth is not round you must first reject gravity and Einstein. They can not co-exist with a FE.



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 01:37 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

once again. The effect of a flat object with a lot of mass appearing curved can be explained by gravity being able to bend light. way to read correctly.. sheesh are you refuting gravity exists? and that the earth is massive and and has gravity... or No? just think about for a bit i'll let it sink in.



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 01:39 AM
link   
a reply to: SynchronousSnake

Again, you are refuting it. Gravity necessitates the Earth be round, why do you ignore that?



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 01:42 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04where in there theory of mass having gravity does it state that massive objects HAVE to be round?



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 01:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: SynchronousSnake
a reply to: OccamsRazor04where in there theory of mass having gravity does it state that massive objects HAVE to be round?


I already posted links to explain it. Can you explain how the force of gravity would create an object similar in shape to a piece of paper and not closer to a ball?
edit on 14-10-2015 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 01:48 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

and like i posted. the sun could not possibly be responsible for formation of our planet because it's not really 92.96 million miles away. the time lag of the gravity of earth is used to inflate this distance when it is much closer and much smaller then the current popular theory states



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 01:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: SynchronousSnake
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

and like i posted. the sun could not possibly be responsible for formation of our planet because it's not really 92.96 million miles away. the time lag of the gravity of earth is used to inflate this distance when it is much closer and much smaller then the current popular theory states


Which literally has nothing to do with the force of gravity of Earth itself with no sun involved at all necessitates a flat Earth. The Sun does not even factor into it.



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 01:51 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

oh.. well.. the sun factors into your precious time zones.. invented by man



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 01:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: SynchronousSnake
a reply to: OccamsRazor04where in there theory of mass having gravity does it state that massive objects HAVE to be round?



One of the effects of mass is that it attracts other mass. For small objects, like your computer, your car, and even a building, the force of gravity is tiny. But when you have millions, and even trillions of tonnes of mass, the effect of the gravity really builds up. All of the mass pulls on all the other mass, and it tries to create the most efficient shape… a sphere.



Over time, all of this material, thanks to gravity - which is a function of mass - would’ve pulled this material slowly together. It would have accreted - or got together - and slowly would’ve built up planetessimals, miniature planets, and then they grew to make big planets as they hoovered up - under increasingly powerful gravitational fields - the rest of that residual material.

Because gravity is pulling things together, everything that’s being attracted wants to get us close to everything else as it can. The most effective way for that to happen is if objects are spherical.


You can not have gravity and have a flat earth.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join