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 earth move and rotate on its axis?

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   
trust what u see, maybe the light years distance that they throw at random is wrong,




posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by chan_chap
its not warped just science based on OBSERVATION!

It's warped assumption to fit whatever observations you throw at it, rather than removing your prior assumptions.


B.what sides? lol

Would you please quote what I said so I can see what you're responding to? This format of yours is really confusing and breaks the flow of the thread.


C.if gravity is unknown how can u use it as argument? u dont know what your talking about

Genetic fallacy.

Arguing that something is to be
rejected because its origins are [unknown] and/or suspicious.

www.empowermentzone.com...
You don't need to understand the fundamentals of how gravity originates to understand the basics of how it applies to the universe.


D.oh your the wind expert? u know why venus and jupiter have huge storms the size of our moon?

Venus has storms the size of our moon? LOL, let's see proof of that one. Venus has massive amounts of atmospheric pressure, made up mostly of heat-trapping gasses, that inevitably leads to high temperatures. Jupiter is a gas giant with no land forms under its clouds to disrupt them. It's a giant fluid dynamics demonstration all the way down to its solid metalic core. We had a ball of liquid that had the same effects as a demo for kids at the science center I worked at.


maybe cuz they flying through space have an effect on the atmosphere dont u think?

Not the way you're suggesting.


E.nothing thats flying through space at 67,000 MPH can support life enough said

Speed doesn't matter. Unless something is acting on a planet to change its direction of travel, you wouldn't notice the speed. Ever been in a jet at cruising altitude? How about the space shuttle orbiting the earth? It travels at 17,500mph.


F.so again u choose to DENY OBSERVATION!!! the first rule of science
i see the moon move from east to west

I see the moon move against the background of stars in a west to east direction. You see the rotation of the earth and never bothered to dig deeper to explain it.


G.how does parallax prove me wrong?

It proves the distances to stars are measured in light years, and they would have to be moving many times faster than light itself to spin around the earth. Please see this refreshing explanation of negative parallax:
adsabs.harvard.edu...
There are several reasons for negative parallax beyond the standard error of any given measurement. These include effects of a star's proper motion and the greater movement of closer stars in the same field.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter




G.how does parallax prove me wrong?


Originally posted by ngchunter
It proves the distances to stars are measured in light years, and they would have to be moving many times faster than light itself to spin around the earth. Please see this refreshing explanation of negative parallax:
adsabs.harvard.edu...
There are several reasons for negative parallax beyond the standard error of any given measurement. These include effects of a star's proper motion and the greater movement of closer stars in the same field.


Check out Dr. Neville Jones' article on negative parallax here: and you may like to go on and read the rest of his site as well. Especially the stuff where he roasts NASA and their phony space probe and Hubbell pictures are hilarious.

www.geocentricuniverse.com...

Parallax as you describe it is based on the heliocentric model, which gives a huge base from which to measure a parallax. With the geocentric model, you get a negative parallax.

Try Airy's Failure (or success depending on which side you take in this) -- an experiment designed to prove the earth was moving and instead proved the opposite.

Parallax, based on using a base of a triangle as large as the supposed orbit around the sun, to prove heliocentrism. How convenient.

Take the geocentric model and what do you have? NEGATIVE PARALLAX.

Check out Dr. Neville Jones, a renowned physicist and a couragous pioneer in smashing through the matrix of pseudoscience and alchemy and NASA's hocus pocus scams and lies.

[edit on 8-4-2009 by Salt of the Earth]



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by chan_chap
 


I really just sit here and shake my head at the ignorance being displayed.

Truly, we are living in the 21st Century, and nonsense ideas like this are allowed to get 'traction'???

Are people really believing any of this? If so, I hope it's only a handful of individuals.

Centuries of Astronominical observations, and some crackpot "Dr." comes up with a (very likely religious-based) bunch of gobblygook in order to fit a square peg (the way he wants the Universe to fit his vision from the Bible) into a round hole (the reality of the Universe).

I shudder to think that anybody who subscribes to these stupid notions is allowed to vote!! Very scary.....

Problem is, a fire-breathing bible-thumper will never be convinced, no matter how much evidence to the contrary you show them.

I could attempt just one obvious fallacy in the reasoning that GPS satellites don't exist. If that were the case, then how do airplanes use GPS to navigate in the middle of the oceans? Nothing land-based can be received beyond what is called 'line-of-sight' based on the curvature of the Earth.

Well, I guess we can all just go back to the Middle Ages and determine that the earth must be flat. While we're at it, let's get rid of everything science provides us...medicine, electricity, running hot and cold water.....let's live in filth and squallor again, just as in the 11th Century.

This "geocentric" nonsense is the true definition of 'pseudoscience'. I would suggest that this alleged 'Dr.' has a few screws loose.....



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
Check out Dr. Neville Jones' article on negative parallax here:

Did you read a word I wrote or did you just ignore it? I just explained negative parallax and all you give me is an article written by a guy who thinks EVA in space is impossible and the hubble is a hoax. Your site never even mentions the words "proper motion" or the effect they can have on stellar parallax, let alone any of the other factors mentioned in the paper I linked you to which you ignored. And I have news for you: I've seen the hubble in orbit, it ain't a hoax so no, I don't find his "roast" particularly funny.


Parallax as you describe it is based on the heliocentric model, which gives a huge base from which to measure a parallax.

Yet all parallaxes detected are incredibly small due to the stars' great distance. Most fall into the range of an instrument's error, but some can be resolved. Your dear doctor mentions that much, but fails to address any of the other factors I already mention which you ignored. Maybe if you opened your mind and bothered to read the information already given to you, you'd understand how wrong you've been.


Try Airy's Failure

LOL, airy incorrectly thought the detected aberration of light from gamma draconis was due to parallax and "failed" because his instrument could only resolve to a resolution of an arcsecond. You need subarcsecond resolution to detect parallax of ANY star. Your whole argument fails spectacularly because the equipment was inadequate to begin with; even had he been pointing at proxima centauri he would have failed. The aberration of light due to our motion around the sun is detectable and proven, however:
en.wikipedia.org...

Neville Jones is anything but "renowned."

[edit on 8-4-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Wow, this nonsense has gone on for two pages already?

What is this science for christians?

Ok, let me explain something to all of you which hopefully will make some sense.

I live in North America, in the northern hemisphere. When I look up in the sky at night in the winter, I see stars. Millions of them, which form various different constellations as well as being able to see multiple planets/cosmic events.

How is it if the earth is not moving, that I see DIFFERENT stars and planets during the summer months then in winter?

Another thing, why does the Sun rise in China while it sets here in the US? Because we are rotating around the sun which makes day and night possible.

By your logic, I would be seeing the same exact night sky, regardless of the time of year. That's just false.

Furthermore our Seasons are caused by the rotation of the earth and distribution of sunlight from the equator.

I don't see how hard this is to understand, if God did create the world (far-fetched) he certainly would have created conditions for us to live in it properly.

The earth rotates...that's just the final verdict. As a previous poster said, shuttle launches are time precisely with rotations of our planet and so are Satellites.

Deny Ignrorance--Especially If your source is the ever so proven Bible of all things. And you simply can't argue a point with one person, this Dr. Jones or whoever has been your only source during your arguments and above posters have clearly shown you alternative studies and people who claim things are completely different.

I would much sooner trust the work of 10 scientists who have come to the correct conclusion then 1.

~Keeper

[edit on 4/8/2009 by tothetenthpower]



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Whats even scarier is the possibility that this is coming out now on some kind of schedule. To me, I always wonder if theres a political motivation and a secret plan to send everyone back to the dark ages.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   
It should be clear by now that chan-chap lives in a world that, from the outside looks very much like ours, but at it's underpinnings is fundamentally quite different. He's accidentally gotten himself onto the internet of our world somehow, and is frustrated at why we can't understand the simple facts of his world.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 01:21 AM
link   
If both science and Religion ( faith ) exist , then they both need to be factored.

Not one over the other but both combined to allow us to see an outcome.

not everything is able to be proven by science....likewise not everything can be proven with faith or religion.


They both exist because we allow them both to exist. They are real and observable as ideas and thoughts that us humans have made.

therefore people who argue that something needs scientific proof to be valid are WRONG.

Also, People who argue that it was god or a religious action that can cause everything to happen are also WRONG.

BALANCE IS THE KEY......

One cannot exist without the other.

There is no right and wrong, no good and evil, there is only one and the other, yin and the yang.......


They both exist and both need to be factored in when we observe and make calculated guesses as to what something is.


We always try to separate things when they are all connected.

As soon as we realize this , it will become much easier to discover anything within our universe.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85
not everything is able to be proven by science....

The rotation of the earth is definately proven by science. The coriolis effect has implications in a wide array of fields. Anyone who's ever done long range shooting has had to compensate for the rotation of the earth over the flight time of the bullet. It's also observable in its effect on large scale weather patterns and it creates the jet stream.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by LucidDreamer85
 


That's actually the fallacy of the happy medium. If you can't give a good reason why the truth is a balance of two opposing viewpoints, one or the other could well be completely wrong.



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker


I really just sit here and shake my head at the ignorance being displayed.

Truly, we are living in the 21st Century, and nonsense ideas like this are allowed to get 'traction'???


Maybe the best thing we can do is shut downthe Internet and take all these people who don't believe in NASA and all the government propaganda they've been forcefed since infancy in the government schools, take these stupid rebels out, line them up and shoot them all? To THINK that ideas different than yours are ALLWED TO GET TRACTION.



Originally posted by weedwhacker
Are people really believing any of this? If so, I hope it's only a handful of individuals.


Why do you feel threatened by people not believing in space travel or that we went to the moon or that we are not hurtling around the sun at 65,000 mph? How does this threaten you or your lifestyle in any way whatever? Why do you feel so threatened? Whether we do or do not hurtle around the sun would not affect your beloved space travel theories in any way. You could still dream on about Captain Kirk travelling around with his international, intergalactic space team visiting planets around the universe. You could still support Hubble, shooting off rockets, the space shuttle, the whole thing. Nothing would change at all. So what's your problem?


Originally posted by weedwhacker
Centuries of Astronominical observations, and some crackpot "Dr." comes up with a (very likely religious-based) bunch of gobblygook in order to fit a square peg (the way he wants the Universe to fit his vision from the Bible) into a round hole (the reality of the Universe).


He is not a crackpot doctor, but he has a PhD in physics from one of the most prestigious schools in the world. What do you have? Dr. Neville Jones is not the only scientist who disagrees with your brand of "science so-called" -- ie alchemy, pseudoscience, evolution and the occult -- that contradicts all the known laws of physics and science. There are tens of thousands of scientists who, on their own time, at great personal sacrifice from the system who would grind them to powder for daring to challenge it, self-publish and lecture on the findings they have discovered, such as the ones aligned to publish the truth about 9/11 for example. Not everybody is willing to sell their soul to the devil, to go along with lies and deceit for the almighty buck.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
I shudder to think that anybody who subscribes to these stupid notions is allowed to vote!! Very scary.....


Oh, you're just going to take away our right to vote? That's all? I thought you wanted to prevent us from speaking at all, preferably by lining us up to the firing squad. If we don't believe in eugenics, in evolution, in Do As Thou Wilt, in NASA and its scams and lies, in shooting babies full of mercury and formaldahyde and aluminum and all kinds of living viruses and germs, in spraying the skies with chemtrails of barium salts and worse, in breeding experiments to improve on the human species by introducing bug and reptile and animal genes to their DNA makeup, to build in the pesticides into our food and all the rest that Montsanto is doing to control the food supply the same way the Luciferians now control the oil and energy -- just get rid of us all, right, all us bad people who won't drink our fluoride and be good?


Originally posted by weedwhacker
Problem is, a fire-breathing bible-thumper will never be convinced, no matter how much evidence to the contrary you show them.


Who's the fire-breather here? I don't see any of the Christians advocating that the Satanists and occultics not be allowed to 'let their ideas get traction,' be prevented from voting.

And nobody said GPS satellites don't exist and nobody said the earth is flat. You are just hate-mongering and spreading vicious lies. Nobody is against science, just pseudoscience that promotes things like "global warming," that the earth is overpopulated and we need to kill off its inhabitants, that aliens are visiting us, that we are able to travel to the moon and through space in manmade spacecraft, that fluoride in the water is not killing and poisoning people but rather making teeth strong, that genetically modifying and mixing the genes of humans, animals, bugs is goign to produce a new and improved superman, this kind of alchemy, pseudoscience is EVIL. Also that shooting babies full of a witches brew of vaccines laid in a base of mercury, formaldahyde or aluminum is somehow good for them, even though many die from SIDs and 1 in 100 end up autistic. Same with their GM foods with their built in pesticides. If bugs don't want to eat it, why should we? You think poisoning and killing people and believing in aliens is "scientific" and good and that people who don't share your views need to be eliminated, their mouths stopped forever. You are right out of 1984.



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 06:34 AM
link   
reply to post by chan_chap
 


"thats the TYCHONIAN geocentric system, when copernicus & co came up with their "theory" of a moving earth they had no evidedence,no experiments no nothing, then Tycho brahe spent years of his life mapping out all of the the universe by EYESIGHT!! and made the most accurate calculations, all of modern astronomy is based on his work...its not warped just science based on OBSERVATION!"

Gee, a whole lot of science is based on OBSERVATION. And Tycho Brahe spent years of his life mapping out all of the universe by OBSERVATION. He just didn't get it right.



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
How is it if the earth is not moving, that I see DIFFERENT stars and planets during the summer months then in winter?


Why is this proof that the earth is turning on an axis or hurtling through space? The fact is there is no proof at all that the earth is turning or orbiting anything. There is proof that the earth is not moving (Airy's Failure for one). There is also the Bible, which you can laugh at it all you want but those who have read it with an open mind know it's not just another book written by a guy who went into a cave in a trance or stuck his head in a hat (literally like Joseph Smith) and came out with a one-man exercise in automatic writing.


Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Another thing, why does the Sun rise in China while it sets here in the US? Because we are rotating around the sun which makes day and night possible.


The sun rises wherever you are at the time the sun is coming into your part of the horizon.


Originally posted by tothetenthpower
By your logic, I would be seeing the same exact night sky, regardless of the time of year. That's just false.


No. The stars were put in place, according to the Bible, to "declare the glory of God," but also for "times and seasons." This means that God turns the sky in the shape of a tightly wound spiral. Same with the orbit of the sun, as a tightly wound spiral. The Bible says God "hung the earth in space," but that he "set the sun, moon and stars in their paths."


Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Furthermore our Seasons are caused by the rotation of the earth and distribution of sunlight from the equator.


This is what they told you in government schools and on the controlled media (all owned and controlled by the Dark Side). But, no; that's wrong. The seasons are caused by the path of the sun, which moves not only in a circle around the earth but also in a tightly wound spiral around the earth. IOW, the sun's orbit is not confined to one plane. The plane of orbit gradually moves in a circle of its own that lasts approximately 365 days to complete.


Originally posted by tothetenthpower
As a previous poster said, shuttle launches are time precisely with rotations of our planet and so are Satellites.


Whether the earth rotates or the sun rotates, this does not affect the calculations. It's six of one, half a dozen of the other.


Originally posted by tothetenthpower
I would much sooner trust the work of 10 scientists who have come to the correct conclusion then 1.


I would rather trust the work of 1 scientist who came to the correct conclusion than a million others who were just following the party line so they could collect a paycheck.

Airy's Failure is an experiment in physics that proves the earth is not moving, but rather the stars, planets and all the rest. The earth isn't going anywhere. Another poster who says the instruments used to measure Airy's Failure were not precise enough as today's instruments is just throwing out more lame excuses of disinformation. Nobody has ever said Airy's Failure is not credible because of lack of proper modern day computer measured instruments.



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
LOL, airy incorrectly thought the detected aberration of light from gamma draconis was due to parallax and "failed" because his instrument could only resolve to a resolution of an arcsecond. You need subarcsecond resolution to detect parallax of ANY star. Your whole argument fails spectacularly because the equipment was inadequate to begin with; even had he been pointing at proxima centauri he would have failed. The aberration of light due to our motion around the sun is detectable and proven, however:
en.wikipedia.org...
[edit on 8-4-2009 by ngchunter]


This is a giant stretch. Nobody disputes Airy's Failure. It is basic science.

I'm sure if Airy's Failure had not "failed" you would be touting it here as the last and final proof.

Because there is no proof of the heliocentric model. It is a theory, just like evolution is a theory. On the other hand, two proofs of geocentrism are the expeiment in physics known as Airy's Failure and also the motion of Mars predicted by the geocentric model. The helicentric model cannot predict where Mars and Venus (the "wandering stars" who show retrograde motions in the sky) will be. The geocentric model can, with precision. Additionally, even the heliocentric believers have to rely on a geocentric model sometimes in their calculations to predict positions of stars and planets. See star-www.rl.ac.uk...

In other words, there is more proof for the geocentric model than the heliocentric model. It's just a theory. No proof.

And since physics seems to back up the geocentric model, not to mention the Bible says the earth was created first, the sun, moon and stars four days later, and for the benefit of the earth, meaning we are the center of the universe -- I believe in the geocentric model. Especially since I know how the government LIES and that this world is run by its god whose name is SATAN.



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Salt of the Earth
 


"Because there is no proof of the heliocentric model. It is a theory, just like evolution is a theory."

Every mission to another planet proves the heliocentric model. Simply denying it isn't disproving it. Where do you get this stuff, anyway?



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
This is a giant stretch. Nobody disputes Airy's Failure. It is basic science.

I just linked you to the basic science of airy's failure. Your failure is in understanding the basic science of what was actually causing gamma draconis' eliptical movement and why that is unrelated to parallax, which Airy incorrectly speculated was greater than 1 arcsecond, the limit of his resolution. No one may dispute Airy's failure, but you are disputing the well-established reason for his failure.


I'm sure if Airy's Failure had not "failed" you would be touting it here as the last and final proof.

Unfortunately for Airy, there are no stars within 1 parsec of earth, which is why he was doomed to fail no matter what. You'd still fail today if you tried to repeat it with the same poor equipment. Luckily, we are no longer restricted to 1 arcsecond resolution, even in amateur scopes. What you are suggesting with your flawed argument is akin to going out to look at a star wiht the naked eye, roughly six months later looking at it again, saying "well, I don't see it changing position compared to other stars, therefore no parallax." Failure to detect parallax does not automatically disprove its existence, particularly when you aren't using adequate equipment to begin with. It's a straw man.


Because there is no proof of the heliocentric model.

There's tons, you just keep plugging your ears and ignoring it. Coriolis effect, for one.


On the other hand, two proofs of geocentrism are the expeiment in physics known as Airy's Failure

You've already demonstrated that you have no idea what you're talking about on that. Why should I even give your second idea a moment's consideration?


and also the motion of Mars predicted by the geocentric model. The helicentric model cannot predict where Mars and Venus (the "wandering stars" who show retrograde motions in the sky) will be.

LOL! Oh really?
www.scienceu.com...
and yes, you can predict the location of the planets quite well with a purely heliocentric model:
orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk...
This simulator will correctly render locations of the planets in the sky just fine, even though it's simulating a pure heliocentric solar system in realtime. Hit F9 for planetarium mode.


The geocentric model can, with precision. Additionally, even the heliocentric believers have to rely on a geocentric model sometimes in their calculations to predict positions of stars and planets. See star-www.rl.ac.uk...

LOL, this is priceless. Geocentric parallax versus topocentric coordinates. Do you know what that actually means or what they're talking about? It means that if you run predictions on the location of the moon estimated from a particlar point on the earth's surface, those coordinates will undergo significant parallax if you try to use them for a different observer in a different location. Calculating the coordinates based on the earth's center (hence, geocentric) is unbiased, but must be further corrected by any observer to account for his own location on the earth. Using coordinates assuming an observer in the earth's center, geocentric, is the way to determine such things as the location of the moon with respect to the earth for the purpose of calculating the existence of any occultations, eclipses, etc. From there the coordinates must be calculated in a topocentric way for each observer who can see the event, usually published as a list of major cities and coordinates.


In other words, there is more proof for the geocentric model than the heliocentric model. It's just a theory. No proof.

As I've pointed out, you have a comical lack of undersing about what your so-called "proof" is really about. In short, it isn't proof at all. You've also continually ignored my point about the coriolis effect.



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
As a previous poster said, shuttle launches are time precisely with rotations of our planet and so are Satellites.


Whether the earth rotates or the sun rotates, this does not affect the calculations. It's six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Haha, wrong. It DOES affect the calculations, significantly. The shuttle launches generally eastward (somewhat north-east generally to match planes with the target orbit) and from a low latitutde to use the earth's rotation to its advantage; it takes less additional velocity to reach orbit when you go along with the rotation of the earth.
www.physicsforums.com...
If the earth wasn't rotating, the shuttle would not be producing enough delta V (change in velocity) to reach orbit and it would burn up or crash well before completing a single orbit.

[edit on 11-4-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by chan_chap
 


I recommend that you take a course in celestial mechanics. But before you take the course, you have to take several (if not many) courses in higher mathematics and physics.

After you thoroughly understand mathematics and mechanics of motion of astronomical bodies, you can debate this with us.

3 bodies or n-body problem can be a fascinating problem.

Oh, and please don't forget the theory of relativity.



posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

Every mission to another planet proves the heliocentric model. Simply denying it isn't disproving it. Where do you get this stuff, anyway?


How so? I don't believe we're making any trips to any other planets by satellite or otherwise. But even if we did, why would this prove the heliocentric model?

The geocentric model is often used in calculations even by the helio people because it's simpler and more accurate.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join