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 Really Move?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Is the debate between the Geocentric and Heliocentric models of the universe truly over? Your first impulse may be to dismiss this matter out of hand, but perhaps you should ask yourself a few questions before you do so.

Have you ever felt or observed the supposed rotation of the earth? Have you ever felt or observed the earth to move through the heavens?

Do you or do you not observe the sun to rise in the east and set in the west every day?

Is it not true that, in addition to the moon, the planets and the stars all appear to move around the earth? Is the idea that the earth and the planets revolve around the sun a plain observable fact, or is it based on a series of assumptions?

If you are the slightest bit curious about the apparent contradictions between the teachings of modern science and the simple observations of everyday reality, please investigate the following links:

From Copernicanism Through Big Bangism Modern Cosmology’s Model Of The Universe Is Built Solely On ASSUMPTIONS

Exposing The Copernican Deception: The Cataclysmic Impact On Every Field Of Modern Man’s Knowledge

COPERNICANISM AND DARWINISM:INSEPARABLE CONCEPTS HISTORICALLY, PHILOSOPHICALLY, SPIRITUALLY, AND SCIENTIFICALLY

www.fixedearth.com...]THE SYMBIOTIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COPERNICANISM AND DARWINISM

Geocentric Universe - Check out the articles on Cosmology and Gravitation and the Flower Pattern Discovery among others.

"Virtual" Reality Or Actual Reality: Which Is Science And Which Is Fraud?

NASA's AGENDA: Promoting Copernicanism & Evolutionism

Kabbala VI: Occult Religion & Spurious Science Declare:Six Days And 15 Billion Years Are The Same Time Frame

Small Universe

Links to these webpages and more can be found at www.fixedearth.com

It is the argument of the author the fixedearth website that the battle between heliocentric and geocentric models of the universe, and the subsequent battle between evolution and intelligent design represent not, as most of us are led to believe, a conflict between science and religion, but a ideological and spiritual war fought by the Pharisaic Talmud and Kabbalah inspired pseudo-science against Christianity.

Reason for edit: One of the websites (Dr. Neville T. Jones' Geocentric Universe) changed, so I fixed the link to reflect that.

[edit on 18-8-2004 by Ischyros]




posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 12:23 AM
link   
How would you account for the change of seasons.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ischyros
Have you ever felt or observed the supposed rotation of the earth? Have you ever felt or observed the earth to move through the heavens?

Do you or do you not observe the sun to rise in the east and set in the west every day?

Is it not true that, in addition to the moon, the planets and the stars all appear to move around the earth? Is the idea that the earth and the planets revolve around the sun a plain observable fact, or is it based on a series of assumptions?


I cannot tell that the earth is round when I look toward the horizon does that mean that it is flat? I looked at a few of those websites and they still assumed the earth to be round. Are they not making another assumption?

While sitting on an airplane (one where no outside sounds can be heard and no turbulence can be felt) if you look out the window at the ground does it not appear as if you are stationary while the earth moves below you?

I glanced at those websites and didn't notice anything very convincing. When they can come up with mathematical equations to explain the universe based on their theories then I will sit up and take notice. Until then however, it just seems like a bunch of die-hard creationists struggling to maintain their idea that the bible is infallible.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by websurfer
How would you account for the change of seasons.


That is a good question. I'm still researching this, but I believe it mght have something to do with atmospheric interference. One of the main reasons it is colder on a cloudy day is because the sun's rays are being intercepted and mostly (if not entirely prevented) from reaching the surface. Changes in atmospheric pressure may have something to do with it as well. Plasma, Ether, and the moon might all have some relationship to the seasons. I'll continue to look into this and let you know what I find out.

Some possibly related ideas you might want to look into are the Electric Universe Model, Ether Drift, and William Reich's Orgone theory. The Orgone (if it does in fact exist) especially seems to be related to weather.

The Electric Universe

Plasma Cosmology

www.Holoscience.com - Electric Universe Model in more detail

The Michelson-Morley Experiment

Dayton Miller

William Reich

Wilhelm Reich & Orgone Biophysics


[edit on 16-8-2004 by Ischyros]



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by dusran
I glanced at those websites and didn't notice anything very convincing. When they can come up with mathematical equations to explain the universe based on their theories then I will sit up and take notice. Until then however, it just seems like a bunch of die-hard creationists struggling to maintain their idea that the bible is infallible.


You probably need to do more than glance at any piece of writing in order to discover whether the ideas and messages it contains are convincing or not. As for mathmetical equations based on geocentric model theories, here's a link with a few:

Stellar distances and the age of the universe

These articles might interest you as well:
Mathematical Magic

Einstein's Theory of Relativity - Scientific Theory or Illusion?



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by websurfer
How would you account for the change of seasons.


The Geo Model of the Sun orbiting the Earth annually from the Tropic of Capricorn to the Tropic of Cancer-- just as it is observed to do--is a much more elegant explanation of the seasonal changes on Earth.

Excerpted from Kabbala Part VII The Concept of A Rotating Earth Orbiting the Sun Is Both The Pseudo-Scientific Foundation and The Achilles Heel of Modern Kabbala-based Cosmology

So, I suppose this means that as the sun revolves around the earth daily it is moving in a spiral pattern which would take it from North Pole to South Pole and back again, or back and forth between the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn.

The following is another excerpt from the same webpage:

...If one insists that the issue is about "Science" when referring to the mutually exclusive Creation Models of the Kabbala and the Bible, one needs a definition of what "Science" is. All dictionaries agree that the root word of "Science" is the Latin scire which means: "to know". There is one uncomplicated way of knowing something, and that way is to observe it and to note that no matter how many times that something is observed it always does the same thing. Observable and repeatable = Known, and Known = "science". All else invites deception

[edit on 16-8-2004 by Ischyros]



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 04:42 AM
link   
According to general relativity, you could consider the earth your prime reference frame and all equations still work out This is usually called a geocentric view. It is good for equations relating to things happening on earth, but for things in space it's not very handy. You need epicycles and such to explain the movement of the planets. If you consider a heliocentric view the equations become much easier. The geocentric view and the heliocentric view are not mutually exclusive. You can use whichever is the easiest to use for your calculations. You can also use another reference system.

There is also something called the Geocentric view (with a capital G). It states only the earth-based reference frame is correct. This discards relativity, a theory with a lot of evidence, and the cosmological principle. This principle states that "viewed on sufficiently large distance scales, there are no preferred directions or preferred places in the Universe." This is supported by the isotropy of the universe on very large distance scales.

By accepting the Geocentric view you do away with general relativity. How do you then explain the bending of light and small relativistic effects like the precession of mercury? These are not explained by Newtonian gravity. The bending of light at least requires a tensor theory and from there it's only a few steps to general relativity.

Your links contain a lot of bad science. I don't have the time to check all of it. If you want to discuss other things than the Geocentric view, I suggest you make other topics.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 04:47 AM
link   
see... they dissapear over the horizon line.. even if u have a really good telescope.. try it, you might like it

Dr Pepper.. whats the worst that could happen?

As for the really detailed science chaps... I didnt have time to read it all, Im sure your refuting was real... detailed. I wish id done more science at college...



ahh.. you know what.. it isnt the is the world round forum is it...? Im soo stupid!


but it does move... coz its round or something...

[edit on 16-8-2004 by Qoelet]



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by amantine
Your links contain a lot of bad science. I don't have the time to check all of it. If you want to discuss other things than the Geocentric view, I suggest you make other topics.


Would you mind specifying which links contain the bad science and providing examples please?

[edit on 16-8-2004 by Ischyros]



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Qoelet
see... they dissapear over the horizon line.. even if u have a really good telescope.. try it, you might like it

Dr Pepper.. whats the worst that could happen?

As for the really detailed science chaps... I didnt have time to read it all, Im sure your refuting was real... detailed. I wish id done more science at college...

ahh.. you know what.. it isnt the is the world round forum is it...? Im soo stupid!


but it does move... coz its round or something...


Something sort of interesting, Qoelet, the idea that medieval Europeans believed the earth was flat is a myth created by Washington Irving (of Rip Van Winkle and Legend of Sleepy Hollow fame).

See the following quote from one of my Western Civilizations text books:

"John Mandeville, TRAVELS
...First appearing in Europe between 1356 and 1366, Mandevilles' Travels purported to be the firsthand account of an English knight's trans-Eurasian adventures between 1322 and 1356
...In the first selection Sir John deals with the shape and size of the earth. Most people today are unaware that the notion that medieval European scholars believed the world was flat is a modern myth created by the American writer Washington Irving in the nineteenth century.

[The quote from Travels itself] "So our northern star, which we call the Lode Star cannot be seen there. This is proof that the earth and the sea are round in shape and form."

And..."For the earth is very large and is some 20,425 miles in circumference, according to the opinion of wise astronomers from the past, whose words I am not going to contradict, even though it seems to me, with my limited understanding and with all due respect, that it is larger". (The Human Record: Sources of Global History. Second Edition/Volume I: To 1700. Alfred J. Andrea. James H. Overfield. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston, MA. 1994. pgs. 367-370.)

See the following links for more conformation of this:

The Myth of the Flat Earth

The Travels of Sir John Mandeville Chapter XX

The Project Gutenberg Etext: The Travels of Sir John Mandeville





[edit on 16-8-2004 by Ischyros]



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ischyros
Would you mind specifying which links contain the bad science and providing examples please?

One example would be Cosmology and Gravitation: "3 Solar neutrinos are somehow ‘transmuted’ such that they are not detectable." This is not true, mu and tau neutrinos have been detected and together they make up almost exactly the predicted amount, (source):


More direct evidence came in 2002 from the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) in Canada. It detected all types of neutrinos coming from the sun, and was able to distinguish between electron-neutrinos and the other two flavors. After extensive statistical analysis, it was found that about 35% of the arriving solar neutrinos are electron-neutrinos, with the others being muon- or tau-neutrinos. The total number of detected neutrinos agrees quite well with the earlier predictions from nuclear physics based on the fusion reactions inside the sun.

This link has a lot to say about Orgone.


Reich believed that orgone energy is "demonstrable visually, thermically, electroscopically and by means of Geiger-Mueller counters." However, only true believers in orgone energy (i.e., orgonomists practicing the science of orgonomy) have been able to find success with the demonstrations.


Some of the links use religious texts as a basis for theories. This is a not the way science has to do be done. You have to look at the experiments and the real world, instead of a book.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 05:56 AM
link   
Amantine, I'm not really worried about the orgone. I just think it's an interesting idea that deserves more research. I also found it curious that William Reich died in an American jail cell because of his orgone studies and related activities.

As to the subject of neutrino detectors, I will look into it and get back to you when I can.

[edit on 16-8-2004 by Ischyros]



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 06:28 AM
link   
Here is a very interesting excerpt from one of the www.fixedearth.com webpages:

"Eclipse Phenomena Reveals Heliocentricity Model To Be Built Purely On Assumptions

Note these seven assumptions required by the Helio Model that enables it to account for the precise phenomena required in Solar Eclipses:


1) The Sun must cease its observed daily spiral orbit pattern around the Earth and become stationary relevant to the Earth and the Moon. We must assume that what everyone who has ever lived has seen with their own eyes--the Sun rising in the East and setting in the West--is not truly what is happening. Rather what no one has ever seen--a stationary Sun--is what we are told is scientific truth.

2) The Earth must rotate West to East ccw (counterclockwise) on an "axis" every 24 hours at an equatorial speed of c. 1040 MPH. This is purely and simply an assumption required by the Helio Model that has never been witnessed nor experienced by anyone who has ever lived. It is an assumption that flies in the face of all observed phenomena--birds, clouds, artillery, jet time whether E or W; etc.

3) The Earth must orbit the Sun ccw annually at an average speed of c. 67,000 MPH. This is a composite assumption dependent upon the previous never witnessed assumptions that the Sun is stationary and the Earth is rotating. All experimental efforts to prove this orbital motion of the Earth have failed, and there have been hundreds of them.

4) The Earth must be tilted on an "axis" at 23.5 degrees as it orbits the Sun. Again, this is a necessary and contrived assumption for explaining the seasons that is built upon the previous assumptions of a stationary Sun, a daily rotating Earth, and an annual orbit of the Earth around the Sun. The Geo Model of the Sun orbiting the Earth annually from the Tropic of Capricorn to the Tropic of Cancer-- just as it is observed to do--is a much more elegant explanation of the seasonal changes on Earth. And, of course, it fits the Scripture demands of a non-moving Earth and a moving Sun.

5) The Earth’s atmosphere must be assumed to be just an airy extension of the alleged rotating Earth. This "atmospheric envelope", as it is called--allegedly is mysteriously connected to the Earth’s surface and extends to at least 22,200 miles high where the mis-named "geosynchronous satellites" roost [and even to the end of the Earth’s gravitational field 216,000 miles out, some would say]. This "airy extension" is assumed to have the uncanny ability to synchronously adjust the speed of any object going through it--birds, clouds, helicopters, jets, missiles, "geosynchronous satellites"--to the alleged rotational speed of the Earth. This assumption is said to account for such anomalies as a jet flying at 500 MPH due west between airstrips 3000 miles apart on the Equator at 40,000 ft. and arriving in six hours regardless of the alleged eastwardly rotation of the Earth beneath it at over 1000 MPH for six hours...which rotation would bring the westward destination on the Earth’s surface toward the jet twice as fast as the plane is going. On this flight the jet will have gone 3000 miles westward and the Earth will have rotated 6000 miles eastward. Then, according to the "envelope" assumption, turning back and flying due east over the same distance at the same speed will require the same six hours regardless of the alleged eastwardly rotation of the Earth beneath the plane in the same direction at over 1000 MPH for six hours. The Earth on this return flight has allegedly moved 6000 miles in six hours and the plane 3000 miles; yet the airstrip is where it was on the first flight and not 3000 miles further east. All such denials of the only obvious explanation for such ridiculous assumptions is that the Earth is not moving. But, we can’t have that, now can we? Therefore, we must postulate and assume that there is indeed "an atmospheric envelope" which rotates with the Earth just as if were something solid nailed securely to the surface and rotating with it. Moreover, this incomprehensible but necessary "assumption/fact" of the universally believed and sacrosanct Helio Model is amazingly unperturbed by the Earth’s assumed orbit around the assumed stationary Sun at c.67,000 MPH, or its assumed orbit around the Milky Way Galaxy at c. 500,000 MPH, or its assumed exit from the assumed Big Bang explosion at c. 660,000,000 MPH....

("..There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact." 6 You tell ‘em, Mark Twain!)

6) The Moon must change its observed E to W cw motion around the Earth [every 24 hours and 52 minutes average] to a W to E motion around the Earth every 29.5 days. This complete reversal of the Moon’s direction is yet another indispensable assumption required by the stationary Sun assumption, the revolving Earth assumption, the orbiting Earth assumption, and the tilted Earth assumption which make up the Helio Model. Although each and every one of these assumptions is necessary to make a mathematical model that answers the appearances, not a single one has a factual basis.

7) The observed motion of the Stars around the Earth nightly must cease in the Helio Model. Because of the billions of light year distances to the furthermost stars claimed by modern cosmology--especially in the Kabbalistic Big Bang Paradigm--this assumption of non-moving stars is counted as the trump card that will defeat any revival of the non-moving Earth Geo Model of the Bible. Yet, note this well: This is a claim just like the others that is wholly dependent upon the acceptance of the multiple indispensable assumptions of the Helio Model, especially the rotating Earth-stationary Sun--reverse Moon direction assumptions. Given the ineffably profound transvaluation of every aspect of modern man’s "knowledge" (HERE) that the "Copernican Revolution" instigated, and given the obviously indescribable havoc that would result from exposing its purely assumptive construction (in clear violation of unfailing observational evidence), is there anyone so naive left in the world who could not readily agree that no means would be spared to prevent such an exposure from occurring? Having answered that rhetorical question truthfully, then shall the obvious means to preserving the trump card of a universe so vast that the stars could not get around nightly be ignored because the means to upset that mythological applecart are right at hand?? It’s simple really. Take one brimful cup of high-sounding but utterly fraudulent computer-programmed Virtual Reality Simulations (HERE), add four teaspoons of occult mathematics to fit the fantasies (HERE, p.9), pour in two shot glasses of an ancient anti-Bible religious agenda labeled NASA’s "Origins Program" (HERE), stir ceaselessly and serve daily to all media and academic outlets with an air of breathless wonderment at what "science" is discovering. (Viola! Mass hallucinosis!)"



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 06:33 AM
link   
"The so-called results of the special theory of relativity, that are in fact correct but are reached by incorrect relativistic derivation of equations, where known before the appearance of the special theory of relativity. They are to be found in the work of Lorentz (the longitudinal mass and the transversal mass), Poincare (), Maxwell (), Heaviside and others.
Einstein's exposition in that theory is ingeniously thought out to deceive and it largely resembles magician's tricks. Thus, for example, when he explains things which are known and clear even to a secondary school student, he is methodical, very clear to the last detail and exhaustive. However, when we look at the text containing a deception, he is complex, confused, incomplete and brief or, alternatively, long-winded. Despite that long-windedness he does not clarify what is unclear, but complicates it further, so that the text becomes even less clear. On the credit of what is clear in Einstein's exposition, the reader accepts the unclear as well, believing it to be true, and thinking it is his fault that he does not understand Einstein, or that it would take a lot more effort to understand him.
Einstein started his deception right from §1 of his paper on relativity [2], on determining simultaneity, on the basis of the judgement on the synchronized "ticking" of clock in motion. That is the first and the key deception in the special theory of relativity, on the basis of which further deceptions were constructed. Unfortunately, that deception was not spotted, and it even became the subject of serious philosophic discussions.
The first inconsistency appears in §2 of the same paper, where he uses speed , although he claims with his fundamental postulate that in nature there is no higher speed than the speed of light in vacuum. Inconsistency is an important characteristic of the theory of relativity, although Einstein claims that the theory of relativity is a theory of principles, that is a theory of consistency.
In §3 he derives transformation of coordinates in a very complex, confused and unclear way, where he also uses expressions and . A complicated way of deriving equations offers great opportunities for deceiving the reader. Thus, with the help of clocks and simultaneity control of their "ticking" in two coordinate systems, which move relatively, a light ray and mathematical operations Einstein derived transformation of coordinates and "proved" not only that the existence of time dilatation and space contraction in mathematical sense, but also that they are real physical processes.
However, I derived in a simple way a number of transformations of coordinates on the basis of satisfying the requirement for invariability of equations for the propagation of spherical and plane light wave. By using the Lorentz and these transformations, I proved that Einstein's time dilatation and space contractions are just a mathematical game, which has no connection with some real physical process. In connection with that I have demonstrated that the so-called coefficient of the contraction is not but .
In §5 of the said first paper, the theorem on addition of speeds is derived in an equally complex and unclear way. If it had been derived in a simple and comprehensible way, as has been done in this book, it would have been clear that it was not a case of addition or subtraction of any speeds, but that the formulas of the theorem represent the speed of light wave in a coordinate system at rest, in the case of addition of speeds, or in a moving coordinate system, in the case of subtraction of speeds. Since the transformation of coordinates was derived with the condition that the speed of propagation of spherical light wave in both systems equals the speed of light, then the alleged sum and difference of speeds must be equal to the speed of light.
In deriving equations Einstein uses expressions and and he never changes them with , although in his theorem on addition of speeds he says that the sum or the difference of light velocity and some other speed are equal to the velocity of light. Thus, Einstein refutes his own theorem.
With the help of this theorem he explains the result of Fizeau's experiment, claiming insistently that the result of the experiment confirms the validity of the theory of relativity and that there is no other theory which can explain it. By such a resolute claim, he hides the fact that the formulas of his theorem are derived for the case of vacuum, and that Fizeau's experiment is performed in water. As an outstanding physicist he must have known that, but nevertheless, he uses the formulas, valid for vacuum, for the case of water, in order to prove the correctness of his theory, which says a lot about Einstein's correctness, and the correctness of his theory.
I derived the equations of the theorem on addition of speeds in moving water in the same way as it was derived for the case of vacuum. By use of those equations I showed that the result of Fizeau's test does not prove the correctness of the theory of relativity, but, on the contrary, refutes it. At the same time the result of the Fizeau's test is explained by use of the new derived equations for the speed of light in moving water.
In deriving the formulas for the angle of aberration and the Doppler effect, he applies the transformation of coordinates for a spherical light wave on a plane light wave, which is incorrect. The formula for the Doppler effect for the case of moving radiation source, which Einstein gives, is not, and can not be, derived in the relativistic procedure, which also shows the failure of the theory of relativity. Also, according to this equation, the frequency of the radiation increases as the radiation source retreats, which runs counter to observed reality.
According to the theory of relativity, apart from the longitudinal Doppler effect, there is also the transversal one, which has no bearing on reality. By using new transformations I showed that the relativistic way of determining the Doppler effect represents an interesting mathematical game which can not be logically connected with reality.
The classical and relativistic explanation of the cause of aberration is disputed and a new explanation is given, which is based upon relative motion of the earth's ether and sun's ether.
An especially important part of the special theory of relativity is the one which refers to a body's mass and energy and their mutual relation. It is generally believed that the theory of relativity proved itself most convincingly in this sphere. However, nobody has spotted that the failure and weakness of this theory was proved most obviously in this sphere, which is shown in this book.
Einstein tried to derive the formula for the mass of a moving electron, as well as the formula which determines the relation of mass and energy in his first paper. So, in §10 of that paper, under the title "Dynamics of a (weakly accelerated) electron", Einstein derives in a wrong way, both from mathematical and physical standpoint, wrong formula for transversal mass of an electron and correct formula for longitudinal mass.
Deriving the equations for the longitudinal and transversal mass of an electron in motion, which are dependent on velocity, Einstein assumes that an electron in motion has only one mass and treats it as a constant magnitude."

And there's more. Also the images of the mathematical equations on the website aren't showing up here, so you should defintely check out Einstein's Theory of Relativity - Scientific Theory or Illusion?



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 07:18 AM
link   
Well Orgone is 100% real. I have no doubt about that, because I have felt it and used it.... I have a small orgone generator. That being said, I don't see what orgone has to do with the Earth's seasons. And also, it contradicts most things in the bible, and the ways people have used it, including myself would be witchcraft according to the bible.

Here are some forums with peoples' experiences with orgone and orgone generator.

groups.yahoo.com...
www.xtrememind.com...
www.xtrememind.com...

And btw: So do the planets and their moons also revolve around the earth? How about the Kuiper belt objects? Does the Andromeda galaxy revolve around a tiny little planet of which it's 200 million lightyears away and of which it's trillions and trillions of times bigger and more massive??? Sorry, that doesn't make sense.



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 12:22 AM
link   
I'm either stupid or confused with this topic. I've never read anything that disputes the fact that the Earth moves, even in the links provided within this thread.

websurfer asked how you would account for the changing seasons and I agree, also, how about day and night?

I wanted to be more detailed in my response but its hard for me to understand why these facts can be disputed.



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 12:39 AM
link   
.
How do you explain the simple observation from Columbus'es time that viewing a ship on a calm ocean through a telescope as it sails away disappears over the horizon, mast last? It does not simply get smaller and smaller as a whole image forever.

The Earth is flat, but the Ocean isn't? Won't the water run down hill?

edit: spelling

[edit on 17-8-2004 by slank]



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Weller
I'm either stupid or confused with this topic. I've never read anything that disputes the fact that the Earth moves, even in the links provided within this thread.

websurfer asked how you would account for the changing seasons and I agree, also, how about day and night?
The seasons question has already been answered earlier. Night and day is fairly simply. The sun orbits the earth every day. On the side of the earth facing the sun it is day, on the side of the earth facing away from the sun it is night.



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by slank
.
How do you explain the simple observation from Columbus'es time that viewing a ship on a calm ocean through a telescope as it sails away disappears over the horizon, mast last? It does not simply get smaller and smaller as a whole imgage forever.

The Earth is flat, but the Ocean isn't? Won't the water run down hill?
.


If you had actually read the thread you would realize that it has nothing to do with the a flat earth. As I stated earlier, the idea the medieval scholars ever believed that the earth is flat is A MYTH.



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheBandit795
Well Orgone is 100% real. I have no doubt about that, because I have felt it and used it.... I have a small orgone generator. That being said, I don't see what orgone has to do with the Earth's seasons. And also, it contradicts most things in the bible, and the ways people have used it, including myself would be witchcraft according to the bible.


Never mind about orgones having anything to do with the seasons. The seasons problem is solved by the sun travelling in a spiral circuit around the earth between the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn yearly. Just out of curiousity, for what purpose do you use orgones that would be considered witchcraft?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join