Does the Earth Really Move?

.
If the Earth is not flat then it is perhaps round?
You are aware that even round things bound by gravity to rest on a surface roll very easily?
If it is round and not resting on a surface then it must be floating somewhere.
When something is floating in water or space [round or not] it is almost impossible for it to be still.

In friction free space the smallest molecule would move the entire Earth.
.

Originally posted by slank
.
If the Earth is not flat then it is perhaps round?
You are aware that even round things bound by gravity to rest on a surface roll very easily?
If it is round and not resting on a surface then it must be floating somewhere.
When something is floating in water or space [round or not] it is almost impossible for it to be still.

In friction free space the smallest molecule would move the entire Earth.
.

How do you know that space is fiction free? There are also such forces in operation as electromagnetism which have the potential of explaining such things. Try researching the Electric Universe theory.

.
Air is mostly space. It is almost friction free. Space has less friction than air. Other than minute amounts of dust in space it is friction free.

I can imagine the earth moving. So much so that sometimes I can feel it [in my imagination]. Try doing a handstand outside. Imagine that there is an infinite abyss under your feet. It is an excellent way of getting a new perspective on the Universe you live in. Sometimes i imagine falling into that infinite abyss, and worry I will have to grab a tree or something to keep from falling forever. It can actually be a little scary if you really get into it.
.

Ok, lets for a moment assume that the sun rotates around earth. That would mean that the sun has its orbit somewhere between other planets and that its possition changes constantly relative to those planets.
Observation tells us that the sun is hot, earth is the proof of it, go out when it is sunny, it is hot. So other planets would be heated by the sun in various intervals, at some point more, at some point less, and they would appear to us as brighter and darker.
What we observe from earth is not that. What we see corelates with the assumption that planets, including earth, rotate around sun in more or less constant orbits. Mercury and Venus are very hot all the time, Earth is somewhat hot, Pluto is very cold... all the time.
You can observe all that from Earth just by observing visible planets in the night sky and others with a telescope.

Ischyros, can you clear up a few questions, because I want to know what exactly you believe.

• Is the geocentric view the only right view of the universe or can an heliocentric view be equally true? If the answer to this question is that an heliocentric view can be equally true, I have no other questions to you. If the answer is that a geocentric viewpoint is the only true one, you can continue with the questions below.
  
• What view of the solar system do you think is true?
  
• Do you reject relativity?
  
• If so, what do you propose to replace it? The Newtonian system?
  

why would the government or who ever cover up something this stupid, its not like anyone would ever care if the earth is round or flat, or if the sun rotated around the earth or whatever?? seriously who would ever cover up something like this?

This is realy strang thread . The earth rotates we can show this from the rovers and satlights in SPACE and mars . and the earth goes around the sun and againg we can SHOW this by looking at EVER other planet in this system we see MARS moving from and home telscope .
Get a telscope and look up at MARS saturn jupiter and another planet a cheep one can see and watch it for a week in the first hour you will see it CHange it poshion .So eather earth moved or the planet moved or both moved there can be no other explaction.

Originally posted by Ischyros

Just out of curiousity, for what purpose do you use orgones that would be considered witchcraft?

www.magickcourse.com...

Originally posted by Ischyros

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.

Um...Ok. It scares me to think your being serious, I would rather assume your just trying to get a response. Take care.

Does the earth really move?

Every woman I have been with has told me it did.......LOL

Originally posted by Ischyros
Here is a very interesting excerpt from one of the www.fixedearth.com webpages:
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.

I, a non-scientist had to answer this one.... if you are driving down the road in your car and your kids are tossing a ball back and forth in the backseat is the ball "magicaly" matching speed with the car or is it the momentum of the ball moving at the same speed as the car?

According to your post the only possible answer is the car isnt moving, right?


[edit on 17-8-2004 by Amuk]

There must be papers by Copernicus in some library somewhere. I believe Galileo also had a few writings on this subject.

chill... Earth moves... So does everything else.

This in reply one of Amantine's earlier posts. Just so everyone knows what we're talking about, here's a defintion of the Neutrino from Wikipedia:

The neutrino is an elementary particle. It has spin 1/2 and so it is a fermion. Its mass is very small, although recent experiments (see Super-Kamiokande) have shown it to be above zero. It feels neither the strong nor the electromagnetic force, so it only interacts through the weak force and gravitation.

Because the neutrino only interacts weakly, when moving through ordinary matter its chance of interacting with it is very small. It would take a light year of lead to block half the neutrinos flowing through it. Neutrino detectors therefore typically contain hundreds of tons of a material constructed so that a few atoms per day would interact with the incoming neutrinos.

Now back to the discussion:

Originally posted by amantine

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.

*(emphasis mine)

The Wikipedia article on the Solar Neutrino Problem which the Campus Program.com article omits:

In 2002 Raymond Davis Jr. and Masatoshi Koshiba won part of the Nobel Prize in Physics for experimental work that found the number of solar neutrinos was around a third of the number predicted by the Standard Model.

So, hard science data still needs to account for 2/3 of the neutrinos predicted in the Standard Model.

Also, the quote you gave from the Cosmology and Gravitation article is not entirely inaccurate:

Currently, the solar neutrino problem is believed to have resulted from an inadequate understanding of the properties of neutrinos. According to the Standard Model of particle physics, there are three different kinds of neutrinos: electron-neutrinos (which are the ones produced in the sun and the ones detected by the above-mentioned experiments), muon-neutrinos, and tau-neutrinos. In the 1970s, it was widely believed that neutrinos were massless and their types were invariant. However, theoreticians in the 1980's realized that if neutrinos had mass then they could change from one type to another. Thus the "missing" solar neutrinos could be electron-neutrinos which changed into other types along the way to Earth and therefore escaped detection.

In context Dr. Jones wrote (in his Cosmology and Gravitation article):

After 1987A, there are again three possibilities:

The theory is wrong;
The Sun is nowhere near 5,000,000,000 years old;
Solar neutrinos are somehow �transmuted� such that they are not detectable.
Only number 3 is considered.

So, while perhaps he should update the article to reflect some of the new information, it was scientifcally sound when he wrote it.

Originally posted by amantine
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.

The argument is made on fixedearth.com that certain concepts such as evolution, the big bang theory and the idea of a 15 billion year old universe find support or even their origin in the esoteric teachings of the Kabbalah, which I believe is an interesting idea to explore. The following is a quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia article on the Kabbalah Note that the article is listed under Cabala, as this was the Jewish Encyclopeia originally published between 1901-1906.

Mystic Doctrines in Talmudic Times....In contrast to the explicit statement of Scripture that God created not only the world, but also the matter out of which it was made, the opinion is expressed in very early times that God created the world from matter He found ready at hand�an opinion probably due to the influence of the Platonic-Stoic cosmogony (compare Philo, "De Opificiis Mundi," ii., who states this as a doctrine of Moses; see Siegfried, "Philo von Alexandria," p. 230). Eminent Palestinian teachers hold the doctrine of the preexistence of matter (Gen. R. i. 5, iv. 6), in spite of the protest of Gamaliel II. (ib. i. 9).

Interesting how this Kabbalistic doctrine ties in with the pseudo-science of evolution, is it not?

Originally posted by amantine
Ischyros, can you clear up a few questions, because I want to know what exactly you believe.
Is the geocentric view the only right view of the universe or can an heliocentric view be equally true? If the answer to this question is that an heliocentric view can be equally true, I have no other questions to you. If the answer is that a geocentric viewpoint is the only true one, you can continue with the questions below.

Actually, I was just introduced to the the possibility of the Geocentric view being true less than a week ago. I had never really considered it before. I'm sure the idea seemed just as strange to me as anyone else who has read this thread. Ultimately, if the Acentric or Heliocentric models are true, then it really doesn't matter to me that much. However, if the Geocentric model could possibly be proven true, then it would change the world, so that is why I am interested in it at present. I've learned a couple of things about science and astronomy over the last few days that I didn't know before, so it has been a rewarding experience in any case. As I'm honestly considering whether the Geocentric model is the only true one, I'll answer your other questions as well.

Originally posted by amantine
What view of the solar system do you think is true?

I'm not certain at this point. I'll get back to you on that.

Originally posted by amantine
Do you reject relativity?

Even though I do like the String theories, Brane theory, and holographic universe models which have been developed to help marry Relativity with Quantum Physics, I am thinking about it. There are serious scientists out there who do. You should check out Mathematical Magic
and the other webpage I quoted from concerning relativity earlier Einstein's Theory of Relativity - Scientific Theory or Illusion?.

Originally posted by amantine
If so, what do you propose to replace it? The Newtonian system?

The Electric universe model (also known as Plasma Cosmology) rejects Relativity and seems to be able to make physics operate without it. Also, some people believe that Dayton Miller was actually able to detect (EDIT:) Ether Drift, although that that might mean the earth is moving even though it may help disprove General Relativity. I'm not sure about that one. Perhaps, if ether drift is true, it actually provides evidence for the universe rotating around the earth? (End Edit) Anyway, here are a couple of links if you want to read more about that.

Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift
Experiments: A Fresh Look

Reconciling Miller's Ether-Drift with Reich's Dynamic Orgone

For those who believe that it's absolutely insane or stupide or both to even consider geocentric or Geocentric models, here's a couple of good links:

Myths about the Copernican Revolution

Geocentrism Challenge

Why Geocentricity?


[edit on 18-8-2004 by Ischyros]

What is there some massive (and I do mean massive every physicist and astronomer and the world would have to be in on it) conspiracy to delude you? Try to convince any astronomer in the world that the sun revolves around the earth and they will laugh in your face. Why?, because they actively use the mathematical theories behind the copernican system in they're work and guess what 100% of the time they're answers check out.

Originally posted by Amuk
I, a non-scientist had to answer this one.... if you are driving down the road in your car and your kids are tossing a ball back and forth in the backseat is the ball "magicaly" matching speed with the car or is it the momentum of the ball moving at the same speed as the car?

According to your post the only possible answer is the car isnt moving, right?

I'm a non-scientist also, but it occured to that if the car you were driving in didn't have a roof or a windshield, the ball would very likely be left far behind. I don't know if that's the best answer, but it's the only one I have for now.

Arxiv: First Results from the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory:

The data from SNO represents the first direct evidence that there is an active non-electron flavour neutrino component in the solar neutrino flux. This is also the first experimental determination of the total flux of active 8B neutrinos, which is in good agreement with the solar model predictions.

Arxiv: Measurement of the Total Active 8B Solar Neutrino Flux at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory with Enhanced Neutral Current Sensitivity:

The Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) has precisely determined the total active 8B solar neutrino flux without assumptions about the energy dependence of the neutrino survival probability. The measurements were made with dissolved NaCl in the heavy water to enhance the sensitivity and signature for neutral-current interactions. The flux is found to be 5.21� 0.27 (stat) � 0.38 (syst) � 106 cm−2s−1, in agreement with previous measurements and standard solar models.

ScienceDaily: Sensitive Measurement By Sudbury Neutrino Observatory Observes Solar Neutrinos In A New Way:

Says Professor Hamish Robertson of the University of Washington, "It was a dramatic and exciting moment for us when we first saw the neutrons being produced by this type of neutrino interaction and realized there were three times as many as you would get if only electron neutrinos were coming from the Sun. There's absolutely no question the neutrino type changes and now we know quite precisely the mass differences between these particles."

ScienceDaily: First Results From The Sudbury Neutrino Observatory Explain The Missing Solar Neutrinos And Reveal New Neutrino Properties:

"We now have high confidence that the discrepancy is not caused by problems with the models of the Sun but by changes in the neutrinos themselves as they travel from the core of the Sun to the earth," says Dr. Art McDonald, SNO Project Director and Professor of Physics at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario. "Earlier measurements had been unable to provide definitive results showing that this transformation from solar electron neutrinos to other types occurs. The new results from SNO, combined with previous work, now reveal this transformation clearly, and show that the total number of electron neutrinos produced in the Sun are just as predicted by detailed solar models."

Originally posted by Ischyros
I'm a non-scientist also, but it occured to that if the car you were driving in didn't have a roof or a windshield, the ball would very likely be left far behind. I don't know if that's the best answer, but it's the only one I have for now.

No, in a vacuum (without air resistance) the ball will stay in your open roof windshieldless car. The ball has the same forward momentum as the car when it's in your hand and it will keep moving in the same direction (forward) until it hits something (like air).

The atmosphere of the earth has the same momentum as the earth. It's also kept close to earth by gravity. It does slowly lose some gasses, but geological processes add gasses to the atmosphere in return.

Does the Earth move? Only after really good sex. Sorry, just couldn't resist.

Originally posted by amantine
No, in a vacuum (without air resistance) the ball will stay in your open roof windshieldless car. The ball has the same forward momentum as the car when it's in your hand and it will keep moving in the same direction (forward) until it hits something (like air).

The atmosphere of the earth has the same momentum as the earth. It's also kept close to earth by gravity. It does slowly lose some gasses, but geological processes add gasses to the atmosphere in return.

Hi, Amantine. I'm not trying to be argumentive, just trying to understand this correctly. When a plane is flying above the earth, it is experiencing air resistance right? How does the plane achieve the same momentum as the atmosphere it is flying in?

If the Earth did not rotate, the hot air from the Equator would rise, and the cold air from the poles would make the wind only from the poles to the Equator, and this is not what happens, as you can see in any animation made with the satellite images of the clouds.