Does the earth move and rotate on its axis?

NO EXPERIMENTS HAS EVER PROVEN THAT THE EARTH IS MOVING!!!!!!!

From Copernicanism Through Big Bangism

Modern Cosmology’s Model Of The Universe

Is Built Solely On ASSUMPTIONS

The solar eclipse tableau involving the sun, moon, and earth reveals a truly amazing fact about the universal acceptance of the Copernican Heliocentric Model of a rotating earth orbiting a stationary sun. That amazing fact is this: The Eclipse Tableau exposes as no other illustration does the bald truth that the Helio Model is built purely on assumptions that deny all observational and experimental evidence.

Notice these seven assumptions which are indispensable to the Helio Model in general and are so apparent in the Solar Eclipse Phenomena.

1) It must be assumed that the Sun is stationary in the "solar" system relevant to the Earth (and to the Moon) and that it has never traveled East to West daily across the sky as observed by everyone on Earth throughout all history.

2) Likewise, it must be assumed that the Earth rotates West to East ccw (counterclockwise) on an "axis" every 24 hours at an equatorial speed of c. 1040 MPH in spite of there being nothing but mathematical evidence for this motion whatsoever.

3) It must be assumed that the Earth is also orbiting the Sun annually (ccw) at an average speed of c. 67,000 MPH.

Mod Edit: New External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 4/7/2009 by JacKatMtn]

sites.google.com...

www.reformation.org...

www.fixedearth.com...

www.realityreviewed.com...

foucault pendulum BEBUNKED here



[edit on 6-4-2009 by chan_chap]

reply to post by chan_chap


Sure you want to go throwing out the words "logic" and "proof"?? People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

By your logic in the op, the earth is not moving because it cannot be proven to be moving.....blah blah blah. Right? Judging by your other post about dinosaurs, and from links you posted on this thread, I would ask you to provide scientific proof for the existence of god. Ya know, you can't just use science when it's beneficial to your position or argument and then ignore it when it's not.

I won't even go into the complexities of explaining retrograde motion of the planets within a geocentric model of the solar system. This thread has to be a joke. It ranks right up there with people who argue for a flat earth!



[edit on 4/6/2009 by yadda333]

Originally posted by chan_chap
The solar eclipse tableau involving the sun, moon, and earth reveals a truly amazing fact about the universal acceptance of the Copernican Heliocentric Model of a rotating earth orbiting a stationary sun.

Heliocentrism does not dictate a stationary sun. The sun rotates AND orbits around the solar system's barycenter.

Helio Model is built purely on assumptions that deny all observational and experimental evidence.

Classical, true geocentrism has no explanation for how Venus goes through gibbous phases. It's also pretty darn poor at explaining the Coriolis effect.

2) Likewise, it must be assumed that the Earth rotates West to East ccw (counterclockwise) on an "axis" every 24 hours at an equatorial speed of c. 1040 MPH in spite of there being nothing but mathematical evidence for this motion whatsoever.

Actually you can observe a .05 m / sec / sec difference in gravity between the equator and the poles due to the centrifugal force of the earth's rotation (as well as the resulting slight bulge in the earth's shape at the equator).

5)It is assumed and must be assumed that this atmosphere must have the remarkable ability to synchronize speeds of objects in it at all altitudes--birds, clouds, jets, low orbit satellites, alleged geo-synchronous satellites over 22,000 miles out

What in the world are you talking about? Why would the atmosphere have any problem on a rotating earth? The atmosphere is not fixed and in fact is affected by the earth' rotation, hence the jet stream. LEO and GEO sats are not in the atmosphere.

Earth movements of speeds ranging from 1000 MPH to 67,000 MPH to 500,000 MPH to 660,000,000 MPH.

Where did these numbers come from? Low earth orbit sats have an orbital velocity of about 18,000mph and geostationary sats have an orbital velocity of about 6880mph.

6) A particularly fantastic assumption necessary to accommodating the precise Solar Eclipse Phenomena in the Helio Model involves the bold reversal of the Moon’s observed direction of travel.

The moon is always observed to travel in the same direction against the background of stars. Period.

7) It must be assumed that the Stars do not move around the Earth diurnally (as observed by everyone who has ever lived).

No, they appear to move consistent with an orbiting earth.

alleged distances to stars that prohibit their diurnal orbit (HERE).

Alleged? Stellar parallax is well-established.

[edit on 6-4-2009 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by chan_chap
...established repeatedly in the Bible, ...

No. The bible does NOT say the sun revolves around the earth. I don't care about your data one way or the other (i.e., it wouldn't matter to me whether the sun revolved around the earth or vice-versa); however, too many people say that the bible says the sun revolves around the earth, when it does NOT say that. People use this misunderstanding to attack the bible all the time.

Originally posted by yadda333
reply to post by chan_chap

 

Sure you want to go throwing out the words "logic" and "proof"?? People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

By your logic in the op, the earth is not moving because it cannot be proven to be moving.....blah blah blah. Right? Judging by your other post about dinosaurs, and from links you posted on this thread, I would ask you to provide scientific proof for the existence of god. Ya know, you can't just use science when it's beneficial to your position or argument and then ignore it when it's not.

I won't even go into the complexities of explaining retrograde motion of the planets within a geocentric model of the solar system. This thread has to be a joke. It ranks right up there with people who argue for a flat earth!



[edit on 4/6/2009 by yadda333]

religion is FAITH
why should anyone have to prove there faith?
science is:
1.OBSERVATION (has anyone seen the earth move or felt it?)
2.identification
3.description
4.experimental investigation ( never been done)
5.theoritical explanation ( YES MANY THEORIES for moving earth)

1.yea it does you think copenicus was saying what u just wrote? think about it!

2.venus and mercury spins around the sun and the sun spins around the earth,
whats the problem? Tycho Brahe had no problem!
i have OBSERVATION on my side, the burden of proof is on your side!

3.what is gravity? what causes the gravity force?
i dunno,einstein didint know,until u got a unified field theory gravity should be an invalid argument,

4.just look at the winds on jupiter and venus NOTHING can survive in those places, why? cuz there MOVING!! thats got have an effect

earth is the only place in the universe that life exist why? cuz its the only place thats STATIONARY

5,so what?

6,so we can AGREE that the moon travels from east to west just like the sun?

7, thats another argument

reply to post by chan_chap


You really need to stop with the copy-n-paste act.
Furthermore, when copy-n-pasting, you need to cite your sourcing, kkthx.
Is this your site or are you the author of the article you copy-n-paste'd here?


[edit on 7-4-2009 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
reply to post by chan_chap

 

You really need to stop with the copy-n-paste act.
Furthermore, when copy-n-pasting, you need to cite your sourcing, kkthx.
Is this your site or are you the author of the article you copy-n-paste'd here?


[edit on 7-4-2009 by Seekerof]

should i just post the link?

im new here so i dunno

Thank you for this post. I'm with the OP.

The earth is not hurtling through space. The universe is not as big as we're told it is. The earth is the center of the universe and is not turning on an axis.

There is a Creator. Everything did not pop out of nothing for no reason by a Big Bang. Matter does not contain godlike properties within itself of self existance or ability to impart life.

The universe had a beginning. It came from the Creator, and was designed by the Creator. Matter is not God, and if people here want to say matter is self-existant and able to produce life from itself, then you are materialists, literally ascribing godlike powers to dirt.

Rather than bowing down to matter (or dirt), we must acknowledge the almighty Creator of all.

First thing God made was THE EARTH. We are indeed the center of the universe. Everything else God created around the earth and for the earth. The sun and moon were created on the fourth day, and the stars were created just as a kind of exhaust valve for God's great power, which is limitless, and the heavens "declare the glory of God." God also created the stars for navigation and for times and seasons.

The earth, sun and moon are all exactly the right size and distance from each other to sustain life.

I agree with the OP that the geocentric model explains and predicts the motions of the planets with 100 percent accuracy, whereas the heliocentric model cannot predict the motions of the planets.

I also agree with the OP that there is no proof that the earth is orbiting the sun. It is a theory only. And there are experiments in physics which prove the earth is not moving such as Airy's Failure (the experiment devised to prove the earth was moving and instead proved the opposite).

there is something in astronomy called "paralax if you care to look it up.
quite easy to measure if you know how.

Airy's experiment
by Dr. Neville Thomas Jones, Ph.D

.

"Many think it proven long ago that the World orbits the Sun. However, the results of two simple experiments, both performed in the nineteenth century, showed that it is the stars which move, and not the World. An experiment with a water-filled telescope was performed by the then Astronomer Royal, George Airy (after whom the Airy disc of diffraction theory is named), in 1871, which can be considered to be a variation of an earlier investigation by François Arago, performed with a moving slab of glass in 1810.

"Arago showed that either light itself or the luminiferous aether is dragged along by a moving piece of glass. Fresnel explained the effect by assuming it was the light-carrying medium (this is called Fresnel drag). George Stokes explained it via compression of the aether, but the important point is whether we can tell which one is doing the moving - the light source or the transparent material. When Arago investigated this effect with starlight, he concluded that the World (with respect to which the glass plate was stationary in this instance) was at rest and that it was the stars that were moving.

"The experiment subsequently performed by Airy was first proposed by Ruggiero Boscovich for testing James Bradley's heliocentric aberration idea of 1728. This, in turn, was thought up to explain the elliptical motion of the star Gamma Draconis, as observed by James Bradley and Samuel Molyneux, over a fairly long time period commencing in 1725. What was the result of Airy's experiment? Exactly the opposite outcome to that predicted in the rotating-World scenario. (Note that the experiment is usually referred to as 'Airy's failure' for this reason.)

"Just like Arago before him, George Airy proved that the World was stationary and the stars are moving. It does not matter whether there exists a luminiferous aether or not, because the dragging of starlight, as demonstrated initially by Arago, is real, irrespective of how we try to explain it. Both Arago and Airy showed that it is the stars, and not the World, which move (although Airy did not actually go so far as to admit this). In addition, we can say that Michelson-Morley, Trouton-Noble and many, many others have consistently demonstrated no motion of the World.

"Airy's experiment thus does not confirm the World to be just a piece of rock that hurtles through infinite space in who knows how many contorted motions, as Mikolaj Kopernik (aka 'Copernicus'), Johannes Kepler, Carl Sagan, et al., so zealously maintained."

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

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

why do stars a few light years away appear to move quickly around the night sky, because we are moving. the earth.

stars are moving, but not in the sense they are orbiting planets, with the sun, our sun orbits the galaxy, our galaxy is moving, not that you would see that.

Originally posted by Sparkey76
why do stars a few light years away appear to move quickly around the night sky, because we are moving. the earth.

stars are moving, but not in the sense they are orbiting planets, with the sun, our sun orbits the galaxy, our galaxy is moving, not that you would see that.

The experiment known as "Airy's Failure," which was designed to prove that the earth was turning and not the stars, proved otherwise.

Remember, God created the stars in an instant. Every atom consists by God's power and God exists everywhere. There's no place one can go where God is not. Every thought is known to him, and all the hairs on our heads numbered. It is easy for God to turn the heavens around once a day.

The Bible says that God "hung the earth in space," but that he set the sun, moon and stars in their paths. Space is not a true vacuum, but has weight, is made of what scientists call "plenum," and the orbits are set in place by God according to his fancy, not by any rhyme or reason that we can observe.

By the way, Dr. Neville Jones, who wrote the article above I posted, is also a physicist.



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

Originally posted by chan_chap
2.venus and mercury spins around the sun and the sun spins around the earth,

That is not classical geocentrism. It's a warped version that removes earth from the center of some planets because observations demand it.

whats the problem? Tycho Brahe had no problem!
i have OBSERVATION on my side, the burden of proof is on your side!

Actually that observation caused your side to switch stories.

3.what is gravity? what causes the gravity force?
i dunno,einstein didint know,until u got a unified field theory gravity should be an invalid argument,

Stating that because something is unknown it cannot be discussed is a logical fallacy.

4.just look at the winds on jupiter and venus NOTHING can survive in those places, why? cuz there MOVING!! thats got have an effect

They're moving in heliocentrism, but that's not why they have winds, what are you rambling about?

earth is the only place in the universe that life exist why? cuz its the only place thats STATIONARY

The differences in our atmospheres are across the board, but it has nothing to do with different orbital speeds.

6,so we can AGREE that the moon travels from east to west just like the sun?

No. The moon travels west to east against the background of stars at all times. The earth rotates faster than that movement to give the appearance of daily east to west motion.

7, thats another argument

Actually parallax disproves your argument.

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
Space is not a true vacuum, but has weight, is made of what scientists call "plenum," and the orbits are set in place by God according to his fancy, not by any rhyme or reason that we can observe.

Why am I not surprised you buy into this nonsense? If orbits have no rhyme or reason (lol), explain how shuttle missions are planned and occur, or deep space probes for that matter.

Originally posted by ngchunter
If orbits have no rhyme or reason (lol), explain how shuttle missions are planned and occur, or deep space probes for that matter.

I didn't say the orbits are not stable or predictable. I was just referring to some orbits that are retrograde. But I want to retract that statement anyway because Dr. Neville Jones has used a computer to diagram the path of the planets per geocentric model, and it looks like a perfect design.

So I have to agree with you in your point.

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
But I want to retract that statement anyway because Dr. Neville Jones

You seem very attached to "dr" jones. Do you also agree with Dr. Jones' claim that the astronaut's pressurized gloves would have made it impossible for them to bend their fingers, so EVAs must be a hoax? Jones is a rather poor hoax promoter, he's not at all careful to make sure that his claims are specific only to apollo and can't be easily checked against the current work done by astronauts; his claims would mandate that the shuttle and space station are hoaxes too, as well as all interplanetary probes. He claims the moon orbits the moon far faster than it actually does to account for the day/night cycle.
(not sure if his paper's link still works:www.midclyth.supanet.com...)

By his 'interesting' model, objects farther than the moon would need something even more powerful than a saturn V just to get to an unmanned probe their vicinity. He claims geosynchronous satellites are also fake because the earth is stationary and that GPS devices actually work off of ground stations. Interesting, considering I've seen the geosynch sats in orbit.

[edit on 8-4-2009 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by Sparkey76
there is something in astronomy called "paralax if you care to look it up.
quite easy to measure if you know how.

You will find Dr. Neville Jones' article on negative parallax interesting since you think it to be easy to measure if you know how. I admit I am a dimwit at trig. Don't like it, don't care about it, and can't follow it.

But check out Dr. 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...

A. 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!


B.what sides? lol


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


D.oh your the wind expert? u know why venus and jupiter have huge storms the size of our moon? maybe cuz they flying through space have an effect on the atmosphere dont u think?


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


F.so again u choose to DENY OBSERVATION!!! the first rule of science

i see the moon move from east to west

G.how does parallax prove me wrong? plz explaine,i think the previous poster made it clear with Airy's experiment,