A proof for the Stationary Earth

[oxmixmudd]

Just another example of grand claims made without much content.

Projecting a bit here John?

The difference between solar day and siderial day is simply the difference between the sun's motion and the universe's rotation around the earth very day.

Yes, the universe whose edge is moving at 1.7 BILLION times the speed of light. Yet which can slow down and speed up exactly in sync with the Earth's tides so as to give the impression quasars can be used to track changes in the Earth's rotational velocity due to momentum transfer to the Oceans due to the tides. Yes - THAT rotating universe.

I'll stick with a rotating Earth John.

Your other statements about ring lasers, differential velocities in Rocket launches, geosynchronous and geostationary satellites are either without content, and/or have been discussed at length on another thread.

Well no - you just claim the MagicAether[superscript]tm[/suberscript] and its 'winds' solve all the problems. The rest of us discussed the actual observations and the mathematics which they conform to. You make up 'explanations' to fit the observation and don't worry about observational evidence to support them, self-consistency of the explanations themselves, or whether or not there are any known physical principles to support them. You make YEC look positively rigorous by comparison!

Your repeated allegations that I am not being honest are also offensive and without merit.

You are not being honest. You clearly state at the beginning of this op that there would be major consequences to an airplane flying north south that would have to be accounted for. This has been shown to be vacuous, without any merit of any sort, and yet you have not retracted the claim. That is dishonest.

You said:

1) The rotating earth model assumes the atmosphere rotates with the earth. Therefore large winds will appear to act on 747 at particular locations within the flight path.

2) The stationary earth model assumes the stationary atmosphere over the earth. Therefore no large winds will appear to act on 747 at particular locations within the flight path.

These two([sic] actually just one difference) major differences between the two models will provide definitive evidence for the stationary earth model over and against the rotating earth model.

Yet is has been clearly shown there are no LARGE WINDS that could possibly be expected based on the assumptions they would produce a constant pressure on the plane as you outlined. (there are winds that arise due to a combination of rotational and temperature related effects - e.g. tradewinds or the Jetstream, but this kind of effect is not John's point, and they DO exist, invalidating the geocentric model ...)

The W-E friction is real. Maybe it cannot be detected, then again maybe it can for objects with greater velocity, and the W-E friction may well become a factor.

JM

Sorry John, you've just shown your own dishonesty - you clearly have been shown this 'effect' is virtually undetectable and can't really be used to show a difference between a still and a rotating Earth without careful measurement and statistical analysis, yet you have not retracted the original statements in the OP.

You go on to say:

Clarification - The rotating earth model requires 1) the atmosphere to rotate with the earth, as the co-rotation of the atmosphere and earth (earth-atm) and 2) the velocity vector of the 747 at Sydney remaining with the 747 for the entire journey. Then according to the rotating earth model, the velocity vector of the 747 of 1392 km/hr remains with the 747. Hence as the velocity vector of the rotating earth changes throughout the 747's flight path from Sydney to the destination, the relative velocity vectors of the 747 and the earths rotating atmosphere translates into a predicted wind vector acting on the 747. The wind vector is caused by the variable difference between the rotating earth-atm velocity vector and the 1392 km/hr velocity vector caused by the 747 beginning its journey from Sydney.

As the relative difference in atmosphere velocities acting on the jet are not experienced in flights over the equator, nor for flights landing at London. The rotating earth model cannot account for the fact that jets do not experience such winds calculated above. Such a large difference between the maths of the rotating earth and the facts of jet flights, which fly direct routes without experiencing the predicted winds, means jets flights are very strong evidence for a stationary earth.

You're entire OP has been reduced to 'maybe it can't be measured', and yet you still hold that somehow your claims in the OP invalidate a rotating Earth? That is blatant dishonesty John. There is nothing about the point in your OP that points unmistakenly to a non-rotating Earth. And, in fact, there is a long list of expected artifacts of a rotating Earth that ARE seen and are routinely demonstrated, from Foucault's Pendulum to the rotating weather patters on the Earth etc etc.

Honesty requires you admit this OP has failed at the very least. True honesty John is something your Christian faith requires of you, that same faith you (mistakenly) think requires you adhere to a geocentric viewpoint.


Jim

[Littlejoe]

Moderated By: Littlejoe

Thread Closed per request of the OP.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[Sparko]

Because the geostationary satellites don't accelerate towards the earth therefore there is no aether flow towards the earth. Aether flow, in one geostatic model is the cause of acceleration. No accel, no flow.

Now answer my post where I previously exposed problems with the MS concept of free fall and the several other problems with the moving earth theory's explanation for geostationary satellites. Let me guess, you will run away as a coward? You may surprise me yet, but I doubt it.

Your MS physics is just pantheistic belief wrapped up in maths, fictional forces and pseudo experimental evidence.

JM

So basically you claim that this immeasurable and unknown Aether is so well understood that scientists know where it flows and in what directions well enough to know exactly where to place satellites so that there is zero aether flow so that the satellites will hover in place, and how to place other satellites exactly where they want so that they orbit the earth with the aether wind circling the earth at different speeds. Yet nothing can measure or prove this aether actually exists or what it is made of. And coincidentally the satellites orbits and speeds work out perfectly using Heliocentric based math and physics?

And how is it that satellites and space shuttles and space stations can orbit indefinitely without falling to earth with this circular aether flow, yet if they slow down, they will fall down to earth? And how would they slow down anyway since thrusters dont work in space? If the aether wind is circular and not downward at that location, then they should continue to circle there forever. If when they slow down (by magic of course) then what makes them fall? The aether is not moving downward toward earth at that point of they would not be able to orbit in the first place.

[Sparko]

It also takes time for heat to get into the atmosphere as well. Why then does the sun dominate the earth's temp when the surrounding space is at such a low temperature? Why not say the surrounding space dominates, and will cause the earth's atmosphere to cool? You seem to have assumed the earth is already warmed by the sun when the universal space should dominate. Its easier to cool a space than to warm it. So too, it seems that it would be easier for nature to cool the earth in cool space than warm the earth by a local sun.

JM

Vaccuum is an insulator and does not transfer heat that well. Heat is moving molecules, which there are not many of in a vacuum. That is why a vacuum bottle can keep your coffee hot for a long time.

The sun's heat reaches the earth and heats it up via radiated heat. It doesn't heat up or cool down the vacuum itself.

[Sparko]

You use that word friction for both the car and the plane and then deny friction in the atmosphere on the plane. Simply retarded. Let me guess, the W-E friction caused by a rotating earth on a N-S moving car has been measured. Why? Because it is so small, and or because it simply doesn't exist, because the moving earth is actually stationary.



R theory says you simply don't know what you are seeing rotating from space. Your rotating earth claims both affirms and denies relativity because you are a believer in MS physics. The MSer simply has no consistent position to take. The only way the MSer can entertain a reasonable dialogue is to consistently affirm and deny principles and beliefs within the MS physics models.

Hence the Helio scam continues.



When you routinely ignore and contradict your own MS physics beliefs then you have been shown as a product of the modern sausage machine called, a university education. Just give assent to everything you are told by the MSers, like an obedient little boy, then regurgitate the same old one liners so everyone will do what you do.

The winds theme has also been explained before, which you have evidently misunderstood . . . yet again.

JM

I can tell when you are stumped. You revert to mocking Helio and burning strawmen while playing [even more] stupid and misrepresenting what the other person said.

[Sparko]

A clever mathematician can make any point in the universe stand still in space. That's relativity theory.

A more clever mathematician could make all objects in space stand still and have all points of space move around and through those stationary objects. That's big bang cosmology.

But nobody will admit that anyone is clever enough to make the universe focused on one stationary object. Yet God is clever enough and Christians know it. But most modern Christians deny He has done it, even though their book says He has.

That is YOU Sparko.

JM

Your mistake is in trying to claim the earth is not rotating. We can see that ourselves from space and have. And geostationary satellites prove it, as well as weather patters that are affected by the Coriolis effect. If you would modify your geostationary model to include a centrally located earth, that rotates. Then your geo model would work a lot better and it would indeed be much harder to prove wrong. Yet because you refuse to admit a rotating earth, your whole model falls apart. And you have to invent some magical aether that can flow in any needed direction and in multiple directions at once, and can control the movements of entire planets yet cannot be measured in any way. And it somehow mimics the calculated math of the helio model and gravity.

[Sparko]

The differential exists, so it causes a force. Game over you troll.

JM

sure it causes a force, that is why the plane's W-E motion is the same as the atmosphere. But since the motion of the plane IS the same as the atmosphere you can't measure it at the plane, just like you can't measure the current from the boat that is embedded in it, it would measure as zero since the boat is being "forced" to move at the same speed as the current.

[Sparko]

Sparko took my statement out of context of the thread in which we were discussing the W-E friction caused by the W-E motion of the rotating atmosphere. Now both Sparko and Roy are fabricating based upon one statement misunderstood by Sparko.

If I mention anything, any time, be aware that there are several who invent, fabricate, twist, misdirect and any other scam they can dream up to derail a thread that doesn't comply with a preconceived understanding of who a discussion should proceed.

JM

No you still do not understand friction. That much is very clear to Roy and me and everyone else reading the thread.

[Sparko]

Great.

Why is there no acceleration? Because there's no aether flow.
Why is there no aether flow? Because there's no acceleration.
Round and round and round we go...

And why does this magical aether keep accelerating things downward at increasing speeds until it reaches terminal velocity, yet when acting in orbit it remains at a steady pace? It speeds up toward the earth or towards the moon when our ships got close to it, or mars, yet when things are in orbit the speed is steady but different at different levels above the planet, yet exactly consistent with the calculate orbits in the helio/newtonian/relativity model maths. That stuff truly is magical.

[Sparko]

didnt notice it was closed.

Oh well John would not have answered me anyway.