Why does the earth rotate?

crjmurray · Sep 4, 2015

ananda said:
Sure. Does majority = right?

No. No it does not. But in this instance, majority happens to include every space program on the planet. Can you offer an explanation as to how these people are accurately predicting the movements of celestial bodies (accurate enough to land on them) if they are using an incorrect model?

ananda · Sep 4, 2015

crjmurray said:
No. No it does not. But in this instance, majority happens to include every space program on the planet. Can you offer an explanation as to how these people are accurately predicting the movements of celestial bodies (accurate enough to land on them) if they are using an incorrect model?

I am not a member of those space programs, I have not personally seen what they have alleged to see with my own eyes. I do not personally know what they claim.

I also do not believe that "they" landed on the moon. NASA recently stated that they haven't gone past the so-called Van Allen belts, which contradicts their earlier claim that they have. They are unreliable, and I have no reason to believe that other space programs and their alleged "data" are more reliable.

crjmurray · Sep 4, 2015

ananda said:
I am not a member of those space programs, I have not personally seen what they have alleged to see with my own eyes. I do not personally know what they claim.

I also do not believe that "they" landed on the moon......

Good, we can stop there.

ananda · Sep 4, 2015

crjmurray said:
Good, we can stop there.

So you don't care to address the fact that they denied going past the Van Allen belts?

FrumiousBandersnatch · Sep 4, 2015

dad said:
I do not believe basic physics applies to the universe outside of earth and solar system area. So forget trying to make a skater the illustration for galaxies.

Oh, OK. However, observations made of extra-solar systems and galaxies are consistent with them following the same principles, and simulations using those physical principles give results consistent with what we observe, so it seems reasonable, despite your belief to the contrary, to suppose that they are. If it quacks like a duck...

FrumiousBandersnatch · Sep 4, 2015

ananda said:
So you don't care to address the fact that they denied going past the Van Allen belts?

That's sufficiently vague to require more detail, or preferably, a reference to the source. Linky?

ETA: the Apollo moon missions did go through the Van Allen belts, but not through the most intense areas, and they didn't spend long enough in them to do significant harm. NASA have confirmed this once more, after the recent Orion media faff.

VA belts? Just passin' thru...

Here's a couple of pages that give the trajectory details and a detailed calculation of the radiation exposures: Apollo 11's Translunar Trajectory and Apollo and the Van Allen belts. A bit technical, but that's the nature of the beast.

ananda · Sep 4, 2015

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
That's sufficiently vague to require more detail, or preferably, a reference to the source. Linky?

Here's NASA's video, the relevant portion starts from about 3 minutes in to 3:44. He clearly states regarding the van allen belts: "we must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space".

FrumiousBandersnatch · Sep 4, 2015

ananda said:
Here's NASA's video, the relevant portion starts from about 3 minutes in to 3:44. He clearly states regarding the van allen belts: "we must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space".

Yeah, that's the media faff I was referring to.

Here's what happened: Apollo-Orion 'Hoax' Obviously Mistaken.

NASA QA quote in explanation: "No spacecraft built for humans has passed through the Van Allen Belts since the Apollo missions, and even those only passed through the belts – they didn’t linger."

Check out the explanatory links in my last post if you want 'chapter & verse'.

essentialsaltes · Sep 4, 2015

ananda said:
I genuinely do not believe that the earth rotates or moves.

If it is at rest, the earth would form the basis for an inertial reference frame. "Newton's laws hold in their simplest form only in a family of reference frames, called inertial frames. This fact represents the essence of the Galilean principle of relativity."

So all it would take is to see whether Newton's laws hold when measured in a reference frame tied to the earth.

They don't.

If you drop an object from a great height, Newton's laws would predict that it lands on the spot on the ground directly beneath the object. More than 200 years ago, an experiment was carried out dropping lead pellets in a mineshaft to test this, and the pellets do not drop straight down. This demonstrates that the earth is not an inertial frame, and thus cannot be at rest.

Because of the Coriolis effect, dropped objects are deflected (mainly to the east, if you're in the Northern Hemisphere). Furthermore, the measured deflection in this experiment was in accordance with the theoretical prediction based on a rotating earth.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Sep 4, 2015

I was going to suggest that maybe the Earth is stationary and the universe revolves around it, but the Coriolis Effect seems to put a spanner in the works...

AV1611VET · Sep 4, 2015

dad said:
Why does the earth rotate?

Either God told it to; or He created it, then gave it a nudge.

I go with "God told it to."

crjmurray · Sep 4, 2015

AV1611VET said:
Either God told it to; or He created it, then gave it a nudge.

I go with "God told it to."

So you do think that the earth rotates?

yeshuasavedme · Sep 4, 2015

ananda said:
It doesn't.

you are biblically correct.
It does not rotate, spin, tilt, nor is it a "planet".
It is the center of creation, from whence the heavens were expanded out from, on day 2 of creation week, between the cut in two waters of creation that every element of creation was created in, before all things were organized out of those elements into all that is.

yeshuasavedme · Sep 4, 2015

crjmurray said:
No. No it does not. But in this instance, majority happens to include every space program on the planet. Can you offer an explanation as to how these people are accurately predicting the movements of celestial bodies (accurate enough to land on them) if they are using an incorrect model?

Nasa uses geocentric earth for space launches

crjmurray · Sep 4, 2015

yeshuasavedme said:
Nasa uses geocentric earth for space launches

Please, go on.

yeshuasavedme · Sep 4, 2015

crjmurray said:
Please, go on.

http://catholicintl.com/guy-consolmagno-will-not-deny-geocentrism/
"There were more things said, but I can’t remember them now, but the above is an accurate rendition of how the conversation went. In brief, Consolmagno would not admit to the interviewer that the sun did not go around the earth.

Actually, when Consolmagno said the math worked easier with heliocentrism, I wish I could have chimed in at that point, since I could have shown that the math actually works easier with geocentrism. In fact, it works so much easier that NASA and the Jet Propulsion Lab use geocentric mechanics to send up their spaceflights, and they correct the Solar Barycentric Model by using the Fixed Earth model!

Then, seeing that he was making absolutely no headway in making the baffoon out of me that he intended, the interviewer switched to the promised discussion on Intelligent Design. Here, too, the interviewer was getting frustrated. I simply told him and Consolmagno that..."

yeshuasavedme · Sep 4, 2015

NASA uses "fixed earth model", I should have said.

http://catholicintl.com/guy-consolmagno-will-not-deny-geocentrism/
"Interviewer: “So, Dr. Sungenis, you believe that the sun goes around the earth, is that correct?”

Sungenis: “Yes, and so do a lot of other people.”

Interviewer: “Like who?”

Sungenis: “Well, they won’t come right out and admit it, but they do hold that geocentrism is just as valid a model of cosmology as heliocentrism.”

Interviewer: “And who are these people?”

Sungenis: “Oh, people like Albert Einstein, Ernst Mach, Julian Barbour, Bruno Bertotti….”

At this point, the interviewer interrupted and turned to Guy Consolomagno.

Interviewer: “Bro Consolmagno, do you..."

crjmurray · Sep 4, 2015

yeshuasavedme said:
http://catholicintl.com/guy-consolmagno-will-not-deny-geocentrism/
"There were more things said, but I can’t remember them now, but the above is an accurate rendition of how the conversation went. In brief, Consolmagno would not admit to the interviewer that the sun did not go around the earth.

Actually, when Consolmagno said the math worked easier with heliocentrism, I wish I could have chimed in at that point, since I could have shown that the math actually works easier with geocentrism. In fact, it works so much easier that NASA and the Jet Propulsion Lab use geocentric mechanics to send up their spaceflights, and they correct the Solar Barycentric Model by using the Fixed Earth model!

Then, seeing that he was making absolutely no headway in making the baffoon out of me that he intended, the interviewer switched to the promised discussion on Intelligent Design. Here, too, the interviewer was getting frustrated. I simply told him and Consolmagno that..."

What is this supposed to be?

AV1611VET · Sep 4, 2015

crjmurray said:
So you do think that the earth rotates?

Yes.

crjmurray · Sep 4, 2015

AV1611VET said:
Yes.

Why does the earth rotate?

The Bear. Not The Bull.

Early Buddhist

The Bear. Not The Bull.

Early Buddhist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Early Buddhist

Well-Known Member

Stranger in a Strange Land

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

The Bear. Not The Bull.

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

The Bear. Not The Bull.

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

The Bear. Not The Bull.

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

The Bear. Not The Bull.

Similar threads