If the earth is alleged to spin on its axis at approximately 1,040 mph at the equator, and the earth is alleged to move around the sun at 67,062 mph and the solar system is alleged to spin around the galactic center at 514,000mph, and the galaxy is alleged to be moving at 2.24 million mph ... Altogether, when added together, if the Earth is alleged to move at multi millions of miles per hour in a careening fashion across the universe ...
1. Why do I observe that the stars stay in the same position night after night, year after year? They should be in different places all the time;
The earth rotates around the sun on a stable axis. The tilt is stable, and it is the relative rotation of the earth to the sun which causes the seasons, as this graph demonstrates:
Notice how the poles are always pointing in the same direction? As Cool Hard Logic so elegantly put it: "On the winter solstice, the North Pole is pointing towards... Polaris. On the vernal equinox, the North Pole is pointing towards... Polaris. On the Summer Solstice, the North Pole is pointing towards... Polaris. On the autumnal equinox, the North Pole is pointing towards... Betelgeuse. Just kidding, you guessed it, Polaris." The reason this doesn't change very much is because the distance from the earth to the sun is rather trivial compared to the distance from the earth to every other star in the galaxy. This is why stellar parallax was impossible to measure with the naked eye.
2. Why don't airplane pilots have to make 1,040 mph compensations when flying east to west? Why are their flight calculations (to my knowledge) based on a fixed, unmoving earth?
Find a fast, enclosed environment. Say, an airplane. When on this airplane, stand up and jump. Did you splatter yourself against the rear wall of the cabin? No? Why not? The plane, after all, is allegedly moving at some 600 miles per hour - you should be a wet smudge in a large dent! Does this mean that the plane is stationary?
No. The principle you are ignoring here is called "inertia". Objects in motion stay in motion until acted upon by some force. Airplanes do not have to compensate for that 1,040mph because to an observer outside of the earth's frame of reference,
everything on the planet is moving at that speed.
Why is it possible for airplanes to fly west to east? If an average airplane is traveling at 600mph, and it travels eastward, then according to the heliocentric theory, it is actually losing ground westward hour by hour because the earth beneath is traveling 1,040mph eastward (400mph faster than the airplane can travel!);
Because it's traveling at 600mph
relative to the ground (and the air around it).
3. Regarding point 2, if the response is because the atmosphere is (allegedly) rotating along with the earth at 1,040mph, then why can clouds travel in various directions? Why can a little mosquito fly in whatsoever direction against this alleged immense gravitational pull which pulls along the atmosphere?
Again, it has to do with inertia. Imagine you're floating in a fast-moving river. According to your frame of reference, you are stationary, and any movement you make against the river's current is adjusted for that. From
outside that frame of reference, your normal movement in one direction is seriously expanded, and in another is muted, but that's because of the inertia you carry with you from your environment.
How do satellites stay in perfect synchronous orbit around the earth when the earth is drunkenly traveling millions of miles per hour around the universe?
Actually, this is more of a problem for geocentrism than for non-stationary models. Geostationary satellites constantly stay over the same spot on earth. How do they do this? Well, in the heliocentric model, the answer is pretty simple: they orbit at a high altitude and with enough speed that their centripetal force counteracts gravity and holds them up there. However, in a geocentric universe where the earth is not spinning, the satellite cannot be spinning around the earth in order to be geostationary - it must be
fixed. So we lose centripetal force as a mechanism to keep the satellite up.
How far up must one go before one is no longer pulled in any significant way by the earth's gravitational pull?
It's a simple exponential equation which tends towards zero, but it reaches pretty far - like,
well beyond the moon far.
IMO geocentricity makes more sense.
You need to learn some basic physics. Geocentrism as an idea makes absolutely no sense of basically any of the lines of evidence we've discovered. How does geocentrism account for stellar parallax? How does it account for essentially all of modern space exploration? How does it account for retrograde planetary motion? How does it explain regular yearly meteor showers as we pass through the tails of comets? Geocentrism just is not a viable model for the universe.
It would only take a drop in the bucket - 4% of the 2014 US budget ($153 billion) - to go (allegedly) back to the moon, using the 1969 budget factored for inflation.
Right. $153 billion (that's about $500 per person) is just some trivial amount to spend on a mission which most likely would not accomplish anything new. By comparison, that $153 billion could house and feed how many homeless people for a year? It could fix how many roads and bridges? It could provide free medical care for how many people?
How is the flat earth a scam?
From what I've read, multiple railroad engineers have denied the need for factoring in the curvature of the earth in designing and constructing rail lines, and have always created them straight and level/flat - no matter the distance. IMO that is a good argument for a flat earth.
https://www.reddit.com/r/engineering/comments/2mik11/structural_engineers_at_what_point_does_the/
They actually do factor it in. Also, the flat earth completely violates the laws of physics, makes a mockery of gravity, and generally is just hilariously wrong.
