Reopening the case against Galileo

[JacksBratt]

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;
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? 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!);
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? 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? How far up must one go before one is no longer pulled in any significant way by the earth's gravitational pull?

IMO geocentricity makes more sense.

Another good question....

If someone at the equator is spinning at the fastest speed of the earth and doesn't fly off due to sufficient gravity. Why would someone at the north pole, who is turning like a slow ballerina, under no centrifugal force whatsoever, under the same gravitational force needed to hold the guy at the equator from flying off. Why is he not crushed by this force?

God is amazing. He varies the gravitational force to suit where you are on the globe based on the centrifugal force place on you.

 

[JacksBratt]

I'm not saying that the earth is flat. However, where does all the proof of a globe earth come from?

NASA.

Now look at all the evidence that is showing up that the space station is not real and that the moon shot may not have been real either.

You have to ask yourself. Why, after all the generations who have wanted to go to the moon, and we finally get there and the only picture we have. The only one is the one shot of Africa? Why isn't there thousands of pictures of our home from space. Yet, to this day and age, only one lonely photo of our earth from space. The rest are sections, portions and areas, but never the whole globe?

The question you have to ask first is do you trust NASA. If not then what.What is fake, what is true. There is a lot of questions, photo's and video's out there that pose some good questions.

Can you see it...?

In these times, what is being questioned...... TRUTH.

 

[AV1611VET]

When the northern hemisphere is closest to the sun, the southern hemisphere is closer.

 

[crjmurray]

I'm not saying that the earth is flat. However, where does all the proof of a globe earth come from?

NASA.

Now look at all the evidence that is showing up that the space station is not real and that the moon shot may not have been real either.

You have to ask yourself. Why, after all the generations who have wanted to go to the moon, and we finally get there and the only picture we have. The only one is the one shot of Africa? Why isn't there thousands of pictures of our home from space. Yet, to this day and age, only one lonely photo of our earth from space. The rest are sections, portions and areas, but never the whole globe?

The question you have to ask first is do you trust NASA. If not then what.What is fake, what is true. There is a lot of questions, photo's and video's out there that pose some good questions.

Can you see it...?

In these times, what is being questioned...... TRUTH.

Careful, you'll get this thread moved to the conspiracy theories forum.

 

[The Cadet]

Simple ...

The black/blue ball represents Earth. The black/purple ball represents Venus. The yellow ball represents the Sun.

This, while an interesting hypothesis, ignores a few key facts. Firstly: in this model, we should occasionally see "full venus", in a time where the sun is opposite Venus respective to the earth. This does not happen. Ever. We should see phase 7 as the smallest, as it is furthest from the earth, and phase 1 as the largest, as it's the closest; this also never happens. Phase 7 and phase 1 are the same size. This makes no sense with epicycles. These ad-hoc explanations gel with bits and pieces of reality, but upon the slightest further examination fall apart.

 

[The Cadet]

Another good question....

If someone at the equator is spinning at the fastest speed of the earth and doesn't fly off due to sufficient gravity. Why would someone at the north pole, who is turning like a slow ballerina, under no centrifugal force whatsoever, under the same gravitational force needed to hold the guy at the equator from flying off. Why is he not crushed by this force?

Because you are vastly overestimating the importance of centrifugal force in this instance.

http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a11511.html

At the equator, your centrifugal force is less than 1% of the gravitational force of the earth. This is mostly negligible (unless you're pole vaulting in the olympics); at the north pole, if you could jump ten inches in the air, you can now jump 10.1 inches in the air. Congrats, superman. The speed listed sounds like a lot, but compared to the overall size of the earth, it's not nearly as fast as people make it out to be.

I'm not saying that the earth is flat. However, where does all the proof of a globe earth come from?

Simple observations easily performed without special equipment. Space photography and satellite measurements were a nail in the coffin, but at this point, the coffin had already been buried 6 feet under. There are numerous methods of establishing this based merely on what one can see with the naked eye, or a decent spyglass, or a friend a fair distance north or south (indeed, Eratosthenes's calculations, based on extremely rough math, were still only about 1% off the actual figure).

NASA.

Now look at all the evidence that is showing up that the space station is not real and that the moon shot may not have been real either.

You can see the ISS from the ground. Get a decent telescope, and you can see it well enough to distinguish most of its features.

You have to ask yourself. Why, after all the generations who have wanted to go to the moon, and we finally get there and the only picture we have. The only one is the one shot of Africa? Why isn't there thousands of pictures of our home from space.

https://www.google.de/search?q=eart...newwindow=1&tbm=isch&q=earth+from+space+photo

Google is your friend. There are thousands of pictures of our home from space. You can watch videos of Commander Chris Hadfield singing "Space Oddity" with the curvature of the earth as a backdrop.

Yet, to this day and age, only one lonely photo of our earth from space. The rest are sections, portions and areas, but never the whole globe?

No, there are actually quite a few (again: google is your friend). The problem is that getting an object far enough out to take that photo is fairly pricy, and most of the ones going out that far aren't coming back around any time soon.

 

[Astrophile]

Third, I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures

What puzzles me is that Johann Kepler had provided exactly this demonstration in his first two laws of planetary motion, namely that the Earth and all the planets move in elliptical orbits with the Sun at one focus of the ellipse, and that the radius vector from the Sun to the planet sweeps out equal areas in equal times. These laws were published in Astronomia Nova, in 1609, six years before the date of Cardinal Bellarmine's letter. Far away, in Britain, the Welsh astronomer Sir William Lower had read Kepler's work by 1610, and had speculated that his laws might apply to the orbits of comets. Is it possible that Galileo's compatriots were still ignorant in 1615 of Kepler's work and its implications?

 

[Astrophile]

The flaw in your model is this: in January, when the Earth is allegedly closest to the sun, it is 91.4million miles, whereas in July (summer thru most of the earth), we are allegedly 3 million miles further from the sun. You say it is the sphere's tilt that produces the seasons. This doesn't make sense. If the sun's heat travels over 90 million miles to the earth, how could a slight tilt (of a few thousand miles at maximum) have such a dramatic effect on the Sun's energy, giving us summer and winter simultaneously?

You may not have noticed this, but during summer the Sun rises higher in the sky and is above the horizon longer than in winter. The ground receives more radiation from a nearly vertical Sun than from a Sun near to the horizon, and the longer duration of daylight also adds to the insolation. It is these factors, and not the change in the Earth's distance from the Sun, that explain why summer is hotter than winter. Also, in July it is summer in the northern hemisphere, not 'through most of the Earth'.

The flaw in your argument is this: you are alleging that the "straight-path" airplane is a small model of the Earth's movment. But the Earth is not allegedly traveling in a straight, constant path. It is allegedly spinning on its axis, spinning around the sun, spinning around the galaxy, and spinning around the universe, all at once - in a "drunken" spiral-like path around the universe. If the plane was spinning in multiple directions at once, yes I would expect to "splatter" on the cabin. Your argument supports a flat, stationary earth theory.

But the Earth is effectively travelling in a straight path, so far as dynamical forces are concerned. If you care to work it out, the Earth's acceleration due to its motion around the Sun is about 6 mm/s², less than a thousandth of the acceleration due to the Earth's gravity. The acceleration due to the Earth's movement around the centre of the Galaxy is about 9×10E-13 m/s², or about 10E-13 times the gravitational acceleration.

Prove stellar parallax.

Look at the SIMBAD astronomical database, and search for almost any bright star; the website will tell you its parallax. For example, try the star Sirius: according to SIMBAD its parallax is 0.37921".

 

[Gene2memE]

I'm not saying that the earth is flat. However, where does all the proof of a globe earth come from?

NASA.

Yes NASA.

AND the near dozen other space agencies that are capable of putting satellites with cameras on them into space – China, South Korea, Japan, Russia, India, Pakistan, Brazil, Ukraine, the EU, France (independent of the EU). Even Iran and North Korea have the capabilities of putting reconnaissance and observation satellites into orbit.

Let me just repeat that, for clarity. Iran and North Korea have put observation satellites into orbit.

What you’re arguing when you push for a flat earth is that there is a conspiracy. A massive one. One that has gone on for centuries. Not just involving the Western developed nations, their scientific institute and centres of learning, and the hundreds of thousands of people they employ, but also involving the Soviet Union/Russia and a collection of independent nations, some of which have been direct antagonist over the last half century or so since we set foot on the moon.

Above all that, you’re arguing that international pariah states like North Korea and Iran are active participants in this grand conspiracy as well. Yet both of them, fundamentalist religious states – albeit in very different contexts – apparently have no problem with accepting basic physical laws of the universe, nor with beaming back images of a spherical earth.

Now look at all the evidence that is showing up that the space station is not real and that the moon shot may not have been real either.

I've looked. Given that I've seen and tracked the ISS through a telescope, none of it is even remotely convincing.

Give me your best single piece of evidence. Not a video. Not a link. Explain to me why you think that the ISS is not real.

 

[ananda]

What is Venus orbiting?

Why does it need to orbit anything?

 

[ananda]

This, while an interesting hypothesis, ignores a few key facts. Firstly: in this model, we should occasionally see "full venus", in a time where the sun is opposite Venus respective to the earth. This does not happen. Ever.

The sun in geocentricity shines down upon the earth as a spotlight, not as a sphere.

We should see phase 7 as the smallest, as it is furthest from the earth, and phase 1 as the largest, as it's the closest; this also never happens. Phase 7 and phase 1 are the same size. This makes no sense with epicycles. These ad-hoc explanations gel with bits and pieces of reality, but upon the slightest further examination fall apart.

Venus is a small planet at a sufficient distance from the Earth, and traveling in a small and tight enough circle that there would not be an apparent change in visible size.

 

[The Cadet]

Why does it need to orbit anything?

Because objects don't just move for no apparent reason. There have to be actual forces involved. If you think the reason Venus moves around that point is not gravity, then why is it? If the reason Venus moves around that point is gravity, where is the mass?

The sun in geocentricity shines down upon the earth as a spotlight, not as a sphere.

Doesn't matter at all; we should still see far more of Venus than we actually do.

Venus is a small planet at a sufficient distance from the Earth, and traveling in a small and tight enough circle that there would not be an apparent change in visible size.

Huh. Then why do we get images like this?

Venus is actually one of the largest things in the sky, after the sun and the moon, and fairly easy to observe. We can directly observe its physical size changing over time with a half-decent telescope. Don't believe me? Get a basic consumer-grade telescope, go somewhere with low light and air pollution, and look for yourself. Galileo did it with the kind of telescope that would be laughed out of the bargain aisle at Wal-Mart; you could pick up a Orion funscope for less than $50 and make the same observations easily (just for comparison: Galileo was working with 8-20x magnification; the Orion funscope goes up to 152x magnification).

 

[Kylie]

Simple ...

The black/blue ball represents Earth. The black/purple ball represents Venus. The yellow ball represents the Sun.

The trouble with this is that Venus can never appear any more than half full (50% illuminated). How then do you explain this?

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/shimmerings/files/venus20130908.shtml

What we see in reality is impossible according to your diagram. Which is wrong? Your diagram or reality?

 

[chilehed]

What puzzles me is that Johann Kepler had provided exactly this demonstration in his first two laws of planetary motion, namely that the Earth and all the planets move in elliptical orbits with the Sun at one focus of the ellipse, and that the radius vector from the Sun to the planet sweeps out equal areas in equal times. These laws were published in Astronomia Nova, in 1609, six years before the date of Cardinal Bellarmine's letter. Far away, in Britain, the Welsh astronomer Sir William Lower had read Kepler's work by 1610, and had speculated that his laws might apply to the orbits of comets. Is it possible that Galileo's compatriots were still ignorant in 1615 of Kepler's work and its implications?

Kepler proposed a model that had predictive value, but he didn't actualy demonstrate that his model conformed to reality.

 

[ananda]

You may not have noticed this, but during summer the Sun rises higher in the sky and is above the horizon longer than in winter. The ground receives more radiation from a nearly vertical Sun than from a Sun near to the horizon, and the longer duration of daylight also adds to the insolation. It is these factors, and not the change in the Earth's distance from the Sun, that explain why summer is hotter than winter. Also, in July it is summer in the northern hemisphere, not 'through most of the Earth'.

This works just as well in a geocentric model.

But the Earth is effectively travelling in a straight path, so far as dynamical forces are concerned. If you care to work it out, the Earth's acceleration due to its motion around the Sun is about 6 mm/s², less than a thousandth of the acceleration due to the Earth's gravity. The acceleration due to the Earth's movement around the centre of the Galaxy is about 9×10E-13 m/s², or about 10E-13 times the gravitational acceleration.

... and the Earth's acceleration around its own "axis" of a man standing at the north or south pole?

Look at the SIMBAD astronomical database, and search for almost any bright star; the website will tell you its parallax. For example, try the star Sirius: according to SIMBAD its parallax is 0.37921".

How does looking up SIMBAD's parallax numbers prove parallax?

 

[The Cadet]

Kepler proposed a model that had predictive value, but he didn't actualy demonstrate that his model conformed to reality.

He demonstrated to the degree science allows.

 

[ananda]

Because objects don't just move for no apparent reason. There have to be actual forces involved. If you think the reason Venus moves around that point is not gravity, then why is it? If the reason Venus moves around that point is gravity, where is the mass?

I believe Venus appears and moves in the way it does because it is how our material senses interprets the existence of this object from another plane of existence.

Just like our eyes interprets the existence of a "file" and its icon on a computer screen - on one level of reality, we can say that the icon truly does exist. On another level of reality, that icon can be broken down into a collection of data. On a deeper level of reality, that data can be further broken down into a collection of electrons stored on the computer's storage in a specific order. Etc.

Doesn't matter at all; we should still see far more of Venus than we actually do. Huh. Then why do we get images like this?

Venus is actually one of the largest things in the sky, after the sun and the moon, and fairly easy to observe. We can directly observe its physical size changing over time with a half-decent telescope. Don't believe me? Get a basic consumer-grade telescope, go somewhere with low light and air pollution, and look for yourself. Galileo did it with the kind of telescope that would be laughed out of the bargain aisle at Wal-Mart; you could pick up a Orion funscope for less than $50 and make the same observations easily (just for comparison: Galileo was working with 8-20x magnification; the Orion funscope goes up to 152x magnification).

I was speaking of viewing Venus with the naked eye. I see no substantial change in Venus' size with the naked eye. Viewing it with a telescope is akin to viewing the "file" on a different level of reality, as in my example above.

 

[The Cadet]

This works just as well in a geocentric model.

Okay, so how do all of the other planets have seasons?

... and the Earth's acceleration around its own "axis" of a man standing at the north or south pole?

Meaningless, relatively speaking. The centrifugal force drops off to close to zero, but it was never significant in the first place.

I believe Venus appears and moves in the way it does because it is how our material senses interprets the existence of this object from another plane of existence.

Just like our eyes interprets the existence of a "file" and its icon on a computer screen - on one level of reality, that icon does exist. On another level of reality, it is simply a collection of data. On a deeper level of reality, it is a collection of electrons stored on the computer's storage in a specific order. Etc.

Speaking as a former Comp-sci major: that is not an accurate description of how files work and is not a good analogy for venus. Speaking as a skeptic: that's an unfalsifiable idea with absolutely no merit in any discourse.

I was speaking of viewing Venus with the naked eye.

So what? Why would the fact that the effect doesn't become immediately obvious to the naked eye diminish the fact that it happens, and that you can observe it happening yourself with nothing more than a cheap telescope or a particularly nice pair of binoculars. You can't see bacteria with the naked eye, but this doesn't mean they aren't there, and it especially doesn't mean that microscopes cannot be trusted as a result.

 

[ananda]

The trouble with this is that Venus can never appear any more than half full (50% illuminated). How then do you explain this?

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/shimmerings/files/venus20130908.shtml

What we see in reality is impossible according to your diagram. Which is wrong? Your diagram or reality?

Neither. See my post above.

 

[ananda]

Okay, so how do all of the other planets have seasons?

Have you personally been to other planets to witness firsthand those alleged seasons? I have not.

Meaningless, relatively speaking. The centrifugal force drops off to close to zero, but it was never significant in the first place.

How is it meaningless to have a man standing at the north pole, spinning in a circle at thousands of km per hour?

Speaking as a former Comp-sci major: that is not an accurate description of how files work and is not a good analogy for venus. Speaking as a skeptic: that's an unfalsifiable idea with absolutely no merit in any discourse.

Speaking as one with decades of experience in the Comp-sci field myself, which extends to this day, it is indeed an accurate description of how files work. If you disagree, please explain how it is not an accurate description.

So what? Why would the fact that the effect doesn't become immediately obvious to the naked eye diminish the fact that it happens, and that you can observe it happening yourself with nothing more than a cheap telescope or a particularly nice pair of binoculars. You can't see bacteria with the naked eye, but this doesn't mean they aren't there, and it especially doesn't mean that microscopes cannot be trusted as a result.

I updated my post you quoted with the following: "I see no substantial change in Venus' size with the naked eye. Viewing it with a telescope is akin to viewing the 'file' on a different level of reality, as in my example above."

If we take a microscope and examine, say, a human being, to various levels of magnification, we will see how the human being's component parts act in different ways on different levels of reality. The whole body, on one level ... organs, on another level ... molecules, on a further level ... DNA, on a deeper level .... atoms, quantum particles, and so on, each level obeying different laws of reality.

I'm not saying that telescopes or microscopes cannot be trusted. I am merely stating that they are objects that assist us in looking into a different level of reality, a level which may demonstrate distinctly different laws of reality than the naked eye.