Why does the earth rotate?

[essentialsaltes]

You'll have to ask the author what he meant then, on that one point. What of all the other 199 points he made?

Like I said, it was good for a laugh for a while, and then it went on and on until the joke was boring and unfunny, and it was just sad that someone wasted their time like this. Is there any one of them you'd like to focus on as something that you think is actually a good argument?

 

[ananda]

Like I said, it was good for a laugh for a while, and then it went on and on until the joke was boring and unfunny, and it was just sad that someone wasted their time like this. Is there any one of them you'd like to focus on as something that you think is actually a good argument?

They're all good arguments to me. I'm sure you think otherwise.

What's good for a laugh are all those NASA videos. Did you see the one from 1969? I think they forgot to return their tinfoil space ship and suits to the Lost In Space tv show.

 

[AV1611VET]

What?

Maybe they did write it down, but the paper it was written on crumbled to dust, and future generations didn't bother to copy it because they didn't believe it.

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm not saying that they're lying, or how it is explained. All I am asking is if you have done these tests yourself.

So your argument is that unless you do the test yourself, you can't know it's true? If that were so, no one could build a computer.

I'm astounded anyone would try such an argument.

 

[essentialsaltes]

They're all good arguments to me. I'm sure you think otherwise.

Here's another one that has also been disproved for more than 200 years.

115) The existing laws of density and buoyancy perfectly
explained the physics of falling objects long before knighted
Freemason “Sir” Isaac Newton bestowed his theory of
“gravity” upon the world. It is a fact that objects placed in
denser mediums rise up while objects placed in less dense
mediums sink down. To fit with the heliocentric model
which has no up or down, Newton instead claimed objects
are attracted to large masses and fall towards the center. Not
a single experiment in history, however, has shown an
object massive enough to, by virtue of its mass alone, cause
other smaller masses to be attracted to it as Newton claims
“gravity” does with Earth, the Sun, Moon, Stars and Planets.

In the late 18th century, Cavendish performed an experiment that directly measured the attraction between masses using a torsion balance to measure the very small forces involved. The same method is still in use. In fact, for $2000, you can buy a similar apparatus and do it yourself. This experiment is justly famous. The author of the 200 proofs thing is, at best, ignorant.

 

[ecco]

I'm not saying that they're lying, or how it is explained. ...

Previous quotes from Ananda:

• Post #22 I genuinely do not believe that the earth rotates or moves.
• Post #29 I have not decided if I am a flat earther or a concave earther.
• Post #34 My model is what I know for myself: that the earth is motionless, and that the sun and moon orbit the earth.

Your Post #67 Pointed us to the website of Ericdubay. Ericdubay has another website ...http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/ … where he states:

In the Flat-Earth model of the cosmos, the North Pole is the immovable center of the world and the entire universe. ... The Sun circles ... up to the Tropic of Cancer at the June summer solstice, ... and all the way down to the Tropic of Capricorn on the December winter solstice.

He presents this graphic.

Just to clarify, is this your understanding of general shape of the earth and the relationship of the sun to it?

 

[ananda]

So your argument is that unless you do the test yourself, you can't know it's true? If that were so, no one could build a computer.

I'm astounded anyone would try such an argument.

No, I am saying that I will not accept anything as absolutely "true" unless I know for it myself.

I may accept or have faith that something is potentially true or potentially false otherwise.

In this particular case regarding a spherical or rotating Earth, I have been given "data" from multiple sides - one side provided by NASA et al, another side from non-spherical sources. How do I know which side is absolutely true? What is my criteria for believing one over the other? Because one side is accepted by the majority? As a Catholic, do you not believe Jesus' warning that the majority can be wrong (Mt 7:14)?

I do not know for myself that what NASA proposes is true. Neither do I know for myself that the data from non-spherical sources is true either. After personally considering the various merits of both sides, I have faith that the non-spherical sources is potentially true.

 

[ananda]

Here's another one that has also been disproved for more than 200 years.

115) The existing laws of density and buoyancy perfectly
explained the physics of falling objects long before knighted
Freemason “Sir” Isaac Newton bestowed his theory of
“gravity” upon the world. It is a fact that objects placed in
denser mediums rise up while objects placed in less dense
mediums sink down. To fit with the heliocentric model
which has no up or down, Newton instead claimed objects
are attracted to large masses and fall towards the center. Not
a single experiment in history, however, has shown an
object massive enough to, by virtue of its mass alone, cause
other smaller masses to be attracted to it as Newton claims
“gravity” does with Earth, the Sun, Moon, Stars and Planets.

In the late 18th century, Cavendish performed an experiment that directly measured the attraction between masses using a torsion balance to measure the very small forces involved. The same method is still in use. In fact, for $2000, you can buy a similar apparatus and do it yourself. This experiment is justly famous. The author of the 200 proofs thing is, at best, ignorant.

According to this, there are plenty of flaws regarding the Cavendish experiment. The author of the article I linked to makes good points. How do we know that the Cavendish experiment measures gravitational attraction? It cannot be discounted that it perhaps measures electromagnetic attraction, or some other force. Are only metal balls used in Cavendish experiments? Etc.

 

[ananda]

Previous quotes from Ananda:

• Post #22 I genuinely do not believe that the earth rotates or moves.
• Post #29 I have not decided if I am a flat earther or a concave earther.
• Post #34 My model is what I know for myself: that the earth is motionless, and that the sun and moon orbit the earth.

Your Post #67 Pointed us to the website of Ericdubay. Ericdubay has another website ...http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/ … where he states:



He presents this graphic.

Just to clarify, is this your understanding of general shape of the earth and the relationship of the sun to it?

That is my general leaning and faith, yes ... but it is not my knowledge.

 

[essentialsaltes]

According to this, there are plenty of flaws regarding the Cavendish experiment. The author of the article I linked to makes good points. How do we know that the Cavendish experiment measures gravitational attraction? It cannot be discounted that it perhaps measures electromagnetic attraction, or some other force. Are only metal balls used in Cavendish experiments? Etc.

No, it can be done with stones. In your own basement.

(Which would seemingly discount the possibility of electromagnetic attraction. As does the fact that it would take a vast coincidence for all of the replications of the experiment to produce the established value of gravitational constant, if it were actually based on charges and the electromagnetic constant. And why do the masses never repel? When Coulomb did his own experiments at roughly the same time as Cavendish, he used the same method of the torsion balance to measure the force constant, and could generate both attractive and repulsive forces.)

 

[dad]

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

I go with "God told it to."

I agree. But I also agree that if He arranged a little asteroid smash, or law change sometime after creation, that things may have looked or operated somewhat differently in the days of the fathers.

 

[ananda]

No, it can be done with stones. In your own basement.

(Which would seemingly discount the possibility of electromagnetic attraction. As does the fact that it would take a vast coincidence for all of the replications of the experiment to produce the established value of gravitational constant, if it were actually based on charges and the electromagnetic constant. And why do the masses never repel? When Coulomb did his own experiments at roughly the same time as Cavendish, he used the same method of the torsion balance to measure the force constant, and could generate both attractive and repulsive forces.)

So you're saying that stones have no electromagnetic force? I disagree. All material objects possess electromagnetic properties, whether to a greater or lesser extent.

The Cavendish experiment does not prove the existence of gravity.

 

[essentialsaltes]

So you're saying that stones have no electromagnetic force? I disagree. All material objects possess electromagnetic properties, whether to a greater or lesser extent.

Perhaps. But if the extent of the unbalanced charge varies to a greater or lesser extent, then as I said before "it would take a vast coincidence for all of the replications of the experiment to produce the established value of gravitational constant". Additionally, if both rocks were both positively charged, then they would repel, rather than attract. This is not what we see.

The Cavendish experiment does not prove the existence of gravity.

No, it just proves the existence of the force that obeys the exact same law as gravity. Which amounts to the same thing.

 

[ecco]

That is my general leaning and faith, yes ... but it is not my knowledge.

Requoting EricDubay

In the Flat-Earth model of the cosmos, the North Pole is the immovable center of the world and the entire universe. ... The Sun circles ... up to the Tropic of Cancer at the June summer solstice, ... and all the way down to the Tropic of Capricorn on the December winter solstice.
​

It is interesting that he uses the terms "up" and "down". In his own diagram there is no up or down, there is only closer to the Immovable North Pole or farther away from it tending towards the outer edges of the earth.

​

In his depiction, the sun moves in smaller circles during the "Northern Hemisphere" summer; in larger circles during the "Northern Hemisphere" winter when the sun appears to be further "south"; and cycles back to smaller circles again six months later.

How would you explain how the sun can make circles over the flat earth with the size of the circles varying daily from small to large in six months and back to small circles during the next six months? What is changing the size of the sun's circles?

 

[029b10]

So you're saying that stones have no electromagnetic force? I disagree. All material objects possess electromagnetic properties, whether to a greater or lesser extent.

The Cavendish experiment does not prove the existence of gravity.

What is the electromagnetic property of rubber?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

What is the electromagnetic property of rubber?

Well, I can blow up a balloon, rub it on the hair of my head to build up a static charge on the balloon, and then place it on a wall and it will stay there on the wall.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

So you're saying that stones have no electromagnetic force? I disagree. All material objects possess electromagnetic properties, whether to a greater or lesser extent.

The Cavendish experiment does not prove the existence of gravity.

One can detect and neutralize electric fields.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

One site claims this

"
4.54 billion years ago, our Solar System formed within a cloud of hydrogen not unlike the Orion Nebula, or the Eagle Nebula, with its awesome pillars of creation.

Then, it took some kick, like from the shockwave from a nearby supernova, and this set a region of the cold gas falling inward through its mutual gravity. As it collapsed, the cloud began to spin.

But why?

It’s the conservation of angular momentum.

Think about the individual atoms in the cloud of hydrogen. Each particle has its own momentum as it drifts through the void. As these atoms glom onto one another with gravity, they need to average out their momentum. It might be possible to average out perfectly to zero, but it’s really really unlikely.

Which means, there will be some left over. Like a figure skater pulling in her arms to spin more rapidly, the collapsing proto-Solar System with its averaged out particle momentum began to spin faster and faster."
http://www.universetoday.com/14491/why-does-the-earth-rotate/


Some people apparently take this fable seriously and even call it science. Total 100% fable and story telling of course.

Because they ignore what 99% of the universe is - plasma - and the forces that work in plasma.

http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Marklund_convection

Ignore that electrical forces naturally cause rotation.

http://www.plasma-universe.com/Electric_currents_in_space_plasmas

http://www.plasma-universe.com/Galaxy_formation

Instead they hypothesize some Fairie Dust process because they choose to ignore what 99% of the universe is - and the forces involved - all to keep up their belief in that Fairie Dust.

Ignore those laboratory experiments - one and all.

Even now some mainstream believer in Fairie Dust will protest, even when they have no data to back up anything they claim.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

One can detect and neutralize electric fields.

And with electric fields one can increase or decrease the force of gravity by changing the voltage in any area of space, over what already exists.

Oil Drop Experiment

But back to your question - what is the electromagnetic property of rubber - since it is clear it can be charged relative to its surroundings - as shown by actual experiments - experiments you can perform yourself with a balloon - as long as you have hair. So what is the EM property of hair too?

 

[029b10]

Because they ignore what 99% of the universe is - plasma - and the forces that work in plasma.

Even now some mainstream believer in Fairie Dust will protest, even when they have no data to back up anything they claim.

Well, I think the correct term for the massless matter that forms the expanse of space is Phasma, which is not being confused with the fourth state matter having mass, called Plasma, which differs from other neutral gases due to the positively charged ions found in plasma. As far as 99% of the universe being made from plasma, I would be interested in hearing exactly how much actual volume that 99% consists of, is it like some 100 billion trillion cubic meters or something?