Why does the earth rotate?

[dad]

Neither do your unsupported claims.

My claims are supported by the bible and by your inability to support a same state past. No rock smashed into earth to make it spin accidentally. Science mad that up.

 

[Kylie]

My claims are supported by the bible and by your inability to support a same state past. No rock smashed into earth to make it spin accidentally. Science mad that up.

My claims are supported by evidence from reality and an inability for you to show that your old book is anything more than a bunch of stories.

Seriously, all you've ever been able to do is say, "But you can't prove I'm wrong!"

Aside from the fact that I can and have, it's a weak argument.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is honorable to depart for and seek the spiritual life after the husband has fulfilled his earthly duty to his wife by giving her a child and providing for their physical needs.

Right.

Money buys happiness, doesn't it?

"No father-son bonding in this house -- it's a Buddha house."

Lay'em and leave'em.

Is that the Buddha way?

Tell me then -- why did Guatama return after his son was grown?

 

[ananda]

Really?

http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/
THE WORLD'S MOST UNIQUE DAY TOUR
ANTARCTICA IN A DAY

• SIGHTSEEING FLIGHTS OVER ANTARCTICA FROM AUSTRALIA

We operate one day sightseeing flights over Antarctica departing from Australia every summer. Taking around 12 hours the flights are the easiest way to view this great white Continent.

Yep, really.

According to the site you referenced, this is their flight path I've highlighted in red:

It does not go over the "south pole", to travel from one continent to another. To clarify my earlier comment, I've yet to see a flight that travels (the allegedly shortest distance) between South America and Australia, as the video I linked to pointed out, and as in the yellow line I drew above. Your site shows nothing of the sort, and only describes a skirting of the edge of Antarctica.

Try again.

BTW, if that was the part of the video that you felt was important, you could have indicated the time in the clip where these assertions were made instead of having me watch the entire clip.

I didn't force you to watch the entire video, I was not specifically directing it towards you.

Yes, if it's only a few hundred miles up it would have to be FAR SMALLER than its scientifically determined diameter of about 864,938 miles.

When you say you "do not know for sure", what you mean is you have absolutely no idea about the size and distance. If you gave consideration to these very basic questions, you might find your own conclusions would cause conflict with your religiously based beliefs. So you avoid even asking them of yourself.

I say that I "do not know for sure" because I have not personally traveled the however hundreds, thousands, or millions of miles to measure its distance myself.

What I do see and suspect is this:

 

[ananda]

Right.

Money buys happiness, doesn't it?

What does "money buying happiness" have to do with anything?

"No father-son bonding in this house -- it's a Buddha house."

Lay'em and leave'em.

Is that the Buddha way?

I suggest not imposing your cultural values on another culture.

Tell me then -- why did Guatama return after his son was grown?

He returned to visit Kapilavastu, his home town, at his father's request, and he took the opportunity to share his teachings, which converted his son, wife, and aunt, among others.

 

[The Barbarian]

No, not unless you think the light in the trees is from a source no higher then the top of the trees. (notice where the beams converge), and the light in the clouds comes from a source no higher than the clouds.

You've simply misunderstood how light works. Think about it.

 

[ananda]

No, not unless you think the light in the trees is from a source no higher then the top of the trees. (notice where the beams converge), and the light in the clouds comes from a source no higher than the clouds.

You've simply misunderstood how light works. Think about it.

I have; I take the photos and light angles in context of both the X and Y axis, not simply the Y axis.

If the sun was indeed millions of miles away, then the rays should be virtually straight, across the whole landscape.

 

[ecco]

Yep, really.

According to the site you referenced, this is their flight path I've highlighted in red:

No. That is according to you, not according to the site I referenced. I guess those pilots and navigators are all in on the Massive Global Conspiracy to destroy ancient Buddhist beliefs.

I say that I "do not know for sure" because I have not personally traveled the however hundreds, thousands, or millions of miles to measure its distance myself.

I don't have to travel from NYC to LA to know it is about 3000 miles. In your post #67 you referenced a site authored by Eric Dubay '200 proofs the earth is not a spinning ball.' Eric Dubay says the sun is 32 miles in diameter and about 3000 miles 'above" the earth. Do you have reason to doubt him?

What I do see and suspect is this:

You will have to post some commentary to explain what you suspect. What I see is a spherical earth. I thought you did not believe in a spherical earth.

 

[dad]

My claims are supported by evidence from reality and an inability for you to show that your old book is anything more than a bunch of stories.

No KTS there is no reality to your belief based models of the past. No reality to a first lifeform, no reality to some mystical space rock causing earth to start spinning. Seriously, all you've ever been able to do is say, "But you can't prove I'm wrong!"

 

[ananda]

No. That is according to you, not according to the site I referenced. I guess those pilots and navigators are all in on the Massive Global Conspiracy to destroy ancient Buddhist beliefs.

This is a direct quote from the website you provided:

"Qantas has prepared 19 different flight plans to enable the Captain to choose the best possible routing, taking weather conditions into account. An example of one of our most popular flights routes from Melbourne is to fly over Hobart then head directly to the South Magnetic Pole. Normally we see the first icebergs approximately 3 hours 30 minutes south of Melbourne. We continue over the sea ice to the French base at Dumont d’Urville, where buildings and vehicles are usually visible, before heading east along the coast over Commonwealth Bay (location of Mawson’s Hut). From there, we turn inland and fly south east over the Transantarctic Range to Cape Washington and explore the spectacular mountains of Northern Victoria Land, Cape Hallet and Cape Adare."

​

I used this description to create the red lines in my map. Are you denying that the site describes what I am illustrating? Or, perhaps you would like to highlight how I was inaccurate in illustrating this description?

I don't have to travel from NYC to LA to know it is about 3000 miles. In your post #67 you referenced a site authored by Eric Dubay '200 proofs the earth is not a spinning ball.' Eric Dubay says the sun is 32 miles in diameter and about 3000 miles 'above" the earth. Do you have reason to doubt him?

I have no personal knowledge of the size or location of the sun, but I suspect that it is not millions of miles away from the evidence I have seen with my own eyes.

You will have to post some commentary to explain what you suspect. What I see is a spherical as earth. I thought you did not believe in a spherical earth.

I thought it was fairly obvious what it was communicating. If the top of the illustration was true and the sun was millions of miles away, then all sun rays should be virtually straight and perpendicular and evenly seen streaming down across hundreds of miles of clouds like this:

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

We do not see such crepuscular rays; we see

/ / / | \ \ \

instead which points to a much closer sun.

 

[Kylie]

No KTS there is no reality to your belief based models of the past. No reality to a first lifeform, no reality to some mystical space rock causing earth to start spinning.

Repeating your claims does not make them true. Try supporting them with evidence.

Seriously, all you've ever been able to do is say, "But you can't prove I'm wrong!"

I have provided evidence to support my claims. The fact that you ignore it and/or don't understand it does not invalidate it.

 

[dad]

Repeating your claims does not make them true. Try supporting them with evidence.



I have provided evidence to support my claims. The fact that you ignore it and/or don't understand it does not invalidate it.

Rather than being vague, try focusing on some specific issue. For example, the smash up that you claim started the earth spinning! Why pretend you have something?

 

[ecco]

This is a direct quote from the website you provided:

​

I used this description to create the red lines in my map. Are you denying that the site describes what I am illustrating? Or, perhaps you would like to highlight how I was inaccurate in illustrating this description?

Your shape of the earth is inaccurate for starters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranulph_Fiennes
Ranulph Fiennes ... was the first person to visit both the North and South Poles by surface means and the first to completely cross Antarctica on foot.
​

I guess he just fooled everyone. I guess he walked all around the entire flat earth.



Here are some more liars (or Government conspirators):

When five college students launched a weather balloon some 98,000 feet into the stratosphere above the Grand Canyon two years ago, they assumed the experiment was over when they lost contact with the locator they'd attached.

An image of the U.S. Southwest from the GoPro camera attached to the weather balloon, at a height of nearly 100,000 feet.

Bryan Chan and four of his friends built a device in June 2013 that held two cameras and a cellphone, which was then attached to a weather balloon.

I have no personal knowledge of the size or location of the sun, but I suspect that it is not millions of miles away from the evidence I have seen with my own eyes.

As you have previously stated. However, I asked why you did not believe Eric Dubay's estimates since you posted a link to his website. Why don't you believe Dubay's data?

I thought it was fairly obvious what it was communicating. If the top of the illustration was true and the sun was millions of miles away, then all sun rays should be virtually straight and perpendicular and evenly seen streaming down across hundreds of miles of clouds like this:

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

We do not see such crepuscular rays; we see

/ / / | \ \ \

instead which points to a much closer sun.

The Barbarian already addressed this.

However, it's quite obvious that you have absolutely no idea of what "crepuscular rays" means. Your ///|\\\ is an example of crepuscular rays, your |||||| is not.

I strongly suggest you go to:
http://scribol.com/science/20-incredible-crepuscular-rays
You may get educated. But even if you don't, you will awed by the pictures.

 

[essentialsaltes]

If the top of the illustration was true and the sun was millions of miles away, then all sun rays should be virtually straight and perpendicular and evenly seen streaming down across hundreds of miles of clouds like this:

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

We do not see such crepuscular rays; we see

/ / / | \ \ \

instead which points to a much closer sun.

Once again, this is what parallel lines look like.

 

[ananda]

Your shape of the earth is inaccurate for starters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranulph_Fiennes
Ranulph Fiennes ... was the first person to visit both the North and South Poles by surface means and the first to completely cross Antarctica on foot.
​

I guess he just fooled everyone. I guess he walked all around the entire flat earth.

Here are some more liars (or Government conspirators):

When five college students launched a weather balloon some 98,000 feet into the stratosphere above the Grand Canyon two years ago, they assumed the experiment was over when they lost contact with the locator they'd attached.

An image of the U.S. Southwest from the GoPro camera attached to the weather balloon, at a height of nearly 100,000 feet.

Bryan Chan and four of his friends built a device in June 2013 that held two cameras and a cellphone, which was then attached to a weather balloon.

As you have previously stated. However, I asked why you did not believe Eric Dubay's estimates since you posted a link to his website. Why don't you believe Dubay's data?

The Barbarian already addressed this.

However, it's quite obvious that you have absolutely no idea of what "crepuscular rays" means. Your ///|\\\ is an example of crepuscular rays, your |||||| is not.

I strongly suggest you go to:
http://scribol.com/science/20-incredible-crepuscular-rays
You may get educated. But even if you don't, you will awed by the pictures.

I have no personal knowledge of either "Ranulph Fiennes", "Bryan Chan", or "Eric Dubay" or their data. Do you? All I know is what my personal senses tell me, and they tell me that the spherical-earther conspirators are most likely wrong and suffering from mass delusions.

Your so-called "photos" of an allegedly spherical earth from Bryan Chan and his group (or from anyone else for that matter) does not equal for me first-hand knowledge or personally experienced data. They are nothing more than second-hand allegations, and can easily be faked by anyone with a personal computer and software today.

So, you can't provide any evidence of direct flights from Australia over the "south pole" to South America?

 

[ananda]

Once again, this is what parallel lines look like.

Yes, and they converge on a small point likely a mile or two away (according to the eye's judgment) which proves my point.

 

[The Barbarian]

I have;

No, you've merely assumed that the Sun was at the top of the trees in one case, and just behind the cloud in the other. You see, the light streaming down from the trees is from the illuminated branches on the top of the tree. And the light streaming from the cloud is from the illuminated cloud.

You've just misidentified from where the light is coming.

A few hundred years before Christ, Eratosthenes figured out the circumference of the Earth, based on the different in angle of the Sun in two different places at the same time.

 

[ecco]

I have no personal knowledge of ... "Eric Dubay" or their data.

↑

WHAT?!?

Then why did you post (#67)...

It does not rotate, spin, tilt, nor is it a "planet".

200 Proofs that Earth is Not a Spinning Ball

http://www.mediafire.com/view/l679prcg097ny8u/200+Proofs+Earth+is+Not+a+Spinning+Ball!.pdf​

This was the link:
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html

Those "200 proofs" that you tried to use to support you theory were written by Eric Dubay! Why are you now saying you have no knowledge of his data? Did you not even bother to read his "200 proofs"? Did you just get the link from somewhere else and figure "this sounds good, I think I'll post a link to it, even though I don't know what it's really all about"?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Yes, and they converge on a small point likely a mile or two away (according to the eye's judgment) which proves my point.

Yes, but the actual rails do not converge there, do they? The train would fall off if they did.

If you could build a 93 million mile long parallel train track, it would look just the same.

So can we agree that the distance that your eye's judgment tells you where the rails meet is not very accurate? (Since they never meet at all.)

 

[ananda]

No, you've merely assumed that the Sun was at the top of the trees in one case, and just behind the cloud in the other. You see, the light streaming down from the trees is from the illuminated branches on the top of the tree. And the light streaming from the cloud is from the illuminated cloud.

You've just misidentified from where the light is coming.

A few hundred years before Christ, Eratosthenes figured out the circumference of the Earth, based on the different in angle of the Sun in two different places at the same time.

Feel free to believe that only one particular tree top or only one particular cloud is illuminated to the exclusion of all others; that is, however, unbelievable to me.