Why does the earth rotate?

[Astrophile]

This link presents a good summary of the problem with "stellar parallax": http://www.zengardner.com/heliocentrism-dead-no-stellar-parallax/ ... long story short, the fact that there is "positive" and "negative" "parallax" proves that the idea of stellar parallax is false.

The simple explanation for negative parallax is that the star whose parallax we are trying to measure is more distant than the supposed background stars that are used as 'stationary' reference points. A negative stellar parallax is as good evidence for the Earth's orbital motion as a positive parallax is.

 

[ananda]

Or "negative parallax" might . . . just might . . . be a hoax.

What do you mean?

 

[ananda]

The opening paragraph also show why this link is a spoof or entirely uninformed nonsense:

Copernicus was a Sun worshipper who had been studying Platonic mysticism
​

Copernicus was a devout Catholic.

Whether or not Copernicus was or was not a sun worshiper is irrelevant to the main issue regarding negative parallax.

 

[ananda]

The simple explanation for negative parallax is that the star whose parallax we are trying to measure is more distant than the supposed background stars that are used as 'stationary' reference points. A negative stellar parallax is as good evidence for the Earth's orbital motion as a positive parallax is.

"... the capacity of the geocentric model to accommodate negative parallax, whereas negative parallax measurements are totally incompatible with the acentric universe hypothesis and need to be dismissed in that case as simply statistical errors ... When the full picture is revealed and considered, therefore, it is clearly geocentrism that has the potential to fully and adequately account for the hundreds of thousands of negative parallax observations that have now been recorded, although it is acknowledged that a detailed explanation is not currently available." (source)

 

[ecco]

Whether or not Copernicus was or was not a sun worshiper is irrelevant to the main issue regarding negative parallax.

No, it is completely relevant. When you post a link to support your position and that link contains information that is demonstrably false, that is a reflection on the credibility of the linked site and, by extension, on your credibility.

 

[ecco]

The simple explanation for negative parallax is that the star whose parallax we are trying to measure is more distant than the supposed background stars that are used as 'stationary' reference points. A negative stellar parallax is as good evidence for the Earth's orbital motion as a positive parallax is.

Let's remember, ananda's explanation for the change in the size of the circles the sun makes over the flat earth to explain seasons, is that the sun controls its own movements.

 

[Loudmouth]

They would go outside of the camp to relieve themselves and then they were to clean themselves before they entered back into the camp. Lev 15 talks about how they are to be clean. Of course now we know that it is more then our Body that we also need to keep our mind clean from filth.

So how are they to be cleaned, and how would it prevent the spread of known human pathogens?

 

[joshua 1 9]

So how are they to be cleaned, and how would it prevent the spread of known human pathogens?

Science can answer that question, you do not need the Bible to tell you. In fact the diet science has me on is a lot more strict then the diet in the Bible. People say "I am not under the law" so it is their choice if they want to be sick or healthy.

 

[joshua 1 9]

So how are they to be cleaned, and how would it prevent the spread of known human pathogens?

I do not know if the Bible goes into all the details on that. Not everything was written down, there was an oral tradition that was passed from generation to generation. Although somewhere along the way they did record the oral tradition but it got mixed in with things that should not be a part of it.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

"... the capacity of the geocentric model to accommodate negative parallax, whereas negative parallax measurements are totally incompatible with the acentric universe hypothesis and need to be dismissed in that case as simply statistical errors ... When the full picture is revealed and considered, therefore, it is clearly geocentrism that has the potential to fully and adequately account for the hundreds of thousands of negative parallax observations that have now been recorded, although it is acknowledged that a detailed explanation is not currently available." (source)

You don't even know what "negative parallax" means. Go ahead, prove me wrong by telling us all.

There is such a thing as "negative parallax" in ordinary stereo pictures. It consists of placement of images in such a way that they appear to float closer to the perception of the viewer than the frame of the picture.

The universe doesn't have "picture frames". The way a picture is framed is a deliberate choice of the astronomer taking the picture.

So what are you talking about?

 

[Kylie]

Evidence against a belief in a state of the past that can't be proven!!?? Very funny.

SO you admit that you can't prove that I'm wrong?

I am saying science doesn't know. And, no, stars are not known to have time exist where they are as we know it to exist here. You see, without time no distances or sizes can be determined. Whatever we see from stars, we only see here IN time. So you naturally assume that time exists also where stars are! You can't prove it.

So why is it that everything we see about them can be explained by the same rules we have here? The only reasonable answer is that the rules we have here are also in effect there.

There is no light year without time. The distance light would travel in a year if time existed is one thing that is only theory. A theory based solely on what light does here where time exists.

And you have done nothing to show that time does not exist elsewhere.

You posted nothing of the sort.

The fact you are invcapable of recognising evidence does not mean it was not posted.

But I came upon an old link of something you did post. Funny it seems to have been edited away or something now, but here it is..

Great! So when they [flatworms] did the wild thing, you resulted eventually..correct?

Technically, yes. kts


http://www.christianforums.com/t155068-52/#post65553573



You also said that you may have resulted from flatworm sex!

Worm ANCESTOR sex! Please pay attention. kts


http://www.christianforums.com/t155068-54/#post65556323

Ha ha.

I thought I was quite clear that the species around back then were NOT the flatworms that we have today. Your original claim made it sound like science says humans came from modern flatworms.

Pretty crazy when the so called reality amounts to a fishbowl in the big picture. It looks impressive to the fish in the bowl no doubt.

Even the fish can see through the glass bowl. And if his aquatic theories don't match the stuff he sees outside the bowl, he knows there can't be water out there. So far, that hasn't happened with us.

In short, everything we can see in the universe is inside our fishbowl.

I stand ready to deal with any man on earth. The fellow you cite being the least of my concerns.

So despite your big words, when I give you the name and the contact details of the man to deal with, you back out of actually doing what you say.

You admitting not knowing counts. I do not care if you actually think some math exists that could help you!

Despite the fact that I do not know the details, the fact remains that there ARE people who know the details.

You are like a man whose car is belching thick black smoke from the exhaust. Your five year old neighbour tells you to take the car to a mechanic, but you claim that since the kid can't tell you how the engine works, then he must be wrong and a mechanic is not needed.

It seems a reasonable position to expect you to be able to know and explain your own position.

So no one can have a position on anything unless they are an expert on that thing?

If you think some great white hope for your side exists somewhere, I suggest you rustle em up. Don't blame me.

Oh please. I gave you his name and contact details!

No. They use present state physics and processes and such to model the past. That is religious reality.

Reality can take a hike, huh?

Overruled. I suggest you spare him the humiliation.

pmsl

So something should count and someone should set what that thing is...or some such? How about telling us what is supposed to count? We can then take a look at it. Geesh.

Do you really have this much trouble understanding basic English?

 

[dad]

SO you admit that you can't prove that I'm wrong?

I admit that you can't prove you are right, and that there is no need to prove you wrong.

So why is it that everything we see about them can be explained by the same rules we have here? The only reasonable answer is that the rules we have here are also in effect there.

Cause that is all you ever tried to explain them with! That is what you insist they MUST be explained with! That is the method to the madness.

And you have done nothing to show that time does not exist elsewhere

Hey how would I know if it does? I am just calling your bluff when you claim it does!

The fact you are invcapable of recognising evidence does not mean it was not posted.

Should we hire a detective to find it?

I thought I was quite clear that the species around back then were NOT the flatworms that we have today. Your original claim made it sound like science says humans came from modern flatworms.

Let me make it easy for you then. Do you believe we came from flatworm like ancient worms?!

Even the fish can see through the glass bowl.

They ain't so bright though.

And if his aquatic theories don't match the stuff he sees outside the bowl, he knows there can't be water out there. So far, that hasn't happened with us.

No they don't really think like that.

In short, everything we can see in the universe is inside our fishbowl.

Hilarious. Good luck with that.

So despite your big words, when I give you the name and the contact details of the man to deal with, you back out of actually doing what you say.

He is less than a kindergarten philosopher to me. Don't kid yourself.

Despite the fact that I do not know the details, the fact remains that there ARE people who know the details.

We get it. You know not what you speak of but believe real real hard anyhow!

You are like a man whose car is belching thick black smoke from the exhaust. Your five year old neighbour tells you to take the car to a mechanic, but you claim that since the kid can't tell you how the engine works, then he must be wrong and a mechanic is not needed.

Work on that parable attempt thingie woman.

So no one can have a position on anything unless they are an expert on that thing?

That depends if they know what they are talking about.

Reality can take a hike, huh?

No. reality is in my pocket. Your misuse of the word can take a hike.

 

[Loudmouth]

Science can answer that question,

You can answer that question since YOU are the one who claimed that following the edicts of the Bible would prevent the spread of disease.

 

[joshua 1 9]

You can answer that question since YOU are the one who claimed that following the edicts of the Bible would prevent the spread of disease.

I said following the guide of the Bible helped to prevent the spread of the Black Plague in the Hebrew communities in Europe. The Bible says life, health and prosperity is a choice. Or if you want you can choose death, sickness or poverty. That is your choice to make. God does not make that choice for you. He gives us that ability to be able to make a choice in life.

 

[Loudmouth]

I said following the guide of the Bible helped to prevent the spread of the Black Plague in the Hebrew communities in Europe.

How?

Washing your hands certainly won't do it.

The Bible says life, health and prosperity is a choice. Or if you want you can choose death, sickness or poverty.

Or I can choose to ignore the Biblical claims since they aren't backed by evidence.

That is your choice to make. God does not make that choice for you.

Neither does Santa Claus, and for the same reasons.

 

[Astrophile]

And, no, stars are not known to have time exist where they are as we know it to exist here. You see, without time no distances or sizes can be determined.

Binary stars have well-defined orbital periods (the time in which they revolve around each other); so do extrasolar planets. Pulsating variable stars have well-defined periods of light variation, which are related to their luminosities and their densities, and therefore to their sizes.

 

[Astrophile]

Can you guarantee that stars have no spiritual component?

No, I can't. But what difference would a spiritual component make to the orbit of a binary star?

 

[ecco]

I am saying science doesn't know. And, no, stars are not known to have time exist where they are as we know it to exist here. You see, without time no distances or sizes can be determined. Whatever we see from stars, we only see here IN time. So you naturally assume that time exists also where stars are! You can't prove it.

There is no light year without time. The distance light would travel in a year if time existed is one thing that is only theory. A theory based solely on what light does here where time exists.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism

Last Thursdayism refers to the idea that the universe may have been created last Thursday, but with the physical appearance of being billions of years old. Under this notion, people's memories, history books, fossils, light already on the way from distant stars, and so forth would all have been formed at the time of creation (last Thursday) in a state that causes them to appear to be older.
​

Last Thursdayism matches your theories and concepts completely.

Are you sure you are not an adherent of Last Thursdayism?

 

[dad]

No, I can't. But what difference would a spiritual component make to the orbit of a binary star?

You kidding? Someting going round someting else that is spiritual even in part cannot be held to your concepts or laws.

 

[dad]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism

Last Thursdayism refers to the idea that the universe may have been created last Thursday, but with the physical appearance of being billions of years old. Under this notion, people's memories, history books, fossils, light already on the way from distant stars, and so forth would all have been formed at the time of creation (last Thursday) in a state that causes them to appear to be older.
​

Last Thursdayism matches your theories and concepts completely.

Are you sure you are not an adherent of Last Thursdayism?

Not me. The debate involves many thousands of years ago. Focus.