Why does the earth rotate?

[ananda]

Yes. The Sun moving through the sky is a pretty obvious sign of the Earth rotating.

To me, the Sun moving through the sky is a pretty obvious sign of a moving Sun.

 

[ananda]

I've never personally seen or felt a polar bear but that didn't stop my uncle from being eaten by one.

Now I'm genuinely asking here. You don't think that the earth rotates?

I genuinely do not believe that the earth rotates or moves.

 

[pgp_protector]

 

[crjmurray]

I genuinely do not believe that the earth rotates or moves.

Fantastic. An honest answer.

Now, as someone who believes the earth is stationary, how do you explain the movements of the sun and moon? Do you have a model for this? Incidentally are you also a flat earther?

 

[Loudmouth]

To me, the Sun moving through the sky is a pretty obvious sign of a moving Sun.

Yes, due to the rotation of the Earth.

 

[AirPo]

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.

I'm not sure if it denial, projection, rationalization, or some other coping mechinism. But I sensing a new HI theory law in this.

 

[AirPo]

I do not believe basic physics applies to the universe outside of earth and solar system area. So forget trying to make a skater the illustration for galaxies. As for earth, They seem to be invoking some smash up derby that could never be proven as the real cause of rotation and spin..

The reality of the universe doesn't really care what you believe.

 

[AirPo]

To me, the Sun moving through the sky is a pretty obvious sign of a moving Sun.

The sun is moving. That doesn't mean that the earth isn't.

 

[ananda]

Fantastic. An honest answer.

Now, as someone who believes the earth is stationary, how do you explain the movements of the sun and moon? Do you have a model for this? Incidentally are you also a flat earther?

I believe that the sun and moon move because it is in their nature as natural beings or planes to move in their own ways. It's like asking, why do fish move, or why do plants grow the way they do, etc.

I have not decided if I am a flat earther or a concave earther.

 

[ananda]

Yes, due to the rotation of the Earth.

I understand that that is your interpretation. Mine is this: a moving Sun is due to the movement of the Sun.

 

[Loudmouth]

I understand that that is your interpretation. Mine is this: a moving Sun is due to the movement of the Sun.

My interpretation is also consistent with stellar parallax. Yours is not.

My interpretation is also consistent with the measurable and known laws of gravity. Yours is not.

I win.

 

[crjmurray]

I believe that the sun and moon move because it is in their nature as natural beings or planes to move in their own ways. It's like asking, why do fish move, or why do plants grow the way they do, etc.

I have not decided if I am a flat earther or a concave earther.

That's nice but I'm not asking a philosophical question. If you asked why do fish move I'm sure someone could explain the basics of locomotion with a vertically oriented fin. That's the nature of the question I'm asking, but I'm sure you already know that. Now, I have a model that explains night, day, seasons, years, etc. What is YOUR model? Do the sun and moon orbit the earth? Are the sun and moon even real? Is the earth spherical? Explain this process to me.

 

[ananda]

My interpretation is also consistent with stellar parallax. Yours is not.

My interpretation is also consistent with the measurable and known laws of gravity. Yours is not.

"Stellar parallax" is itself an interpretation dependent on the theory that the Earth moves, both of which I reject.

I win.

No, I win.

 

[ananda]

That's nice but I'm not asking a philosophical question. If you asked why do fish move I'm sure someone could explain the basics of locomotion with a vertically oriented fin. That's the nature of the question I'm asking, but I'm sure you already know that. Now, I have a model that explains night, day, seasons, years, etc. What is YOUR model? Do the sun and moon orbit the earth? Are the sun and moon even real? Is the earth spherical? Explain this process to me.

My model is what I know for myself: that the earth is motionless, and that the sun and moon orbit the earth.

Anything else besides that would be purely speculative or interpretive (regarding things I do not know something directly, for myself).

 

[Loudmouth]

"Stellar parallax" is itself an interpretation dependent on the theory that the Earth moves, both of which I reject.

The movement of the stars is an observation that your model can not explain. My interpretation does explain it.

I win.

Your interpretation is in complete violation of everything we know about gravity. My interpretation is not.

I win.

 

[Loudmouth]

My model is what I know for myself:

It is what you believe. It certainly isn't knowledge. Knowledge is something that is verifiable and testable. Your claims fail both.

 

[ananda]

The movement of the stars is an observation that your model can not explain. My interpretation does explain it.

I win.

My model simply interprets the movement of the stars differently than yours.

Your interpretation is in complete violation of everything we know about gravity. My interpretation is not.

I win.

It is more accurate to say "Your interpretation is in complete violation of my interpretation/model"

 

[ananda]

It is what you believe. It certainly isn't knowledge. Knowledge is something that is verifiable and testable. Your claims fail both.

I disagree. I win!

 

[crjmurray]

My model is what I know for myself: that the earth is motionless, and that the sun and moon orbit the earth.

Anything else besides that would be purely speculative or interpretive (regarding things I do not know something directly, for myself).

Uh huh. Do you understand then that your model is fundamentally different than my model and the model used by, well the vast majority of everyone else?

 

[ananda]

Uh huh. Do you understand then that your model is fundamentally different than my model and the model used by, well the vast majority of everyone else?

Sure. Does majority = right?