Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I genuinely do not believe that the earth rotates or moves.
To me, the Sun moving through the sky is a pretty obvious sign of a moving Sun.
I'm not sure if it denial, projection, rationalization, or some other coping mechinism. But I sensing a new HI theory law in this.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.
The reality of the universe doesn't really care what you believe.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..
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.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 understand that that is your interpretation.Mine is this: a moving Sun is due to the movement of the Sun.
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.
"Stellar parallax" is itself an interpretation dependent on the theory that the Earth moves, both of which I reject.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.
No, I win.I win.
My model is what I know for myself: that the earth is motionless, and that the sun and moon orbit the earth.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.
"Stellar parallax" is itself an interpretation dependent on the theory that the Earth moves, both of which I reject.
My model is what I know for myself:
My model simply interprets the movement of the stars differently than yours.The movement of the stars is an observation that your model can not explain. My interpretation does explain it.
I win.
It is more accurate to say "Your interpretation is in complete violation of my interpretation/model"Your interpretation is in complete violation of everything we know about gravity. My interpretation is not.
I win.
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).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?