Why does the earth rotate?

dad · Sep 9, 2015

Paul of Eugene OR said:
You don't have any proof of that.

Yes I do. The failure of you and all others to prove a same state past is proof that they cannot do it.

Paul of Eugene OR · Sep 9, 2015

dad said:
Yes I do. The failure of you and all others to prove a same state past is proof that they cannot do it.

Another mere assertion without evidence.

dad · Sep 9, 2015

Paul of Eugene OR said:
Another mere assertion without evidence.

You are the evidence as well as other posters here. You could not prove your claimed state in the past, or even begin to make a sensible case for it.

Likewise, when they tell the tall tales of why the earth rotates or spins, all we see is fairy tales and wild tales. The only criteria seems to be that is is great as long as we leave God and creation totally out of the foolish picture.

This thread questions if the real cause could have been after creation and due to the nature or state change. That could provide a mechanism for the ice age, and the rapid continental separation.

Justatruthseeker · Sep 10, 2015

dad said:
Big problem with your position here.. you look at earth experiments and try to fit that to what we see in deep space. How can you prove it really is plasma as you think of it out there doing all you claim?

Because those same people also know its 99% plasma. Even NASA knows, so why try to deny it?

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/rbsp/news/electric-atmosphere.html

"Our day-to-day lives exist in what physicists would call an electrically neutral environment. Desks, books, chairs and bodies don't generally carry electricity and they don't stick to magnets. But life on Earth is substantially different from, well, almost everywhere else. Beyond Earth's protective atmosphere and extending all the way through interplanetary space, electrified particles dominate the scene. Indeed, 99% of the universe is made of this electrified gas, known as plasma."

Why try to hold onto all that Fairie Dust when it isn't needed, when all you need do is accept the data for what it is?

Why would I expect plasma in space to behave like plasma in the lab, like most do? Especially when experiments show it behaves differently in zero-g, the conditions everywhere but on a planetary surface?

Justatruthseeker · Sep 10, 2015

ecco said:
Here is an interesting video demonstration of that effect.

And then there are...

Here is one demonstrating it too, for those that can see beyond the surface of what was discovered.

Justatruthseeker · Sep 10, 2015

Paul of Eugene OR said:
Saying that one can increase or decrease the force of gravity by changing voltage is a gross misstatement of what happens. Gravity continues to exert its force without change, but electric fields can act in an alternate direction for any given body; that is the way it should be described. The body in question will act as a result of the total combination of forces.

That's just it - gravity is the combination of electric and magnetic fields at the subatomic level. This is why E took Maxwell's equations and altered them to fit neutral matter (solids, liquids and gasses). The EM and weak forces have already been combined into one, and as technology advances we will combine the strong and nuclear force into the EM forces as well. Then when they give up all their Fairie Dust we will subsume gravity into the EM forces as well.

The earth already possesses a voltage field - the experiments merely increased it in a limited area. Showing you what you should already know - that gravity is merely the resultant EM forces acting at the subatomic level.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_weather_condition

And is why all bodies fall at the same speed (in an airless environment) - regardless of their mass. An explanation gravity fails in, being mass is the determination of it's gravitational attraction. You fail to realize that there are almost equal numbers of positive and negative particles (almost). Larger masses are attracted more, but also repelled more. Likewise lesser masses are attracted less, but also repelled less.

It all boils down in the end to EM effects.

Justatruthseeker · Sep 10, 2015

Why all of you refuse to admit it is those electric currents pumping 100,000 amperes through the system that both causes the internal heating of the earth, and its rotation?

Why postulate accidental Fairie Dust, or perpetual motion machines spinning in the center of the earth for 4+ billion years against friction? Why not just accept the data that is right there instead of postulating never before observed processes? Technology has advanced, this isn't the dark ages anymore. Well, maybe it still is in a sense. A self-imposed one.

dad · Sep 10, 2015

Justatruthseeker said:
Because those same people also know its 99% plasma. Even NASA knows, so why try to deny it?

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/rbsp/news/electric-atmosphere.html

Rather than deny plasma exists, I think what I was asking you is how you know it does all that you claim, and how science thinks it is something else?

As for plasma in deep space I see this

"An astrophysical plasma is a plasma (an ionized gas) the physical properties of which are studied as part of astrophysics. Much of the baryonic matter of the universe is thought to consist of plasma, a state of matter in which atoms and molecules are so hot, that they have ionized by breaking up into their constituent parts, negatively charged electrons and positively charged ions. Because the particles are charged, they are strongly influenced by electromagnetic forces, that is, by magnetic and electric fields."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophysical_plasma

On earth, yes we do know that time and space and physics exist. However, have you any proof that the magnetic, electrical, and other forces exist there and affect plasma as you claim?? Let's see what you got.

It occurs to me that we do not know distances to any stars, or sizes, because that would require time and space to be identical there, and that is NOT known. So when we see 'plasma' we would not know how much, how far or what size...etc. Neither do we know that physics applied there, or even gravity as per the exact way we know it here.

"Our day-to-day lives exist in what physicists would call an electrically neutral environment. Desks, books, chairs and bodies don't generally carry electricity and they don't stick to magnets. But life on Earth is substantially different from, well, almost everywhere else. Beyond Earth's protective atmosphere and extending all the way through interplanetary space, electrified particles dominate the scene. Indeed, 99% of the universe is made of this electrified gas, known as plasma."

No. That is a fairy tale. We don't know that. If we do, then prove it. One cannot make wild claims and then mold creation itself to fit them.

Why try to hold onto all that Fairie Dust when it isn't needed, when all you need do is accept the data for what it is?

Strawman. The issue is what is known.

Why would I expect plasma in space to behave like plasma in the lab, like most do? Especially when experiments show it behaves differently in zero-g, the conditions everywhere but on a planetary surface?

As for your link supposedly showing how plasma is the same in deep space I see you spammed a Russian video of some cosmonauts in space over earth. Very funny.

dad · Sep 10, 2015

Justatruthseeker said:
Why all of you refuse to admit it is those electric currents pumping 100,000 amperes through the system that both causes the internal heating of the earth, and its rotation?

Why postulate accidental Fairie Dust, or perpetual motion machines spinning in the center of the earth for 4+ billion years against friction? Why not just accept the data that is right there instead of postulating never before observed processes? Technology has advanced, this isn't the dark ages anymore. Well, maybe it still is in a sense. A self-imposed one.

Speaking of postulating, why postulate the internal core of the earth is hot?? Maybe you think the big bang shot out stars that went bump in the night and produced our planet so it had to be hot inside?? Ha.

dad · Sep 10, 2015

Justatruthseeker said:
That's just it - gravity is the combination of electric and magnetic fields at the subatomic level....

Oh?

Kylie · Sep 10, 2015

dad said:
Evidence for what? The clear undeniable evidence is that science cannot prove a same state past or any other state. Nothing else needs 'proving'!

Yes, the evidence for that.

All you have done is claim it very loudly. Repeating things many times does not make them true. You must explain WHY they are true. You have never done that and you never can do that.

029b10 · Sep 10, 2015

So does the physical man contain any of this plasma?

AV1611VET · Sep 10, 2015

KTS said:
All you have done is claim it very loudly. Repeating things many times does not make them true. You must explain WHY they are true. You have never done that and you never can do that.

First of all, even if I was an atheist, I would have to agree with dad that a same-state past cannot be proven.

Second of all, we (dad & I) conclude that the past was different by simply comparing how the Bible describes it back then, to how it is now.

For example, the Bible speaks of no death prior to the Fall.

People die today.

By comparing a no-death-past to a natural-death-present, we conclude the past was different.

You can certainly disagree with that, but what you can't disagree with -- (and be correct) -- is that the Bible is silent on a different-state past.

029b10 · Sep 10, 2015

AV1611VET said:
For example, the Bible speaks of no death prior to the Fall.

You can certainly disagree with that, but what you can't agree with -- (and be correct) -- is that the Bible is silent on a different-state past.

Where does it state that man could not die prior to the "Fall".

One can discern from Genesis 1:1 that this world and all things therein are not eternal. Eternal has no beginning, nor end, neither does it change. In addition, nature itself reveals that all things within the universe has a have a finite life cycle, meaning it has beginning and an end.

Moreover in Matt 24:35-36 it is written; Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

But it is written that in the Garden man was told by the Son, " But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

John 3:16
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

AV1611VET · Sep 10, 2015

029b10 said:
Where does it state that man could not die prior to the "Fall".

In those exact words?

Nowhere.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

1 Corinthians 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

Kylie · Sep 11, 2015

AV1611VET said:
First of all, even if I was an atheist, I would have to agree with dad that a same-state past cannot be proven.

Second of all, we (dad & I) conclude that the past was different by simply comparing how the Bible describes it back then, to how it is now.

For example, the Bible speaks of no death prior to the Fall.

People die today.

By comparing a no-death-past to a natural-death-present, we conclude the past was different.

You can certainly disagree with that, but what you can't disagree with -- (and be correct) -- is that the Bible is silent on a different-state past.

In other words, you treat the London guidebook as more authoritative than London itself.

SkyWriting · Sep 11, 2015

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

True enough. But we can imagine two chucks of rock being pulled toward each other.
If one is a little left or right of the other....a spin will result.

AV1611VET · Sep 11, 2015

KTS said:
In other words, you treat the London guidebook as more authoritative than London itself.

Do you read the guidebook and refuse to admit Big Ben is where the guidebook says it is?

Or do you claim the guidebook wasn't written by the author's name(s) that are on it?

dad · Sep 11, 2015

KTS said:
Yes, the evidence for that.

All you have done is claim it very loudly. Repeating things many times does not make them true. You must explain WHY they are true. You have never done that and you never can do that.

Easy to prove no one can prove a same state past. Just try! Or watch when someone 4lse tries and fails, as they will inevitably do.

dad · Sep 11, 2015

SkyWriting said:
True enough. But we can imagine two chucks of rock being pulled toward each other.
If one is a little left or right of the other....a spin will result.

Imagine being the operative word. I can imagine many things. I can imagine a large collision after the flood, or I can imagine some change inside the earth itself affecting rotation or spin. I can imagine God setting the earth spinning in creation week. Etc. The last thing I would imagine is some random godless fluke collision dreamed up by godless so called science.

Why does the earth rotate?

Undefeated!

Finally Old Enough

Undefeated!

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Defeater of Illogic

It is a hinnie talking to the Spirit not a mule.

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

It is a hinnie talking to the Spirit not a mule.

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Defeater of Illogic

The Librarian

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency