Why does the earth rotate?

[AV1611VET]

I do not share the beliefs of Zen-buddhists

And what do they say you're supposed to do?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

And with electric fields one can increase or decrease the force of gravity by changing the voltage in any area of space, over what already exists.

Oil Drop Experiment

But back to your question - what is the electromagnetic property of rubber - since it is clear it can be charged relative to its surroundings - as shown by actual experiments - experiments you can perform yourself with a balloon - as long as you have hair. So what is the EM property of hair too?

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.

 

[ecco]

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.

Here is an interesting video demonstration of that effect.

And then there are...

 

[ananda]

And what do they say you're supposed to do?

I'm not sure, perhaps you should ask a Zen Buddhist!

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not sure, perhaps you should ask a Zen Buddhist!

Can't say as I blame you for not wanting to even look up the answer.

None of my business, but are you a scientist?

If so, what is your area of expertise?

If not, what is your area of expertise?

 

[ananda]

Can't say as I blame you for not wanting to even look up the answer.

I'm not sure why you would ask a non-Zen Buddhist a Zen Buddhist question

None of my business, but are you a scientist?

If so, what is your area of expertise?

If not, what is your area of expertise?

I'd rather not share personal details here, but I can say yes, I am in a scientific field which requires me to use the scientific method on a daily basis.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not sure why you would ask a non-Zen Buddhist a Zen Buddhist question

Because I'm not afraid to do that.

I'll even ask an atheist a theist question.

And better yet, I'm not afraid to ask a scientist a question about Genesis 1.

In fact, I have a whole slew of challenge threads for the educated elite that is worth reading, just to show how elusive some can get.

I'd rather not share personal details here, but I can say yes, I am in a scientific field which requires me to use the scientific method on a daily basis.

I understand.

I don't care to share my personal information either.

I appreciate your honesty.

And for the record, I call those who use the scientific method to avoid answering my simple questions: "scientific methodists."

And for those who do answer them -- if ever -- I consider them "scientific methodists" as well.

 

[029b10]

You used the term in a scientific way. I explained I could not find that term used in a scientific way. Now you suggest that I should look up its roots. OK. I did. I googled "Phasma latin roots" and found nothing.

That was a silly goose chase and I fell for it.

Henceforth, I'll ignore your posts.

Do what you gotta do but it has several different meanings and at different times. The records I were looking at dated back to early 1600's maybe even before then.


But the term was used as Ghost or Spirit at times, a Periclitor at tothers, The term was also used for Phasmids, - A genus of gressorial or ambulatorial orthopterous insects, typical of the family Phasmidæ. It formerly contained all the curious creatures known as walking-sticks, but is now restricted to certain tropical forms.

What I had found was the reference to it as an unsearchable body of Light that man could only see when it would let them.

but they often little training in science. Do you also think it is "ridiculous" that our moon is the product of such a collision? Care to explain what you mean and on what your concepts are based?

Well if you're going to ignore my posts then no sense answering you questions

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

Indeed, what are these scientists thinking?

Everyone knows that the earth rotates because of the supernatural mice running in a giant exercise wheel in the core of the planet.

 

[dad]

And where's your evidence?

(Let me guess, it's going to be different state past, or "you weren't there so you don't know what happened" or something like that.)

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

 

[dad]

Indeed, what are these scientists thinking?
..

Godless baseless thoughts.

 

[dad]

Oh, OK. However, observations made of extra-solar systems and galaxies are consistent with them following the same principles, and simulations using those physical principles give results consistent with what we observe, so it seems reasonable, despite your belief to the contrary, to suppose that they are. If it quacks like a duck...

Nope. The so called simulations start off with assumptions and beliefs that are utterly unproven airbag dreams. Unless time existed and existed as we know it here near earth, there are no light years! That would require a year! That means that no true distances therefore no actual sizes of stars or so called planets or galaxies is known. Appearances can be deceiving!

"This might look like a distant web of galaxies captured by a powerful telescope, but it’s actually a microscopic image of a newborn nerve cell."

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/154037249727054828/

 

[dad]

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

Yes it does. Jesus is the reality of the universe and he cares.

 

[dad]

Because they ignore what 99% of the universe is - plasma - and the forces that work in plasma.

http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Marklund_convection

Ignore that electrical forces naturally cause rotation.

http://www.plasma-universe.com/Electric_currents_in_space_plasmas

http://www.plasma-universe.com/Galaxy_formation

Instead they hypothesize some Fairie Dust process because they choose to ignore what 99% of the universe is - and the forces involved - all to keep up their belief in that Fairie Dust.

Ignore those laboratory experiments - one and all.

Even now some mainstream believer in Fairie Dust will protest, even when they have no data to back up anything they claim.

Because they ignore what 99% of the universe is - plasma - and the forces that work in plasma.

http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Marklund_convection

Ignore that electrical forces naturally cause rotation.

http://www.plasma-universe.com/Electric_currents_in_space_plasmas

http://www.plasma-universe.com/Galaxy_formation

Instead they hypothesize some Fairie Dust process because they choose to ignore what 99% of the universe is - and the forces involved - all to keep up their belief in that Fairie Dust.

Ignore those laboratory experiments - one and all.

Even now some mainstream believer in Fairie Dust will protest, even when they have no data to back up anything they claim.

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?

 

[ecco]

Appearances can be deceiving!

"This might look like a distant web of galaxies captured by a powerful telescope, but it’s actually a microscopic image of a newborn nerve cell."

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/154037249727054828/

I'll bet if you, or 90% of the "general public" were shown this picture, you and they would not have known with absolute certainty what it was.
I'll bet if this picture were shown to astronomers and neurologists 90% would have given the correct answer.

That's one reason to take the knowledge of scientists over the "knowledge" of the general public. Especially in things like science.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll bet if you, or 90% of the "general public" were shown this picture, you and they would not have known with absolute certainty what it was.
I'll bet if this picture were shown to astronomers and neurologists 90% would have given the correct answer.

That's one reason to take the knowledge of scientists over the "knowledge" of the general public. Especially in things like science.

What's this a picture of?

 

[dad]

I'll bet if you, or 90% of the "general public" were shown this picture, you and they would not have known with absolute certainty what it was.
I'll bet if this picture were shown to astronomers and neurologists 90% would have given the correct answer.

That's one reason to take the knowledge of scientists over the "knowledge" of the general public. Especially in things like science.

That is just one picture. Yet you claim 10% of astronomers would not even know it was not in deep space?? Hilarious.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

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

You don't have any proof of that.

 

[ecco]

What's this a picture of?

Obviously - Crystal Lake Cubes










I Cheated. I Googled it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Obviously - Crystal Lake Cubes.

Reminds me of Lake Phlogiston.