The Earth is Not Moving

[bogeyman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jL-h5GA8tKc#t=162

Interesting but is it valid?

[ThePythonicCow]

Interesting but is it valid?
Looks like pseudo-scientific babble to me :)

[Sunny-side-up]

All about view points ha!

If you think about it, you are the center of your reality, so all moves in relation to you, around you ;)

You are on Earth so it's not moving in relation to your view point, all is moving around you/earth hehe.

Here's another interesting vid for you :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TW__MZXMA7A
Fun Holagram we live in/on (Live in/on ? ha!

[DaRkViPeR]

I'm not a scientist but common sense is telling me that everything on earth including the atmosphere is moving in the same direction and speed. If you are in an airplane and pour out a glass of water, it fall straight to the floor because the water is travelling at the same speed as the plane.

[Sunny-side-up]

Now this is a technical explanation, maybe ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpJyfusm1xw

[Apulu]

Man, that particular video has some basic errors in conclusions! The whole argument is like saying that if you are standing in a train carriage, traveling at one hundred miles per hour, and you throw a tennis ball to someone in the direction of the train's movement, then the ball will come at them a 100+ miles per hour. And if they then throw it to you in the opposite derection, it will travel backwards at about 90 miles per hour. Erm, no it won't! Because both persons, and the tennis ball are moving at 100 miles per hour, in the same direction; so relative to EACH OTHER, they are STATIONARY until acted upon.

The argument in the video does kind of get interesting in the example of one plane flying close to either pole. But, that's exactly what planes flying over the atlantic in the northern hemisphere do isn't it? They fly closer to the north than the equater going west (I think actually both ways), to take advantage of the earth's curve, and make the journey shorter.

If you take off from the equator and travel west (the direction of the earth's spin), you would seem, perhaps, by thinking about it, to be traveling faster than someone who took off nearer the north pole who traveled west. But that is only relative to someone standing stationary, relative to the earth's spin.

Imagine two dots on a cd spinning. The one nearer the outside has to travel faster, relative to an observer, to make the same number of rotations in the same amount of time. But their angular velocity is the same. They both turn through a full round of 360 degrees, in the same amount of time.

It's also very well know that if you want to launch a satellite, you need to decide if you want it to be geo-stationary or not. If so, it needs to be traveling at the same speed as the earth's rotation, or you will have a globe-wandering satellite. Is the person or persons who made that video really telling me that every single satellite launched into orbit has had to be in on the game - about having to make their satellites move on account of the earth spinning? Give me a break!

[Apulu]

Just came across this on The Straight Dope forum, after a wee search (this has got me thinking a bit!):

"The airliner's power is used to overcome gravity and air resistance and it is able to get off the ground and travel at around 600 MPH in a constant struggle against those two forces. It never breaks free from gravity and air resistance enough to allow the world to twirl past at a much higher speed. Even though it is off the ground it is still within the air mass which is moving at the same speed as the ground and the airliner never breaks free from, or goes faster than, the air mass.

It would be convenient and fuel efficient if air travellers could just go straight up in a balloon and wait for their destination to rotate underneath them but they are suspended in an air mass that is very solid and tangible and is moving at the same speed as the Earth's rotation."

[Apulu]

Ooh, and someone who seems much better able to explain what I think I was trying to say:

"While the plane's airtime is independent of its travel direction (taking into account aforementioned jet streams), its speed does indeed change - at least if looked at it in a certain way.

Imagine yourself as an observer in space, situated above Earth's equator with absolutely no motion relative to the planet spinning beneath you. With your super vision, you watch a plane preparing to take off on an east-west journey. From your vantage point, the earth is rotating in the opposite direction of the plane's intended flight motion, in a west-east direction.

So from your stationary vantage point high above the earth, the grounded plane seems to be slipping past you, moving from your left to your right. Since the plane's nose is pointed west in the direction of its intended travel, the plane appears to you to be moving backward - and at a fairly rapid pace too. The earth's circumference is approximately 24,000 miles, and it makes a complete revolution once in 24 hours. So the plane - and every other grounded object - seems to be whizzing by you at a speed of 1,000 mph.

Once the plane becomes airborne, it's still under the effect of the 1,000 mph speed imparted to it while grounded. Now things get a little tricky, and the plane's speed depends on your vantage point. If you were on the plane, you'd say it was moving forward at 600 mph. But from your motionless vantage point above the earth, you can see that the plane is not moving forward at all; indeed, it is still moving backward - but now at a much slower speed.

Since the plane is flying at 600 mph against the spin of the earth's 1,000 mph backward speed, the net effect is that to you the plane now seems to move backward at only 400 mph.


Now switch the direction of the plane's travel to fly with the spin of the earth. From your motionless point of view, the plane now seems to be going forward at 1,000 mph, plus an additional 600 mph the plane is providing. The net effect is that to you it now seems to be rushing past at 1,600 mph.

So to sum up, while the plane's airtime and speed as measured from the plane are constant regardless of the direction flying (again discounting the effects of the jet stream), its speed can change dramatically (from 400 mph to 1,600 mph) as viewed from a motionless vantage point in space.

Honestly, now, does all that make sense? Or did I just spend a lotta time writing gobbledy gook?"

[Mike]

its also flat. so says 'the flat earth society'. im serious. google it.


p.s. I'm guessing they'd scoff at my hollow earth theory.

[Gaia]

The world also is stablished that it cannot be moved." Psalm 93:1

From my point of view : God made the two great lights the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night and the stars.

Science, however, has proven many things, such as: Space is a vacuum... Thing's inside of a vacuum have nothing (No force or friction) to stop or start them. The planets spin from the collapse of a supernova. Probably would have to have an astronauts opinion on this, or rather their eyewitness ''Proof'' Throw something in space and it keeps going and going and going, no stopping until it hits something. This is why the earth rotates, according to science. The leftover energy from the supernova collapsing.


Seems like Lord Mandos just wanted a fancier way of saying "The universe revolves around me!"

Gaia

[ghostrider]

I would say everything is moving , together like a ballet ...

[A Voice from the Mountains]

its also flat. so says 'the flat earth society'. im serious. google it.

This seems to also be what the video posted above suggests. I'm open to other ways of looking at things but I have real problems here.

For one thing the scale of the Earth in the video above isn't taken into account. I can tell that just by the curvature used in the video. They argue that poles or buildings at a distance should appear slanted if the Earth is really spherical. That may be true in principal but the curvature they are showing in the video would make the Earth have less surface area than the continental US. Not having the right scale makes a huge difference.

Also if the Earth is flat then I wonder if the Sun and Moon are flat also and where exactly are they going to and coming from as they appear to circle around our sky every day? When you look at the Sun, Moon and other planets, they're pretty obviously round. The idea that everything would be set up only to be viewed from Earth reminds me of the old Catholic doctrine that the Earth is the center of the universe because God made it to put mankind on, and mankind was made in God's image and is the most important thing in existence. Seems to me this is not much different than an American saying that the US is the center of the world and that Americans are the greatest people ever, or the way that the Chinese consider China to be the middle of the planet and that everyone else revolves around them. Same idea, just taken to a planetary level: humans are the greatest and everything revolves around us. When we die I guess we may get an idea as to how true or false this might be.

[yelik]

Be interesting to hear GoodETxSG ideas on this one

[Milneman]

In a word?

ASvYzbIysAY

[Gordon Brian Smith]

Thanks bogeyman, it is interesting what others believe, there was a time when to say the Earth was round and that everything didn't revolve around us was a death sentence. But some earthlings happening to be watching the moon one night saw the Earth's shadow pass across and it was curved. If the Earth wasn't rotating and orbiting the sun with it's wobble we wouldn't have our seasons and equinoxes. Our calendars and clocks are based on this amazing celestial timepiece. It seems all the stars and planets have that round shape. The theory that the Sun orbits us would make it something different than a star, stars are fixed in place and that is why we can always find the constellations at night, they keep very still while they glow. So I would say that this is disinformation and a distraction. Milneman's comment made me laugh, but in disinformation sometimes there is some truth. Some of us believe there is hologram technology in place that can trick our human senses. The plane that hit tower 2 on 911 most likely was an example of this tech. So for this person and others to claim that NASA was trying to fool us about the shape of the Earth is because there are too many secrets and we deserve to be informed and included in the decision making. They say the view of our round Earth from space is awe inspiring and that NASA didn't want the satellite to keep beeming us a constant signal because it might cause us to feel connected, inspired and human.

[Mike]

its also flat. so says 'the flat earth society'. im serious. google it.

This seems to also be what the video posted above suggests. I'm open to other ways of looking at things but I have real problems here.

For one thing the scale of the Earth in the video above isn't taken into account. I can tell that just by the curvature used in the video. They argue that poles or buildings at a distance should appear slanted if the Earth is really spherical. That may be true in principal but the curvature they are showing in the video would make the Earth have less surface area than the continental US. Not having the right scale makes a huge difference.

Also if the Earth is flat then I wonder if the Sun and Moon are flat also and where exactly are they going to and coming from as they appear to circle around our sky every day? When you look at the Sun, Moon and other planets, they're pretty obviously round. The idea that everything would be set up only to be viewed from Earth reminds me of the old Catholic doctrine that the Earth is the center of the universe because God made it to put mankind on, and mankind was made in God's image and is the most important thing in existence. Seems to me this is not much different than an American saying that the US is the center of the world and that Americans are the greatest people ever, or the way that the Chinese consider China to be the middle of the planet and that everyone else revolves around them. Same idea, just taken to a planetary level: humans are the greatest and everything revolves around us. When we die I guess we may get an idea as to how true or false this might be.


I was just being silly;)

[Magnus]

It's about getting the factual data straight, isn't it?
http://s7.postimg.org/961qgf1dn/bizare.gif

[A Voice from the Mountains]

I realize that Mike, I was just responding to the video above, "Flat Earth Horizon Proof."

Magnus, why did you have to post that? My brain is going to be racked.

I used to have a book showing that when you divide a circle with lines, into 2 parts, then 4, then 6, 8, etc., just adding one line at a time, somewhere around 32 it suddenly does something like what you posted and just skips to a totally different pattern for no apparent reason. Why can't nature be nice and make perfect sense to us? :(

[Sunny-side-up]

I always come back to this:

It is surmised that the universe has only one Atom, and the said Atom is everywhere at the same time!

So what is moving and where?

[StandingWave]

No 'thing' moves: mind 'moves'.

What Is is a still picture.

All motion is implied by memory
which is merely a storyline
that gives context to What Is and
is invented on the spur of the moment...

Experiencing.

[Agape]

Non-living Universe may not have exactly 'a centre' to it . Life in the Universe = so called 'living Universe' originates with one Source and we all carry its power within our selves .
That's how each sovereign being on certain level of existence represent 'centre of Universe' of their own .

With 7 billion wanna be sovereign entities on one planet who each cry for their Universal rights , making compromises is never easy .


http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll256/PaldenLhamo/Blue_Mirror_zpscd3d26ee.jpg (http://s290.photobucket.com/user/PaldenLhamo/media/Blue_Mirror_zpscd3d26ee.jpg.html)

[DeDukshyn]

It's about getting the factual data straight, isn't it?
http://s7.postimg.org/961qgf1dn/bizare.gif

Slight curve on the long side, concave on the first image, convex on the second, the difference between the two creates enough area for exactly 1 squares worth. ;) A small shift in one variable of perception can make the untrue, true ;)

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Slight curve on the long side, concave on the first image, convex on the second, the difference between the two creates enough area for exactly 1 squares worth. ;) A small shift in one variable of perception can make the untrue, true ;)

It seems to me this would only affect the area in the blue and red triangles, and only the lengths of their hypotenuses. Their "opposite" and "adjacent" sides (the sides that actually touch the interior block areas) are the same in both triangles.

In the top triangle, the tan and green block areas, taken together, form a rectangle 3 units high and 5 units long. (3 times 5 = 15)

In the bottom triangle, these same two block areas are put together to form an irregular shape that is basically 2 units high, 8 units long, and with one unit missing, ie the "hole." (2 times 8 = 16 -- one block too many for the 15 units to cover)

I don't understand this but it's possible that there is no trick, this is simply how things work.


Another example of something counter-intuitive that is nonetheless true:

Set x = 0.999999.....
10x = 9.9999999.... (Basic principal of base-10 mathematics that all engineers know: multiplying by 10 is the same as simply moving the decimal point)
Subtract 1x from both sides.
9x = 9.00000.....
Divide both sides by 9
x = 1.00000....

So it can be proven algebraically that 0.9999.... repeating forever is exactly equivalent to 1.00000...

You can try to take it apart but it's a valid solution. I found it in a math book and I cracked my head over it for a while before I simply had to accept what it was trying to tell me, lol.

[jerry]

its also flat. so says 'the flat earth society'. im serious. google it.


p.s. I'm guessing they'd scoff at my hollow earth theory. don't forget the fact we are living in a holographic reality so who knows

[DeDukshyn]

Slight curve on the long side, concave on the first image, convex on the second, the difference between the two creates enough area for exactly 1 squares worth. ;) A small shift in one variable of perception can make the untrue, true ;)

It seems to me this would only affect the area in the blue and red triangles, and only the lengths of their hypotenuses. Their "opposite" and "adjacent" sides (the sides that actually touch the interior block areas) are the same in both triangles.

In the top triangle, the tan and green block areas, taken together, form a rectangle 3 units high and 5 units long. (3 times 5 = 15)

In the bottom triangle, these same two block areas are put together to form an irregular shape that is basically 2 units high, 8 units long, and with one unit missing, ie the "hole." (2 times 8 = 16 -- one block too many for the 15 units to cover)

I don't understand this but it's possible that there is no trick, this is simply how things work.


Another example of something counter-intuitive that is nonetheless true:

Set x = 0.999999.....
10x = 9.9999999.... (Basic principal of base-10 mathematics that all engineers know: multiplying by 10 is the same as simply moving the decimal point)
Subtract 1x from both sides.
9x = 9.00000.....
Divide both sides by 9
x = 1.00000....

So it can be proven algebraically that 0.9999.... repeating forever is exactly equivalent to 1.00000...

You can try to take it apart but it's a valid solution. I found it in a math book and I cracked my head over it for a while before I simply had to accept what it was trying to tell me, lol.

Get out your straight edge ;) and lay it on your monitor -- it's all a very subtle curve in the hypotenuse of the whole group of triangles. That's all! In other words, the red and blue shapes (as you hypothesized) are off by very slight amounts from one image to the next. ;) Notice that on the second image, the short edge of turquoise triangle is slightly above the "two unit" marker in height. Now look at the same location in the red triangle in the first image -- not in the same spot. There is no "fancy" solution, it is a very simple trick of perception. ;)

Again, such subtle shift in perceptions make the impossible, possible; and vice versa ;)

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Again, such subtle shift in perceptions make the impossible, possible; and vice versa ;)

I looked it up and you're right. There is enough of a difference that you can squeeze that yellow shape down into a place where it wouldn't fit in the first image.

http://www.marktaw.com/blog/TheTriangleProblemImages/composite.gif

http://www.marktaw.com/blog/TheTriangleProblemImages/trianglesolution3.gif

[Sunny-side-up]

It's about getting the factual data straight, isn't it?
http://s7.postimg.org/961qgf1dn/bizare.gif

Love that image ;)

Anymore where that came from Magnus ?

[Milneman]

its also flat. so says 'the flat earth society'. im serious. google it.


p.s. I'm guessing they'd scoff at my hollow earth theory. don't forget the fact we are living in a holographic reality so who knows

How do you "know" that jerry?

If it's holographic, than you can't even be certain that what you're using to consider it isn't also holographic...oh dear...which mean...oh my....

*you* my friend don't exist by *your* understanding of the universe.

Skepticism: better than acid, all the mind f*ck, none of the hangover. ;)