Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't)

[scud]

Ah.. Lux, there you are! Yes, apologies I didn’t address your point 2.
Excusing weather patterns, do you really think that free molecules (gas) would magically follow the solid surface beneath? Why would they do this (travel faster as they gain altitude, travel slower as they migrate north or south) when our accepted explanation for ‘gravity’ is an ‘attraction of two bodies from their centre of mass...nothing to do with what either ‘body’ may be doing (spinning, wobbling...doing an Irish jig).

Where does our atmosphere originate?.. I dunno. Where does our water come from however and we’ve got a mainstream view on that...it’s from pre-historic comets didn’t you know! Yes, these icy critters were raining down on us in such magnitude as to give the world its oceans and lakes...blimey, you really couldn’t make it up could you?

Clearly, SSSS needs a rotating Earth to work, what I’m suggesting is just taking it back to the bare fundamentals to see whether it holds true or not and I believe the question of a synchronous atmosphere is indeed fundamental...‘gravity' doesn’t explain it neither does friction therefore it must be a hitherto unidentified force or Earth is simply not moving, rotationally or latitudinally.
If Earth is not moving then obviously the ‘heavens’ must be revolving around us. ‘Ridiculous’ most shout...the distances are just far too great! Yeah, well, as Simon points out and myself http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... &start=120 , these ‘measurements’ seem at best a little spurious!

Just a parting shot, but I happened upon what initially seemed a crackpot theory of ‘geocentricism’ that was almost immediately backed up by our mathematical wizz ‘Rusty’ http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 1&start=15. I hope he does, because I’ve been thinking about the available information ever since and am finding it increasingly irresistible.

[Libero]

Scud,

I'm not sure if you caught it, but Rusty's post seems similar to the Geocosmos theory I found and posted posted about a few days ago here: http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f= ... s#p2386716

I was wondering where it might slot into your thinking. It also appears to support Simon's proposed SSSS as being both heliocentric and geocentric. The SSSS is certainly quite convincing. Where, for some reason it falls short in my mind would be to answer the question as to "Why" ..."Why, would the lie continue to be carried on?" if the SSSS can be so easily proven by someone willing to put in the time. Perhaps the cover of the currently accepted lie (this is no accusal of the SSSS theory being a cover, by the way... ) is even similiar to the dinosaur conundrum in a certain way.

With the sun at the center, it is one of the few cosmological models that is both heliocentric and geocentric! [The other is the Gillespian theory.]

The quote above is from the following article which contains additional information from my original post.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/morrow.htm

[lux]

Ah.. Lux, there you are! Yes, apologies I didn’t address your point 2.
Excusing weather patterns, do you really think that free molecules (gas) would magically follow the solid surface beneath? Why would they do this (travel faster as they gain altitude, travel slower as they migrate north or south) when our accepted explanation for ‘gravity’ is an ‘attraction of two bodies from their centre of mass...nothing to do with what either ‘body’ may be doing (spinning, wobbling...doing an Irish jig).

You make some good points and I admit that I don't have certainty on answers for all of them. However, if the atmosphere was formed by emissions from the mass of the earth then it would seem logically to me that these emissions would be spinning at the same approximate speed as the surface of the Earth. I am unsure about an explanation for the faster speeds at higher altitudes but may I suggest that it is related to the phenomenon known as boundary layer?

And, is there a known example of another planet that rotates within an unmoving atmosphere?

[Libero]

Lux,

Whose data do you plan on using or would trust most for your example?

[lux]

Example first, then I'll decide on trustworthiness of source.

But, I don't think there are any known examples anyway.

************************************************

Some other thoughts on rotating gasses/fluids ...

Take the example of a hurricane:

Hurricane Structure

A mature hurricane is nearly circular in shape. The winds of a hurricane are very light in the center of the storm (blue circle in the image below) but increase rapidly to a maximum 10-50 km (6-31 miles) from the center (red) and then fall off slowly toward the outer extent of the storm (yellow). source

So, in the red area of the diagram the winds increase as one moves outward from 6 to 31 miles from the center. What causes that increase?

Also, when water drains through a hole it usually rotates. Isn't the outer edge of that rotation going faster then the inner part? What causes that speed increase?

************************************************

So, since there are abundant examples of gasses and other fluids (the atmosphere is not made only of gasses) naturally rotating such that the outer edges are moving faster then the inner areas, I am inclined to think that the entire atmosphere could do the same, that is, could "rotate with the Earth."

[agraposo]

I think somebody in this thread argued that the Earth is not rotating around itself because we don't feel the spin. Here is an interesting article on the subject (not very illuminating, but it is easy to understand).

At the equator, the Earth is spinning at 1000 miles per hour about its axis and moving at 67,000 miles per hour around the Sun. With all this motion, you would expect to feel something, right? Well we don't feel anything because all of the motions are almost completely constant.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/questi ... number=665

[lux]

I think the fallacy with that is the idea that "the Earth is spinning at 1,000 mph."

Rotation isn't measured in distance per time. It's measured in revolutions per time, e.g., rpm.

The Earth completes one revolution per day. That's 1 rev per 1,440 minutes or about 0.0007 rpm. That's awfully slow.

If you stood on a rotating platform that took an entire day to make one revolution I doubt you would feel anything. Increasing the diameter of the platform would increase the speed of the outer edge but it would still be rotating at only 0.0007 rpm -- very, very slowly.

As for "centrifugal force," imagine trying to twirl a weight on a string round and round so that the string stayed taught at only one revolution per day. You couldn't do it of course. You'd have to increase it to about 1 rev per second to keep that string taught and that would be a rotational speed increase of 1440 x 60 or about 86,400 times.

[hoi.polloi]

No, sorry, I don't think you can just 'think' your way out of the lack of centripetal force problem.

I have done the math. Anyone can. It's very simple. We don't feel the force we should according to the incredible speeds at which this enormous planet is apparently supposed to be spinning, but to be fair this is only provided there is not some other force canceling it out. (I think I am being pretty generous about this, don't you? Einstein and Hawking made up plenty of stuff like "dark matter" and "black holes" and such to excuse their math, so I figure I should allow future physicists to do the same if they really can't let go of a spinning Earth they love so dear.)

The article you linked to above, agraposo, doesn't really do the math justice. They keep arguing the same old tired story we hear over and over — that one about the equator, completely ignoring the issue of a spinning effect at any other latitude.

Please carefully go back and re-read my arguments and you will see what I mean and why it's odd that:
a. we not only don't feel anything
~but~
b. we don't measure any spinning effect at all, aside from apparently some gyroscopic things that might be explained in a number of ways.

The fact that four intelligent users, whom I respect on this forum (as much as one should respect mere usernames) now contend that the math is dispensable because it's inconvenient or they can "just imagine" a spinning Earth tells me a lot about how we aren't going anywhere, unfortunately.

Please allow the contention to stand without being dismissive of it. I know it's hard to hold the two possibilities — spinning or non-spinning Earth — in your mind after our years of being told it must be spinning, but please try to do so. Try to allow the math to exist because math doesn't lie, only people misusing math do. It follows with Newton's laws and all other observations of our physics and I don't think I'm misusing math.

[lux]

OK, hoi, I will re-read your points but please don't think I am merely being dismissive. My views on this were carefully considered. If you look back in the thread you'll see I questioned the Earth's rotation at one point too.

And, BTW, the Earth's rotational speed of 0.0007 rpm was arrived at by math and I can only consider it an incredible speed in the sense that it is incredibly slow.


One last analogy:

When I am traveling in a commercial jet I am moving at approximately half the speed (500-600mph) of the allegedly spinning Earth at the equator and probably close to its exact speed at North American latitudes. Further, this jet is moving in an arc which parallels the Earth's curvature since the jet maintains a constant altitude during most of the flight. So, my motion is very close to the speed and arc as it would be at home if the spinning Earth model was correct. Yet, as I sit in the jet with my headphones on and close my eyes I feel no particular motion (barring vibrations, turbulence, turns or altitude changes) and I notice no centrifugal or centripetal effects from this motion.

[agraposo]

Dear Hoi, I'm always reluctant to go into a mathematical discussion in this forum about anything, as it requires much time and effort. I'm a Bachelor of Science (Theoretical Physics) and I can assure you I have done a lot of math (too much I think). I went to the university a long time ago, and nobody taught me about astromony, just classical mechanics, electromagnetism, quantum physics and worse things! But I like astronomy, I have a telescope, and have read a lot about it.

At this moment of the discussion in this forum, I feel it is necessary to start from the beginning and to read the original works, not just Internet articles, but again, this requires a lot a time and effort.

So, why not read Copernicus himself about the issue of the spinning Earth? Yesterday I found this book in the library, though now I can't afford to buy it (29 euros in Spain). It is a translation of the main works of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton and Einstein.

On The Shoulders Of Giants

In Google books there is a preview.

On The Shoulders Of Giants (preview)

It is interesting to read what Copernicus thought about the issue of the spinning Earth (page 21, only one page):
7. Why the Ancients thought the Earth was at rest at the middle of the World as its Centre

(World here means the Universe)

and on page 22 (only two pages):
8. Answer to the aforesaid reasons and their inadequacy

Besides, on page 33 Copernicus begins the discussion of the three movements of the Earth (rotation, translation and declination), useful to follow the discussion in the SSSS thread.

I will go back and re-read your arguments as you suggest.

[Heiwa]

The circumference of the planet Earth at the equator is 40 075 kilometers. As Earth rotates 360° (one revolution) every 24 hrs around an axis through the poles perpendicular to the equatorial plane, it means that Mombasa, my favorite Kenyan town located on the equator is moving at a constant speed of 1 670 km/h relative to this axis deep down in the ground. The rotation velocity at the poles is evidently 0. However you do not notice the spinning when you, e.g. play tennis at Mombasa with monkeys looking on, as everything there is moving at exactly the same speed since million years and kept on the ground due gravity forces – except the tennis ball.

[fbenario]

The fact that four intelligent users, whom I respect on this forum (as much as one should respect mere usernames) now contend that the math is dispensable because it's inconvenient or they can "just imagine" a spinning Earth tells me a lot about how we aren't going anywhere, unfortunately.

Including spinning on any axis.

Very nicely droll, Hoi!

[hoi.polloi]

When I am traveling in a commercial jet I am moving at approximately half the speed (500-600mph) of the allegedly spinning Earth

You're right. That's actually even more suspicious about the shape of the Earth rather than an argument for a spinning Earth. If an airplane is flying at speeds approaching 1000 miles per hour, in a curved arc, we should indeed feel slightly more weightless. And it should be measurable. For my part, I have been on an airplane where I've felt slightly heavier rather than lighter. If gravity is a "pushing down" force rather than a "pulling up" force, that might explain my sensation. Perhaps I'm thinking of turbulence. The fact that we experience turbulence at all on an airplane should make the allusion moot. The Earth isn't a bumpy ship. Or perhaps airplanes do not fly in an arc to match the Earth's surface because following the Earth's surface does not cause one to curve one's path in a convex motion, but instead (as Koresh suggests) a concave one, or a flat one.

But regardless of our physiological explorations of airplanes, or how much complimentary sample wine we've had to cope with it, I think we're still missing the point. We are not talking about a vehicle oriented to one's gravity but a constant motion relating only to gravity at exponentially oblique angles.

This doesn't just mean gravity's net effect is changed, as all these allegedly scientific web sites (just repeating information they've heard, I guess) have tried to explain away this force; it means we should be feeling forces that no other (as of yet explained) force would counteract. So, why don't we feel it? Why can't we see buildings and wheels and animals and old people and babies at all effected by this soft pushing towards the equator?

So never mind the speed and just look at the math. We measure no effect of our own physics. It's time to reconsider physics or reconsider the motions we assume are going on. Stop talking about the poles and the equator, as we've been trained to do, and just try applying our spinning assumption to the 45th degree and you should immediately see what I'm talking about.

Or do this for a simple observation at home: attach some string to a ball at various points and just spin it in the air. And notice how all the strings stand up perpendicular to the equator of the axis you created. It doesn't matter if the spin is as slow as 400 mph, the strings are going to be slightly effected. Importantly, at strings between the equator and the pole, you'll see that if gravity is centered at the Earth's core as alleged, lightweight things that don't correct for their own motion (such as humans do) cannot stand up perpendicular and would tilt and fall over due to gravity.

I still allege the Earth isn't spinning as fast as we have claimed to account for sidereal motion, for this argument alone, plus lack of other effects.

As for the apparent resulting question of the cosmos spinning around us, well why shouldn't they appear to? Does it mean the stars are actually spinning? Why? Everything else in the universe is in motion, so why not light and the way it bends? Perhaps over great distances, light warps and causes the illusion of rotation around us. Just because things are still on Earth doesn't mean the rest of the universe must be. In fact, at this point we don't know enough about light to say with 100% certainty that the stars aren't still but the light from them twist and bend around us such that they only appear to spin. Or perhaps they do physically spin around us. Why not? Why must we claim to know everything about places we can't even visit?

We can measure what's going on on Earth, and that's where we should concentrate first.

[scud]

Libero

"Why" ..."Why, would the lie continue to be carried on?"

This from the now sadly deceased Marshal Hall and his site... http://www.fixedearth.com/nasas_agenda.htm

“NASA has a spiritual agenda. Yes, spiritual. It projects the image of cutting edge science opening exciting space frontiers for the good of mankind, but the facts say otherwise. Judge for yourself:
On the Space Administration's Web Page we read: "NASA's ORIGINS PROGRAM will search for clues to help us find our cosmic roots."
"Cosmic roots...?? Origins Program...???
There are two major beliefs about the origin of mankind and all other life forms. One says God created man and everything else not very long ago. The Bible states this view over 100 times and allows for no other explanation. God created everything fully formed as part of an eternal plan, the Bible teaches. Period. The other belief says everything came to be as it is accidentally and randomly as the result of natural forces acting upon themselves and "evolving" over billions of years. Clearly, the evolutionary belief is anti-Bible, but--more to the point about NASA's goals being spiritual--it is a belief that attributes miraculous powers of creation of all that exists to a "force" or a god known as "matter" (and "gases"). Matter did it all. All hail "matter"! No God who demands recognition and accountability is needed! With "matter" as creator we can do what we want ('cause nothing matters...).”

If you re-read my original starter to this thread, I speculated that NASA and all other ‘space administrations’ apart from being a simple fraud on the taxpaying public were out to prove beyond doubt that the Heliocentric model of the solar system was correct. That we orbit the Sun, rotate once a day about an axis of 23.5 degrees (to explain the seasons) and therefore by default, re-enforce ‘evolution’ by virtue of any ‘age’ one might care to tag it. After all, before the ‘rocket firing 60’s / 70’s’ the only piece of ‘evidence’ they had was a weight, free-swinging about the end of a string (Foucault’s pendulum) which evidently wasn’t up to scratch in ‘wowing’ the masses.

I believe that this is absolutely fundamental to the ‘Nutwork’. That they must have the worlds population accept that they are nothing but a ‘chance’ occurrence / worthless / evolved from single celled amoeba...floating aimlessly within an unimaginably huge...even endless environment. Fundamental, because the other way round and I’d imagine that not a soul on this ‘planet’ would give a flying hairy arse what they had to say.

With regards the ‘Geocosmos theory’ I just simply cannot get it out of my head that two...very basic and seemingly foolproof experiments were conducted that showed a concave rather than convexed surface. More, that they showed a triangulation equal to what’s recognised to be Earth’s radius, only not from below but from above!!

Treat this with a pinch of salt if you like but I think this guy has some interesting ideas based upon the work of Cyrus Teed’s ‘Rectilineator’ experiments and the Tamarack mine, plumb bob experiments... http://www.missteribabylonestar.com/pos ... phany.html

[agraposo]

In the whole thread I have only seen these two references to the Coriolis force:

- scud: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 1#p2374961

This ‘force’ explains certain spiral weather formations (cyclonic / anti-cyclonic) some ocean currents and the motion of ‘Foucault’s pendulum’ and is the only terrestrial phenomena cited as proof of a rotating Earth. However, ‘Geocentrists’ argue that these observable effects are much more likely explained by the opposite being true, i.e that they are caused by all the motion contained within a fantastic ‘celestial sphere’ rotating around us rather than us getting all dizzy.

- hoi.polloi: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 7#p2385017
quoted from http://homepage.ntlworld.com/malcolmbowden/Geocexpl.htm

Ernst Mach proposed that it is the weight of the stars circling the earth that drags Foucault pendulums around, creates Coriolis forces in the air that give the cyclones to our weather etc. Barbour and Bertotti (Il Nuovo Cimento 32B(1):1-27, 11 March 1977) proved that a hollow sphere (the universe) rotating around a solid sphere inside (the earth) produced exactly the same results of Coriolis forces, dragging of Foucault pendulums etc. that are put forward as "proofs" of heliocentricity! This paper gives several other confirmations of the superiority of the geocentric model.

These quotes alone say nothing to me. I say Coriolis is a fictitious force. Can we all agree what is a fictitious force? Is not that complicated, as it is taught in every school and university, and everyone can do the math. That wiki article gives all the math necessary, but there are tons of Internet articles with all the math and graphics.

This is mathematics, and this is an experiment performed here, in the Earth:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dt_XJp77-mk

And an animation:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49JwbrXcPjc

Could someone provide links to the math and some experiment as to prove that the Coriolis force effects exist in a non-rotating frame of reference, to support the idea that the Earth is not spinning?

Thanks.