RE: Are We Spinning?
on the latter, what you are telling me is there are two equally valid explanations for these experiments? is that correct?
back to the original point - the only 'experiment' you have come up with is one these clueless douchebags attempted?
where are the big mainstream royal society, well-known and repeated scientific experiments which prove beyond all doubt that earth is in motion, by rotation at 1038 mph, by orbit of the sun by 67,000 mph, and by the motion of the solar system through the galaxy at 500,000 mph (and the galaxy itself is said to be hurtling through the universe at some ridiculous speed too) ?
you keep wanting to say the motion of the heavens don't you?
my theory for the apparent movement of the sun is that is is actually in reality moving, and is a lot smaller and closer than we have been led to believe.
Sometimes multiple hypothesises can lead to the same conclusion. Here an example: Although classical mechanics is not really able to explain blackholes, you can derive the same schwartzschild-radius as with relativity.
I didn't use any main stream arguments, because I am pretty sure you already heard all of them and respponded to them several times.
Also I proved to you that you cannot feel the velocity of the earth through space. And now that you are out of arguments you try think you can persuade me by this tactic. Also that you give your units in miles per hour proves you have no only a small knowledge of science as every good scientist uses SI.
Why is this speed ridiculous? Compare that to the speed of light(c = 299792458ms⁻¹). Why don't you disclaim the speed of light then? And a bullet also has a ridiculous speed…………
Don't tell me what I want to say, because what I really want to say is:
(I bet you don't know a single variable except E and m)
What force let's the sun move?, and where does the light come from?, because a closer and therefor smaller sun couldn't radiate enough black-body-radiation.
Just because scientist were unable to make exact measurements in the past, doesn't mean the sun is smaller.
oh that's disappointing, you moved to condescending 'i have qualifications and you know nothing' quickly there.
all i wanted was a famous experiment proving earth's motion, you don't seem to have one. oh well.
If you want some:
The stars seem to be circling around a spot at differences of less then 1'' due to the rotation of the earth.
redshift of distant galaxies
blue and red-shift of other stars in our galaxy
stars seem to circle around the earth
Also you didn't answer my question.
see? told you you wanted to say because the heavens move.
so first let us establish there is no earth-based scientific experiment in existence that proves the earth is in motion, is there?
yes, the stars do indeed circle round poles - clockwise in the south and counter-clockwise in the north, as if they are on some kind of giant wheel or, ironically, ball. how does this prove the earth is in motion, when it is clearly the stars we see move while we remain perfectly still?
but all galaxies are red-shifted to us aren't they? what does that tell you? more on the other view which you may or may not have been told about in depth at your university: http://www.geocentrism.com/assumptions.htm
beautiful quote from that page which is very relevant to our discussion:
"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. "You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
Yes maybe I wanted to say that, because it seems intuitively right, but intuition often leads to false assumption(like the earth would be flat).
Well I told you about the gyroscope which proves a movement... Also there would be the pendulum.
Wrong. If you look at closer galaxies like Andromeda you will notice a blue shift.
The red and blue shifts inside our milky way prove that all stars in the milky way circle around the center. How does this motion look like in your model? Do you want to use something as stupid as epicycles again?
I can construct you a model of the universe without any center, but where from any point in the universe it looks like it would be the center of it.
Let's do a little thought experiment. Imagine humanity would inhabit Mars. Mars is spinning around itself. So the civilization on Mars observes all stars spinning around Mars. They see most of the galaxies moving away from Mars. Even earth seems to be orbiting Mars in a wobbly orbit(like Mars does relative to earth).
Wouldn't Mars be as good as earth for the center of the universe???
You can do the same thing with every exoplanet and every other stellar body. What makes earth so special then? Just because you are living on it?
Of course all science is based on philosophy. So you can have different models, but science chooses always the simplest model that explains the most observations, in this case it is: the earth is not the center of the universe.
The law of gravitation(F = Gm₁m₂/r²)(the law of gravitation can be proved here on earth by the way) is able to explain why the earth is moving around the sun. What is your mathematical explanaition for the sun moving around the earth?
why do i have to have a mathematical explanation for the movement of the sun? can't i leave that to mathematicians?
the sun crosses the earth every day, in between the tropics throughout the year, hence the seasons. the sun is not a ball of burning gas, it's some kind of electromagnetic/ plasma conduit which ionises the upper atmosphere giving us daylight (hence why it can be night and day on a fixed plane earth at the same time, because the sun is not a torchlight.)
yes, there is an equation for acceleration towards earth. in no way does this prove there is a force called 'gravity' causing it. do you see the difference?
i think you are slightly naive in how 'science' ie:- the science establishment works - it really doesn't always choose the simplest model at all, there is an agenda with almost all mainstream science, and especially in this field. yes, the maths works, but how do you prove it's describing reality? as we have agreed, there are always many explanations and viewpoints about observed phenomena.
martians wouldn't see us retrograding in your helio model, but they would see us transit the sun. it is easier for me to show you how i think astronomy works with an fe model, so you can see where i'm coming from. it's nothing like what we have all been taught.
of course you're going to hate it, but bear with it, you may believe in black holes, a big bang, supernovae, mutliple dimensions, and all kinds of 'supernatural' phenemona when it comes to cosmology, so remember that ;-)