The Earth does not rotate, or orbit the Sun

[earthcentral]

Just thought you should know. If you read my webpage thoroughly, it will be obvious:

www.earth-central.weebly.com

For those who want the condensed version, here it is:

We are TOLD, that star trails are produced by the Earths rotation. IF this is so, why is Earths supposed orbit of the Sun NOT visable in star trail photographs, as the orbit is said to be 64 times greater than the rotation.

As a result, the universe is nowhere near as big as NASA claim. I've yet to have a single idea that explains this obvious problem, which virtually anyone can prove for themselves.

Thanks for your time.

[undeadcreature]

There are a number of flaws in your reasoning,
The reason why star trails only show the rotation of the Earth on its axis is simply because of how far away those stars are relative to the observer.

To use the analagy of the Waltzer, if you sit in a waltzer car and stare upwards at the roof of the ride, not only will the roof appear to be spinning around your cars centre of rotation, it will also appear to be spinning around the rides centre of rotation. This is because the roof is only a few metres from the rides turntable. Now, to compare that to star trails, imagine suspending the roof of the ride so high up that the orbital spin produced by the ride becomes a slight wobble but the rotational spin produced by your car is still very obvious.

And funnily enough, this is how the distances to stars are measured, by comparing their positions in the sky at the same time each day throughout the year instead of one night.

Another is the wind theory.
The atmosphere rotates at the same speed as everything else and winds are driven by temperature variations. And funnily enough, air travel time does vary when travelling east to west and back again. It takes longer and uses more fuel to fly west than it does to fly east.
The water down the plughole theory is a sound theory but is too small scale to actually work. You need to think bigger, and I mean hurricane size. Hurricanes rotate counter clockwise in the north and clockwise in the south. This is down to the weather system being affected by the different rotational speeds of the surface and atmosphere at the different latitudeds that the hurricane spans.

[jackdaw]

Originally Posted by earthcentral

Just thought you should know. If you read my webpage thoroughly, it will be obvious:

www.earth-central.weebly.com

For those who want the condensed version, here it is:

We are TOLD, that star trails are produced by the Earths rotation. IF this is so, why is Earths supposed orbit of the Sun NOT visable in star trail photographs, as the orbit is said to be 64 times greater than the rotation.

As a result, the universe is nowhere near as big as NASA claim. I've yet to have a single idea that explains this obvious problem, which virtually anyone can prove for themselves.

Thanks for your time.

Are you after the Nobel prize for physics?

[flamingflynn]

Originally Posted by undeadcreature

There are a number of flaws in your reasoning,
The reason why star trails only show the rotation of the Earth on its axis is simply because of how far away those stars are relative to the observer.

To use the analagy of the Waltzer, if you sit in a waltzer car and stare upwards at the roof of the ride, not only will the roof appear to be spinning around your cars centre of rotation, it will also appear to be spinning around the rides centre of rotation. This is because the roof is only a few metres from the rides turntable. Now, to compare that to star trails, imagine suspending the roof of the ride so high up that the orbital spin produced by the ride becomes a slight wobble but the rotational spin produced by your car is still very obvious.

And funnily enough, this is how the distances to stars are measured, by comparing their positions in the sky at the same time each day throughout the year instead of one night.

Another is the wind theory.
The atmosphere rotates at the same speed as everything else and winds are driven by temperature variations. And funnily enough, air travel time does vary when travelling east to west and back again. It takes longer and uses more fuel to fly west than it does to fly east.
The water down the plughole theory is a sound theory but is too small scale to actually work. You need to think bigger, and I mean hurricane size. Hurricanes rotate counter clockwise in the north and clockwise in the south. This is down to the weather system being affected by the different rotational speeds of the surface and atmosphere at the different latitudeds that the hurricane spans.

Great explanation. Yet another crack-pot theory bits the dust!

[undeadcreature]

Originally Posted by flamingflynn

Great explanation. Yet another crack-pot theory bits the dust!

I didn't necesarily think it was a crackpot theory, it just didn't have much logic behind it. I mean how can something as massive as the sun orbit something soo comparatively tiny like the Earth?
Although the Earth does have some effect on the sun, it would be comparable to one person trying to push-start a 40 tonne lorry........... with the parking brake on.

[flamingflynn]

Originally Posted by undeadcreature

I didn't necesarily think it was a crackpot theory, it just didn't have much logic behind it.

Isn't that one definition of a crackpot theory?

[undeadcreature]

Originally Posted by flamingflynn

[/COLOR]

Isn't that one definition of a crackpot theory?

Ehhh....... I suppose.

[flamingflynn]

Originally Posted by undeadcreature

Ehhh....... I suppose.

[undeadcreature]

I just remembered what it was called too;


http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...stro/para.html

[earthcentral]

Originally Posted by undeadcreature

There are a number of flaws in your reasoning,
The reason why star trails only show the rotation of the Earth on its axis is simply because of how far away those stars are relative to the observer.

To use the analagy of the Waltzer, if you sit in a waltzer car and stare upwards at the roof of the ride, not only will the roof appear to be spinning around your cars centre of rotation, it will also appear to be spinning around the rides centre of rotation. This is because the roof is only a few metres from the rides turntable. Now, to compare that to star trails, imagine suspending the roof of the ride so high up that the orbital spin produced by the ride becomes a slight wobble but the rotational spin produced by your car is still very obvious.

And funnily enough, this is how the distances to stars are measured, by comparing their positions in the sky at the same time each day throughout the year instead of one night.

Another is the wind theory.
The atmosphere rotates at the same speed as everything else and winds are driven by temperature variations. And funnily enough, air travel time does vary when travelling east to west and back again. It takes longer and uses more fuel to fly west than it does to fly east.
The water down the plughole theory is a sound theory but is too small scale to actually work. You need to think bigger, and I mean hurricane size. Hurricanes rotate counter clockwise in the north and clockwise in the south. This is down to the weather system being affected by the different rotational speeds of the surface and atmosphere at the different latitudeds that the hurricane spans.

Thanks for taking the trouble to respond. Unfortunately you are wrong though. In the same period of time that the rotational pattern is produced, those exact same stars do not show any orbital movement, despite them moving 64 time further. It has to be stressed that the orbital motion is 64 times greater than the rotational and in both cases the same stars are being viewed. The simulation page clearly shows the principle, merely adding huge distances does not change the principle.

The waltzer analogy does work, because we are viewing the same stars at the same time, not one set of stars at one distance for rotation and another set at a different distance for the orbital path. It has to be stressed that the Orbital path is claimed to be 64 times greater than the rotation.

How does an atmosphere rotate? At the equator, is a 1km/hr wind really travelling at 1671km/hr? What physics can explain an imperceptable moving atmosphere?

I haven't done the page on stellar parallax yet, but there are many assumptions made in the calculations.
Air travel doesn't take longer from east to west or west to east, certainly not to account for a variance of 1670km/hr - this can be easily checked by looking at airline times.
Hurricanes again are not proof of a rotating Earth. You touched on temperatures earlier, and it is hardly worth mentioning that the equator regions are the hottest, either from the the north or south and cyclonic movement can be easily explained by this method, rather than imagining a moving Earth.

The waterdown the plughole theory I was saying was false. People who take their science from the simpsons believe the water travels one way in the northern hemisphere and the opposite in the southern. As you correctly point out, the Earths supposed rotation could have no effect on a sink that drains in less than a minute

I don't feel like any of the points raised have been proven false, and I have stressed on other forums that the distance issue of stars is the same for both supposed rotational and orbital observations. Perhaps that point isn't made clear enough on my website? Thank you again for pointing out what you see as errors in my website, as I hope to make it more understandable from them.

[undeadcreature]

Originally Posted by earthcentral

Thanks for taking the trouble to respond. Unfortunately you are wrong though. In the same period of time that the rotational pattern is produced, those exact same stars do not show any orbital movement, despite them moving 64 time further. It has to be stressed that the orbital motion is 64 times greater than the rotational and in both cases the same stars are being viewed. The simulation page clearly shows the principle, merely adding huge distances does not change the principle.

You are right, adding huge distances doesn't change the principle, but it does change the perceived effect. The earth may have a much higher orbital velocity, but the orbital PERIOD as far greater than the rotational period and therefore produces a much less noticeable effect. You can try this for yourself the next time you can clearly see the moon, look up at it and turn through 360 degrees, the moon will appear to rotate but it won't appear to be moving while you do this. Keep doing that for a whole month and you will notice that you have to look towards different parts of the sky to find the moon. The same thing happens when you are in a car doing 70mph, look to the side and close up objects are flying past but objects in the distance are barely moving.

The waltzer analogy does work, because we are viewing the same stars at the same time, not one set of stars at one distance for rotation and another set at a different distance for the orbital path. It has to be stressed that the Orbital path is claimed to be 64 times greater than the rotation.

The waltzer analogy was good, but it didn't take into account variances in how high the rides roof could be to produce a given effect.

How does an atmosphere rotate? At the equator, is a 1km/hr wind really travelling at 1671km/hr? What physics can explain an imperceptable moving atmosphere?

The atmosphere rotates because it is in physical contact with the ground and oceans which are rotating under it. The same effect allows the use of things called fluid couplings (or hydroviscous couplings, slush drives, or whatever you want to call them) The have no solid connection that transmits drive from the input shaft to the output shaft. The input shaft is connected to the impeller which spins the hydraulic oil sealed inside, the hydraulic oil uses its own frictional properties to cause the rotor to spin and send power to the output shaft.

I haven't done the page on stellar parallax yet, but there are many assumptions made in the calculations.
Air travel doesn't take longer from east to west or west to east, certainly not to account for a variance of 1670km/hr - this can be easily checked by looking at airline times.
Hurricanes again are not proof of a rotating Earth. You touched on temperatures earlier, and it is hardly worth mentioning that the equator regions are the hottest, either from the the north or south and cyclonic movement can be easily explained by this method, rather than imagining a moving Earth.

Air travel does vary, the last time I went on a long haul flight from the UK to the US, the outbound trip was 9 1/2 hours, the return trip was only 8 1/2 hours despite being the same distance.
Because everything at a given latitude is moving at the same speed, what we perceive as wind is caused by temperature driven pressure changes in the atmosphere. Winds converging on an area of low pressure cause a counter clockwise rotating weather system because the wind speed is slightly slower on the northern edge of the system instead of the southern.
What we perceive as a 1km/h wind coming from the east is actually air moving 1mk/h slower than everything else.

The waterdown the plughole theory I was saying was false. People who take their science from the simpsons believe the water travels one way in the northern hemisphere and the opposite in the southern. As you correctly point out, the Earths supposed rotation could have no effect on a sink that drains in less than a minute

I don't feel like any of the points raised have been proven false, and I have stressed on other forums that the distance issue of stars is the same for both supposed rotational and orbital observations. Perhaps that point isn't made clear enough on my website? Thank you again for pointing out what you see as errors in my website, as I hope to make it more understandable from them.

From what I gathered, you are not thinking 3 dimentionally, as I said with the moving car, although objects are passing by at 70mph, you would need to drive half way down the planet before the moon shows any difference in position.

[earthcentral]

Originally Posted by undeadcreature

You are right, adding huge distances doesn't change the principle, but it does change the perceived effect. The earth may have a much higher orbital velocity, but the orbital PERIOD as far greater than the rotational period and therefore produces a much less noticeable effect. You can try this for yourself the next time you can clearly see the moon, look up at it and turn through 360 degrees, the moon will appear to rotate but it won't appear to be moving while you do this. Keep doing that for a whole month and you will notice that you have to look towards different parts of the sky to find the moon. The same thing happens when you are in a car doing 70mph, look to the side and close up objects are flying past but objects in the distance are barely moving.



The waltzer analogy was good, but it didn't take into account variances in how high the rides roof could be to produce a given effect.



The atmosphere rotates because it is in physical contact with the ground and oceans which are rotating under it. The same effect allows the use of things called fluid couplings (or hydroviscous couplings, slush drives, or whatever you want to call them) The have no solid connection that transmits drive from the input shaft to the output shaft. The input shaft is connected to the impeller which spins the hydraulic oil sealed inside, the hydraulic oil uses its own frictional properties to cause the rotor to spin and send power to the output shaft.




Air travel does vary, the last time I went on a long haul flight from the UK to the US, the outbound trip was 9 1/2 hours, the return trip was only 8 1/2 hours despite being the same distance.
Because everything at a given latitude is moving at the same speed, what we perceive as wind is caused by temperature driven pressure changes in the atmosphere. Winds converging on an area of low pressure cause a counter clockwise rotating weather system because the wind speed is slightly slower on the northern edge of the system instead of the southern.
What we perceive as a 1km/h wind coming from the east is actually air moving 1mk/h slower than everything else.



From what I gathered, you are not thinking 3 dimentionally, as I said with the moving car, although objects are passing by at 70mph, you would need to drive half way down the planet before the moon shows any difference in position.

Though unintentional, your moon illustration supports my point rather than your own. I understand the rotating on the spot looking at the moon illustration, but that is exactly my point - that is the rotational motion only. The problem with the orbital motion is that it is much greater than the rotational. To modify your illustration, if you rotate on the spot and stare at the moon, yes it will look like a rotation, but, now also try to run 64 times faster down the street whilst rotating! Be careful, you might hurt yourself.

The moving car illustration is also flawed. We are not comparing close objects with distant objects, we are looking at the same supposedly fixed distant objects only in both cases. Again if you do some manouver in a car to create the appearence that a distant object is rotating, and then move in a straight line 64 times faster than you are rotating, you will see that the rotation effect disappears. Close up objects seeming to be faster have no bearing on the matter.

Thanks for liking the waltzer analogy, but again the roof distance is irrelevant. It is true to say that the higher the roof, the less visable the effect, but that applies both to the rotational and orbital effects equally, not just one of them.

As you point out, hydroviscous couplings are sealed units, and both liquids and gases behave differently in sealed units and under pressure. The atmosphere is not a sealed unit however. The atmosphere is made of various gaseous layers supposedly held in place by gravity alone - there is not anything holding it in imperceptible sync with a rotating Earth, and no sealed roof. The theory is flawed anyway. As different latitudes seem to travel faster near the equator than at the poles, so the atmosphere has to mimic this rotation EXACTLY so as to give the impression that there is no wind on a still day. However, as we pass through north to south longitudinally, there would have to be a noticable constant breeze covering the change of 0 to 1670km/hr - there isn't one.

Air travel - since I posted my website, I have updated it to include a bit about the atmosphere and air travel. For the sake of argument if we keep the latitudes conveniently the same and say it is 45 degrees (london is 51 degrees, new york is 40 degrees so we are not wildly out)
This falls nicely halfway between the 0 to 1670 km range at 835km/hr. This speed is faster than typical passenger planes fly at, so if you set off from new york, you would never reach london as the earth rotation is claimed to be faster than the plane can fly! There are trade winds and jet streams which explain variances, but nothing like a constant allowance for a fictional rotation.

[ultimate_warlord]

The OP probably is one of those nutters that claims that the Earth is 6000 years old and that god planted the dinosaur bones in the ground to test our faith in his omnipotent wisdom.

[bikerdruid]

is the earth flat as well?

[apollo_gnomon]

Originally Posted by ultimate_warlord

The OP probably is one of those nutters that claims that the Earth is 6000 years old and that god planted the dinosaur bones in the ground to test our faith in his omnipotent wisdom.

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

is the earth flat as well?

Now, now, gentlemen. Let's try to avoid logical fallacies, shall we? The above is a pair of "Strawman" arguments. The OP says nothing about either of those. Try addressing his actual statements.

Like this one:

Air travel - since I posted my website, I have updated it to include a bit about the atmosphere and air travel. For the sake of argument if we keep the latitudes conveniently the same and say it is 45 degrees (london is 51 degrees, new york is 40 degrees so we are not wildly out)
This falls nicely halfway between the 0 to 1670 km range at 835km/hr. This speed is faster than typical passenger planes fly at, so if you set off from new york, you would never reach london as the earth rotation is claimed to be faster than the plane can fly! There are trade winds and jet streams which explain variances, but nothing like a constant allowance for a fictional rotation.

The velocity of an aircraft is measured relative to the air, not the ground. The air itself is rotating in space along with the planet. Your suggestion above is naive.

The rotation of the planet is calculated into orbital trajectories. Rockets from Cape Canaveral, Florida launch to the East. Because the rocket is moving (relative to an arbitrary fixed point in space) at nearly 1000mph west-to-east just sitting on the ground, launching the rocket eastward means the rocket has that 1000mph already. Rockets launched toward the west (from Vandenberg AFB California) require extra fuel to overcome that movement, relative to launching the exact same rocket toward the East.

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by apollo_gnomon

Now, now, gentlemen. Let's try to avoid logical fallacies, shall we? The above is a pair of "Strawman" arguments..

..da da dee dum dum...if i only hada brain!..

[undeadcreature]

Originally Posted by earthcentral

Though unintentional, your moon illustration supports my point rather than your own. I understand the rotating on the spot looking at the moon illustration, but that is exactly my point - that is the rotational motion only. The problem with the orbital motion is that it is much greater than the rotational. To modify your illustration, if you rotate on the spot and stare at the moon, yes it will look like a rotation, but, now also try to run 64 times faster down the street whilst rotating! Be careful, you might hurt yourself.

The moving car illustration is also flawed. We are not comparing close objects with distant objects, we are looking at the same supposedly fixed distant objects only in both cases. Again if you do some manouver in a car to create the appearence that a distant object is rotating, and then move in a straight line 64 times faster than you are rotating, you will see that the rotation effect disappears. Close up objects seeming to be faster have no bearing on the matter.

Thanks for liking the waltzer analogy, but again the roof distance is irrelevant. It is true to say that the higher the roof, the less visable the effect, but that applies both to the rotational and orbital effects equally, not just one of them.

As you point out, hydroviscous couplings are sealed units, and both liquids and gases behave differently in sealed units and under pressure. The atmosphere is not a sealed unit however. The atmosphere is made of various gaseous layers supposedly held in place by gravity alone - there is not anything holding it in imperceptible sync with a rotating Earth, and no sealed roof. The theory is flawed anyway. As different latitudes seem to travel faster near the equator than at the poles, so the atmosphere has to mimic this rotation EXACTLY so as to give the impression that there is no wind on a still day. However, as we pass through north to south longitudinally, there would have to be a noticable constant breeze covering the change of 0 to 1670km/hr - there isn't one.

Air travel - since I posted my website, I have updated it to include a bit about the atmosphere and air travel. For the sake of argument if we keep the latitudes conveniently the same and say it is 45 degrees (london is 51 degrees, new york is 40 degrees so we are not wildly out)
This falls nicely halfway between the 0 to 1670 km range at 835km/hr. This speed is faster than typical passenger planes fly at, so if you set off from new york, you would never reach london as the earth rotation is claimed to be faster than the plane can fly! There are trade winds and jet streams which explain variances, but nothing like a constant allowance for a fictional rotation.

I can see I'm not going to be able to convince you, the point I am trying to make is that you don't seem to have taken into account how depth perception affects the perceived relative motion of objects at different distances.
The atmosphere may not be contained in the sense of a pressure vessel but it is under quite a considerable ammount of pressure and you need to take into account the millions of years the atmosphere has had to synchronise itself with the earths rotation.

[moving finger]

Originally Posted by apollo_gnomon

Now, now, gentlemen. Let's try to avoid logical fallacies, shall we? The above is a pair of "Strawman" arguments. The OP says nothing about either of those. Try addressing his actual statements.

To be fair a-g, on the OP's website he does make it pretty clear that that is where he is coming from:

The Earth and Universe was formed exactly like the Word of God says it was in the Holy Bible.

About Earth-Central
We are geocentrist, young earth creationist, Christians who believe the infallible Word of God as recorded in the Holy Bible.

However, I don't recall the King James Bible saying anything about the Earth being the centre of the Universe or that the Earth does not rotate.

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by moving finger

However, I don't recall the King James Bible saying anything about the Earth being the centre of the Universe or that the Earth does not rotate.

the KJV is very limited in vocabulary.
the KJV has a vocabulary of about 7500 words.
the works of shakespeare have about 30,000.

[omegatau]

A short question then: how do you explain the seasons of the year and the simultaneous day/night phenomenon?

If Earth doesn't rotate and revolve, then how can we have day and night whilst we have different seasons of the year - ie. winter and summer - that last as long as they do right now?

If your logic was true, then the Sun would orbit around the planet within 24 hours and it obviously doesn't. A day(daylight period of day) would last 365/2 current days and the night aswell, meaning we'd have nightly winters and summerly days because one half of Earth would be covered by ice and snow and befallen by darkness for 232.5 x 24 hours.