The Earth does not rotate, or orbit the Sun

[isabeau]

I'm just enjoying the show.....watching the posters orbiting ...
its making me dizzy but its very interesting....carry on.....

[flamingflynn]

Originally Posted by totalrecall

IMO, the moon is a concave projection, like a bowl

How can you bounce radio waves off a projection?

Originally Posted by totalrecall

The earth does NOT rotate. The notion that it rotates is ludicrous when one actually takes a minute to think about it.

Well, kindly explain why the direction of swing of a freely swinging pendulum changes during the day.

IMO, the sun is a machine, an artificial "man-made" machine 4000 miles up.

What evidence have you that it's man made and 4000 miles up?

If there was no sun before man made it, why wasn't the earth frozen? How could life evolve with no light or heat?

I think you're as nutty as a nut bar with added nuts, coated in a nutty chololate coating and coated in chopped nuts.

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by totalrecall

IMO, the moon is a concave projection, like a bowl (the bowl theory is thanks to another member of the forum, whose name I forget). According to Cyrus Tweed, this is because the moon is a projection of the crust of the earth. I don't know about the latter being true, but the first two conjectures have evidence to support them.

IMO, the sun is a machine, an artificial "man-made" machine 4000 miles up. The luminous part is calculated at being 20 miles in diameter. The shape of the machine has been theorized to be an octagonal double pyramid by one member of this forum. There is no evidence for this except that pyramids create circular fields around them and that these fields are supposed to be the earth's crusts etc. I actually quite like the theory, but that is all that it is. I like to think of the sun as being a kind of lighthouse. It would certainly shine new light on the way the masons and ancients worshipped the Sun and the pyramid.

We of course live on the inside of the earth which is shaped like an egg and is just a giant computer or machine in effect. The physical laws of nature only really apply to the crust which we live on. Everything else too far below and too far above the crust have different physical realities. The latter is supported by a little bit of evidence.

The earth does NOT rotate. The notion that it rotates is ludicrous when one actually takes a minute to think about it. One year ago I would have laughed at the concept that the earth machine does NOT rotate. Now it is so self evident, that I am pleased with my "beyond the indoctrination" process. I am making great strides in understanding my world all the time. The Internet is "God's" tool, although I don't like the term "god" for obvious reasons that it is an entirely vague label with no real meaning.

With the rotation theory, the air and water is supposed to rotate at the same speed as the solid crust which is of course impossible as the three areas above have completely different densities.

wow...i'm speechless.
but, of course, this post is a lark.....right?

[hertford]

Originally Posted by earthcentral

1) If you hadn't been told by others that the Earth orbits the Sun, what would make you think of it for yourself?
2) What evidence do You YOURSELF have that the Earth moves?
3) You see the moon orbit the Earth, why couldn't the Sun do the same?
4) If you make a star trail photograph, how come you only see a rotational effect, when the platform doing the rotating is also meant to be travelling 64 times faster in a more linear fashion?

I see the sun rise, move across the sky and later set, I have no evidence that the Earth moves at all. I don't need science for this, I have been seeing this for many years!!!

It amazes me how on this site NASA lie blah blah blah, yet when empirical evidence contradicts what they say, suddenly what was brainwashed at school is fact.

Nice thread earthcentral, Jeff Grupp covered this a few years back on his radio show, it certainly identifies the sheep and the thinkers.

[night_gaunt]

Originally Posted by hertford

I see the sun rise, move across the sky and later set, I have no evidence that the Earth moves at all. I don't need science for this, I have been seeing this for many years!!!

It amazes me how on this site NASA lie blah blah blah, yet when empirical evidence contradicts what they say, suddenly what was brainwashed at school is fact.

Nice thread earthcentral, Jeff Grupp covered this a few years back on his radio show, it certainly identifies the sheep and the thinkers.

I think it's natural for the human mind to feel the need to rebel. People claim to be not easily manipulated, but when a cheesy theory comes up against something you despise or disbelieve for whatever reason you find yourself automatically drawn to it. I should know, it's happened to me, and later i realized how gullible i was.
For the sun rising - earthcentral will claim this is due to the sun orbiting the earth (the sun is FAR too massive to orbit that quickly - thats the joke)
Apparently this is proven by observed evidence - BUT lets say that for all my life i have been observing lizards and to me they appear to possess mammalian qualities. If thats what i've been observing myself and people try to convince me its wrong im probably not going to listen because it sounds to me like they're insulting my mindset. Clearly this guy feels like hes on a scientific breakthrough and we're the people insulting his scientific observations... What we need is to call in an astronomer D: they could explain it to him the best.
P.S... Lizards are reptiles

[night_gaunt]

Earthcentral - i have to admit i only glanced through what you told me because some of it is so easily dismissed. WHY do i believe the moon rotates the earth? Because it moves in the sky and its much smaller than the Earth and its been trapped in our gravitational field? You misunderstand what i said about the constellations - they appear in different parts of our sky depending on the season. How do i know the moon is moving away? Reflectors set up by the Apollo mission.

[earthcentral]

I've responded point by point previously, but I can see that this is unneccesary, as views seem so entrenched. I will selectively reply.

Firstly, regarding the 'you're so dumb you obviously don't understand the distances involved' comments. Huge distances are firstly a huge assumption based on the idea that Earth is heliocentric to begin with, i.e. you are using circular reasoning. I have since updated the website to discuss this objection.
Parallax angles do not enter into the equation. If it was relevant, you certainly would not see a rotational trail either.

I see the old religious bias arguments being wheeled out. I am accused of being set in my beliefs, yet belief in nasa seems unquestionable to many.

undeadcreature - "Billions of years of evolution and scientific theories which have been proven through experimentation " - talk about indoctrination! What 'experimentation' is this?
"The fact that parallax angles can be measured at all is proof that the earth is moving through a 3 dimensional space." - have YOU ever tried to measure this? Ever heard of the chandler wobble? See updated website for discussion on these miniscule angles. Again, irrelevant.
Discussing lead balls is again begging the question.

frenat - missed question 1,
Re question 2 "Everything that has already been mentioned. Internal and external consistency of science (as opposed to the vast inconsistencies with religion). The fact that gyrocompasses and inertial navigation systems only work because of a rotating Earth. The fact that when a probe leaves Earth orbit bound for another planet it already has the velocity around the Sun that the Earth did. Orbital mechanics works." All the above also work in a geocentric framework. Have you actually looked into any of this, or are you just blindly following the party line?
Re question 3 "for starters, the heliocentric model is far simpler." That has no bearing on the matter "It actually explains why the planets sometimes appear to move backwards. It has actual math that can explain and predict all the movements." All astronomy calculations are made from a geocentric point of view. Retrograde motion of planets can and is easily explained in the geocentric model.
Re question 4 "you really don't understand the scale involved do you? You SAY you know what parallax is yet you seem to think that small differences noticed 6 MONTHS apart would be seen in a single night? Your religion has blinded you." I do understand your point, andI repeat again it is irrelevant. Have you actually thought about it, or are you just repeating parrot fashion? My religion has no bearing on what star trails clearly show.

I'm leaving total recalls posts to him/her.

Hertford - thanks for your encouraging words.

night gaunt - "For the sun rising - earthcentral will claim this is due to the sun orbiting the earth (the sun is FAR too massive to orbit that quickly - thats the joke)" Why would I say that? Because that is exactly what appears to happen. How do YOU KNOW that the Sun is FAR too massive?
It might also shatter your worldview to know that there are astronomers such as Gerardus Bouw who accept the geocentric model. I didn't make the theory up, I merely pointed out another obvious proof that the majority of people are being fooled by non observational 'science'
"Earthcentral - i have to admit i only glanced through what you told me because some of it is so easily dismissed." - at least you admit to dismissing it without reading the details. Constellations will move with seasons, as the stars are all held in a rotating firmament, which also means that the costellations don't change (which is what we observe, despite false science claims that they do move over thousands of years). Reflectors on the moon - so you believe we landed on the moon. Even if there are mirrors on the moon, do you have a laser to verify that the moon is getting further away? What i'm getting at is that all your so called evidence, is provided by space agencies - which is ok if you happen to believe them rather than your own observations.

[ashikenshin]

religion has blinded a lot of people.

I love how complex their theories are, and how varied. Seems that taking the bible to be literal can make people cramfit a lot of stuff.

I would love to hear the explanation on the rest of the planets and how do you explain their reversals. (retrograde motion my bad)

[frenat]

Originally Posted by earthcentral

I see the old religious bias arguments being wheeled out. I am accused of being set in my beliefs, yet belief in nasa seems unquestionable to many.

NASA has nothing to do with it. Geocentrism was known to be a crock long before NASA was even thought of.

Originally Posted by earthcentral

frenat -
Re question 2 "Everything that has already been mentioned. Internal and external consistency of science (as opposed to the vast inconsistencies with religion). The fact that gyrocompasses and inertial navigation systems only work because of a rotating Earth. The fact that when a probe leaves Earth orbit bound for another planet it already has the velocity around the Sun that the Earth did. Orbital mechanics works." All the above also work in a geocentric framework. Have you actually looked into any of this, or are you just blindly following the party line?

Have you? Do you even know how a gyrocompass or inertial navigation system works? They do NOT work in a geocentric framework. One MAY be able to calculate orbital velocity of interplanetary probes with a geocentric focus but it is far simpler to use a heliocentric. Even heard of Occam's razor?

Originally Posted by earthcentral

Re question 3 "for starters, the heliocentric model is far simpler." That has no bearing on the matter

Yes, it does. You have to make up complicated crap to even try to begin to explain anything in a geocentric system and then it still can't get it completely right.

Originally Posted by earthcentral

"It actually explains why the planets sometimes appear to move backwards. It has actual math that can explain and predict all the movements." All astronomy calculations are made from a geocentric point of view. Retrograde motion of planets can and is easily explained in the geocentric model.

Wrong. Retrograde motions required the addition of complicated epicycles and then still didn't fully explain it.
Good explanation of this here
http://www.lasalle.edu/~smithsc/Astr...retrograd.html

In its final form, the model was extremely complicated, requiring many nested levels of epicycles, and with even the major orbits offset so that they were no longer truly centered on the Earth. Despite all of this fine tuning, there remained significant discrepancies between the actual positions of the planets and those predicted by the model

Your religious stubborness keeps you from seeing the simplicity of a heliocentric system.

Originally Posted by earthcentral

Re question 4 "you really don't understand the scale involved do you? You SAY you know what parallax is yet you seem to think that small differences noticed 6 MONTHS apart would be seen in a single night? Your religion has blinded you." I do understand your point, andI repeat again it is irrelevant. Have you actually thought about it, or are you just repeating parrot fashion? My religion has no bearing on what star trails clearly show.

Clearly it does. It is not irrelevant. I have thought about it and it is clear you DON'T understand the scale involved. Why would you think the parallax effect that is usually measured over 6 months would be visible in one night at all?

Originally Posted by earthcentral

What i'm getting at is that all your so called evidence, is provided by space agencies - which is ok if you happen to believe them rather than your own observations.

Wrong. The majority of info about the solar system's makeup came long before NASA was even thought of.

[night_gaunt]

Originally Posted by earthcentral

I've responded point by point previously, but I can see that this is unneccesary, as views seem so entrenched. I will selectively reply.

Firstly, regarding the 'you're so dumb you obviously don't understand the distances involved' comments. Huge distances are firstly a huge assumption based on the idea that Earth is heliocentric to begin with, i.e. you are using circular reasoning. I have since updated the website to discuss this objection.
Parallax angles do not enter into the equation. If it was relevant, you certainly would not see a rotational trail either.

I see the old religious bias arguments being wheeled out. I am accused of being set in my beliefs, yet belief in nasa seems unquestionable to many.

undeadcreature - "Billions of years of evolution and scientific theories which have been proven through experimentation " - talk about indoctrination! What 'experimentation' is this?
"The fact that parallax angles can be measured at all is proof that the earth is moving through a 3 dimensional space." - have YOU ever tried to measure this? Ever heard of the chandler wobble? See updated website for discussion on these miniscule angles. Again, irrelevant.
Discussing lead balls is again begging the question.

frenat - missed question 1,
Re question 2 "Everything that has already been mentioned. Internal and external consistency of science (as opposed to the vast inconsistencies with religion). The fact that gyrocompasses and inertial navigation systems only work because of a rotating Earth. The fact that when a probe leaves Earth orbit bound for another planet it already has the velocity around the Sun that the Earth did. Orbital mechanics works." All the above also work in a geocentric framework. Have you actually looked into any of this, or are you just blindly following the party line?
Re question 3 "for starters, the heliocentric model is far simpler." That has no bearing on the matter "It actually explains why the planets sometimes appear to move backwards. It has actual math that can explain and predict all the movements." All astronomy calculations are made from a geocentric point of view. Retrograde motion of planets can and is easily explained in the geocentric model.
Re question 4 "you really don't understand the scale involved do you? You SAY you know what parallax is yet you seem to think that small differences noticed 6 MONTHS apart would be seen in a single night? Your religion has blinded you." I do understand your point, andI repeat again it is irrelevant. Have you actually thought about it, or are you just repeating parrot fashion? My religion has no bearing on what star trails clearly show.

I'm leaving total recalls posts to him/her.

Hertford - thanks for your encouraging words.

night gaunt - "For the sun rising - earthcentral will claim this is due to the sun orbiting the earth (the sun is FAR too massive to orbit that quickly - thats the joke)" Why would I say that? Because that is exactly what appears to happen. How do YOU KNOW that the Sun is FAR too massive?
It might also shatter your worldview to know that there are astronomers such as Gerardus Bouw who accept the geocentric model. I didn't make the theory up, I merely pointed out another obvious proof that the majority of people are being fooled by non observational 'science'
"Earthcentral - i have to admit i only glanced through what you told me because some of it is so easily dismissed." - at least you admit to dismissing it without reading the details. Constellations will move with seasons, as the stars are all held in a rotating firmament, which also means that the costellations don't change (which is what we observe, despite false science claims that they do move over thousands of years). Reflectors on the moon - so you believe we landed on the moon. Even if there are mirrors on the moon, do you have a laser to verify that the moon is getting further away? What i'm getting at is that all your so called evidence, is provided by space agencies - which is ok if you happen to believe them rather than your own observations.

If i based things on my own observations, i would believe that the world is flat. Luckily for me, i hold trust in scientists who have degrees. The apollo mission left reflectors on the moon which they zap with lasers... Thats how we know the moon is pulling away. My friend, its good you have faith in yourself, but i insist taking the word of astronomers and researching why they have those beliefs.

[earthcentral]

ashikenshin
"I would love to hear the explanation on the rest of the planets and how do you explain their reversals. (retrograde motion my bad)"The simplest explanation is this. If you have or visualise an orrery (the familiar mechanised model of the planets circling the sun) and pick it up by Earth (Earth then being fixed in position) the remaining planets all carry on moving in the same way, just with a different fixed point. Retrograde motion can be explained by either model.

frenat
"NASA has nothing to do with it. Geocentrism was known to be a crock long before NASA was even thought of."No it wasn't. Ever heard of conspiracy theories? Ever considered that the 'matrix' that you are told that you live in is not as it seems? There have always been people who reject heliocentricity, as there have people who reject evolution. These same people are the ones mocked by the establishment - or the more accurately those funded by governments. That is not to say that there are not honest genuine scientists involved, just that fundamental principles are accepted, and used as foundations for further theoretical 'science' which is built upon them. Surely questioning is at the very nature of true science?

"Have you? Do you even know how a gyrocompass or inertial navigation system works? They do NOT work in a geocentric framework. One MAY be able to calculate orbital velocity of interplanetary probes with a geocentric focus but it is far simpler to use a heliocentric. Even heard of Occam's razor?"Gyroscope theory assume that the Earth is rotating. It is equally valid that the celestial sphere is rotating in a counter motion and could theoretically produce the exact same effect. You merely assume that Earth rotates in the first place and that this in causes the gyroscopic effect. Gyroscopic compasses do not prove Earth rotation, they imply rotation of something.
Astronomical observations are calculated assuming a stationary Earth. We do not have to calculate where we are in an orbit of the sun to work out where something else might be, we assume the something else can be calculated based on 'us' not moving. Planetariums use geocentricity because it is simpler and agrees with all observations.
LOL occams razor! So you believe that an imperceptable rotation and orbit through space is the simpler option to that of us simply not moving? As I said planetariums are easier to produce using the geocentric framework. Own goal I think lol

Re question 3 "for starters, the heliocentric model is far simpler." That has no bearing on the matter
"Yes, it does. You have to make up complicated crap to even try to begin to explain anything in a geocentric system and then it still can't get it completely right."
Ever heard of occams razor? lol. Why don't planetariums use complex heliocentric projectors? Because the geocentric model is far simpler. Why believe in evolution when creation is far simpler? Just because there is a simple explanation, that still does not equate to it automatically being correct by default.

"It actually explains why the planets sometimes appear to move backwards. It has actual math that can explain and predict all the movements." All astronomy calculations are made from a geocentric point of view. Retrograde motion of planets can and is easily explained in the geocentric model.
frenat
"Wrong. Retrograde motions required the addition of complicated epicycles and then still didn't fully explain it.
Good explanation of this here
http://www.lasalle.edu/~smithsc/Astr...retrograd.html"
I'm afraid it is you who is completely wrong. If you pick a heliocentric orrery up by Earth (effectively Earth is fixed) the orrery and all the planets and satellites would still move in exactly the same way. Retrograde motion is totally unaffected.

"Quote: In its final form, the model was extremely complicated, requiring many nested levels of epicycles, and with even the major orbits offset so that they were no longer truly centered on the Earth. Despite all of this fine tuning, there remained significant discrepancies between the actual positions of the planets and those predicted by the model"
Brain surgery is complicated, that does not mean it is impossible. The theory of evolution is mathematically impossible - does that mean that evolution is not true based on the same odd logic? You are being inconsistant using occams razor.

"Your religious stubborness keeps you from seeing the simplicity of a heliocentric system."
lol, the same can be said about your sun worship. At least I can use my own observations as basis for my own belief.

Quote:
Originally Posted by earthcentral
Re question 4 "you really don't understand the scale involved do you? You SAY you know what parallax is yet you seem to think that small differences noticed 6 MONTHS apart would be seen in a single night? Your religion has blinded you." I do understand your point, andI repeat again it is irrelevant. Have you actually thought about it, or are you just repeating parrot fashion? My religion has no bearing on what star trails clearly show.
"Clearly it does. It is not irrelevant. I have thought about it and it is clear you DON'T understand the scale involved. Why would you think the parallax effect that is usually measured over 6 months would be visible in one night at all?"
Yet another assumption. Ever heard of the Chandler wobble? Everything you use as evidence assumes heliocentricity to start with. In 6 months parallax, the supposed parallax is still imperceptable to the public. It was for this reason that heliocentrism was rejected for so long. The answer? Throw stars so far into space to explain the lack of visable parallax. Your tower of cards rests on the theory being true to begin with. I've covered this now on the website, and you are quite correct, due to the unprovable nature of the distances involved, the visable parallax of 6 months is miniscule, even to those with the proper equipment, and can be equally explained by Earths (more correctly the celestial spheres) wobble, which is almost the same as the most demonstrable supposed 6 month parallax.

Quote:
Originally Posted by earthcentral
What i'm getting at is that all your so called evidence, is provided by space agencies - which is ok if you happen to believe them rather than your own observations.
"Wrong. The majority of info about the solar system's makeup came long before NASA was even thought of."
The majority of the solar systems makeup was observed way before heliocentricty was accepted. Why? Because it is possible to make such observations due to it being observable. Venus and the Pleiades are both mentioned in the Bible for example. The huge ridiculous distances that are needed for heliocentricity to be true can only be provided by space agencies.

night_gaunt
"If i based things on my own observations, i would believe that the world is flat. Luckily for me, i hold trust in scientists who have degrees. The apollo mission left reflectors on the moon which they zap with lasers... Thats how we know the moon is pulling away. My friend, its good you have faith in yourself, but i insist taking the word of astronomers and researching why they have those beliefs."
I've never mentioned that the Earth is flat. There are scientists with degrees who believe in geocentrism and creationism, a degree is a man made designation of retaining information what man has decided to be true. People with degrees make mistakes and/or disagree with each other all the time. I don't happen to have a laser to fire at the moon to hit it, and deduce that the moon is getting further away from Earth (very good shot by the way considering that the moon flys overhead as both we and the moon are claimed to fly together through space at 108,000km/hr around the sun!). What you believe is totally your choice. I am merely pointing out that there is an alternative, which despite the best efforts so far, remains valid. Not only valid, but observable by everyone.

Back to star trails though. There seems to be a real problem with many accepting the evidence. We are told, and it seems most of you believe unquestioningly, that the Earths rotation is the cause of star trails, yet the orbit, 64 times greater is somehow invisable (I know, I know, you say the massive distances are the reason!). So how do you explain star trails taken from the international space station?
I for one question all such 'evidence' but this seems to be a huge blunder on their part.
Here are some links to great photos (they might not be around for long, get em while you still can lol):
http://www.livescience.com/20584-sta...ss-swirls.html
or
http://www.space.com/15048-astronaut...e-station.html
and here is my own webpage
http://earth-central.weebly.com/space-star-trails.html

What the example linked to clearly shows is the usual star trail, but this time, from a platform which cannot possibly be rotating (If the ISS rotation is the supposed cause of the trail, then Earth should also appear to trail along with the stars. It doesn't). Again, there is no evidence of an orbit of the Sun, as with Earth based star trails. The lines on the Earth are the result of the ISS orbiting the Earth at an average speed 27,724km/hr. The photos were taken using 30 second exposures over a period of approx 15mins.

To produce the circular star trail, something MUST rotate. If it is not the ISS (which it isn't as we have Earth at the bottom of the picture, not all around), that only leaves the stars.
Your explanations please!

[frenat]

Are you physically incapable of using the quote system or are you TRYING to be as annoying as possible? I'm guessing the latter.

Originally Posted by earthcentral

frenat
"NASA has nothing to do with it. Geocentrism was known to be a crock long before NASA was even thought of."No it wasn't. Ever heard of conspiracy theories? Ever considered that the 'matrix' that you are told that you live in is not as it seems? There have always been people who reject heliocentricity, as there have people who reject evolution. These same people are the ones mocked by the establishment - or the more accurately those funded by governments. That is not to say that there are not honest genuine scientists involved, just that fundamental principles are accepted, and used as foundations for further theoretical 'science' which is built upon them. Surely questioning is at the very nature of true science?

You've never heard of Copernicus? Kepler? Galileo? Just because some few have resisted heliocentricity since their time doesn't mean geocentricity wasn't known to be a croc. Your word salad had NOTHING to do with the FACT that geocentricity was known to be wrong long before NASA ever was thought of. Try sticking to the subject.

Originally Posted by earthcentral

"Have you? Do you even know how a gyrocompass or inertial navigation system works? They do NOT work in a geocentric framework. One MAY be able to calculate orbital velocity of interplanetary probes with a geocentric focus but it is far simpler to use a heliocentric. Even heard of Occam's razor?"Gyroscope theory assume that the Earth is rotating. It is equally valid that the celestial sphere is rotating in a counter motion and could theoretically produce the exact same effect. You merely assume that Earth rotates in the first place and that this in causes the gyroscopic effect. Gyroscopic compasses do not prove Earth rotation, they imply rotation of something.

You simply prove that you don't know how a gyroscopic compass or an inertial navigation system work. Rotation of an external system would not affect it.

Originally Posted by earthcentral

Astronomical observations are calculated assuming a stationary Earth. We do not have to calculate where we are in an orbit of the sun to work out where something else might be, we assume the something else can be calculated based on 'us' not moving. Planetariums use geocentricity because it is simpler and agrees with all observations.

The underlying math in planetarium programs is not geocentric because geocentricity has never come up with the math to explain all observations. The computerized projections use a geocentric viewpoint because people are here and want to see what it looks like to them here. You are trying to create a strawman argument and failing.

Originally Posted by earthcentral

LOL occams razor! So you believe that an imperceptable rotation and orbit through space is the simpler option to that of us simply not moving? As I said planetariums are easier to produce using the geocentric framework. Own goal I think lol

It is the simpler option for the math. A projection of the stars as viewed from Earth is shown from Earth because people want to see it from Earth. That same projection system can show a heliocentric view or even an extrasolar view. The underlying math in the program is NOT geocentric.

Originally Posted by earthcentral

Re question 3 "for starters, the heliocentric model is far simpler." That has no bearing on the matter
"Yes, it does. You have to make up complicated crap to even try to begin to explain anything in a geocentric system and then it still can't get it completely right."
Ever heard of occams razor? lol. Why don't planetariums use complex heliocentric projectors? Because the geocentric model is far simpler. Why believe in evolution when creation is far simpler? Just because there is a simple explanation, that still does not equate to it automatically being correct by default.

you really don't understand this at all do you? A PROJECTION of the night sky shown FROM Earth is used because people want to see it FROM Earth. The underlying math in the program is heliocentric because that acutally works to predict ALL the movement while the geocentric ATTEMPT at math does not.

Originally Posted by earthcentral

"It actually explains why the planets sometimes appear to move backwards. It has actual math that can explain and predict all the movements." All astronomy calculations are made from a geocentric point of view. Retrograde motion of planets can and is easily explained in the geocentric model.
frenat
"Wrong. Retrograde motions required the addition of complicated epicycles and then still didn't fully explain it.
Good explanation of this here
http://www.lasalle.edu/~smithsc/Astr...retrograd.html"
I'm afraid it is you who is completely wrong. If you pick a heliocentric orrery up by Earth (effectively Earth is fixed) the orrery and all the planets and satellites would still move in exactly the same way. Retrograde motion is totally unaffected.

"Quote: In its final form, the model was extremely complicated, requiring many nested levels of epicycles, and with even the major orbits offset so that they were no longer truly centered on the Earth. Despite all of this fine tuning, there remained significant discrepancies between the actual positions of the planets and those predicted by the model"
Brain surgery is complicated, that does not mean it is impossible. The theory of evolution is mathematically impossible - does that mean that evolution is not true based on the same odd logic? You are being inconsistant using occams razor.

I have not mentioned brain surgery nor evolution but your statements on those show you don't understand them either.
The math in a heliocentric system is far simpler and predicts far more, far more accurately than any geocentric ATTEMPT at math.

Originally Posted by earthcentral

"Your religious stubborness keeps you from seeing the simplicity of a heliocentric system."
lol, the same can be said about your sun worship. At least I can use my own observations as basis for my own belief.

Sun worship? You're really reaching now. Your observations lead you to a flawed conclusion because you don't understand the math involved and you've proven that multiple times on this thread alone.

Originally Posted by earthcentral

Quote:
Originally Posted by earthcentral
Re question 4 "you really don't understand the scale involved do you? You SAY you know what parallax is yet you seem to think that small differences noticed 6 MONTHS apart would be seen in a single night? Your religion has blinded you." I do understand your point, andI repeat again it is irrelevant. Have you actually thought about it, or are you just repeating parrot fashion? My religion has no bearing on what star trails clearly show.
"Clearly it does. It is not irrelevant. I have thought about it and it is clear you DON'T understand the scale involved. Why would you think the parallax effect that is usually measured over 6 months would be visible in one night at all?"
Yet another assumption. Ever heard of the Chandler wobble? Everything you use as evidence assumes heliocentricity to start with. In 6 months parallax, the supposed parallax is still imperceptable to the public. It was for this reason that heliocentrism was rejected for so long. The answer? Throw stars so far into space to explain the lack of visable parallax. Your tower of cards rests on the theory being true to begin with. I've covered this now on the website, and you are quite correct, due to the unprovable nature of the distances involved, the visable parallax of 6 months is miniscule, even to those with the proper equipment, and can be equally explained by Earths (more correctly the celestial spheres) wobble, which is almost the same as the most demonstrable supposed 6 month parallax.

Chandler wobble is different and separate from parallax. Astronomers aren't as stupid as you'd like to think they are.

Originally Posted by earthcentral

Quote:
Originally Posted by earthcentral
What i'm getting at is that all your so called evidence, is provided by space agencies - which is ok if you happen to believe them rather than your own observations.
"Wrong. The majority of info about the solar system's makeup came long before NASA was even thought of."
The majority of the solar systems makeup was observed way before heliocentricty was accepted. Why? Because it is possible to make such observations due to it being observable. Venus and the Pleiades are both mentioned in the Bible for example. The huge ridiculous distances that are needed for heliocentricity to be true can only be provided by space agencies.

Wrong. You again prove you don't understand how those distances were derived. Not all astronomers are connected to space agencies (few in fact) and certainly not before the space agencies were even founded.

Originally Posted by earthcentral

Back to star trails though. There seems to be a real problem with many accepting the evidence. We are told, and it seems most of you believe unquestioningly, that the Earths rotation is the cause of star trails, yet the orbit, 64 times greater is somehow invisable (I know, I know, you say the massive distances are the reason!). So how do you explain star trails taken from the international space station?
I for one question all such 'evidence' but this seems to be a huge blunder on their part.
Here are some links to great photos (they might not be around for long, get em while you still can lol):
http://www.livescience.com/20584-sta...ss-swirls.html
or
http://www.space.com/15048-astronaut...e-station.html
and here is my own webpage
http://earth-central.weebly.com/space-star-trails.html

What the example linked to clearly shows is the usual star trail, but this time, from a platform which cannot possibly be rotating (If the ISS rotation is the supposed cause of the trail, then Earth should also appear to trail along with the stars. It doesn't). Again, there is no evidence of an orbit of the Sun, as with Earth based star trails. The lines on the Earth are the result of the ISS orbiting the Earth at an average speed 27,724km/hr. The photos were taken using 30 second exposures over a period of approx 15mins.

To produce the circular star trail, something MUST rotate. If it is not the ISS (which it isn't as we have Earth at the bottom of the picture, not all around), that only leaves the stars.
Your explanations please!

The ISS most certainly IS rotating relative to the stars but not relative to the Earth. It is in an orbit around the Earth. While orbiting the station is synchronized to rotate so the Earth is always in the same general direction. The station rotates 360 degrees for every orbit. So a long exposure will show the Earth stationary and the stars moving just as it should.

[earthcentral]

Frenat
"Are you physically incapable of using the quote system or are you TRYING to be as annoying as possible? I'm guessing the latter."
I'm forced to respond in this way at the moment, however you seem capable of understanding, so I hope you'll forgive me this inconvenience.

"You've never heard of Copernicus? Kepler? Galileo? Just because some few have resisted heliocentricity since their time doesn't mean geocentricity wasn't known to be a croc. Your word salad had NOTHING to do with the FACT that geocentricity was known to be wrong long before NASA ever was thought of. Try sticking to the subject."
You seem incapable of separating opinions from facts. You are inconsistant. You admit people disagreed with heliocentricity, yet press ahead as though they didn't/don't! The FACT is that some people have always disagreed with heliocentricity. Incidentally these include astronomers and those with degrees, if such stature impresses you.

"You simply prove that you don't know how a gyroscopic compass or an inertial navigation system work. Rotation of an external system would not affect it."
Hokum. A gyroscopic compass is only a part of an inertial navigation system. For the umpteenth time a gyroscopic compass indicates something rotates. It does not prove what does the rotating. As i've said previously the same effect could be produced from a rotating firmament. In fact, you might want to look at wikipedia's own page on gyrocompasses to gain some clarity (btw, I don't write for wiki, but I have highlighted several important key words)
(speaking of the gyrocompass wheel) "Once the axis points toward the celestial pole, it will appear to be stationary and won't experience any more frictional forces. This is because true north is the only direction for which the gyroscope can remain on the surface of the earth and not be required to change."And wikipedias page on true north says:
"The direction of astronomical true north is marked in the skies by the north celestial pole. This is within about 1 degree of the position of Polaris, so that the star appears to trace a tiny circle in the sky each day."
So basically, a gyrocompass ONLY works by having its wheels axis pointed at true north ie POLARIS! I will now devote a webpage on their importance. Thanks frenat lol!

"The underlying math in planetarium programs is not geocentric because geocentricity has never come up with the math to explain all observations. The computerized projections use a geocentric viewpoint because people are here and want to see what it looks like to them here. You are trying to create a strawman argument and failing."
That is just ridiculous. I think you must be joking to put up such an argument, but just incase you are for real i'll continue. Geocentricity can and does explain all observations. As you said, Earth is where people view the Heavens, how then could there be something viewed from Earth that could only be explained heliocentricly? Can you give a single example of something that you think cannot be explained geocentricly?


"It is the simpler option for the math. A projection of the stars as viewed from Earth is shown from Earth because people want to see it from Earth. That same projection system can show a heliocentric view or even an extrasolar view. The underlying math in the program is NOT geocentric."
Of course other viewpoints are possible, that is not the issue. To replicate what we see on Earth, planetariums use geocentric projections, because it explains entirely everything we see, in the simplest manner. If you have any evidence that geocentricity is not used in planetariums, please direct me to it.

"you really don't understand this at all do you? A PROJECTION of the night sky shown FROM Earth is used because people want to see it FROM Earth. The underlying math in the program is heliocentric because that acutally works to predict ALL the movement while the geocentric ATTEMPT at math does not."
Planetariums show more than the solar system, such as the entire celestial sphere, which is produced geocentrically. Again, if you have an example of something which you believe can ONLY be explained heliocentrically then please upload it and I will do my best to help you.

"I have not mentioned brain surgery nor evolution but your statements on those show you don't understand them either. The math in a heliocentric system is far simpler and predicts far more, far more accurately than any geocentric ATTEMPT at math."
You conveniently ignored many of my points. Heliocentricity is indeed a simple method of explaining the planetary motions of the solar system. I have never said otherwise. It still has its problems, but yes it is simple. However, that does not by default prohibit geocentricity, which was and is my point. Don't bother getting occams blunt razor out again.

"Sun worship? You're really reaching now. Your observations lead you to a flawed conclusion because you don't understand the math involved and you've proven that multiple times on this thread alone."
No, you make blanket statements and provide no backup. I have not provided any math at any point about anything, it has not been required, so how do you decide that I do not understand it and that I have no idea? I will ask again in case you skipped it earlier, if you can think of ANY SINGLE example which you believe can ONLY be answered heliocentrically and NOT geocentrically then please ask it, and I will do my best to answer it.

"Chandler wobble is different and separate from parallax. Astronomers aren't as stupid as you'd like to think they are."
How have you decided that the Chandler wobble is distinct from parallax? They are both virtually identical over a twelve month period. I've never said astronomers were stupid, or anything remotely similar. I do think that many astronomers take heliocentricity unquestioningly as a given, but that does not equate to them being stupid.

"Wrong. You again prove you don't understand how those distances were derived. Not all astronomers are connected to space agencies (few in fact) and certainly not before the space agencies were even founded."
OK. As I am wrong in your opinion, please tell me, as briefly as you like, how star distances were calculated before heliocentricity was assumed to be true. I take your point that 'space agencies' might not have been setup, but how do the astronomers you know of, derive stellar distances? Don't forget, parallax assumes heliocentricity be true to begin with.

"The ISS most certainly IS rotating relative to the stars but not relative to the Earth."
WOW that is very interesting physics! So in the picture, the stars rotate, but the Earth manages to stay at the bottom of the photograph?! I have absolutely no idea how you could accomplish such a scenario, so please let me in on the secret!

"It is in an orbit around the Earth. While orbiting the station is synchronized to rotate so the Earth is always in the same general direction."
Yes agreed, but the stars still manage to produce circular trails - are you beginning to see the problem?

"The station rotates 360 degrees for every orbit. So a long exposure will show the Earth stationary and the stars moving just as it should."
No, you clearly misunderstand the entire principle and time scales involved. It is impossible for the Earth to appear to be at the bottom of the photograph whilst at the same time producing independant circular star trails, unless it is the stars themselves doing the rotating independantly. I will produce an animation for the website to prove this incredibly very simple principle.

I really would like to stick to star trails. History, planetariums, difficulty of mathematics and such although fascinating cannot and do not prove anything in themselves.

Thanks for your input.

[frenat]

Originally Posted by earthcentral

Frenat
"Are you physically incapable of using the quote system or are you TRYING to be as annoying as possible? I'm guessing the latter."
I'm forced to respond in this way at the moment, however you seem capable of understanding, so I hope you'll forgive me this inconvenience.

Forced? Somebody's holding a gun to your head and making you be annoying?

Originally Posted by earthcentral

"You've never heard of Copernicus? Kepler? Galileo? Just because some few have resisted heliocentricity since their time doesn't mean geocentricity wasn't known to be a croc. Your word salad had NOTHING to do with the FACT that geocentricity was known to be wrong long before NASA ever was thought of. Try sticking to the subject."
You seem incapable of separating opinions from facts. You are inconsistant. You admit people disagreed with heliocentricity, yet press ahead as though they didn't/don't! The FACT is that some people have always disagreed with heliocentricity. Incidentally these include astronomers and those with degrees, if such stature impresses you.

And of course you include none of the names of these supposed people nor any of their work.

Originally Posted by earthcentral

"You simply prove that you don't know how a gyroscopic compass or an inertial navigation system work. Rotation of an external system would not affect it."
Hokum. A gyroscopic compass is only a part of an inertial navigation system. For the umpteenth time a gyroscopic compass indicates something rotates. It does not prove what does the rotating. As i've said previously the same effect could be produced from a rotating firmament. In fact, you might want to look at wikipedia's own page on gyrocompasses to gain some clarity (btw, I don't write for wiki, but I have highlighted several important key words)
(speaking of the gyrocompass wheel) "Once the axis points toward the celestial pole, it will appear to be stationary and won't experience any more frictional forces. This is because true north is the only direction for which the gyroscope can remain on the surface of the earth and not be required to change."And wikipedias page on true north says:
"The direction of astronomical true north is marked in the skies by the north celestial pole. This is within about 1 degree of the position of Polaris, so that the star appears to trace a tiny circle in the sky each day."
So basically, a gyrocompass ONLY works by having its wheels axis pointed at true north ie POLARIS! I will now devote a webpage on their importance. Thanks frenat lol!

Still waiting for any explanation how the supposed rotation of the stars (physically disconnected) would affect it. You've basically proved again you don't understand how they work. They show North because and only because they are on a rotating surface. A gyroscopic compass HAS TO be moving on a rotating surface to work.

Originally Posted by earthcentral

"The underlying math in planetarium programs is not geocentric because geocentricity has never come up with the math to explain all observations. The computerized projections use a geocentric viewpoint because people are here and want to see what it looks like to them here. You are trying to create a strawman argument and failing."
That is just ridiculous. I think you must be joking to put up such an argument, but just incase you are for real i'll continue. Geocentricity can and does explain all observations. As you said, Earth is where people view the Heavens, how then could there be something viewed from Earth that could only be explained heliocentricly? Can you give a single example of something that you think cannot be explained geocentricly?


"It is the simpler option for the math. A projection of the stars as viewed from Earth is shown from Earth because people want to see it from Earth. That same projection system can show a heliocentric view or even an extrasolar view. The underlying math in the program is NOT geocentric."
Of course other viewpoints are possible, that is not the issue. To replicate what we see on Earth, planetariums use geocentric projections, because it explains entirely everything we see, in the simplest manner. If you have any evidence that geocentricity is not used in planetariums, please direct me to it.

"you really don't understand this at all do you? A PROJECTION of the night sky shown FROM Earth is used because people want to see it FROM Earth. The underlying math in the program is heliocentric because that acutally works to predict ALL the movement while the geocentric ATTEMPT at math does not."
Planetariums show more than the solar system, such as the entire celestial sphere, which is produced geocentrically. Again, if you have an example of something which you believe can ONLY be explained heliocentrically then please upload it and I will do my best to help you.

"I have not mentioned brain surgery nor evolution but your statements on those show you don't understand them either. The math in a heliocentric system is far simpler and predicts far more, far more accurately than any geocentric ATTEMPT at math."
You conveniently ignored many of my points. Heliocentricity is indeed a simple method of explaining the planetary motions of the solar system. I have never said otherwise. It still has its problems, but yes it is simple. However, that does not by default prohibit geocentricity, which was and is my point. Don't bother getting occams blunt razor out again.

"Sun worship? You're really reaching now. Your observations lead you to a flawed conclusion because you don't understand the math involved and you've proven that multiple times on this thread alone."
No, you make blanket statements and provide no backup. I have not provided any math at any point about anything, it has not been required, so how do you decide that I do not understand it and that I have no idea? I will ask again in case you skipped it earlier, if you can think of ANY SINGLE example which you believe can ONLY be answered heliocentrically and NOT geocentrically then please ask it, and I will do my best to answer it.

Show the math. ANY math. You haven't show a bit yet and I doubt you would understand it if you did.

Originally Posted by earthcentral

"Chandler wobble is different and separate from parallax. Astronomers aren't as stupid as you'd like to think they are."
How have you decided that the Chandler wobble is distinct from parallax? They are both virtually identical over a twelve month period. I've never said astronomers were stupid, or anything remotely similar. I do think that many astronomers take heliocentricity unquestioningly as a given, but that does not equate to them being stupid.

You are implying they are the same thing and that astronomers can't tell them apart but somehow you're not saying they're stupid? You need to actually learn what Chandler wobble and parallax ARE because you obviously don't know.

Originally Posted by earthcentral

"Wrong. You again prove you don't understand how those distances were derived. Not all astronomers are connected to space agencies (few in fact) and certainly not before the space agencies were even founded."
OK. As I am wrong in your opinion, please tell me, as briefly as you like, how star distances were calculated before heliocentricity was assumed to be true. I take your point that 'space agencies' might not have been setup, but how do the astronomers you know of, derive stellar distances? Don't forget, parallax assumes heliocentricity be true to begin with.

Look again at the quote I was responding to. I wasn't talking about distances to stars for this quote. It was about distances in the solar system.

Originally Posted by earthcentral

"The ISS most certainly IS rotating relative to the stars but not relative to the Earth."
WOW that is very interesting physics! So in the picture, the stars rotate, but the Earth manages to stay at the bottom of the photograph?! I have absolutely no idea how you could accomplish such a scenario, so please let me in on the secret!

Then continue reading, but I doubt you'll understand because you obviously don't want to.

Originally Posted by earthcentral

"It is in an orbit around the Earth. While orbiting the station is synchronized to rotate so the Earth is always in the same general direction."
Yes agreed, but the stars still manage to produce circular trails - are you beginning to see the problem?

Yes, you have very little ability to see things three dimensionally. You just agreed the station is rotating but can't figure out why the stars are producing trails? Really?

Originally Posted by earthcentral

"The station rotates 360 degrees for every orbit. So a long exposure will show the Earth stationary and the stars moving just as it should."
No, you clearly misunderstand the entire principle and time scales involved. It is impossible for the Earth to appear to be at the bottom of the photograph whilst at the same time producing independant circular star trails, unless it is the stars themselves doing the rotating independantly. I will produce an animation for the website to prove this incredibly very simple principle.

No you clearly don't understand. The station is rotating 360 degrees relative to the stars for each orbit around the Earth about every 90 minutes. The Earth is always in the same relative position to the station by design. That is why they have the rotation of the station; to keep the Earth in the same relative position. The ISS is rotating just as the Earth does to show these trails just faster.

Originally Posted by earthcentral

I really would like to stick to star trails. History, planetariums, difficulty of mathematics and such although fascinating cannot and do not prove anything in themselves.

Thanks for your input.

translation: I can't BS my way through it as easily and I definitely don't understand the math nor the burden of proof.

[earthcentral]

frenat
thanks for your responses, vague though they are.
I won't bother with the cut and paste, as you ignore the 4 or 5 paragraphs of my writing, and respond with a simple one line hilarious quip/response and completely ignore everything i've previously written, claiming my misunderstanding.

You have proved beyond any reasonable doubt that you have no clue as to how gyroscopic compasses work, claiming that they ONLY work on a rotating surface. How do they work in planes or at sea? A gyrocompass can be calibrated to point at any fixed point. Just look it up.

What math have you asked for that I have not provided? I asked three times in my last post for a single example of something YOU believe can only be answered heliocentrically. You didn't answer, then claim I didn't provide the math!!

As regards your ISS claims, we will have to simply disagree. I cannot imagine your system, or any system for that matter which allows for a 360 degree rotation of the ISS in relation to the stars, yet can maintain an apparent stationary Earth at the same time. I could construct a 3d model and reproduce similar star trails and over Earth flights that are produced by the ISS astronaughts using the simplest, occams razor (your favourite) explanation. I cannot visualise your explanation which defies basic physics.
I appreciate that you will ignore this point, but your last response states that the ISS rotates to keep Earth in the same relative position (which I have no problem with and totally understand), but you also claim that a full 360 degree apparrent ISS rotation is taking place in relation to the stars at the same time. You ascert this to be the case without providing any proof. I believe that you are simply wrong on this point, and that what you describe is impossible and still produce the circular startrail photographs we are presented with. Aswell as having the Earth constantly at the bottom of the photograph, we have an actual arm of the ISS also in view at the top of the photo, indicating, as you say, that the ISS rotates to keep earth relatively at the bottom of the shot. This flyover motion produces the streaks which we see as the station flys over earth. The startrail though shows a completely different apparent rotational point, which is not explainable by the ISS movement as just described (effectively continuously 'upright' in relation to Earth). Yes a startrail of sorts should be produced, but nothing like the ones photographed (having established that the ISS must remain upright to maintain Earth constantly at the bottom of the photograph) the stars would effectively streak across the photo in a similar fashion to the Earth light streaks, not indicate a rotational pivot in space and independant star trail circles.

As for burden of proof, the whole point was/is my website, the topic under discussion. You simply saying that I (being earthcentral) do not understand the distances, or 3d thinking or whatever is not proof on your part. The only examples you have provided are gyrocompasses, and you have shown that you totally misunderstand how they work. If you wanted to email me a 3d model of how the ISS can somehow produce the photos using your method I would be very greatful. I suspect i'll receive nothing though.

There is no point in my returning, as the debate is over from what I can see. I provide examples and proofs either directly on this forum, or on my website. You claim you don't see said proofs and that I don't provide the math for questions that are not asked in the first place. I will move on to fresh pastures where an actual discussion takes place.

Thanks everyone of you for your input, I have gleaned a lot of feedback, from which I hope to improve the website with

[frenat]

Originally Posted by earthcentral

frenat
thanks for your responses, vague though they are.
I won't bother with the cut and paste, as you ignore the 4 or 5 paragraphs of my writing, and respond with a simple one line hilarious quip/response and completely ignore everything i've previously written, claiming my misunderstanding.

since you have shown you misunderstand and apparently have no ability to try to understand why do you deserve more?

Originally Posted by earthcentral

You have proved beyond any reasonable doubt that you have no clue as to how gyroscopic compasses work, claiming that they ONLY work on a rotating surface. How do they work in planes or at sea? A gyrocompass can be calibrated to point at any fixed point. Just look it up.

Planes or at sea are still on Earth a ROTATING object. Look it up. While you CAN point it to any point, it only WORKS when pointed North or South due to the rotating Earth that you ignorantly dismiss.

Originally Posted by earthcentral

What math have you asked for that I have not provided? I asked three times in my last post for a single example of something YOU believe can only be answered heliocentrically. You didn't answer, then claim I didn't provide the math!!

You haven't provided ANY math. Show the math that predicts a Venus transit, that predicts the motion of the planets, orbital mechanics, anything. It is YOUR theory, YOU try to back it up.

Originally Posted by earthcentral

As regards your ISS claims, we will have to simply disagree. I cannot imagine your system, that is where you fail, you have no ability to visualize in 3d or any system for that matter which allows for a 360 degree rotation of the ISS in relation to the stars, yet can maintain an apparent stationary Earth at the same time. Same system as the Moon which rotates once for each orbit around Earth. The Earth is stationary in its sky and the stars rotate once each month. I could construct a 3d model and reproduce similar star trails and over Earth flights that are produced by the ISS astronaughts using the simplest, occams razor (your favourite) explanation. I cannot visualise your explanation which defies basic physics. If you think it defies physics then you don't understand physics
I appreciate that you will ignore this point, but your last response states that the ISS rotates to keep Earth in the same relative position (which I have no problem with and totally understand), but you also claim that a full 360 degree apparrent ISS rotation is taking place in relation to the stars at the same time. You ascert this to be the case without providing any proof. You understand that it ROTATES to keep Earth below it but can't understand how that rotation shows the stars moving? Really? I believe that you are simply wrong on this point, and that what you describe is impossible and still produce the circular startrail photographs we are presented with. Aswell as having the Earth constantly at the bottom of the photograph, we have an actual arm of the ISS also in view at the top of the photo, indicating, as you say, that the ISS rotates to keep earth relatively at the bottom of the shot. This flyover motion produces the streaks which we see as the station flys over earth. The startrail though shows a completely different apparent rotational point, which is not explainable by the ISS movement as just described (effectively continuously 'upright' in relation to Earth). Yes a startrail of sorts should be produced, but nothing like the ones photographed (having established that the ISS must remain upright to maintain Earth constantly at the bottom of the photograph) the stars would effectively streak across the photo in a similar fashion to the Earth light streaks, not indicate a rotational pivot in space and independant star trail circles. Word salad showing you have no ability to visualize 3d.

As for burden of proof, the whole point was/is my website, the topic under discussion. You simply saying that I (being earthcentral) do not understand the distances, or 3d thinking or whatever is not proof on your part. The only examples you have provided are gyrocompasses, and you have shown that you totally misunderstand how they work. Or you do If you wanted to email me a 3d model of how the ISS can somehow produce the photos using your method I would be very greatful. email you a 3d model? When it is so simple a child could understand it? Why should I go to the effort getting a program to create a model, learning how to use it and create this model when I suspect you wouldn't understand it anyway and you'd handwave it away like you do everything else? I suspect i'll receive nothing though.

Again it is the same as the way the Moon orbits the Earth, just faster. There are numerous videos explaining that. Here's three

Synchronous Rotation of the Moon - YouTube

Synchronous Rotation of the Moon - YouTube

moon rotation - YouTube

moon rotation - YouTube

A simple gif showing a stellar inertial orbit - YouTube

A simple gif showing a stellar inertial orbit - YouTube

If you can't see why the Earth would be stationary compared to the ISS while the stars appear to move then nobody can help you.

Originally Posted by earthcentral

There is no point in my returning, as the debate is over from what I can see. I provide examples and proofs either directly on this forum, or on my website. You claim you don't see said proofs and that I don't provide the math for questions that are not asked in the first place. I will move on to fresh pastures where an actual discussion takes place. Happy trails. you're doing the equivalent of taking your toys and going home.

Thanks everyone of you for your input, I have gleaned a lot of feedback, from which I hope to improve the website with

[night_gaunt]

Originally Posted by frenat

If you can't see why the Earth would be stationary compared to the ISS while the stars appear to move then nobody can help you.

Don't sweat it, frenat
Let him figure things out on his own.

[frenat]

Originally Posted by night_gaunt

Don't sweat it, frenat
Let him figure things out on his own.

Sweating nothing. This thread has been a source of humor. The most effort I've put into it is trying to decide which of his posts is best to submit for a stundie.

[mybrotherskeeper]

Everything scientific is a theory, opinion, or subjective observation.

Everything based on religion is a leap of faith or a subjective belief.

There are NO FACTS here in this thread as all facts are relative, but personally I also reside with those who say I have not see enough 'proof' that the earth moves around the sun. Since I've personally never been in space and I don't trust NASA to tell me the temperature let alone about space, I personally have a right to my beliefs or observations until I decide to change them for my own reasons.

Also if scientists know their stuff so well is Pluto a planet or isn't it? And what about all these other 'planets' they keep discovering and giving them horrible and unmemorable names like xb-35 I know I just made that up, but names like that are awful at least the Chaldeans, Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians named what they called the planets after their gods.

[swoopdawg]

How about the vortex theory?: That the Earth and the Sun are rotating around each other in a sort of dance, while the Sun is rotating around another star and our galaxy another galaxy and so on and so forth.