"Relative motion" falls apart when applied to plan

[A Thousand Pardons]

As soon as other elements are introduced as described above, it becomes solely a frame of perception within its limits.

No, it is not solely a frame of perception. It's possible that it is a frame consistent with physics.

Is too! :wink: It is a frame of perception consistent with physics within its limits.

I don't know of any limits. :wink: Back atcha

Our audience here is a person who is trying to understand, among other things, how satellites achieve orbit. Let's keep it simple and understandable for the layman.

Your audience is a person who believes in geocentricity apparently. So, why use discredited physics from over a hundred years ago to argue your side?

[Maksutov]

[edit]

Our audience here is a person who is trying to understand, among other things, how satellites achieve orbit. Let's keep it simple and understandable for the layman.

Your audience is a person who believes in geocentricity apparently. So, why use discredited physics from over a hundred years ago to argue your side?

Discredited? Don't think so. Instead concepts that have been refined by further development.

Here's an applicable quote from a paper by Dr. James B. Calvert of the University of Denver:

Newton's theory of motion, in its original form, is still the basis of engineering mechanics, and a fundamental part of engineering training. Indeed, it is still used in celestial mechanics. The only aspect needing relativistic corrections so far has been the time effects in the Global Positioning System. In the solar system, velocities are very comfortably less than the speed of light, 3 x 10E8 m/s, although distances are great.

[A Thousand Pardons]

Instead concepts that have been refined by further development.

That's the nice way of putting it. I happen to agree with that too.

Still, you can't ignore it.

[worzel]

Instead concepts that have been refined by further development.

That's the nice way of putting it. I happen to agree with that too.

Still, you can't ignore it.

But most geocentrists refute relativity in favour of Newtonian absolute space and time. Is it not better to refute their arguments using physics they do accept?

[A Thousand Pardons]

Is it not better to refute their arguments using physics they do accept?

You're going to use geocentric physics to refute geocentric physics? Good luck!

[worzel]

Is it not better to refute their arguments using physics they do accept?

You're going to use geocentric physics to refute geocentric physics? Good luck!

If claims about how the atmosphere should behave on a rotating earth don't require relativisitc adjustments to Newtonian mechanics to be refuted then why not just stick to the Newtonian mechanics? Escpecially if those claims come from someone* who doesn't accept relativity.

* Not saying Gary doesn't accept relativity, just pointing out that most geocentrics don't.

[A Thousand Pardons]

If claims about how the atmosphere should behave on a rotating earth don't require relativisitc adjustments to Newtonian mechanics to be refuted then why not just stick to the Newtonian mechanics?

I don't know. Where do you think the argument was headed in this post? That's the one I responded to--it doesn't have anything to do with the atmosphere.

[Chip]

Well, I tried to make a few valid points in (my admitedly rambling) post:

1. "We should also consider frames of perception." (When discussing the geocentric viewpoint.)

2. "Equation of Time" - If you observe 12 noon on a sundial and synchronize your watch exactly with it, you will find that upon returning at noon the following day, the Sun's shadow on the sundial will be early (by a number of seconds depending on where you are located on the planet.)

3. One explanation for No. 2 is: Two simultaneous frames of reference: The combination of the Earth's rotation on its axis at a precise rate with the Earth's elliptical orbital motion around the Sun causes the solar day to vary.
i.e. (How could this be explained from the geocentric viewpoint?)

4. Since all frames of reference are equally valid, this does not mean that the geocentric frame is more valid than other frames.

5. The geocentric frame is a frame of perception, not an absolute frame -

so, (I should have elaborated) - As soon as other elements are introduced to any frame , it (the previous frame,) becomes solely a frame of perception within its limits - because we are then forced to explain it within the parameters of the new frame. i.e. If the geocentric view is the true view, how does one explain it from the surface of Mars? Or from Alpha Centauri? Or from the Andromeda galaxy?

(and...I think multiple frames are allowed.) :wink:

[PhantomWolf]

As concerns my views, I wish to confess one thing. Yes, I have come here believing that the earth is immobile in the heavens. In that vein, and not wanting to invoke any off the subject torrent about religion, I do want to state that it does seem to me safe to say the following: under my view God is absolutely necessary, under yours, well, he's reduced a notch or two. If not made unnecessary, I'm sure some of you might say he's made irrelevant.

Because I respect BA's wish to keep religion out of things I haven't said anything, but you keep refering to it so I'm going too, just once. You seem to think that because this board is populated with scientists that everyone is an atheist, this isn't true. I know of a good number of Christians on this board including myself. None, not one of us, believe that the Bible teaches Geocentricity. At the most it uses a Relative Stationary Earth Frame, but that's fine, because so does the local newspaper. When talking everyday things it's easier to talk about things from your own referance frame rather than a literal one, hence we use the idea of sunsets and sunrises. The Bible was never written to be a science manual, and it shouldn't be used as one, to do so is to make a very serious mistake. It was written as a guide to living and a message to get to understand the mind of God, that is what it should be used for.

Now that's all I want to say on that. I have come here not to do anything but approach this from a scientific argument point of view. That, as some of you have hinted, is what the board adminstrators here demand, which is perfectly fine by me.

That's all I have to say on it too, so let's get back to the Science.

We have two possible situations:

1) The Earth doesn't Rotate
2) The Earth Does Rotate.

When we look at the rest of the things that then crop up and compare them to what we know, number 1 just doesn't work. A number of things have been brought up in this thread, things you haven't been able to refute.

- All items increase in mass as they increase in speed reching an infinte mass at c. This means nothing can travel faster then c
- For a non-rotating Earth the entire universe would have to be inside a sphere of 4.1 Billion km.
- This would mean all optical laws would be wrong
- All objects set into motion continue with that velocity unless another force is applied to it: Newton's 1st Law.
- Air resistance only applies to objects travelling at dirfferent velocity as the air.
- Air particles are given additional accelertion due to differening pressure gradiants caused by heating, cooling, or local terrain.
- Space is a vacuum and has no friction with the upper atmosphere to slow it.
- Other planets have rotating atmospheres. You don't like Jupiter being an example claiming its violent storms prove that a rotating atmosphere is unstable and voilent. You don't seem to consider however that unlike Earth, Jupiter is rotating in just 10 hours and that this means that the winds at the Equator are travelling at over 45,000 km/h. These speeds create very powerful Corialis effects which make the swirls and eddies that become storms. You also ignore the fact that Jupiter's output of heat is nearly twice what it recieves from sun and that this heat is what creates the massive low pressure zones that are then spun and turned into storms by the Corialis effect. By ignoring these other effects you totally nullify your own arguments. Also consider Mars and Venus. Both have rotating atmospheres and DON'T have massive storms.
- Planet movements. All of the planets pass behind the Sun each year. If they orbit the Earth daily, explain how they also orbit the Sun yearly. Explain why they appear to back track across the sky at certain points.

I could go on and on and on, however for length and sore fingers I'm not going to. What I will suggest is this:

Set aside your current mindset. Your sticking to your belief is admiralible, but also detimental in investigation. Learn about Physics and orbits and why it is claimed that the Earth Rotates. Compare that to what is seen. People have already shown you a heap of things that are extremely difficult to explain with a stationary Earth, but easy with a rotating one. Do the research with an open mind and no set conculsion. If the Earth is stationary, then the end result will show that, if it isn't then the result will show it too.

Back in the 1600's the leaders of the church made the same mistake you are, they listened to what others told them without doing their own research into the truth. They accepted that the interpetations of the Bible were Geocentric without proof other than what they were told, and because of it they condemned Galileo. In the end however, they were forced to do their own research and compare what Galileo told them and what the others told them. They discovered that he was right, that his version stacked up better. You need to do the same investigation and do it without an expectation of what the conclusion will be. Only in doing that can you find real truth. God gave you the ability to do it, so do it.

[worzel]

If claims about how the atmosphere should behave on a rotating earth don't require relativisitc adjustments to Newtonian mechanics to be refuted then why not just stick to the Newtonian mechanics?

I don't know. Where do you think the argument was headed in this post? That's the one I responded to--it doesn't have anything to do with the atmosphere.

Fair enough, wasn't having a go at you.

Instead concepts that have been refined by further development.

That's the nice way of putting it. I happen to agree with that too.

Still, you can't ignore it.

Was just pointing out that you can ignore it for the sake of this thread

[A Thousand Pardons]

5. The geocentric frame is a frame of perception, not an absolute frame -

so, (I should have elaborated) - As soon as other elements are introduced to any frame , it (the previous frame,) becomes solely a frame of perception within its limits - because we are then forced to explain it within the parameters of the new frame. i.e. If the geocentric view is the true view, how does one explain it from the surface of Mars? Or from Alpha Centauri? Or from the Andromeda galaxy?

There was probably no need to elaborate--especially since I'm not sure I understand the elaboration. But I get the same impression that I had before, and I still disagree.

- All items increase in mass as they increase in speed reching an infinte mass at c. This means nothing can travel faster then c
- For a non-rotating Earth the entire universe would have to be inside a sphere of 4.1 Billion km.

The second doesn't follow from the first, obviously, since rotating reference frames are allowed.

That is not to say that they are proven correct. They just haven't been proven incorrect yet.

Set aside your current mindset. Your sticking to your belief is admiralible, but also detimental in investigation.

Or arguments.

[mid]

I get the feeling that by "absolute frame" we're actually meaning "inertial frame". Possibly.

[Yorkshireman]

I'm just wondering what this has got to do with rotating atmospheres and aircraft.

[A Thousand Pardons]

I'm just wondering what this has got to do with rotating atmospheres and aircraft.

I'd asked the same thing, sorta. It's tempting to dismiss the arguments with just "well, the earth rotates, so obviously aerodynamics works that way," but I don't find that as satisfying somehow.

[Chip]

I'm just wondering what this has got to do with rotating atmospheres and aircraft.

I'd asked the same thing, sorta. It's tempting to dismiss the arguments with just "well, the earth rotates, so obviously aerodynamics works that way," but I don't find that as satisfying somehow.

Since you keep pointing at my post: I originally made just one post because one cannot talk about rotating atmospheres while bringing in a geocentric stance without exploring the nature of the rotation itself. Also, I never dismissed the arguments nor mentioned "aerodynamics."

If the earth is not rotating, nor moving in orbit with the sun, how does the geocentric stance explain the sun being early at noon the next day? (I don't doubt that there is an explanation, though it is likely very elaborate.)

[Gary Shelton]

Loose ends, concessions, etc. I want to thank the board of BA for any leeway if I have been skirting their edges of acceptibility. I've learned from the posts made and will continue. Can anyone tell me how long I will be able to access these posts and delve into the arguments given? I still have some reading and studying of posts and it will all take awhile. This has been a good experience for me, if frustrating because I cannot devote more time to it now that I've begun.

Re: PhantonWolf's claim on what the Bible teaches. "Geocentricity" and "Relative Stationary Earth Frame" don't sound too far apart. Would like to know what you think the difference is. Also, would love to point out numerous Biblical verses to you that show you that the Bible does not move and the sun does, and to comment on "phenomenological language" you refer to, but this is not the forum. We'll have to have a private talk on that.

Re: Van Rijn:

Do you accept that we have sent probes to other planets and landed people on the moon?

Do you accept that there are satellites in MANY different orbits about the earth (low, high, geostationary, polar, highly elliptical, etcetera, etcetera)?

I'm open to astronomical items. I prefer to focus on whether the earth rotates or not. All else takes care of itself. Have we gone to the moon? I believe, no, we never left LEO with Apollo, but that doesn't mean diddly, and it's off topic.

I have no reason not to accept these satellites around the earth. But I don't claim to know much about them at this time. I would like to know how we launch all these satellites, what powers them, and what causes the geosynchronous ones to orbit with the direction of the earth's rotation if they are not held by any field or band of something out there, what causes Chandler to move way out and then come back to that band if there is no connection? Perhaps Maksutov can answer this?

To Rob, you have me on the airspeed thing. I misunderstood my source. Wannanother tooth?

To Robert/Rob: It will be a long time before you get a major concession out of me. Is it possible? Sure. But as I've said elsewhere, my opinions, like an onion, need to be peeled away one layer at a time first. What you need to know is how big I think the onion is. For the story I have to go a bit roundabout.... My logical conclusion for YEC folks is that they are in a most untenable position. If they believe in a young earth, then what is the ONLY explanation for a "young earth"? Is it the Big Bang? Is it Steady State? Or, is it Geocentrism? Which of the three offers the only story of a young earth? Now, let's don't argue what you think the Bible says, YEC people believe it means a literal 7 days. Therefore, I just think they are very weak to claim a young earth and simultaneously hold to the Big Bang, which of course requires eons of time.

Why did I go into that? Because I personally do believe in all the evidence Creationism has to offer. And I think it is substantial. Moreover, because of the paragraph above, I think that every single piece of evidence for YEC'ers is logically and simultaneously a proof for Geocentrism also.

I hope you can see the reasoning in that. Your challenge then is to disprove all of my ideas, then all of Creationism's ideas, and then you will be adored by me. So, no, Rob, it is not a categorical no.

Rob wrote:

Be fairly warned, I will be sharp to spot any bait-and-switch tactics from you now. If you wish us to now debate (1) and (2) from an equal standpoint, well and good. But your original opening argument, I need hardly remind you, is that (2) should be an impossible situation because an atmosphere can't behave like that.

I have not yielded on 2 being false, Rob. And while we're at it, you said elsewhere,

Hardly a concession! "Either the Earth is turning, or is isn't" - that's a truism. Where does that concede one of your points, which are about the behaviour of the atmosphere?

Well, Rob, in case you need me to remind you, you plainly said that the Geocentric viewpoint would explain the current topic of the air and airplane as well as the view you hold. If that's not at least a small concession on this board, I don't know what is.

I am unable to figure how to view a different page to quote from or I'd give you the quote.

As for the baiting tiff, yes, anyone from BA can view posts to Dr. Jone's site at any time. But have they and would they, Rob? I think a poll of BA-er's would safely show that the vast majority have never heard of his site, maybe even him, and the rest feel it would poison their computer chips too badly to visit there. You did the baiting and incorrect portrayal, Rob.

To anybody out there: What is your explanation of the Coriolis effect? The typical metaphor given is that we are shooting pool on a rotating round table and as we shoot the cue ball it veers off against the spin. My confusion with that is it's only one direction. If it is attributed to the earth's rotation, then why does it perform in different directions in the different hemispheres? Isn't the earth rotating the same direction in the southern hemisphere as the north?

I will go to another separate reply now so I can access a previous page for quotes.

Sincerely,

Gary Shelton

[Musashi]

Loose ends, concessions, etc. I want to thank the board of BA for any leeway if I have been skirting their edges of acceptibility. I've learned from the posts made and will continue. Can anyone tell me how long I will be able to access these posts and delve into the arguments given? I still have some reading and studying of posts and it will all take awhile. This has been a good experience for me, if frustrating because I cannot devote more time to it now that I've begun.

Forever we hope. These posts should be here for a long time as long as nothing happens to the server. I am not sure how old the oldest posts on this board are, but I would venture to say at least 3 years.

[Musashi]

To anybody out there: What is your explanation of the Coriolis effect? The typical metaphor given is that we are shooting pool on a rotating round table and as we shoot the cue ball it veers off against the spin. My confusion with that is it's only one direction. If it is attributed to the earth's rotation, then why does it perform in different directions in the different hemispheres? Isn't the earth rotating the same direction in the southern hemisphere as the north?

I will go to another separate reply now so I can access a previous page for quotes.

Sincerely,

Gary Shelton

My guess for coriolis and its two directions of spin is that the earth is spinning fastest at the equator.

[Gary Shelton]

Until I can find out how to visit and quote from a previous page while on this screen, I'm a bit handicapped as I write this.

My understanding of the atmosphere situation to this point is this:

Fluid dynamics describes the phenomenon well.
We disagree on how the fluid dynamics would work.

Let me ask while I'm here, is there anything you (anyone) would say about a gas such as the air that fluid dynamics does not accurately describe, in your opinion?

Rob, let's argue #2 some more. I was wondering when you would take the next step in your argument and come up with the paper ball thing. The difference between the notion of conservation of "original motion" for the rocket ship versus an airplane is this: The rocket ship experiences no drag so the original motion, being powered already, is not slowed down. For the airplane, however, the "original motion" must be sustained. It is a story of needed propulsion. The plane must have something to "push" or "carry" it at the rotational speed in order for your relative motion argument to hold for the atmosphere. If no force does this, then clearly the friction of the air will act to slow the plane down to zero mph relative to the stars (RTTS).

You insist that the plane will continue on with its original motion through the air and give me an example of a paper ball to compare it to. Now this might come as a shock to you, and it's not a tooth event, but I agree with your paper ball metaphor. The trouble with that image, though, is that a paper ball is light. The wind would really have crushed it so yes, once the ball slowed down relative to the earth (RTTE), the atmosphere was perfectly capable of propelling the paper ball at rotation speed. It might even defeat gravity for a long spell it is so light.

But what about a plane? A plane is heavy, Rob. If it were flying west to east, and then somehow ran out of fuel, what would happen up there? In order for it to be maintaining original motion, the supposedly turning earth atmosphere would have to be "pushing" the airplane from behind to help it maintain velocity, right? Otherwise, how would it be maintained? Would the plane then become a glider with no thrust of its own and an atmosphere trying to push it strongly from behind? Or would the plane simply flip flop and crash?

It would be interesting to know just what would happen to the plane. Perhaps Waarthog can tell us. (Also, while he responds, is it possible the tracking device you referred to to used to track magnetic vs. geographical magnetic differences?)

Now, if the plane were flying east to west, we have a different scenario. Again take a hypothetical jet going empty on fuel (boy is somebody gonna get fired!). Now the plane is facing the rotating earth atmosphere coming at it. The plane is streamlined. The air rushes over and around the plane. Does this give a sufficient enough backward impulse to cause the airplane to travel on the wind current backward in the sky (RTTS) but stay the same RTTE? Would this specific situation cause the plane to be able to theoretically remain aloft as a glider forever? The wind coming at the jet would be like what hits it under its own thrust.

Here's the way I understand your view, Rob. You say the atmosphere rotates with the turning earth "en mass", but then due to convection has "localized" wind currents arise that, in time, are "grabbed" by the friction with the winds at the correct rotation speed of the earth so as to "speed them up" back to the correct speed.

Have I spelled that out correctly? If so, I have questions. If the above process is the way it happens, and I see a great deal of what must be errant air blowing down on the surface, there must be a great deal of "speeding up" of slower airs all the time, by quicker air somewhere. Is that agreed? Well, what if, in some slower air you had some bright puffy clouds. Just what would we see from the ground as these bright clouds got "grabbed" by some quicker air (due to friction) and quickly sped up. Wouldn't we see this great drama in the sky all the time where the clouds were getting whipsawed and around like crummy rags? Wait...there's a slow cloud...BAM!, boy that earthspeed rotating air sure gets 'em every time!

Now, here's the thing. I think you're going to fall back on your idea that the air can be both locally blowing and yet still rotating with the earth at the same time. If so, this is the part I cannot concur with. For one, Rob, how does the air convect up past all the friction that would tend to keep it turning at rotation speed? Wouldn't this be a crashing of the air masses? Further, when the atmosphere decided to be sped up this slower air (wheneve that was) wouldn't you see, as I've already stated, the whipsawing of the clouds in the slower air? On top of that, would you not see the airplanes get whipsawed in the sky as well? They could be whipsawed just like a cloud if caught by the faster air, don't you think?

Here may be the kicker, Rob. If the atmosphere moves "en mass" and also has "localized" air currents like you and others here indicate, what would happen to my airplane if it ran out of fuel and did not get caught by air rotating at the speed of the earth, but a slower air mass? Now we would either have this slower air mass from behind or head on to the plane. Assuming the former plane wouldn't get flip flopped out of the sky, both planes would be losing original motion to the earth below. Why? Because they are not now being "pushed" or "carried" by the super fast air mass.

What does that get us? It gets this: Relative to the earth, the thrustless plane has ceased to move geosynchronously, and said event would be visible to the ground. Clear proof that your relative motion argument is not perfect in an atmosphere.

It's awfully late again. All for now.

Sincerely,


Gary Shelton

[Musashi]

At the bottom and top of each page is a line that says "Goto page: previous 1,2,3...7,8,9 next" or some such. That is the best way to navigate once you are in the thread. In the forum, when looking at the thread title, underneath are numbers, they also correspond to the pages. There is at least one other way, but it is inconvenient at best.

[Van Rijn]

Gary, thanks for answering the questions. Some points:

I'm open to astronomical items. I prefer to focus on whether the earth rotates or not. All else takes care of itself. Have we gone to the moon? I believe, no, we never left LEO with Apollo, but that doesn't mean diddly, and it's off topic.

No, this is exactly on topic, and all else doesn't "just take care of itself", which is why I asked the questions. Copernicus (who died in 1543) showed that a heliocentric (sun centered) view of the solar system worked well, unlike the earth centered Ptolemaic model. Obviously, given this, the earth must rotate. For the earth to not rotate, the sun, moon, and planets must be something quite odd, distinctly different from what is described in any astronomy text, and operate by bizarre rules of motion. Further, if the earth did not rotate, it would have many extremely obvious implications for satellite motion. It would be obvious to anyone in orbit or on the moon, it would be obvious to people on the ground observing satellites, and if the planets did not orbit the sun, they couldn't be reached by space probes using the application of conventional orbital mechanics.

So for your contention that the earth doesn't rotate to be true the universe must be radically different from what is taught in every textbook, there must be alternate explanations for all the many tests each of us can do to validate the earth's rotation, and there must be a vast conspiracy to hide the truth between all governments, major religious institutions, scientists, and educators.

On the other hand, if you accept the other worlds, the sun, and stars are as they appear to be, you must accept that the earth rotates.

I have no reason not to accept these satellites around the earth. But I don't claim to know much about them at this time. I would like to know how we launch all these satellites, what powers them, and what causes the geosynchronous ones to orbit with the direction of the earth's rotation if they are not held by any field or band of something out there, what causes Chandler to move way out and then come back to that band if there is no connection? Perhaps Maksutov can answer this?

This has already been explained by others here. It seems clear that you don't understand the laws of motion and the effect of gravity. This is FUNDAMENTAL to understanding orbits and the rotation of the earth. If you truly are open minded, I'd suggest you pick up some basic science books at the library and study Newton's laws of motion and projectile or ballistic flight. Once you have that down, it should be quite clear why objects stay in orbit, why the atmosphere (and oceans, and land) all rotate in the same way, and why a geostationary orbit would be impossible if the earth didn't rotate.

[Waarthog]

For the airplane, however, the "original motion" must be sustained. It is a story of needed propulsion. The plane must have something to "push" or "carry" it at the rotational speed in order for your relative motion argument to hold for the atmosphere. If no force does this, then clearly the friction of the air will act to slow the plane down to zero mph relative to the stars (RTTS).

Gary, this is incorrect. In level unaccelerated flight, the propulsive thrust force equals the drag force so the aircraft does not lose any momentum due to drag. Remember Newtons law says that mation can only be changed by unbalanced forces. If thrust and drag are equal, there is no unbalanced force to slow the plane down. Since it is in the air that is moving, it moves with and through the air at the same time.

Also atomospheric physics besides, does it make a difference to you that in some modern Aircraft Navigation systems, we have to account for the earth turning under us? In fact, on some of your more sensitive inertial navigation systems, the INS can determine its latitude while sitting on the ground by the rotational velocity of the planet. If Earth didn't spin, this could not happen.

[worzel]

Gary: If you believe that the earth is stationary then I presume that you agree that the moon must be orbiting the earth. What do you think keeps the moon going?

Please don't just say this is off topic because it is highly relevant, if you understand why the moon doesn't slow down then you can extend this to lower orbits until you get to geosynchronous ones and then on to lower geosynchronous "orbits" which fall towards the earth due to their lack of altitude (while orbiting with its rotation). You can then imagine that each molecule of air is in one of these insufficient alitude geosync "orbits".

This may not be the best way to explain why the atmosphere moves with the earth but you're so fixated on the idea that their must be resistence to movement against your absolute frame of reference that I think this might help. From your arguments you should also conclude that the moon (and everything else in the universe) should rapidly slow down and plumet towards the earth so I would like to hear your explanation of why it doesn't.

[PhantomWolf]

"Geocentricity" and "Relative Stationary Earth Frame" don't sound too far apart. Would like to know what you think the difference is.

A "Relative Stationary Earth Frame" is that everything is dictated by the observer's frame of referance. If you consider the Train example, a "Relative Stationary Frame" to a passanger is that the train is stationary and it is the world outside that is moving. Obviously from a literal point of view this isn't true, but for the passangers it is a legitimate frame of referance. As far as results are conserned, they aren't that different, ie they seem similar, but just as the passangers on the train can claim that their frame of referance is valid, an obverser off the train can claim theirs is. A Geocentric relative frame is perfectly valid, as long as it is understood that it is just that, it's just a frame of referance, and not a literal situation. Geocentrism errs because it says that its frame of referance is the literal truth, ie that the Earth isn't moving at all, but the rest of the universe moves round it.

If they believe in a young earth, then what is the ONLY explanation for a "young earth"? Is it the Big Bang? Is it Steady State? Or, is it Geocentrism? Which of the three offers the only story of a young earth?

Geocentrism doesn't have anything to do with YEC, the BB or a steady state universe. These three are all Cosmologies, beliefs in how the universe was created, Geocentrism is a belief in the layout of the Universe. For one Hypothesis behind a YEC Cosmology that dosn't use Geocentrism or the BB see Starlight and Time by Dr Russell Humphreys.

But what about a plane? A plane is heavy, Rob. If it were flying west to east, and then somehow ran out of fuel, what would happen up there? In order for it to be maintaining original motion, the supposedly turning earth atmosphere would have to be "pushing" the airplane from behind to help it maintain velocity, right? Otherwise, how would it be maintained? Would the plane then become a glider with no thrust of its own and an atmosphere trying to push it strongly from behind? Or would the plane simply flip flop and crash?

On running out of fuel the plane would find that the air would push against it. This is because the plane is travelling faster then that air. The plane would slow down to the same speed as that the air is travelling at, at which point its airspeed is zero and it has no lift. (Actually it would stall out eariler then that, but oh well.) A very good pilot could use the time while the plane is slowing to glide the plane down, and in fact one famous case of time is called the Gimli Glider where a Captian did just this with a 767.

Now, if the plane were flying east to west, we have a different scenario. Again take a hypothetical jet going empty on fuel (boy is somebody gonna get fired!). Now the plane is facing the rotating earth atmosphere coming at it. The plane is streamlined. The air rushes over and around the plane. Does this give a sufficient enough backward impulse to cause the airplane to travel on the wind current backward in the sky (RTTS) but stay the same RTTE? Would this specific situation cause the plane to be able to theoretically remain aloft as a glider forever? The wind coming at the jet would be like what hits it under its own thrust.

Actually it's very similar to above, only this time the air is moving faster then the plane. The plane is traveling against the Earth's spin, so its engines essentially SLOW it down. Because of that the air now is faster and flows over the wings creating the lift. If the engines run out of fuel the faster moving air now pushes against the plane speeding it up. This means that the plane's airspeed (The difference between the air's speed and the plane's speed) drops and so the lift drops and the plane eventually stalls out as in senario one.

Now remember that this is how it appears to a STATIONARY obverser. To anyone on the ground watching the plane, they only see the difference in speed between them and the plane.

Consider it like this. A train and a car are driving down a long stretch of desert, the tracks and the road next to each other. To someone in the car, -they- are stationary, to someone in the train -they- are stationary. To somene standing between the tracks and the road, they are stationary and both the car and train are moving. Now if the driver of the car gets the car up to 100km/h as does the driver of the train, they both see the other as stationary as well. There is no relative movement between them (note: this is what we are saying about the atmosphere and the earth or a plane that is on the ground and the atmosphere.) Now if the car speeds up by 20km/h (is now traveling at 120km/h) the driver of the car sees the train as going backwards 20km/h. The Train Driver sees the car as now going at 20km/h. The observer on the ground would see both travelling fast (100km/h and 120km/h respectively), but the train going slower. (This is like our plane and air example where the plane has taken off.)

As you can see, a lot depends on your frame of referance. In this example abve, who is right, the car driver who claims that the train is travelling -20km/h, the train driver who claims that the car is travelling at 20km/h or the observer who claims that the car is travelling at 120km/h and the train at 100km/h? From their own frames of referance, all are right, but in a literal sense only the ground observer is because the train and car frames are in both in motion. (yes, yes, I'm ignoring the fact the ground is in motion too :roll: )

In the same way, when a plane flies through the air both the frame which is the plane and the frame which is the air are both in motion. If the air is traveling at 1000km/k and the plane at 1000km/h then to either frame neither is moving. To a stationary observer they both are. If the plane now uses its engines and gives itself enough thrust to get another 500km/h it will now be flying at 1500km/h to the outside observer, but to the air it is only travelling 500km/h. To the plane, the air is travelling 500km/h BACKWARDS. If the plane now turns and heads in the other direction using its engines to keep it at a speed difference with the air of 500km/h, the plane would see the air travelling towards it at 500km/h. The air would see the plane travelling backwards at 500km/h. The stationary observer would see the plane travelling at 500km/h and the air still at 1000km/h.

Now I know that this can be hard to understand and confusing, which is why I have tried to repeat myself a number of times. The important thing in air travel is NOT the TOTAL speed of the air and of the plane, but the DIFFERENCE between the speeds of the air and the plane.

This is the same for winds. As far as an observer on the ground is conserned, a zethyr wind of 3km/h might be heading east, but what it really happening is that the air is moving 3km/h SLOWER than the ground. Thus to an outside observer the wind would be travelling at 997km/h in a westerly direction compared to the ground at 1000km/h.

You will really need to get your head around this before you understand why it is. It is a little complex, but once you understand it, you'll see why it all works like it does.

[A Thousand Pardons]

If the earth is not rotating, nor moving in orbit with the sun, how does the geocentric stance explain the sun being early at noon the next day? (I don't doubt that there is an explanation, though it is likely very elaborate.)

The normal explanation for the analemma gets fairly elaborate, but the geocentric one is simple, given that. It's just whatever the transformation makes it out to be.

As for the baiting tiff, yes, anyone from BA can view posts to Dr. Jone's site at any time. But have they and would they, Rob? I think a poll of BA-er's would safely show that the vast majority have never heard of his site, maybe even him, and the rest feel it would poison their computer chips too badly to visit there. You did the baiting and incorrect portrayal, Rob.

I checked into that website, and found some errors, and joined the listserv discussion to discuss those errors. The errors disappeared from the website, and the explanations given for the errors were clearly false. The website is not to be trusted.

To anybody out there: What is your explanation of the Coriolis effect? The typical metaphor given is that we are shooting pool on a rotating round table and as we shoot the cue ball it veers off against the spin. My confusion with that is it's only one direction. If it is attributed to the earth's rotation, then why does it perform in different directions in the different hemispheres? Isn't the earth rotating the same direction in the southern hemisphere as the north?

My guess for coriolis and its two directions of spin is that the earth is spinning fastest at the equator.

It's basic physics. Basic.

[Musashi]

Yeah.

I have a question for Gary. How do you explain the motion of a Foucault pendulum?

[Waarthog]

Gary,
Sorry I didn't read enough of your post.

In order for it to be maintaining original motion, the supposedly turning earth atmosphere would have to be "pushing" the airplane from behind to help it maintain velocity, right?
Wrong. Gravity provides this quite nicely. Thats how Gliders work.

Would the plane then become a glider with no thrust of its own
Yes

and an atmosphere trying to push it strongly from behind?
and No.

Or would the plane simply flip flop and crash?
If the pilot screws up, yes, if they are halfway competent, they will glide down.

Perhaps Waarthog can tell us.
He's trying but some of what you ask, in the reference frame you ask it make little sense.

(Also, while he responds, is it possible the tracking device you referred to to used to track magnetic vs. geographical magnetic differences?)
No it is not possible.
Earth Transport Reference is quite a different kettle of fish than Magnetic Variation.

The motion of aircraft through the air depends not at all and is influenced very little by any motion of the air induced by the motion of the earth. The direction of the air mass movment will be of much more telling and immediate effect than the motion since the main source of the momuntum of the air for an aircraft is pressure differential causing wind.

Just what would we see from the ground as these bright clouds got "grabbed" by some quicker air (due to friction) and quickly sped up.
You would see the anvil head common to thunderstorms.

Now the plane is facing the rotating earth atmosphere coming at it.
No, its moving WITH the air it is in. Big difference.

The air rushes over and around the plane.
The forward momentum provided by the gravity vector is what causes this.

Does this give a sufficient enough backward impulse
There is NO backward impulse. The palne is moving within and through the air mass at the same time.

[Waarthog]

Ok, to be fair to Gary, I have to point out a couple things from Phantom Wolf that I think were not entirely accurate either...

On running out of fuel the plane would find that the air would push against it.
The air is pushing against the plane at all times it is in motion, this is what the drag force is.

This is because the plane is travelling faster then that air.
This is always the case or the plane would not fly. It applies at all times during flight not just in a power off situation.

The plane would slow down to the same speed as that the air is travelling at, at which point its airspeed is zero and it has no lift. (Actually it would stall out eariler then that, but oh well.)
This is fairly correct save that such a condition can only occur if the pilot tries to maintain altitude.


A very good pilot could use the time while the plane is slowing to glide the plane down, and in fact one famous case of time is called the Gimli Glider where a Captian did just this with a 767.
Just so. The plane will actually only slow down so much in these situations to the "Best Glide" airspeed. that is the speed that will give the greatest distance traveled for altitude lost.

[Fortis]

Yeah.

I have a question for Gary. How do you explain the motion of a Foucault pendulum?

I'd been thinking the same thing. In addition, if Gary is correct then we don't really have anything to fear about ballistic missiles, as they will miss their targets by miles.

[Gary Shelton]

Van Rijn wrote:

Gary Shelton wrote:

I'm open to astronomical items. I prefer to focus on whether the earth rotates or not. All else takes care of itself. Have we gone to the moon? I believe, no, we never left LEO with Apollo, but that doesn't mean diddly, and it's off topic.

No, this is exactly on topic, and all else doesn't "just take care of itself",

Van Rijn, as for the off-topic part, that was specifically meant for the moon hoax topic you referenced. That is indeed irrelevant to the thread. I'm sorry if it wasn't clear. The reason I focus on what I focus on is quite simply that it's the only thing I can verify for myself.

And yes, Van Rijn, I do think that things take care of themselves. For if you on this board are right, everything stellar is smoothly functioning your way. If I'm right, then everything stellar is smoothly functioning the way it has to for my way.

As far as my views explaining things... it has been acceded on this board that my view of things will explain things equally well as the acentric one, as concerns the air and the airplane subject at hand. This being said by no less than acentric astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, it is no big deal. Still, there it is.

By the way, everyone, I may not be so smart, but what about this Hoyle fellow? Do you think he did not know about your geocentric satellites, navigation systems, Coriolis effect, parallax, and many other issues when he stated that both the geocentric and acentric views explain the cosmos equally well? Why would he say that? If you contend that geosynchronous or stationary satellites prove rotation, why did he plainly ignore that supposed proof?

Now, acentrists often plead that their view is more elegantly simple. What about the air issue? Isn't it certainly more simple just to understand that all these same results we would see occur with the atmosphere and airplanes would also happen with a still earth, and without all the complications involved? Your maddening cauldron of speedy rotating air dancing harmlessly with slow and even dead still air in a sky that doesn't reveal visually to us below what is going on in the sudden jerks of air speed changes, is a hard pill to swallow. No one seems to agree to that, but oh well...

Musashi wrote:

I have a question for Gary. How do you explain the motion of a Foucault pendulum?

I don't know, Musashi. I have read Richard Elmendorf's expose of it as an enormous hoax. It has something to do with lattitudes and the Coriolis effect. This is one reason why I earlier asked for someone to explain Coriolis effect in your terms, and unfortunately yet have received no solid answer. I do need to learn. On this and many other issues.

However, I am not persuaded that the thing actually works. First, Elmendorf tells us that all of them are damped and tuned. That is, the movement of the cable is damped and tuned. (There is a thing called a Charron ring which accomplishes this in part, I understand.) Second, most of them across the country are driven. That is, the cable is placed in a mechanical gear motor such that it cannot possibly fail to "demonstrate" the desired motion. In other words, most of the Foucault Pendulums are actual fakes, according to Mr. Elmendorf.

So, yes, I find that compelling. If one's view of the contraption is that it is a bob on a wire hooked to a freely swiveling truck at the top, one is in for a surprise. The reason, according to Mr. Elmendorf, for all the "fakeness" is that the motion of the Foucault is naturally very erratic. They don't perform to the satisfaction of the owners otherwise.

So when you see on the wall plaque that this device is "proof of the earth's rotation", remember it might very well be simply a ruse, a fake.

The second reason I don't think the device works is that people like Michelson and Morley and others weren't satisfied and kept on looking for the elusive "proof" long after Foucault's Pendulum was around. Why would they have been searching so if it was already a fait accompli?

Musashi, I'll put the question back to you as to what you think is the cause of the motion, if that can be done briefly. I know it is a complex issue.

Chip wrote:

If the earth is not rotating, nor moving in orbit with the sun, how does the geocentric stance explain the sun being early at noon the next day? (I don't doubt that there is an explanation, though it is likely very elaborate.)

This is interesting. I have never heard of it. I am looking into it. I'll get back later.

A Thousand Pardons wrote:

I checked into that website, and found some errors, and joined the listserv discussion to discuss those errors. The errors disappeared from the website, and the explanations given for the errors were clearly false. The website is not to be trusted.

There you go, Rob. Dr. Jones' site poisons computers.

A Thousand Pardons also wrote:

It's basic physics. Basic.

I think it is safe to say that all we are talking about is basic. Do you have a slightly more elaborate response?

PhantomWolf wrote:

Geocentrism doesn't have anything to do with YEC, the BB or a steady state universe. These three are all Cosmologies, beliefs in how the universe was created, Geocentrism is a belief in the layout of the Universe. For one Hypothesis behind a YEC Cosmology that dosn't use Geocentrism or the BB see Starlight and Time by Dr Russell Humphreys.

Semantics, PhantomWolf, semantics. All I said was if I was a YEC-er and believed in a young earth and universe, there would only be two options as to how they came about. Geocentrism and the Big Bang. That seems pretty straightforward. And, logically, I do concluded, that as a person who believed in a "young earth creation", one would be compelled to accept the one scientific view of the creation of said young earth that agreed with that. Geocentrism. If you think that's faulty logic, so be it.

As far as Dr. Russell Humphreys, it's interesting you should mention him. I have read the book you mention, though it has been awhile. Dr. Humphreys is a staff member of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and regularly contributes to their monthly magazine called "Acts and Facts". One article he wrote about two years ago was entitled "Battle for a Cosmic Center". Without coming right out and saying he was a closet geocentrist, he did say that the earth was remarkably close to the center of the heavens, within 100,000 light years, I believe he said.

PhantomWolf further wrote:

On running out of fuel the plane would find that the air would push against it. This is because the plane is travelling faster then that air. The plane would slow down to the same speed as that the air is travelling at, at which point its airspeed is zero and it has no lift.

PhantomWolf, what speed do you assume the air is moving? I am assuming that it is moving at the earth's rotational speed, say 600 mph, west to east. If the plane if flying this same direction at 500 mph, what is the plane's speed RTTS? 1100 mph west to east, is that what you say?

Here's the question: what is propelling the plane that fast? It's engines thrust it forward at 500 mph. Are you saying the air is "pushing" behind the plane at 600 mph? How does the air do this? The plane may be carried at 600 mph while on the ground, where the solid ground can provide sufficient friction to accomplish this fact. But what about the air? What keeps the plane's "original motion" from the second it leaves the ground? Are you saying that the air has the same ability to push the airplane that the ground did? So that, if I understand, the plane will not lose any "original motion" as it flies? How would the air "push" the plane at 600 mph (from the rear in this case) without there being a major difficulty in flying the plane?

I know I have repeated this question in slightly various ways. I feel it bears repeating. Yours and most everyone else's position here is that the wind is turning with the earth at its rotational speed, with local currents. My question has been to ask what pulls along the plane at its original motion. Is is that rotating air, or gravity, or what? Waarthog said (see below) gravity was responsible for that today. So which is it, the air or gravity?

Waarthog wrote:

Gary wrote: In order for it to be maintaining original motion, the supposedly turning earth atmosphere would have to be "pushing" the airplane from behind to help it maintain velocity, right?

Wrong. Gravity provides this quite nicely. Thats how Gliders work.

How, I would ask Waarthog, does gravity pull a plane along at the original motion speed? Gravity is not a lateral force. It is a downward force.

Waarthog further wrote:

If thrust and drag are equal, there is no unbalanced force to slow the plane down. Since it is in the air that is moving, it moves with and through the air at the same time

Waarthog, would not the drag be enormous with a plane that is heavy? The air may be rotating 600 mph w to e, but how could the air molecules not avoid slipping around the plane as they hit it from the rear at 600 mph, due to the sheer weight of the plane?

Sincerely,

Gary Shelton