Is the Earth stationary, or does it revolve around the sun?

Hey guys, how many times to tell you,that this is a fake science with the aim of a religious propaganda?

This particular dumb - ass fake scientist use the well known from a long time fact in the mathematics, that the infinite space has no single geometric center (since each random point in the infinite space has the same infinite destinations in all directions). He simply has calculated how the universe will be seen from someone, who is located on the earth, animated it, kept silent, that this fake staff is not actually the only one possible solution, and represents that scientific crap out, as the big scientific break-through, only and only to prove, that the god exists. I will tell you a secret. If you take a random space debris, you will be able to calculate how the entire universe rotates around this debris. The only thing, you should do is to calculate how the debris will see the universe, rotating around it.

As for the solar system, if you have no static point in the space, from which to take measures, you have to use a random point outside of the system of moving objects (outside of the moving objects in the solar system, or outside the solar system itself) in order to observe their movements. And when you do this, you will see, that the Earth is orbiting the sun.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
As for the solar system, if you have no static point in the space, from which to take measures, you have to use a random point outside of the system of moving objects (outside of the moving objects in the solar system, or outside the solar system itself) in order to observe their movements. And when you do this, you will see, that the Earth is orbiting the sun.
Click to expand...
What other means/method can be utilized to do this? (Because, as far as I am aware, no random point from outsde of the movement of the solar system has been used to obsever the orbit of the earth around the sun).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What other means/method can be utilized to do this? (Because, as far as I am aware, no random point from outsde of the movement of the solar system has been used to obsever the orbit of the earth around the sun).
Click to expand...
When two objects move one relative to each - other, they form a system of the two objects. You need to take a reference point outside this system, in order to study it. It will be best if you go outside the solar system, but if you cant, you may observe the movement from point, which simply must be outside the earth and outside the sun. Study the movement from the international space station for example.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Study the movement from the international space station for example.
Click to expand...
If I am correct, the ISS is in constant motion right, orbiting the earth?
Here is a challenge, where you can win $1000

CAI will write a check for $1,000 to the first person who can prove that the earth revolves around the sun. (If you lose, then we ask that you make a donation to the apostolate of CAI). Obviously, we at CAI don't think anyone CAN prove it, and thus we can offer such a generous reward.

http://biblelight.net/kepler.htm

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why not you in the CAI do the opposite? Find a non-moving refferance point and film the sun while orbiting the earth.
Click to expand...
Are you familiar with the Michelson - Morley experiment?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
No. Enlight me, please. Where is their static point outside of the solar system from where they filmed on a movie how the sun rotates the Earth?

 
No. Enlight me, please. Where is their static point outside of the solar system from where they filmed on a movie how the sun rotates the Earth?
Click to expand...
The geocentrics use a combination of telescopic observation and mathematics/physics to assert their claims. (please remember, I do not believe they are correct).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The geocentrics use a combination of telescopic observation and mathematics/physics to assert their claims. (please remember, I do not believe they are correct).
Click to expand...
It seems, that the same things is based also the opposite - that the earth is rotating around the sun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment
The experiment shows the earth appears to be sitting dead still in space. Not even the rotation of the earth can be measured using this experiment. This experiment is being interpreted to mean that the whole universe is rotating about the earth. But the interpretation is just an opinion.
Click to expand...
I didn't understand much of the experiment, especially from the mathemathic part. Can you please, explain it to me in brief? There is a beam of light, that is separated from a mirror? And then what is expected to happen and what are the results?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It seems, that the same things is based also the opposite - that the earth is rotating around the sun.
Click to expand...
I think the Michelson - Morley experiment actually raises more questions based on the experimental results. If what the experiment says is true, then everything in the heavens appears to be rotating around the earth.
I'm not disputing the results of the experiment. Those are the facts.

There is another interpretation that is also suggested as well. The motion in the heavens that we think we perceive, may actually just be an illusion. If all gravitating bodies produce the same results, then everything would actually exist in a motionless state. There is a way the math could work to explain this. The perceived motion that we see appears to act in a two dimensional plane for our solar system. That is only one two dimensional plane out of three two dimensional planes that exist in 3D space. So possibly the Michelson-Morley experiment is denoting the absence of motion on one of the other two planes which would be orthogonal to the perceived plane of motion that we do see. Orthogonal planes of force could be mathematically described as being totally immune to the effects of each other.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What is that universe without motion? The universe is expanding - all galaxies, and stars are enlarging constantly the distance between them. How this will happen without any motion?

Mylo.X. is citing a site named "http://biblelight.net/" What do you expect from a site, naming itself the light of the bible except spamming constantly religious propaganda.

I didn't understand the Michelson - Morley experiment above, but here are some things, that got my attention:

"The expected relative difference in the measured speed of light"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but differences in the speed of light does not exist if it travels in one and the same environment - the speed of light is constant and also is independent from the movement of the object.

"After all this thought and preparation, the experiment became what has been called the most famous failed experiment in history"

"Afterward, Michelson and Morley ceased their aether drift measurements and started to use their newly developed technique to establish the wavelength of light as a standard of length"

The speed of light is the same, but the wave lengths are different. They are in a spectrum from infra - red to ultra violet. So there is no one wavelength. There are many wavelengths.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It seems, that the same things is based also the opposite - that the earth is rotating around the sun.
I didn't understand much of the experiment, especially from the mathemathic part. Can you please, explain it to me in brief? There is a beam of light, that is separated from a mirror? And then what is expected to happen and what are the results?
Click to expand...
The experiment was designed to detect directional motion. If a beam of light has its velocity increased, as it would if the beam source were moving toward you then the frequency would increase. The same thing would be true if you were moving toward the beam source. The experimental device will reflect this if the device is moved along the direction of one of the light beams. The other light beam in the device is at right angles to the motion and is unaffected. When the beams of light are recombined, they create an interference pattern. So if motion exists along the path of one of the light beams, the frequency of that light beam will change. This will cause a change in the interference pattern of the recombined beams of light. That change in the interference pattern is indicative of motion being present. So that's the gist of how the device works. You really have to know your science to completely understand it.
But when this device was used to measure the motion of earth through the heavens, it was found that no motion existed. It was also used to measure the rotation of the earth, and it was found the no rotational motion existed either. Kind of conflicting experimental data that disagrees with what we thought we knew to be true.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So... did they expect the speed of the moving earth to be added to the speed of light? Because, if they expected that, it will not happen. The speed of the moving object is not added to the speed of light.

 
So... did they expect the speed of the moving earth to be added to the speed of light? Because, if they expected that, it will not happen. The speed of the moving object is not added to the speed of light.
Click to expand...
That is a fact. The speed of light can add to or subtract from a bodies motion. It results in redshifting or blueshifting of the light. This is an astronomical phenomena that happens naturally. It's one of the main tools we use in determining the distance of objects in the heavens. The more redshifted the light is, the faster it is moving away from us.

 
You guys got it all wrong! The earth does not exist except as a computer simulation projected into your mind, and the planets in the sky are a holographic projection above the imaginary flat earth.

?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Now I got totally confused. I am sure, that I red somewhere, that the speed of the light is so constant, that it is not influenced even from the movement of the object, that emits it.

I can't find again my source in the internet. When searched, I managed to find some other sources, however. They all say, that the speed of light is not affected from the movement of the object...



 
Last edited by a moderator:
Now I got totally confused. I am sure, that I red somewhere, that the speed of the light is so constant, that it is not influenced even from the movement of the object, that emits it.
I can't find again my source in the internet. When searched, I managed to find some other sources, however. They all say, that the speed of light is not affected from the movement of the object...
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree it is confusing. The most confusing statement is the following:
"The speed of light is constant in all reference frames."

But, not all reference frames are identical to each other. That is the key you need to understand the statement.

A moving reference frame doesn't change the speed of light. But if the reference frame is moving toward you, its velocity adds to the speed of light making it appear that the light emitted from it is traveling faster than light. So translating speeds from one reference frame to the other does not violate the rule. In reality it's just the frequency of the light that is blueshifted that tells you there is a velocity component that is adding to the speed of light. The same thing happens with a train whistle. As it moves toward you, the sound is higher pitched because of the speed of the train adding to the speed of sound. And I might add that radar guns work on this same principle.

Time dilation also will make a light emitting body appear as if it is moving away due to the redshifting of light. Our sun emits time dilated light. So to us here on earth it appears the light from the sun is coming from a body that is moving away from us. Its not moving away really, just moving through time more slowly. So if we actually clocked the light coming in from our sun, it would appear to have a speed lower than the speed of light. But we know time dilation is causing this. If it were possible to measure the speed of light from the sun on the surface of the sun, the speed measured there would come out correct because we would then also be in the slower time dilation frame.

So most of the confusion is coming from mixing different reference frames together. Just remember that if the speed of light doesn't calculate out correctly, you have either an additional time dilation component or velocity component that may be combining with the speed of light.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top