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

Darby

I noticed you left out the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. With no explanation as to why. Remember that the experiment also did not detect any rotation of the earth. Even though it can be demonstrated that rotation is something that can be detected by the experiment.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Darby
I noticed you left out the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. With no explanation as to why. Remember that the experiment also did not detect any rotation of the earth. Even though it can be demonstrated that rotation is something that can be detected by the experiment.
Click to expand...
Uh...so? Michelson-Morley also didn't detect that the great state of Wisconsin is a major producer of cheese. That's probably because the experiment wasn't designed to detect either the Earth's rotation or cheese production in North America.
We have fracking satellites up there as well as space probes. You see, about a hundred and 180 years ago (i.e. about 50 years before Michelson-Morley) someone invented the first modern photographic camera. Then about a hundred years ago someone else invented the first modern movie camera. Unbelievably, and without reference to Michelson-Morley, we can and do actually mount these sort of devices on those satellites and space probes and take photos, make movies and see the relative and absolute motions of these bodies in the Solar System. Unbelievable, that shite, yes? In other words, we have experimental verification of orbital mechanics. Oh, yeah...and photographic verification that the geocentric view of the Solar system is horseshit.

Michelson-Morley my ass...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Darby

Your views are apparently horseshit as well. Perhaps when you become more educated about the promulgated fiction you spout, then maybe we could have an intelligent exchange of ideas.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Some heated exchanges going on here. It's really how you look at it right? And the sun at the centre makes the math easy. You could have the earth at the middle of everything if you wanted, but that's quite a headache mathematically, and also a little big headed.

And then our solar system as a whole, does that orbit within our galaxy or the galaxy around our solar system?

Either way you look at it, space is full of moving stuff, and theres probably not a single defining point

 
We don't get to decide how reality is. One set of data shows one viewpoint. Another set of data shows another viewpoint. That is our reality. Looks like a duality to me. But to throw out data to favor a particular viewpoint is not our choice to make. It has an analogy to a photon. Is a photon a particle or a wave? Data shows it is both. So our perception that it must be one or the other is obviously wrong.

 
Arguing about who's right or wrong only puts up barriers to a true conclusion. But accepting both outlooks and finding the balance is where truth and understanding begin.

 
Arguing about who's right or wrong only puts up barriers to a true conclusion. But accepting both outlooks and finding the balance is where truth and understanding begin.
Click to expand...
Absolutely correct. The laws of physics are entirely subject to PC rules and democracy. Taking a position on the laws of physics is silly.
So, try this experiment. Tell yourself that it's non-productive to argue who said this and who's right about that. Climb to the tenth floor of a building in your area and then jump out the window. As you plummet toward the ground tell yourself that the laws of physics are subject to democracy, that the jury is out on Newton, that you accept multiple positions on the affects of acceleration and momentum, that you have struck a balance between all competing positions and you fully expect at least a 50% chance of a soft landing. No guarantees of a soft landing - but a clear and significant chance of a soft landing because there are positions being supported by many people on the Internet that say a soft landing is to be expected.

Let us know how that works out for you.

<sigh> Another Jr. High School diploma down the drain.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ah ha. Well thanks for the 'gravity kills us all' speech. But really what is gravity? Or spin? Our so called laws of physics are more like guidelines. There not complete. Its our best guess yet on what's happening.

To be honest, I wasn't expecting you to take my comment out of context like that, but we were talking about who's the centre of the universe and the wave/particle problem. We all know gravity is a downer.

Also, I never said anything about being PC or democracy, only collaboration and willingness to change your outlook, to accept another's views and use these to make a more informed guess about our 'laws' of physics.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Say you are pushed, physically or psychologically, & as you plummet toward the ground you ask "what should i've known?", & "where do i go from here?" & the laws of physics be indeed subject to democracy, not to have a soft landing but suddenly not to've been pushed at all, but in the right place at the right time afterall? Everyone you know also experiencing the forward motion of time would yes also experience you'd died. No guarantees of a soft landing, sure, but at the same time no guarantee of any landing or any falling at all for that matter? :) . - How is it that positions are being supported by many people on the Internet :) ? Where do they say a soft landing is to be expected lol :) ? I'd let you know how it worked but what with universe expanding so history also, everything changing beneath & including our own noses & all, i'd a latest precursor (warning or influence recognized) to exist back as far as & am not noted to exist so far yet anymore :) . I've not jumped, nor intend to and i see we've still not proven creation & still see no reason not to as ill info end up off of roofs :) .

 
Last edited by a moderator:
That music is creepy as hell, but great information on the video. Thanks!
Click to expand...
I agree; however, I seem to recall that music was used as background music for some segments of the original Cosmos program with Carl Sagan back in the early 1980s. I watched those episodes over and over, which is why I am certain that music was re-hashed from that series here.
RMT

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree; however, I seem to recall that music was used as background music for some segments of the original Cosmos program with Carl Sagan back in the early 1980s. I watched those episodes over and over, which is why I am certain that music was re-hashed from that series here.
RMT
Click to expand...
I understood everything until minute 12:00. What I don't follow is why Adam wouldn't feel like his spaceship is accelerating like we always feel when we are in a vehicle and we accelerate it. From there on the video is very confusing to me. Would be kind enough to explain that part? ☕

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top