[geocentrism] Re: Moving Earth Deception

  • From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:45:02 +0000 (GMT)

Neville
I'll respond in teal.
Paul,

My response in red: 


-----Original Message-----
From: paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 08:21:01 +0000 (GMT)
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moving Earth Deception

Neville J, Bernie B
Sorry -- a day later than promised.
As I've already intimated to Bernie, I will not attempt to demonstrate that a 
"non-rotating Earth, non-rotating atmosphere, non-orbiting Earth, non-orbiting 
atmosphere" model doesn't fly. The idea is too firmly entrenched in your 
thinking for that. Besides, so long as Bernie is the sole arbiter of whether a 
given '...mechanical device...' is faulty or not, I'm sure that even a ride in 
a spaceship piloted by little grey men to a vantage point where the Earth's 
motions would be obvious to a man with one eye would be declared faulty and 
included with Foucault's Pendulum, spinning gyroscopes and all other 
'inadequate' explanations and demonstrations, notwithstanding video tape 
supporting the eye witness accounts also being available.
Paul, if there is one thing that you have consistently demonstrated on this 
forum it is the fact that it is you who are entrenched in your thinking. To the 
point of clear arrogance I would say.
Yes, I admit that I am convinced in my position and I'll stay that way until I 
see credible evidence to the contrary -- which of course is the point in 
question -- I am challenging the credibility of your assertions. And you would 
deny that you have similarly firm views? I'll take a guess here and suggest to 
you, that for all of your life, you have had a problem with anyone who 
dissagrees with you.
However, drawing attention to contradictions in your own statements is another 
matter and is the reason for my probing in this matter of the trajectory of a 
thrown ball. One of the most irritating -- on account of its complete denial of 
observed fact -- 'proofs' that the Earth is not rotating, is that old saw of 
the hovering helicopter transporting you westard if the Earth were so rotating. 
Here I present the statement to which you both agreed, albiet with some urging -
Can I take you both at your word then, when you assert that a ball thrown 
vertically will return to your hands regardless of the velocity of whatever you 
are sitting/standing on providing only that the air is also moving with 
whatever you are sitting/standing on?
Here are two statements, one from each of you, that an aircraft while airborne 
would, in the case of a rotating Earth, exhibit a tendency to travel West. 
Emphasis added. Direction confusion as noted, present in original.
From Bernard Brauer Sun Apr 1 16:43:46 2007
Proof of Heliocentric Incorrectness and Deception 
1. If you get onto a helicopter on the east coast of the USA, lift off 
vertically and hover above the ground for four hours, then set down on the 
ground again, you will be in the same location that you lifted off from. If the 
Earth were rotating then the helicopter should have set down on the west coast 
of the USA. Therefore the Earth is not rotating. 
From Dr. Neville Jones Tue Mar 7 13:21:50 2006
A long winded question
I am intriged by your statement that, "We know from practical experiment that a 
satellite launch uses less energy by taking advantage of the equatorial 
rotation speed of the earth, than it would taking a polar orbit or a contra 
launch westward." If this were true, then aircraft taking off and going west to 
east [sic] would use less fuel than those going north to south and much less 
than those going east to west [sic]. Do airline prices reflect this?
From the point of view of physics, there is no fundamental difference between a 
ball being thrown upwards and a helicopter flying upwards. In each instance, 
any velocity inherited from its takeoff point in a horizontal plane will be 
conserved, thus the ball will return to your hand when sitting in a moving 
railway carriage and a helicopter flying strictly up and down will land in its 
takeoff position on a rotating Earth.
In the case of the fixed wing aircraft, the position is only slightly more 
complicated. The net velocity in the horizontal plane is now the sum of the 
inherited and imparted velocities; but the point is that the inherited velocity 
is still concerved.
Bernie, I understood your explanation even before you clarified your usage of 
rotate, revolve and orbit, however you may find it useful in future to abide by 
the quite specific usages of rotate and revolve in astronomy. A body rotates on 
its axis and revolves around its primary.
And Philip M, yes going around corners would complicate matters but I think I 
covered that with '... regardless of whether you are moving at constant 
velocity in a straight line (which probably deals with Neville's 'constraints') 
or if you are standing still.'
Comments?
Paul D
I tried to give you a little hint when I mentioned the fact that the trajectory 
of the ball that comes 'straight back down' was a parabola. Given the 
opportunity, I would have put money on that. Futhermore, my 'constraints', had 
you have bothered to ask, included the time that the ball was out of the 
thrower's hands. Well considering that it was only half way to the ceiling, I 
didn't consider this detail to be significant.
The helicopter has a particular tangential component of velocity, which does 
not increase during the time it is aloft. Depending on how high it goes and how 
long it is off the ground for, it will only traverse a vertical path in the 
geostationary case. In the heliocentric case it's tangential velocity would 
also need to increase as a function of altitude for it to appear to come 
straight back down. Well let's suppose that the helicopter rises 1000 m and 
that the time to ascend and descend is negligible, just how far West of the 
take off point do you estimate it will land if it stays aloft for four hours? I 
calculate about 802.2 m. That's a long way short of clear across the USA at 40 
deg longitude and of course the altitude was not specified -- it might have 
been only one metre.
Neville.
Paul D


      
____________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo!7 Mail has just got even bigger and better with unlimited storage on all 
webmail accounts. 
http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html

Other related posts: