[geocentrism] Re: Moving Earth Deception
- From: Bernie Brauer <bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:10:28 -0700 (PDT)
clarification. "it, changed to "heliocentricity".
Bernie Brauer <bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: Paul,
1. But then a Geocentrist could also say, "It is irritating even to have to
argue with someone who has an anti-Geocentrism worldview ( or deems
heliocentricity to be correct ) because it dignifies the incredible gall of
heliocentrists who think they can contradict the most obvious scientifically
observed evidence."
2. How about Orbital Revolution and Axial Rotation?
Bernie
Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
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
---------------------------------
Yahoo!7 Mail has just got even bigger and better with unlimited storage on
all webmail accounts. Find out more.
---------------------------------
Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added security of
spyware protection.
---------------------------------
Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story.
Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
Other related posts:
