[geocentrism] Re: To Rob: Airplanes and the atmosphere
- From: "Gary L. Shelton" <GaryLShelton@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 01:43:03 -0500
"Gary 9/22 [re: the carousel analogy]: Rob, I agree with your last
question, but neither of your above examples has anything to do with the
example of an airplane I gave which leaves contact with the ground."
It has everything to do with it. The fact that the aircraft is flying
through the air does not affect the fact it has a speed relative to the
ground which will be fairly close to the airspeed. It'll be the airspeed +
the speed of any headwind or tailwind. To illustrate, if I'm flying with an
airspeed of 500 knots, and there is a headwind, relative to the ground, of
20 knots at the altitude I'm at (because the atmosphere has winds! It's not
fixed and immovable! Ahem) then my speed relative to the ground will be 480
knots.
Gary 9/28: (See also my post on "Relative Motion...") Rob, you cannot
have your relative motions work both the same in a vacuum and in a non-
vacuum (the atmosphere). You have to contend with the fact that for a
turning earth, the atmosphere must exhibit both rigid and non-rigid properties.
How does it do this?
Gary 9/22: Rob, whether the other carousels are spinning or not is
irrelevant to what is happening on your own carousel.
Does it not make you suspect that your point of view is also on a spinning
carousel? Particularly when you think that, from the point of view of each
of the others, the entire fairground (including your own carousel) will be
whirling round them as well. Is it not more likely that we are the one that
is doing the moving, like all the others we can see?
Gary 9/28: Rob, you accuse geocentrists of having no evidence when
they look to the heavens and see the glory of God. Yet you make this
entirely circumstantial plea and claim to see your God, the god of relativity,
Mr. Einstein in the heavens. Show us a video from one of those other
spinning carousels that our own carousel is spinning and then you will have
your proof. Before that, you got nothin'.
Gary 9/22: Rob, if you are trying to say the Earth is turning, you
are on the wrong site. It may not mean anything to you but the Bible in
Genesis 1:1 states "In the beginning God
created the heaven and the earth." Note that it doesn't say "heaven
and Halley's Comet" or "heaven and all the planets". The earth is so
important it is mentioned in verse 1 of the Bible.
We are not on just another planet like all the ones you mentioned. As
a matter of fact, the
earth is not a "planet" at all, as that term comes from the Greek and
means "to wander".
Since the earth doesn't move, it is not a planet. It is the earth.
Further, Genesis 1:14-17
state that the earth is so important that it had created FOR IT all
the planets, stars, and other heavenly bodies. Those creations were made,
you can read there, for "signs, seasons, days,
years, and to give light upon the earth". All five of these reasons
are reasons FOR THE EARTH.
If the earth weren't here, neither would they be."
I don't take my cosmology from the Bible. Take that or leave it I'm afraid.
Gary 9/28: Since you so obviously believe that "man is the measure", I
expected nothing different. File it away under good Biblical logic, you may
just be travelling the road to Damascus one day and...go from Rob to Bob
and start preaching at me.
Gary 9/22: Rob, if the atmosphere "is a viscous fluid", then it
wouldn't turn with a turning
earth at all. Have you ever watched a ball bearing turn in oil? In
that viscous
fluid the ball bearing constantly plows into the oil. Only that oil
closest to the
ball bearing turns with the bearing. The rest "slips" to increasing
degrees as
you move away from the bearing. "
If the atmosphere extended out to several Earth diameters and I claimed it
was all turning in sync, you would have a point there. As it is, you
haven't. In fact, you've made my argument for me. The oil closest to the
ball turns with the bearing - I haven't measured, but it's probably a couple
of millimetres or so next to the ball, about 10% of the ball diameter. Well,
the atmosphere is nothing like as deep as that compared to the radius of the
Earth. At a height of 17,000 metres, you're above 90% of the atmosphere.
That height is about 0.3% of the radius of the Earth. If the Earth were
scaled to the size of an apple, 90% of the atmosphere would be less than the
thickness of a piece of tissue paper. That's how thin the atmosphere layer
is in comparison to the Earth.
Gary 9/28: My, no one can say you are slow with the stats. Of course,
my brief metaphor was not an exhaustive analogy. Your own metaphors
will falter under heavy scrutiny too.
Gary 9/28: But I still have made a point, Rob. The fact that the oil
closest
to the ball bearing does spin with the bearing illustrates how the oil could
not be
travelling in any other direction than "with the bearing". You certainly
wouldn't
get swirling eddies of oil that is so pulled by the motion of the bearing. It
would
be a one-way street for the oil closest to the bearing.
Gary 9/28: Analogously, the atmosphere on earth could not be travelling in
any
other direction than "with the earth", if the earth were turning. The mere
fact we
have movements of air in all directions at ground level points to the fact that
the air
closest to the earth is not behaving like the oil closest to the ball bearing.
If the two
were behaving the same, we here on earth would see no movement of the air
down low where we live. We would never see it "blow" at all if our globe
indeed
turned. The atmosphere would be too rigidly stuck to its job of keeping up with
the planet's one directional rotation. A logical by-product of such a reality
would be
that we would all suffocate as the air could not be moved by us mere mortals,
even
for the purpose of breathing.
Gary 9/22: Note, this is backwards from what some say is the dual
nature of the atmosphere.
Those who tout this dual nature always have the air "slipping" or
"free-roaming"
at the surface of the earth, but moving "en mass" further out.
Citation, please?
Gary 9/28: I made this point much deeper in my "Relative Motion..." post
tonight. The quick answer is that Dr. jones indicated this in his post titled
"The Atmosphere" recently.
"Gary 9/22: Rob, this would be my point. The atmosphere is a gas,
and is not fixed
and rigid. ... It seems to me that the
air must either turn or not turn with the earth. Any kind of
dual-nature middle
ground seems patently untenable."
Take a look at the movies of Jupiter's atmosphere taken by the various
spacecraft that have flown past it. Or even, study it yourself for a few
hours on a good night with a reasonably good telescope (your local
astronomical society will have one). It's a fascinating study in turbulent
fluid flow - and the whole thing, 80,000 miles in diameter, is spinning
round every 9 hours 50 minutes. Rather than argue with me, argue with
Jupiter. It's a lot bigger.
Gary 9/28: Yes, let's take a look at Jupiter. It is nearly ten times bigger
than the earth, spins round once in less than half our day, and is in a constant
storm state blowing everything to smithereens. How is this NOT an argument
against the fiction of a turning earth?
"Gary 9/22: Rob, yeah that was an odd remark from the good doctor."
There's some irony there that you agreed with the one bit of the statement
that I've withdrawn!
Gary 9/28: That I "agreed with you" is not quite true. The quote from Dr.
Jones was
" That would be assigned to the gravitational field, which
rotates
with the world, and accompanies the world about the sun
(wowzers, I'd better wash my mouth out after this.)"
[parenthetical comment in the original]
Gary 9/28: The fact is were talking about different things. You thought
Dr. Jones was wrong or confused about the gravitational field rotating. I just
thought it was odd that he would spout out such a sentence like a seasoned
heliocentrist.
Rob
Other related posts:
