Comment on Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt1) by Wild Heretic.
The core of your argument is that an object in motion does NOT stay in motion, contrary to Newton’s 3rd law (and don’t turn this into an ad hominem argument against Newton himself; that will get you nowhere.)
Correct. It does not stay in motion unless in a vacuum. No point repeating what I said before.
The atmosphere moves with the earth’s surface because it always has. The atmosphere moves with the earth’s surface because it always has. There’s no magical unexplained force, just initial momentum.
🙂 That’s it? Because it does. That is not science. That is wishful thinking. The earth moves… because it does! Yes, you don’t feel it or experience it. Yes, experiments of the late 19th and early 20th century showed no movement… but it does! It DOES! Because we say so and you better believe it. It’s ok to say it does, if you have experimental evidence for the observation. Fair enough. Not everything has to be or is explained; but there is no evidence for a rotating Earth. So saying it does, isn’t good enough.
Initial momentum of what? The solid ground? The liquid seas? The gaseous atmosphere? The only way they all move together in the rotating earth hypothesis is if the momentum encompasses them all equally. Look, I don’t mind that there isn’t an explanation, despite teams of so-called scientists and theoretical physicists looking at this problem over the centuries. Stuff like this isn’t easy.
That’s why most rocket launches travel east (to capitalize on the momentum) but polar satellites launch to the west (to counteract the momentum.)
Just as easily explained by a rotating magnetic field (the heavens).
Inertia is a property of matter, therefore it is proportional to mass, not density. This is why a feather and a rock drop at the same rate in a vacuum. That is also the reason why all objects are affected the same way by the earth’s rotation, including the atmosphere.
Doesn’t explain it. The bonds between a gas/liquid compared to a solid are weaker. They do not move with the same rotational speed as a spinning solid. The force that spins the earth must spin all the elements together somehow. All of them are captured by this externally caused spinning force, and it isn’t Earth’s gravity. In a vacuum, does a mass of air molecules drop at the same rate as a mass of sand?
Your dog gif doesn’t work because the atmosphere outside was never carried with the vehicle.
Your basketball gif doesn’t work because A.) the basketball is spinning within an external medium, but the earth isn’t.
That is the problem, because it does in your hypothesis.
and B.) a basketball isn’t a planet. The earth keeps its atmosphere because it’s massive and has strong gravity.
How does gravity turn all the different densities (with weaker and stronger bonds) at the same speed? In fact, how does gravity cause planets to rotate at all? Where is the rotational energy and how does it work? It isn’t earth’s gravity that causes the earth to spin in the mainstream model, so what is causing the rotation and how does this cause keep all the elements rotating at the same speed?
Do you understand now?
Wild Heretic Also Commented
Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt1)
One possibility (look under “planets”): http://www.wildheretic.com/what-are-the-astronomical-bodies/
Personally, I much prefer the other idea that retrograde motion is caused by speed variation/planet tilt. The idea in my CET is that the sun is the outermost body near the center of the cavity and spins the slowest. The rest are inside the sun’s orbit a little bit closer to the center of the cavity. Sometimes when a planet gets too close to the sun/moon it is attracted/repelled to or from that body (or maybe other planets as well) which slows the planet down, or speeds it up. Something like that.
It has been a while since I looked at Jupiter in Stellarium and got latitude readings at the equator over 5 years, so my mind isn’t fresh on the above theory. I have yet to get the longitude data for Jupiter for example and compare it to the sun’s position.
It isn’t something I am concentrating on right now.
Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt1)
Oh I see. No, the atom bondage thing doesn’t work. It is precisely that reason that “gravity-as-atom-glue” is invoked which keeps everything together.
“Gravity may be a push, but that doesn’t actually matter. Whichever you assume, push or pull, it has the same effect. And it is pretty clear that it is caused by mass.”
How clear? What experiment? Cavendish? Other possible interpretations. Current cosmology is incredibly fragile to the point of a nudge here and a tap there, it falls over. I’ve had enough.
“If you negate the velocity given to you by the surface (assuming the Earth is spinning), the surface will spin under you.”
At what altitude do you “negate” the velocity under you by the surface? 99km, 101km? Is it a sudden relative shift from 1 meter to the next, or perhaps over 100m? No info from the space boys and no clarity. It’s just a bogus theoretical concept found not to exist in reality up to at least 39km, and when they eventually sent rockets up there in the 40s they knew the correct earth model and more. They are lying to you.
An isolated system that is spinning will spin forever- no outside force needed. Why did Earth start spinning? The early universe must have been spinning. Why? No idea. But you don’t know how a geocentric universe came into existence either. If you think about it, why shouldn’t things spin? Of all the different speeds and directions the universe could spin in, what are the odds that it would be zero?
It all boils down to a purely abstract concept of “gravity”, which has yet to be detected. Spinning balls forever relies on a big bang theory which goes from bad to worse. What if Newton, as he was sold to you, was wrong and there is no so far undetected force from mass called gravity? It’s all hocus pocus. They have the wrong thought experiment. But they know this. It is we who are the chumps, not they.
Recent Comments by Wild Heretic
I like alternative theories to gravity because I don’t believe in the official narrative. The question is if any of these theories is true or not? I don’t know. At the moment I am sticking with gravity coming from the sun. What that is, I don’t know.
“As another separate thing, I know that gravity is a pull and not a push because of tops; tops can’t spin with their sides as close to the ground as they get without these sides being pushed directly to the ground if gravity is a push. ”
I don’t think wobble matters either way. It’s the angular momentum keeping the top up, isn’t it?
Gary, you have to sign up and then I will approve you. After approval, you can reply to posts or start threads.
There is glass in the sky
Very difficult question. I don’t know. I assume the creator(s) of this biosphere. What then is the purpose of this biosphere?
The glass could be needed to add extra pressure to keep the flood waters below the earth, and/or to block out some of the harsh sunlight radiation. It seems to be a key component to the biosphere.
Why hide the concave earth?
Monsters Inc is older than this article I think, so I would say they got it from the source, which is Monroe’s books.
Space machines do not orbit the Earth
When you are at Davos, you can ask them.
There are satellites up there IMO, just their deployment is not as we are told. Why? Because they are using heliocentric theory as a cover. Why? I’ll leave you to figure that one out.