questioner121 wrote:
You're right I should try something like this rather than assume it.

Get thee to a planetarium or children's discovery place at once! They've set up all sorts of demonstrations in places like these which visitors are able to play with and see principles in action. At my local planetarium there are displays which allow us to demonstrate the relationship between temperature and pressure and a very simple fluid-filled sphere which shows quite clearly that the observed behavior of Earth's atmosphere is consistent with the behavior resulting from a fluid responding to friction from a spinning body.

Also, it's a lot of fun playing with stuff like that.

At my local planetarium, they have Jodrell Bank!

questioner121 wrote:

pensioner wrote:

questioner121 wrote:

You'd get the same night and day if the sun went around the earth.

I think you are taken the piss mate, did you not see the graphic that SPMaximus posted?

I understand what you're saying. I find it hard to believe myself that it could be possible that the sun and stars goes around the earth. So i've been looking at the scientific evidence that proves the earth goes around the sun and I haven't been able to find anything that put's it beyond doubt.

The motion of the Earth about the Sun is a different question to the Earth's rotation on its' axis. Historically, the observation of the phases of Venus falsifies the model of Ptolemy, which has all the planets and the Sun orbiting the Earth. Some astronomers tried to rescue geocentrism via the model of Tycho Brahe, which had the planets orbiting the Sun and the Sun in turn orbiting the Earth. Kepler showed that the Tychonic model must be mere sophistry by calculating the motion of the planet Earth as it would appear if observed from a fixed point on the orbit of the planet Mars. He chose a point defined by the apsidal line of a specific Martian opposition. This enabled him to demonstrate that the Earth strictly obeyed Kepler's second law of planetary motion. He also showed that the center of the Earth's orbit lay between the equant point and the Sun. This showed that the Earth's proprties of motion were generally identical to any planet. Kepler had already derived his first law for the planet Mars and later derived his third or harmonic law. From these laws of planetary motion he was able to compute the Rudolphine tables which utterly demolished any ephemerides based on any form of geocentrism. Some time later Sir Isaac Newton showed how Kepler's laws are a direct result of the Gallilean law of inertia and Newton's own law of universal gravitation.

One argument against heliocentrism had been the fact that if the Earth orbits the Sun, then it should be possible to measure the parallax of stars during the course of a year. The reason this wasn't possible in earlier times is that the stars are at huge distances making the parallax angles very small (less than a second of arc). Bradley made a serious attempt to determine the parallax of stars but instead discovered the abberation of light. Another excellent piece of evidence demonstrating the motion of the Earth around the Sun. Eventually, Bessel succeeded in obtaining the parallax of a number of near by stars. More recently the Hipparcos astrometry sattelite produced a catalogue of stellar parallax for about one hundred thousand stars.

questioner121 wrote:I've been thinking about this question for a long time and have done alot of reading on the internet to try and find out what proof exists which can be used to prove that the Earth spins about it's axis. The proofs I've been looking for are experiments that can be tried on Earth (I'm very skeptic of satellite data). So far the main expermiment that is used to prove the Earth spins is the Foucalts Pendulum experiment. I'm hoping that the nice people on this forum will point me to some more experiments. If they can't then I'd have to question why they still believe it to be true and urge them to challenge what they have been taught at school and learn from the media.

So why don't I believe that the Earth spins?

1. If the Earth spins why does the air/clouds spin with the Earth? Surely there is very little friction between the solid Earth crust and the air to cause the air/clouds to spin with the Earth.

2. Shouldn't a plane which flies in an opposite direction to the spin of the Earth move faster relative to the land mass below it?

3. There is no mathematical proof to say that the Earth spin or orbits the Sun.

There's probably some more points but I'll mention them if I can remember them later.

Just to let you know, I consider myself a believer and accept the words of the Quran and most of the Old and New testament (I believe the Bible has been changed over the years but the Quran to this day is totally 100% the same) to be true. Having read the Quran and most of the bible, I couldn't find anywhere where it clearly says that the earth spins. This to me is a fantastic finding because it is a clear challenge against the science of today which according to all the great minds of the past few centuries and all the technological advancement mankind has achieved cleary teaches that the Earth spins.

I'm hoping that athiests (of which there are many clever and knowledgeable ones on this forum) and even the believers who think the Earth spins will be able to guide/educate me to believing that the Earth does spin.

Thanks

I am absolutely amazed that people actually exist who are this ignorant of the physics of the solar system and planet earth. We figured out several hundred years ago that the earth spins on its axis, dude, and in that spinning it even wobbles a bit. This has been common everyday schoolyard knowledge for many tens of decades. And here you come wondering if it's actually the case. You should be ashamed of yourself and you should get cracking on some science and learn the facts of this matter before through sheer ignorance you walk in front of a moving car and get whacked. In this day and age your ignorance is absolutely inexcusable and it is untenable to boot.

I am appalled. You have my pity.

Don't sit on the fence! Tell us what you really think!

Well, it's good to have guys like questioner121 here. It gives us all an opportunity to revise our basics.

hackenslash wrote:At my local planetarium, they have Jodrell Bank!

Oh yeah? Well, at my work we have two lasers and a plasma an' I'm the only one who gets to play with them!

questioner121 wrote: I haven't seen anything clear in Quran that claims the earth is stationary. However I would have thought that if the earth did spin and went around the earth it should have been there. It's absence from there makes me wonder that if it's not in there then it could mean that the earth does not spin.

The Quran also doesn't say anything about you having the slightest fucking clue about anything you're tallking about. Draw whatever conclusion you wish from that.

questioner121 wrote:

Blackadder wrote:

questioner121 wrote:

It could be that the Sun is orbiting the Earth. You'd get the same observation.

Yes because every observation that humans have made of every corner of the known universe for centuries show that less massive bodies orbit more massive bodies (and we have mathematical "proofs" (sic) for this) but you think that in our solar system the opposite applies? Have you any idea of the relative mass of the Sun and the Earth? Or the faintest understanding of gravity? Clearly not.

How do you know what the mass of the sun is?
Do you know how the distance to the sun is calculated?

An accurate distance to the Sun was initially determined via a method using the measurements of transit timings of the inner planets. One of the tasks assigned to the explorer Captain Cook, was to observe a transit of Venus from Tahiti to help in getting an accurate determination. These days distances to the planets Mercury, Venus and Mars and miscellaneous asteroids that come near enough to the Earth, is determined using radar. The distance to the Moon is measured by laser ranging due to some corner reflectors kindly left on the surface. The Sun's gravitational mass is determined by knowledge of these distances combined with the known motion of planets, asteroids and spacecraft. Incidentally there will be a Venusian transit occurring next year. You will have a chance to do the observations and calculations yourself:

http://www.transitofvenus.nl/details.html

You may of course have to travel to a suitable location to observe it.

I think that we can be reasonably sure that modern measurements of this stuff are pretty good, given that JPL were able to get a spacecraft into possition to get the picture you see in my avatar

Whoops! I forgot radar and laser ranging wasn't mentioned in the Qoran, so that can't exist. Does the Qoran say anything about the dreaded "black drop" effect?.


So when does this thread get moved to debunking creationsim?

iamthereforeithink wrote:Well, it's good to have guys like questioner121 here. It gives us all an opportunity to revise our basics.

...and maybe learn something new.

klazmon wrote:

questioner121 wrote:

Blackadder wrote:

Yes because every observation that humans have made of every corner of the known universe for centuries show that less massive bodies orbit more massive bodies (and we have mathematical "proofs" (sic) for this) but you think that in our solar system the opposite applies? Have you any idea of the relative mass of the Sun and the Earth? Or the faintest understanding of gravity? Clearly not.

How do you know what the mass of the sun is?
Do you know how the distance to the sun is calculated?

An accurate distance to the Sun was initially determined via a method using the measurements of transit timings of the inner planets. One of the tasks assigned to the explorer Captain Cook, was to observe a transit of Venus from Tahiti to help in getting an accurate determination. These days distances to the planets Mercury, Venus and Mars and miscellaneous asteroids that come near enough to the Earth, is determined using radar. The distance to the Moon is measured by laser ranging due to some corner reflectors kindly left on the surface. The Sun's gravitational mass is determined by knowledge of these distances combined with the known motion of planets, asteroids and spacecraft. Incidentally there will be a Venusian transit occurring next year. You will have a chance to do the observations and calculations yourself:

http://www.transitofvenus.nl/details.html

You may of course have to travel to a suitable location to observe it.

I think that we can be reasonably sure that modern measurements of this stuff are pretty good, given that JPL were able to get a spacecraft into possition to get the picture you see in my avatar

I couldn't find anything which mentioned the accuracy of using the transit of venus but I did find some articles which said that it was hard to determine when to start, ie. the black drop effect which you mentioned. So I'm not convinced about the accuracy of this method.

questioner121 wrote:

klazmon wrote:

questioner121 wrote:

How do you know what the mass of the sun is?
Do you know how the distance to the sun is calculated?

An accurate distance to the Sun was initially determined via a method using the measurements of transit timings of the inner planets. One of the tasks assigned to the explorer Captain Cook, was to observe a transit of Venus from Tahiti to help in getting an accurate determination. These days distances to the planets Mercury, Venus and Mars and miscellaneous asteroids that come near enough to the Earth, is determined using radar. The distance to the Moon is measured by laser ranging due to some corner reflectors kindly left on the surface. The Sun's gravitational mass is determined by knowledge of these distances combined with the known motion of planets, asteroids and spacecraft. Incidentally there will be a Venusian transit occurring next year. You will have a chance to do the observations and calculations yourself:

http://www.transitofvenus.nl/details.html

You may of course have to travel to a suitable location to observe it.

I think that we can be reasonably sure that modern measurements of this stuff are pretty good, given that JPL were able to get a spacecraft into possition to get the picture you see in my avatar

I couldn't find anything which mentioned the accuracy of using the transit of venus but I did find some articles which said that it was hard to determine when to start, ie. the black drop effect which you mentioned. So I'm not convinced about the accuracy of this method.

It's plenty accurate enough for most purposes (an error of less than one part in a hundred with careful observations). The combination of modern methods of spacecraft telemetry, radar and laser ranging have pegged it to an eror to around three parts in a billion.

questioner121 wrote:

iamthereforeithink wrote:Well, it's good to have guys like questioner121 here. It gives us all an opportunity to revise our basics.

...and maybe learn something new.

Well, the only thing new that I learned here is the incredible extent of damage that religion can do to our ability to think rationally.

klazmon wrote:

questioner121 wrote:

pensioner wrote:

I think you are taken the piss mate, did you not see the graphic that SPMaximus posted?

I understand what you're saying. I find it hard to believe myself that it could be possible that the sun and stars goes around the earth. So i've been looking at the scientific evidence that proves the earth goes around the sun and I haven't been able to find anything that put's it beyond doubt.

The motion of the Earth about the Sun is a different question to the Earth's rotation on its' axis. Historically, the observation of the phases of Venus falsifies the model of Ptolemy, which has all the planets and the Sun orbiting the Earth. Some astronomers tried to rescue geocentrism via the model of Tycho Brahe, which had the planets orbiting the Sun and the Sun in turn orbiting the Earth. Kepler showed that the Tychonic model must be mere sophistry by calculating the motion of the planet Earth as it would appear if observed from a fixed point on the orbit of the planet Mars. He chose a point defined by the apsidal line of a specific Martian opposition. This enabled him to demonstrate that the Earth strictly obeyed Kepler's second law of planetary motion. He also showed that the center of the Earth's orbit lay between the equant point and the Sun. This showed that the Earth's proprties of motion were generally identical to any planet. Kepler had already derived his first law for the planet Mars and later derived his third or harmonic law. From these laws of planetary motion he was able to compute the Rudolphine tables which utterly demolished any ephemerides based on any form of geocentrism. Some time later Sir Isaac Newton showed how Kepler's laws are a direct result of the Gallilean law of inertia and Newton's own law of universal gravitation.

One argument against heliocentrism had been the fact that if the Earth orbits the Sun, then it should be possible to measure the parallax of stars during the course of a year. The reason this wasn't possible in earlier times is that the stars are at huge distances making the parallax angles very small (less than a second of arc). Bradley made a serious attempt to determine the parallax of stars but instead discovered the abberation of light. Another excellent piece of evidence demonstrating the motion of the Earth around the Sun. Eventually, Bessel succeeded in obtaining the parallax of a number of near by stars. More recently the Hipparcos astrometry sattelite produced a catalogue of stellar parallax for about one hundred thousand stars.

I think you could also use Ptolemy's work to calculate the locations of the planets. Even though it may not be elegant I don't think you can discard just based on that.

Observing stellar parallax is an interesting one. Do you know how they calibrate the equipment to measure it? Wouldn't the accuracy of the equipment be affected by the orbit of the earth around the sun?

klazmon wrote:

questioner121 wrote:

klazmon wrote:

An accurate distance to the Sun was initially determined via a method using the measurements of transit timings of the inner planets. One of the tasks assigned to the explorer Captain Cook, was to observe a transit of Venus from Tahiti to help in getting an accurate determination. These days distances to the planets Mercury, Venus and Mars and miscellaneous asteroids that come near enough to the Earth, is determined using radar. The distance to the Moon is measured by laser ranging due to some corner reflectors kindly left on the surface. The Sun's gravitational mass is determined by knowledge of these distances combined with the known motion of planets, asteroids and spacecraft. Incidentally there will be a Venusian transit occurring next year. You will have a chance to do the observations and calculations yourself:

http://www.transitofvenus.nl/details.html

You may of course have to travel to a suitable location to observe it.

I think that we can be reasonably sure that modern measurements of this stuff are pretty good, given that JPL were able to get a spacecraft into possition to get the picture you see in my avatar

I couldn't find anything which mentioned the accuracy of using the transit of venus but I did find some articles which said that it was hard to determine when to start, ie. the black drop effect which you mentioned. So I'm not convinced about the accuracy of this method.

It's plenty accurate enough for most purposes (an error of less than one part in a hundred with careful observations). The combination of modern methods of spacecraft telemetry, radar and laser ranging have pegged it to an eror to around three parts in a billion.

Sorry, are we talking about the accuracy of the radar equipment or the distance to the sun using the transit of venus? I was referring to the accuracy of the distance between the earth and the sun using the transit of venus method.

iamthereforeithink wrote:

questioner121 wrote:

iamthereforeithink wrote:Well, it's good to have guys like questioner121 here. It gives us all an opportunity to revise our basics.

...and maybe learn something new.

Well, the only thing new that I learned here is the incredible extent of damage that religion can do to our ability to think rationally.

This is more to do with science rather than religion. Back in the old days of Ptolemy and Co, when people were trying to work out the motions of the planets, they were using science not religion to do their work. I think alot of people have been brain washed into thinking that they didn't use science and got all of their facts/theories out of the Bible. That's not true.

questioner121 wrote: This is more to do with science rather than religion. Back in the old days of Ptolemy and Co, when people were trying to work out the motions of the planets, they were using science not religion to do their work. I think alot of people have been brain washed into thinking that they didn't use science and got all of their facts/theories out of the Bible. That's not true.

No, it isn't, is it? How ever did you figure out that Ptolemy didn't get his theories from the Bible?

Actually, it would have been an even more impressive achievement if he had.

BTW, hackenslash, what gives here? Have you raised the standard for awarding Dunsapies?

questioner121 wrote:

Weaver wrote:I notice the OP is completely ignoring my response to his question, involving ballistics as proof that the Earth indeed rotates around it's axis.

So we have three independent methods of answering his question (Foucault, Ballistics, Princepia) - yet supposedly the Quran wins.

I don't think there's any evidence or proof that links the speed of the rotation of the earth with ballistics. In order to do that you'd need to have a body which didn't rotate to compare the ballistics with. It's the same with the Coriolis effect.

Really.

What is the mechanism which produces Coriolis Effect on ballistic projectiles?
What is the mechanism which generates range deviations on ballistic projectiles fired directly East vs. directly West?

Incredulity is not absence of evidence.