Does Science go against faith?

[Ariel82]

Psalm 99:1 The Lord reigns; Let the peoples tremble! He dwells between the cherubim; Let the earth be moved!

 

[Married_Richenbrachen]

"empty" needs a precise definition before we can really use that word in a physical sense.

Empty could mean filled with ether, perhaps?

it proved that if there is a all-permeating field in motion relative to the earth, it doesn't exert a measurable force (i don't know offhand the exact significant digits of the experiment) on light waves. this leaves open the possibility that the aether is not in motion relative to the earth, called "aether dragging." the presence of stellar aberration contradicts this idea, hence aether, in motion or not in motion, if it exists, does not exert a measurable force on matter. this is "classical aether" that is different from the idea of the higgs field - a non-interactive, all-pervasive potential energy well. you can call it "aether" but a scientist in the 1700's would not use the same word, because the properties of it are entirely different. the similarity is that it's an all pervasive field.

Isn't this all based on the assumption the Earth is moving? Surely it would be easier to say (i.e. Occam's razor), there is an ether and the Earth doesn't move? (I prefer the 1700's scientists over the charlatans we see today, although there were bad ones then, also).

now i am sure you don't understand what experimental error is. they measured as close to zero as the accuracy of their measuring stick. if you've got a meter stick that's only good to 1%, then when you measure 1 meter it might actually be anywhere from 0.99 to 1.01 meters. likewise, if you measure 0.99 meters it might actually be 1 meter.

The meter ruler is an easy example. If suddenly you apply also a one second error in time measurement, and we're ultimately calculating speed, that error could be huge, depending on the actual time measured. (For example, a 1 meter measurement with 1 second time and an error of up to 1 second could give a huge error, from 100% (if the true time is 0), and downward). In most experiments, there are many variables and hence the potential error is quite high.

science is nothing more than a logical process.you have a question, you form a hypothesis, you design an experiment that will turn out one way if your hypothesis is true and another if it isn't. perform the experiment - if it turns out the way your hypothesis suggests, it's a "success," if it doesn't, your hypothesis "fails" - all what i said means is Michelson and Morley expected to see the laser beam slow down (believing there was an aether in relative motion with the earth) but it didn't.

And yet you still insist that the Earth must rotate?

when i throw a baseball into the air, why does it travel in a parabola instead of an cartoid? why don't satellites or water droplets in free fall orbit in epicycles?

When you throw a baseball in the air, why doesn't it speed away at up to 465m/s (i.e. the same speed you claim we are spinning at)? If you claim its because the air is also spinning at this magnificent speed, what magical force can glue the air to the Earth so? And why does the air speed and direction change at different heights above the Earth? I'm not sure about satellites or water droplets. Geostationary satellites are probably the easiest to set up, because all you would need is some sort of blimp. I haven't observed any water droplets in free fall orbit, but I'm sure neither have you (directly).

 

[Married_Richenbrachen]

1. Science agrees that the sun is moving.

Scripture agrees with this, and so do I.

2. Zone and I have already had this discussion. we have agreed to disagree on this point.

Noted.

3. just because it does not say the Earth moves, doesn't mean the belief is false.

Agreed. But the Heavens and Earth were created on day 1, and sun and moon on day 4. It is more consistent with most (all?) scripture to believe the Earth is still (e.g. in Genesis 1, with a heliocentric view, what was the Earth orbiting for days 1 - 3?).

the Bible does not say heavier than air flight is possible, or mention the internet or TV either.

that type of reasoning is a logical fallacy.

Strawman arguments are also a logical fallacy. I don't say "because the bible doesn't mention the Earth moves, it is stationary". I say "because the scriptures either imply or directly state that the Earth is stationary, it probably is, and true science is not in conflict with this".

 

[Ariel82]

When you throw a baseball in the air, why doesn't it speed away at up to 465m/s (i.e. the same speed you claim we are spinning at)?

the baseball has not escaped the gravitational pull of the Earth.

why do things in a car not go flying at the speed they were going when thrown in the air?

If you claim its because the air is also spinning at this magnificent speed, what magical force can glue the air to the Earth so?

try the moving car experiment, and come back with your results...........

And why does the air speed and direction change at different heights above the Earth?

this is done by the uneven heating of the Earth due to the tilt of a spherical earth and the Coriolis effect but you wouldn't be expected to understand such concepts because you would have to actually consider that the Earth might be spinning.

I'm not sure about satellites or water droplets.

what about satellites and water droplets are you unsure about?

Geostationary satellites are probably the easiest to set up, because all you would need is some sort of blimp. I haven't observed any water droplets in free fall orbit, but I'm sure neither have you (directly).

hmmmmm....... i'm sure there is more to this story that can be found in the conspiracy forum..........

 

[Married_Richenbrachen]

the baseball has not escaped the gravitational pull of the Earth. why do things in a car not go flying at the speed they were going when thrown in the air?

They do when you throw them out the car window (i.e. the air resistance slows them down). Hence my question about what mysterious force that keeps the atmosphere magically glued to Earth.

try the moving car experiment, and come back with your results...........

Try it yourself. I am already clear on the result.

this is done by the uneven heating of the Earth due to the tilt of a spherical earth and the Coriolis effect but you wouldn't be expected to understand such concepts because you would have to actually consider that the Earth might be spinning.

Okay. So there is a mysterious, magical force that holds the atmosphere to the Earth, so when we throw a baseball in the air, it encounters none of the air resistance we'd normally expect from traveling at such a speed. Yet this mysterious force is overcome by such things as uneven heating of the Earth? I say you believe what you do because of what people would think you if you didn't, not because it's true.

what about satellites and water droplets are you unsure about?

I stated I didn't know that water droplets in free fall orbited in epicycles. I've never observed a water droplet in free fall orbit, and I doubt very many others have, either.

hmmmmm....... i'm sure there is more to this story that can be found in the conspiracy forum..........

You are correct. There is more conspiracy in the world than there is truth. You don't go to school to learn truth, you go to learn conspiracy theories. The most reliable source of truth in the world is the bible, and conspiracists are working even to undermine this.

 

[thecreationtutor]

Frankly, this claim is ridiculous, but if you think it's true back it up with some facts.

http://ia600506.us.archive.org/23/items/a588333800huxluoft/a588333800huxluoft.pdf

here cycel you can read it for free

 

[Ariel82]

Psalm 19

1 The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
2 Day to day pours out speech,a
and night to night reveals knowledge.
3 There is no speech, nor are there words,
whose voice is not heard.
4 Their voiceb goes out through all the earth,
and their words to the end of the world.
In them he has set a tent for the sun,
5 which comes out like a bridegroom leaving his chamber,
and, like a strong man, runs its course with joy.
6 Its rising is from the end of the heavens,
and its circuit to the end of them,
and there is nothing hidden from its heat.

~

Figurative language notice the use of the word "like" ....

Joshua 1:4
"...the going down of the sun...."

Joshua 8:29
"...as soon as the sun was down...."

talks about the setting sun, doesn't mean that it claims that the Earth doesn't move.......

Joshua 10:12
"...Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon...."

Joshua 10:13
"...and the sun stood still...."

^ check the account of this story - God CLEARLY STOPS THE SUN FROM MOVING, NOT THE EARTH.

i deleted a few verses they just talk about the rising and setting of the sun, which does not reflect either way on whether or not the Earth moves.

Job 26:7
"...He hangeth the earth upon nothing...."

what does this verse have to do with if the sun or earth moves and how does that verse contradict accepted science?

Psalm 19:4
"...tabernacle for the sun...."

Psalm 19:5
"...cometh out to run...."

Psalm 19:6
"...goes forth in a circle from one end of heaven to the other...."

repeat verses

perhaps I'll start a thread about Psalm 19 its one of my favorites.



Psalm 93:1
"...the world also is stablished that it cannot be moved...."

Ecclesiastes 1:5
"...The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down and hasteth to the place where he arose...."

personification, do you know what kind of language that is or do you think the sun is an actual person/entity?

Isaiah 60:20
"...the sun shall no more go down...."

perhaps if you read this verse in context it would help...

[SUP]19 [/SUP]“The sun shall no longer be your light by day,
Nor for brightness shall the moon give light to you;
But the Lord will be to you an everlasting light,
And your God your glory.
[SUP]20 [/SUP]Your sun shall no longer go down,
Nor shall your moon withdraw itself;
For the Lord will be your everlasting light,


**************


it would help you understand this verse as well:

Jeremiah 15:9
"...her sun is gone down while it was yet day...."

Jeremiah 15
You have forsaken Me,” says the Lord,
“You have gone backward.
Therefore I will stretch out My hand against you and destroy you;
I am weary of relenting!
[SUP]7 [/SUP]And I will winnow them with a winnowing fan in the gates of the land;
I will bereave them of children;
I will destroy My people,
Since they do not return from their ways.
[SUP]8 [/SUP]Their widows will be increased to Me more than the sand of the seas;
I will bring against them,
Against the mother of the young men,
A plunderer at noonday;
I will cause anguish and terror to fall on them suddenly. [SUP]9 [/SUP]“She languishes who has borne seven;
She has breathed her last;
Her sun has gone down
While it was yet day;
She has been ashamed and confounded.
And the remnant of them I will deliver to the sword
Before their enemies,” says the Lord.

************

I don't think "sun" in these verses is referring to the thing you see with your eyes in the sky every day.

Amos 8:9
"...cause the sun to go down at noon...."

people often say this is an eclipse

Habakkuk 3:11
"...the sun and moon stood still in their habitation...."

Habakkuk 3
You divided the earth with rivers.
[SUP]10 [/SUP]The mountains saw You and trembled;
The overflowing of the water passed by.
The deep uttered its voice,
And lifted its hands on high.
[SUP]11 [/SUP]The sun and moon stood still in their habitation;
At the light of Your arrows they went,At the shining of Your glittering spear.
[SUP]12 [/SUP]You marched through the land in indignation;
You trampled the nations in anger.
[SUP]13 [/SUP]You went forth for the salvation of Your people,
For salvation with Your Anointed.
You struck the head from the house of the wicked,
By laying bare from foundation to neck. Selah




**************

this just illustrates how people can lose focus of the BIBLE's message and how its all about JESUS and HIS light. \

John 1
[SUP]4 [/SUP]In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. [SUP]5 [/SUP]And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend[SUP][a][/SUP] it.

 

[thecreationtutor]

i see a lot of mangling and wrangling of words going on

 

[Married_Richenbrachen]

this just illustrates how people can lose focus of the BIBLE's message and how its all about JESUS and HIS light.

Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree also. I understand where you are coming from - that the gospel is salvation through Christ, and all other things are of lesser importance.

However, I also think the lesser things scripture teaches against often prove a stumbling block to unbelievers, whether such beliefs be evolutionism, old-earthism or heliocentrism. Christians accepting such (false) beliefs make it harder for unbelievers to see that Christians are right about salvation through Christ.

If God wants to convict you of this, I am sure He will show you in His time. For me, it is enough to say that scripture is 100% defensible, and true science is not contrary to true faith.

 

[Ariel82]

They do when you throw them out the car window (i.e. the air resistance slows them down). Hence my question about what mysterious force that keeps the atmosphere magically glued to Earth.

when you throw the ball in the air, your still on the Earth (i.e the car) therefore until you toss it out of the car window (past the pull of Earth's gravity) it would at as it does inside the car.

Try it yourself. I am already clear on the result.

yes but you choose to ignore the logic....

Okay. So there is a mysterious, magical force that holds the atmosphere to the Earth, so when we throw a baseball in the air, it encounters none of the air resistance we'd normally expect from traveling at such a speed. Yet this mysterious force is overcome by such things as uneven heating of the Earth? I say you believe what you do because of what people would think you if you didn't, not because it's true.

i say you don't have a clear understanding of concepts you just reject off hand and you don't really care to learn the theories you have misunderstood and misrepresented. you just want to argue and fight.

I stated I didn't know that water droplets in free fall orbited in epicycles. I've never observed a water droplet in free fall orbit, and I doubt very many others have, either.

ok....

You are correct. There is more conspiracy in the world than there is truth. You don't go to school to learn truth, you go to learn conspiracy theories. The most reliable source of truth in the world is the bible, and conspiracists are working even to undermine this.

wow.

The Bible does have the truth, however many people twist God's truth to use it to reject observable facts about the world around them and to make themselves feel smarter and more spiritually pure then others and don't realize the trap or snare they have fallen into.

 

[Ariel82]

Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree also. I understand where you are coming from - that the gospel is salvation through Christ, and all other things are of lesser importance.

yes that would probably be for the best.

However, I also think the lesser things scripture teaches against often prove a stumbling block to unbelievers, whether such beliefs be evolutionism, old-earthism or heliocentrism. Christians accepting such (false) beliefs make it harder for unbelievers to see that Christians are right about salvation through Christ.

again we will have to disagree about this.......

If God wants to convict you of this, I am sure He will show you in His time.

I'm sure He will do the same for you.

For me, it is enough to say that scripture is 100% defensible, and true science is not contrary to true faith.

I actually agree with that statement that "true science is not contrary to true faith".

 

[Ariel82]

in case you are interested:

[video=youtube;aeY9tY9vKgs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeY9tY9vKgs[/video]

 

[posthuman]

Empty could mean filled with ether, perhaps?
Isn't this all based on the assumption the Earth is moving?

that's why i said "in motion relative to the earth." the math gives the same result in the two-body system. you'll get the same result if you do the floating coordinate system math. i was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

The meter ruler is an easy example. If suddenly you apply also a one second error in time measurement, and we're ultimately calculating speed, that error could be huge, depending on the actual time measured. (For example, a 1 meter measurement with 1 second time and an error of up to 1 second could give a huge error, from 100% (if the true time is 0), and downward). In most experiments, there are many variables and hence the potential error is quite high.

what, you think this isn't accounted for? haven't you ever read the last pages of a lab report, where the error calculation is done? the % error accuracy isn't just a number 'pulled out of the air' to make a result sound plausible.
if you think that some unaccounted for variable zeroes out the results, you design an experiment that will show it. if you think they weren't accurate enough, find a better ruler. in the case of michaelson-morely, if they weren't accurate enough, the interaction of the aether with light is so weak it can never account for the precession of a foucault's pendulum (even though we still haven't heard how a stationary, flat, circular earth can have aether moving at speeds by, now we need a stationary aether that doesn't even deflect photons to move a heavy pendulum bob around in circles at different rates across this inert disc).

And why does the air speed and direction change at different heights above the Earth?

shearing & coriolis forces. why does fluid in a pipe move at different speeds according to distance from the center of the pipe?

I'm not sure about satellites or water droplets. Geostationary satellites are probably the easiest to set up, because all you would need is some sort of blimp. I haven't observed any water droplets in free fall orbit, but I'm sure neither have you (directly).

here are some water droplets orbiting in space around a charged needle.
Water droplets orbiting a needle in space. [VIDEO]

notice they don't move in epicycles. if epicyclical motion is the natural orbital characteristic of a gravitational or magnetic interaction, what's with the keplarian motion?? must be fake since it's from NASA?

tossing a baseball into the air, it's motion is governed by the energy i give it, gravity of the earth and friction from the air. oh yes and possibly the immeasurably small force of aether, and if the ball is in the air long enough, we'll see some coriolis force. if gravity is causing planets to orbit in an infinite string of epicycles, shouldn't the baseball follow the same basic laws?

 

[Married_Richenbrachen]

that's why i said "in motion relative to the earth." the math gives the same result in the two-body system. you'll get the same result if you do the floating coordinate system math. i was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

So, the math gives the same result, but you just prefer doing the extra because it fits in with your religion?

what, you think this isn't accounted for? haven't you ever read the last pages of a lab report, where the error calculation is done? the % error accuracy isn't just a number 'pulled out of the air' to make a result sound plausible.

Actually, pretty often, it is. If the maximum error for each step were used, a lot of experiments wouldn't prove anything. So a number lesser than the maximum is chosen, but this still means there is a chance the experiment is out by more than its "experimental error". I'm sure you've heard of experiments that were found to be "out" by more than the published allowable error?

if you think that some unaccounted for variable zeroes out the results, you design an experiment that will show it. if you think they weren't accurate enough, find a better ruler.

Why? Stopped is stopped to me. Whether the radio is making the car vibrate or not, it's still stopped. You're the one who insists that the experiment didn't prove the Earth was still, rather, it proved there was no ether. If that's your religion, that's up to you. Just don't tell me its unscientific to use Occum's Razor if I choose to cut out the superfluous Einteinian, relativity crud.

in the case of michaelson-morely, if they weren't accurate enough, the interaction of the aether with light is so weak it can never account for the precession of a foucault's pendulum

You keep going back to this Focault's pendulum. I don't accept it. I don't like it. I don't trust Focault, and I don't trust all the Copernican scientists that say his pendulum proves the Earth rotates. I have read enough scientists I trust who say the Focault pendulum results are not consistent to believe that they're not. Even if they were, it has as much to do with the Earth rotating or not as which side of an egg points up. If you must insist on continuously bringing it up, at least bring up some experimental records, or something falsifiable. I'm really getting to dislike this Focault...

(even though we still haven't heard how a stationary, flat, circular earth can have aether moving at speeds by, now we need a stationary aether that doesn't even deflect photons to move a heavy pendulum bob around in circles at different rates across this inert disc).

A geocentric Earth is not the same as a flat Earth. I don't understand many of the natural phenomena around us, but I don't go around saying their existence proves crazy things that they don't.

shearing & coriolis forces. why does fluid in a pipe move at different speeds according to distance from the center of the pipe?

Friction.

notice they don't move in epicycles. if epicyclical motion is the natural orbital characteristic of a gravitational or magnetic interaction, what's with the keplarian motion?? must be fake since it's from NASA?

As I said, I don't trust NASA. They've been caught out lying at least once before, and have never openly repented. Why should anyone trust anything they have to say again, ever?

tossing a baseball into the air, it's motion is governed by the energy i give it, gravity of the earth and friction from the air. oh yes and possibly the immeasurably small force of aether, and if the ball is in the air long enough, we'll see some coriolis force. if gravity is causing planets to orbit in an infinite string of epicycles, shouldn't the baseball follow the same basic laws?

You never did tell me how the atmosphere/air is magically glued to the Earth. If you stick your head out of a moving car, you feel the air rushing past.

 

[thecreationtutor]

A person using good operational science can determine that the earth rotates, and revolves around the sun. Scripture does in no way specifically agree to a geocentric model. The Bible is a Historical book, not a scientific text that changes. The arguments I have seen are the same arguments used for the heavens being perfect - ie the universe. All of which plays no account for the fall of man - sin corrupting all of creation.


Some are taking poetry and trying to make it literal - this is where Flat Earth theories originally came from - people wrangling with words of Scripture that were poetic. Genesis is literal historical for example, and a general outline of creation.

The only qualm/arguement that Christians have with people using the tools of science, is when they extrapolate history onto the origin of the universe, and man.

While I love apologetics, that in itself is not an end. Jesus Christ is that end- that if you don't get the Gospel out to those who you are debating, you have done absolutely nothing for the Kingdom.

If you don't understand that the natural man is hostile towards the things of Scripture and of God, and temperate that in your apologetic either, you will find yourself in a predicament of trying to win an argument vs win a soul.

 

[megaman125]

I will simply state that I do NOT believe that the BIBLE takes a stance that the Earth is still and the center of the universe.

I believe its a false take on the Bible that Jews and others have taken in history much like their false belief that the Messiah would come as a conquering king to make them leaders of the world by force instead of a suffering servant.

It is part of what lead them to cruxify Christ and it will be part of what takes away from some people's message of Christ because they get distracted by such really poor science and logic.

It had nothing to do with why the pharisees cruxified Christ. I'm not sure what Bible you're reading, but in mine, all I find is that Jesus was put on trial and executed for claiming to be God. That's why the pharisees got so angry with Jesus in the early parts of the Gospels and why they plotted so much to kill Jesus. It had nothing to do with "poor science and logic."

 

[megaman125]

However, I also think the lesser things scripture teaches against often prove a stumbling block to unbelievers, whether such beliefs be evolutionism, old-earthism or heliocentrism. Christians accepting such (false) beliefs make it harder for unbelievers to see that Christians are right about salvation through Christ.

This is so true, and you see it all the time with non-believers. They go as far as to say Jesus never existed, and all that stuff about salvation isn't true. When asked why they don't believe, a common response from the atheists nowadays is. "I don't believe because science..." It's a great example of this passage.

If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
John 3:12

 

[zone]

A person using good operational science can determine that the earth rotates, and revolves around the sun. Scripture does in no way specifically agree to a geocentric model. The Bible is a Historical book, not a scientific text that changes. The arguments I have seen are the same arguments used for the heavens being perfect - ie the universe. All of which plays no account for the fall of man - sin corrupting all of creation.


Some are taking poetry and trying to make it literal - this is where Flat Earth theories originally came from - people wrangling with words of Scripture that were poetic. Genesis is literal historical for example, and a general outline of creation.

The only qualm/arguement that Christians have with people using the tools of science, is when they extrapolate history onto the origin of the universe, and man.

While I love apologetics, that in itself is not an end. Jesus Christ is that end- that if you don't get the Gospel out to those who you are debating, you have done absolutely nothing for the Kingdom.

If you don't understand that the natural man is hostile towards the things of Scripture and of God, and temperate that in your apologetic either, you will find yourself in a predicament of trying to win an argument vs win a soul.

but if people don't believe the creation account, why should they believe anything else?

scripture in no way agrees to the heliocentric model - and neither does science.
it is a theory. nothing more.

 

[zone]

.....even though we still haven't heard how a stationary, flat, circular earth can have aether moving at speeds by, now we need a stationary aether that doesn't even deflect photons to move a heavy pendulum bob around in circles at different rates across this inert disc....

disc? flat earth? huh? LOL.

what's the problem with the aether orbiting (rotating) and everything (lights; bodies) IN it rotating - around a stationary earth?

you have the earth and everything else hurtling and spinning and rotating!

haha....nah.

 

[posthuman]

So, the math gives the same result, but you just prefer doing the extra because it fits in with your religion?

i take it you haven't done any of the math. Kepler's model of the universe is miles simpler than Ptolemy's or any semi-ptolemic model, plus, Kepler's model is accurate and Ptolemy's and Copernicus' hybrid ptolemic model aren't accurate.

the extra work is to try to make to make observation fit a stationary earth. you can put a record on a record player and watch it spin, or you can assume the record remains stationary and the entire world spins around the record. guess which model is more cumbersome? for a two-body system, the result will be the same whether you put the origin on one or the other body. it's arbitrary. when you try to describe more complicated systems, or systems with very high velocities, you have to start being careful about having an inertial reference frame. since you can't understand whether a stationary phonograph is more complicated than a stationary phonographic record, i'm not going to waste time teaching you higher mathematics. go take a calculus-based physics class.

if you can't do the math yourself but you don't trust any result anyone with a college degree puts out, how am i supposed to reason with you?

Actually, pretty often, it is. If the maximum error for each step were used, a lot of experiments wouldn't prove anything. So a number lesser than the maximum is chosen, but this still means there is a chance the experiment is out by more than its "experimental error". I'm sure you've heard of experiments that were found to be "out" by more than the published allowable error?

you still don't understand what experimental accuracy and margins of error mean. you think it means when i measure something with a yard stick, i could be 6 km off of the true reading?
if you think Michelson-Morley were wrong, then why don't you point out what you think they missed, instead of waving your hand at any result that doesn't agree with your preconception and saying "it's possible they are light-years off in there calculations so i don't trust any result whatsoever"

Why? Stopped is stopped to me. Whether the radio is making the car vibrate or not, it's still stopped. You're the one who insists that the experiment didn't prove the Earth was still, rather, it proved there was no ether. If that's your religion, that's up to you. Just don't tell me its unscientific to use Occum's Razor if I choose to cut out the superfluous Einteinian, relativity crud.

you still don't understand what Michelson-Morely set out to measure, and what their results mean. the thinking of the day was that there is an aether that exerts a measurable drag force on matter & energy as they move through it, or if you like to make the math more complicated and probably run into discontinuities, as the aether moves past it. the experiment showed that there was no such effect anywhere near the magnitude it was expected to be. this proves that there are one of two explanations:
there is no measurable drag force produced by any all-pervasive aether
or the aether and the earth are not in motion relative to each other.

prior and subsequent experiments showed that a drag-imposing aether and the earth cannot be motionless with respect to one another.

this has nothing to do with whether the earth is in motion or not.

i know i've explained this more than once to you, but i don't think you are reading too carefully what i actually say.

You keep going back to this Focault's pendulum. I don't accept it. I don't like it. I don't trust Focault, and I don't trust all the Copernican scientists that say his pendulum proves the Earth rotates. I have read enough scientists I trust who say the Focault pendulum results are not consistent to believe that they're not. Even if they were, it has as much to do with the Earth rotating or not as which side of an egg points up. If you must insist on continuously bringing it up, at least bring up some experimental records, or something falsifiable. I'm really getting to dislike this Focault...

you claimed that the aether caused foucault's pendulum to precess, and not the rotation of the earth.

is it that now that it is becoming clear this is not possible that you decide every focault's pendulum ever built is a lie and a hoax, all experimental data are forgeries, and only you and zone have the true knowledge of physics?

how about you build one yourself and come back to us in a week or so with the results? i walk past one 5 days a week. want picures?

A geocentric Earth is not the same as a flat Earth. I don't understand many of the natural phenomena around us, but I don't go around saying their existence proves crazy things that they don't.

i'm sorry, but IIRC in an earlier thread on the same subject, you are espousing a flat earth. before that you were claiming the earth is hollow and the universe is inside it. have you been brought around to spherical now? with us living on the surface?

i guess i am wrong to think you would be consistent in your beliefs.

Friction.

guess why clouds move at different speeds in the atmosphere.

As I said, I don't trust NASA. They've been caught out lying at least once before, and have never openly repented. Why should anyone trust anything they have to say again, ever?

you don't trust NASA, you don't trust video, you don't trust written records, you don't trust your own eyes, you don't trust logic and reason, you don't trust any "scientist," you don't trust any pendulum, you don't trust a map, you don't trust ...

why aren't you out there doing experiments for yourself instead of in your armchair saying anything that doesn't agree with your worldview is a forgery and a hoax?

again, go build a pendulum, build it well, watch it for a few days, tell us what the rate of precession is, then explain why it is precessing. then you don't have to trust any one of the millions of foucault's pendulums other people have built. then you don't have to trust your obscure conspiracy theory websites and you-tube videos. you can trust what you actually see and do.

You never did tell me how the atmosphere/air is magically glued to the Earth. If you stick your head out of a moving car, you feel the air rushing past.

when you stick your head out of a "moving car" is the air rushing past or are you rushing past the air?

what is in space that would exert a force on the atmosphere?

what keeps the atmosphere from blowing off a stationary earth if the universe is rotating around it?

when you throw a baseball, why doesn't it just keep going?

you are hip to very old Greek models of the universe. are you also hip to very old Greek models of teaching?