Is The Earth Spinning?

[Utah]

Yes I agree it does seem that way to you.

And thank you for acknowledging my defense to your other claim, I am not use to this kind of fair tactic and kind treatment on the conspiracy forum!

It's all good, brother. Remember, Jesus is our Lord and Savior; everything else is moot. In the end, and I mean for all eternity, we're "stuck" with each other, to the glory of God. Believe me, we all bang heads here, but 95% of us love each other. You'll see that and experience it in due time, and I have no doubt, you're part of the 95%. God bless!

 

[GaryA]

I am not use to this kind of fair tactic and kind treatment on the conspiracy forum!

"Depends on who you are dealing with..."

It's all good, brother. Remember, Jesus is our Lord and Savior; everything else is moot. In the end, and I mean for all eternity, we're "stuck" with each other, to the glory of God. Believe me, we all bang heads here, but 95% of us love each other. You'll see that and experience it in due time, and I have no doubt, you're part of the 95%. God bless!

"That's right! Forgive-and-forget is a good policy -- right along with the Golden Rule..."

 

[Tommy379]

I looked at the flat earth theory in a post that is recently posted or answered, and while I personally can't quite see it flat, I have heard another theory which to me seems far more plausible then the scientific belief we are all accustomed to believe. Bear me out on this...

A couple of years ago I was sidetracked by the Still Earth Theory. The basic theory fits well with the Biblical account of things. The earth is still (Or almost still) and everything else move around it.
Two things before I go further here I need to point out. Science pushing evolution would be dead against this theory on the bases that it explains creation and not evolution, and the second point is that the difference at the equator between the time it takes for a single revolution and the distance round the equator circumference gives an estimated speed of just a tad above or below 1000 mph. Some say 1006. Others have said 996. We shall call it 1000 to round it up.

The easiest way to see if the theory fits or not is put it to the test by what we actually see and what seems to fit what we see.
First gravity. If gravity is working because the earth spins we have strong gravity at the equator and no gravity directly at the two poles. Yet gravity actually does the opposite in the way we would expect a spinning earth would do. We know centrifugal force on a roundabout actually throws us off rather then keeps us on as the speed increases. Now trying to explain a spinning earth that keeps our feet on the ground just does not add up to me.
Now a still earth and things make sense as the universe turning around the earth is more likely to push us onto the earth then throw us off the earth.
Another interesting point to consider that works with the still earth theory but not the spinning earth theory is regarding the 1000mph speed difference between the earth and all else outside the earth. Now the point that the greatest speed difference between the part that moves at speed and the part that is still is the point where the greatest friction is likely to be. Let us have an example. A lump of rock heads for the earth. It burns up in the outer point of our earths atmosphere, not right next to the earth. We send a rocket into space and back. It needs protection due to the friction at the most outer part of the earths atmosphere. We send a weather balloon up. They burst when they touch the outer atmosphere right up high.
If the earth spins at speed then near the earths surface there would be constant high winds and friction in one single direction that the ear this spinning in. We would not expect to see changes in wind direction at all.

Now as for the other post about a flat earth? Well. We know for sure it is round as in either flat and round or ball shaped due to shadows. While I can't see it being flat myself, something strange is happening here as the aircraft routes go from either east to west or give versa. There are none going north up over the top or south round the bottom as a shorter route. Is this just due to the cold air or is it because the earth is not how it seems? Just a thought there may be more to it then it seems.

While I conclude that even if we keep to the most popular theory of the earth spins, it can be fun to stretch our minds a bit now and then can't it? After all, we won't really know for sure until the Lord returns, and does it really matter anyway? All that matters is God knows what He is doing.

I'm late to the party. I'm not going to read 13 pages, sorry if someone else has stated this, but the earth has gravity because of its mass, not because it spins.

 

[JesusRules1]

I'm late to the party. I'm not going to read 13 pages, sorry if someone else has stated this, but the earth has gravity because of its mass, not because it spins.

Mass attracts things to it.The force of attraction (gravity) between two objects depends on their mass and the distance between them.Gravity will pull toward the center of mass of the objects.To find the center of mass, you have to examine the object.

Since a sphere has a consistent shape,no matter where on it you stand,you have exactly the same amount of sphere under you.

A sphere's center of mass is in the center of the sphere,which means gravity will pull anything on the surface toward the center of the sphere(straight down)no matter where it's located.

The center of mass of a flat plane is in its center,so the force of gravity will pull anything on the surface toward the middle of the plane.That means that if you stand on the edge of the plane,gravity will be pulling you toward the middle,not straight down like you experience.

I am quite positive that,even for Australians,an apple falls downwards,not sideways.

 

[posthuman]

So -- I repeat the above questions...

i already answered you in another thread. guess you did not take it to heart.

Antarctica is a continent-sized land mass. under the North pole is the Arctic ocean. that's substantially the difference in climate -- ice floes on top of a circulating Arctic ocean vs. rock and soil that's been frozen solid for thousands of years. it's colder at the south pole, and because inland, there is not access to the sea as there is in much of the Arctic, there are fewer food sources, so less biodiversity.

but that nothing lives in Antarctica? that's just a lie. you can do your own googling.

the difference is very simple Gary. and it's not conspiratorial.
it's that one has an ocean beneath it, and the other has frozen land.
ask yourself why, temperature zone for temperature zone, more creatures live around the edge of a lake than live in the middle of a desert.

 

[BeyondET]

However, during the entire cycle of ~365 days, the amount of light each area receives is exactly the same amount of light that the complimentary opposite area receives ( i.e. - 75 degrees North versus 75 degrees South ) - only, they are six months apart in the cycle.

Why don't the North Pole region and South Pole region have the same seasonal patterns?

Why does it never get as warm in the South as it does in the North? It gets the same amount of light as the North.

Why does the North have lots of plant and animal life, etc. -- when the South does not - to the point of absolute zero?

Why are they not "balanced" -- or, even remotely similar...???



EXACTLY!

So -- I repeat the above questions...

God also said think logical about things, well the sun is a sphere, the moon is a sphere, all other planets in our solar system is a sphere they all are spheres but you think God made earth flat. That's not being logical in my book.

Do you know of any other moon or sun or planet that is flat??

The reason why the north pole and South Pole of earth don't point directly at the sun because it's a sphere a ball that has spin axes points and these points are not directly north Pole and South Pole.

Who told you there is to the Point "zero life in the South Pole", this so far from the truth not even funny.

Of Antarctic animals the most abundant and best known animals from the southern continent. Penguins, whales seals, albatrosses, other seabirds and a whole range of invertebrates, some may have not heard of such as krill which form the basis of the Antarctic food web that support All types of sea life around the South Pole.

two words from the bible circle and round is all that is mentioned in the bible about the shape of earth. Add these together and you have two sides one side is a circle and the other side is round thus making a sphere pretty simple. Today we have pictures from space that shows the shape of earth being a sphere.

I know what flat earth believers say that's all a NASA hoax that's the first thing all flat earthers grab on too. It's all a lie right? They can't help but say it's a hoax because if they don't say that then they have to except man has come along way from the caves to understanding the shape of earth.

It's the flat earth believers who want to suppress other people minds from moving forward in knowledge and keep folks in cages like locked up animals.

 

[pckts]

I know what flat earth believers say that's all a NASA hoax that's the first thing all flat earthers grab on too. It's all a lie right? They can't help but say it's a hoax because if they don't say that then they have to except man has come along way from the caves to understanding the shape of earth.

It's the flat earth believers who want to suppress other people minds from moving forward in knowledge and keep folks in cages like locked up animals.

You think God started us out in a cave ignorant of the fine and complex details of earth? Adam knew the name of every single animal, you don't think Adam new the cosmology of Earth too? He certainly would have past this knowledge of cosmology and earth on to his children.

 

[tourist]

You think God started us out in a cave ignorant of the fine and complex details of earth? Adam knew the name of every single animal, you don't think Adam new the cosmology of Earth too? He certainly would have past this knowledge of cosmology and earth on to his children.

Actually, God allowed Adam to chose the names for each animal as he pleased. He didn't know the names beforehand as the animals didn't have a name as yet until he actually assigned a name to each one.

Adam's knowledge was not all surpassing as he initially knew only what God chose to reveal at the time. There is no biblical record of God telling him anything about cosmology related to the earth. Man has been acquiring knowledge ever since, some of it accurate, and some of it questionable or yet unproven. Man is still learning about the cosmology of the universe through the use of various satellites, space probes and telescopes.

In my opinion, based on scriptural evidence, Adam knew very little about the earth, let alone the entire universe.

 

[pckts]

Actually, God allowed Adam to chose the names for each animal as he pleased. He didn't know the names beforehand as the animals didn't have a name as yet until he actually assigned a name to each one.

Adam's knowledge was not all surpassing as he initially knew only what God chose to reveal at the time. There is no biblical record of God telling him anything about cosmology related to the earth. Man has been acquiring knowledge ever since, some of it accurate, and some of it questionable or yet unproven. Man is still learning about the cosmology of the universe through the use of various satellites, space probes and telescopes.

In my opinion, based on scriptural evidence, Adam knew very little about the earth, let alone the entire universe.

I know the alphabet now, but I didn't know it beforehand. I don't think I'm incorrect in saying that Adam knew the name of EVERY animal on the earth.


He lived for hundreds of years, you don't think God revealed it to him or he couldn't have figured it out on his own, or perhaps even asked God these questions and received an answer? To me the first couple generations of humans had to be geniuses with photographic memories and more access to the truth and freedom from lies than anyone alive today. We all ponder cosmology, you even ponder it enough to argue with those who live inside a different model than you, yet you don't think Adam or his descendants came to this knowledge with God's guidance.

I don't by into the new age satanic agenda of "gradualism", in regards to the rise of mankind's "intellect", and the rise of our sophistication.(manufacturing and using smartphones doesn't make us sophisticated)

Tourist, do you subscribe to evolution and cavemen too? Not saying cavemen and hunter gatherer's haven't existed or don't exist today, I'm talking about the massive chunk of 10,000s of years where humanity is said as a whole to only do this, and this "progress" is tracked by found tools and weapon tips.

 

[tourist]

I know the alphabet now, but I didn't know it beforehand. I don't think I'm incorrect in saying that Adam knew the name of EVERY animal on the earth.


He lived for hundreds of years, you don't think God revealed it to him or he couldn't have figured it out on his own, or perhaps even asked God these questions and received an answer? To me the first couple generations of humans had to be geniuses with photographic memories and more access to the truth and freedom from lies than anyone alive today. We all ponder cosmology, you even ponder it enough to argue with those who live inside a different model than you, yet you don't think Adam or his descendants came to this knowledge with God's guidance.

I don't by into the new age satanic agenda of "gradualism", in regards to the rise of mankind's "intellect", and the rise of our sophistication.(manufacturing and using smartphones doesn't make us sophisticated)

Tourist, do you subscribe to evolution and cavemen too? Not saying cavemen and hunter gatherer's haven't existed or don't exist today, I'm talking about the massive chunk of 10,000s of years where humanity is said as a whole to only do this, and this "progress" is tracked by found tools and weapon tips.

What I believe is the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. God created the universe in 6 days and on the seventh day He rested. I believe that the God's entire creation is approximately 6000 years old. Do not believe in evolution. It is quite possible that the Lord told Adam all kinds of things as He walked with him in the garden in the cool of the evening. In fact, He probably explained a lot of stuff to him. Yes, I'm sure that Adam did a lot of pondering about the world in which he lived in.

 

[posthuman]

But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end:
many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
(Daniel 12:4)

​

i don't think the idea that people 6,000 years ago where more knowledgeable than people today is scriptural. that's ancient-aliens-type hokum.
man has drawn further from God over time, but he has not become more ignorant in general terms just because he has rejected the knowledge of his Creator - rather, the opposite has happened: many have gone back and forth, and knowledge has increased, just as it was written beforehand, just as has been His will.

 

[pckts]

What I believe is the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. God created the universe in 6 days and on the seventh day He rested. I believe that the God's entire creation is approximately 6000 years old. Do not believe in evolution. It is quite possible that the Lord told Adam all kinds of things as He walked with him in the garden in the cool of the evening. In fact, He probably explained a lot of stuff to him. Yes, I'm sure that Adam did a lot of pondering about the world in which he lived in.

Ok I wasn't expecting you to NOT believe in evolution and the accompanying "timeline of man" that has us acting like animals (hunter-gatherers) for 80,000-250,000 years, because those that believe in outer space travel and that man didn't "discover" the correct cosmological model until recently, generally tend to believe these things because Man evolved from an animal, and it took him so long to figure out simple tools and machines and how to have a culture and society, that they apply this same logic to why it took so long to crunch the numbers for the heliocentric model and to acquire the technology for "space travel".

I think it's around 6000 years too, and I find it more logical to believe that during the End Times, Satan deceived man with a false model promoted alongside evolution and other agendas, than to believe that in this age of ignorance and suffering we live in where God tells us directly that satan is ruler, man started "figuring things out" that the Good and Peaceful civilizations never did (numbers and calculations initially proved globe earth, not the "space footage"), and that he started "traveling space" shortly after the Hollywood special effects of the 60's were achieved.

I wasn't expecting you to believe what you believe so I have no points to go further

 

[pckts]

But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end:
many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
(Daniel 12:4)

​

i don't think the idea that people 6,000 years ago where more knowledgeable than people today is scriptural. that's ancient-aliens-type hokum.
man has drawn further from God over time, but he has not become more ignorant in general terms just because he has rejected the knowledge of his Creator - rather, the opposite has happened: many have gone back and forth, and knowledge has increased, just as it was written beforehand, just as has been His will.

I don't mean they were more knowledgeable as in accumulation of facts and understandings of how to do things (cell phones, curcuits, engines).

I mean more aware of The Truth, free of deception, and I believe they knew the larger Truths to life, as where today we know a massive number of small meaningless truths, like knowledge of sports statistics or game outcomes, or knowledge of how to weave baskets underwater.

And many of us "know" and believe things that are lies like evolution or.....other things possibly about cosmology.

 

[Sirk]

I don't mean they were more knowledgeable as in accumulation of facts and understandings of how to do things (cell phones, curcuits, engines).

I mean more aware of The Truth, free of deception, and I believe they knew the larger Truths to life, as where today we know a massive number of small meaningless truths, like knowledge of sports statistics or game outcomes, or knowledge of how to weave baskets underwater.

Noahs compatriots did stuff under water.....like drown.

 

[posthuman]

I don't mean they were more knowledgeable as in accumulation of facts and understandings of how to do things (cell phones, curcuits, engines).

I mean more aware of The Truth, free of deception, and I believe they knew the larger Truths to life, as where today we know a massive number of small meaningless truths, like knowledge of sports statistics or game outcomes, or knowledge of how to weave baskets underwater.

yeah. but do you think knowledge of topology, geography, geometry, physics, astronomy and optics, gravity, inertia, meteorology and atmospheric phenomena, relativity, kinematics, vulcanism and seismology are the sort of "larger truths to life" that people who had only the most rudimentary tools and no formal science or mathematics, nor understanding of natural forces or even the breadth of their own environment once had, but have lost because they stray from God?

do you think these are spiritual things?

---

---

but first things first - Foucault's pendulum. it's been ignored for 11 pages, and AFAIK it devastates your hypothesis. thoughts?

 

[pckts]

yeah. but do you think knowledge of topology, geography, geometry, physics, astronomy and optics, gravity, inertia, meteorology and atmospheric phenomena, relativity, kinematics, vulcanism and seismology are the sort of "larger truths to life" that people who had only the most rudimentary tools and no formal science or mathematics, nor understanding of natural forces or even the breadth of their own environment once had, but have lost because they stray from God?

do you think these are spiritual things?

---

---

but first things first - Foucault's pendulum. it's been ignored for 11 pages, and AFAIK it devastates your hypothesis. thoughts?

First things first, I said first things first to the other guy because he wanted me to answer one of his questions as he was ignoring mine. You didn't pose that question to me, nor did I pose one to you, so you use "first things first" incorrectly, and I don't want to google search educate myself on Foucault's pendulum, and then immediately argue with you. Find someone more familiar already and ask them about it.

I believe you are selling these people short, and if I had to pick a society to place my trust in if they found the correct model of the universe or not, I would select any of the numerous societies that appear to be less knowledgeable in topology, geography, geometry, physics, astronomy and optics, gravity, inertia, meteorology and atmospheric phenomena, relativity, kinematics, vulcanism and seismology, than to believe that the United States of America, with all it's evil and propoganda, were the one's to do this.

I would also say the same for the freemasons/jesuits who discovered the heliocentric model, on the surface they may seem to understand mathematics and astronomy more, but I would believe these "intelletuals" would lie to us, before I would believe that numerous honest societies made a mistake.

My biggest evidence is I believe I see the "zipper on the costume" in the NASA videos, but everyone's eyes are a little sore around here, so I am falling back on my 2nd,3rd,4rd,5th reasons for belief etc.

 

[pckts]

but first things first - Foucault's pendulum. it's been ignored for 11 pages, and AFAIK it devastates your hypothesis. thoughts?

I've returned from google, I've heard of this before and already know my counterargument.



Look I'm someone who believes the scientific community told and have maintained a 500 year old lie regarding globe earth, I also believe that NASA CGI and edited all of their evidence and not only deceived the entire public, but was successful for decades.

So, this pendulum I just have to say that in 1850 they BS'ed it, and all of the modern ones, if not BS, just use the electromagnets or whatever other third party force to fake it.

Seems odd this is the only device in the world that tracks the rotation, and it took until 1850 to make one, and we can only replicate this thing, we can't make any new devices to do so.





Let me try a new approach, maybe we are all just too patriotic from living inside the machine.

Would we be willing to consider that China fakes their space program?
[video=youtube;lBL98p0wZ7g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBL98p0wZ7g[/video]

 

[posthuman]

[video=youtube;hMBCfuKs9i8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMBCfuKs9i8[/video]

 

[GaryA]

However, during the entire cycle of ~365 days, the amount of light each area receives is exactly the same amount of light that the complimentary opposite area receives ( i.e. - 75 degrees North versus 75 degrees South ) - only, they are six months apart in the cycle.

Why don't the North Pole region and South Pole region have the same seasonal patterns?

Why does it never get as warm in the South as it does in the North? It gets the same amount of light as the North.

Why does the North have lots of plant and animal life, etc. -- when the South does not - to the point of absolute zero?

Why are they not "balanced" -- or, even remotely similar...???



EXACTLY!

So -- I repeat the above questions...

Antarctica is a continent-sized land mass. under the North pole is the Arctic ocean. that's substantially the difference in climate -- ice floes on top of a circulating Arctic ocean vs. rock and soil that's been frozen solid for thousands of years.

You are saying that there is no land -- anywhere at 75 degrees North?

I am not talking about the 1-square-foot land areas called the North Pole and South Pole.

I am comparing North to South at 60 degrees - 70 degrees - 75 degrees...

As far as I can determine, there is "pretty-much" nothing-but-ice from 60 degrees to 90 degrees South; however, between 60 degrees and 90 degrees North is a whole 'nother story...

it's colder at the south pole

Back to the original question:

~ Why is it colder in the South Pole region?

~ Why should it be colder in the South Pole region?

Both regions get the same amount of light per year. And, have for thousands of years - right?

Both regions had to be in the same condition right after the flood - right?

( Best I remember -- the biblical account seems to indicate that every-place-on-Earth was in the same condition by the time it was all over... )


And, for what it is worth -- there is as much - or more - land mass above 60 degrees in the North as there is below 60 degrees in the South.

Why is all of the land above 60 degrees in the North not "frozen solid" - with 200 feet of ice on top of it, or whatever - like it is below 60 degrees in the South?

Both regions get the same amount of light per year. And, have for thousands of years - right?


With regard to Antarctica:

You seem to think that, it was frozen solid first -- and, then - light shone upon it. If Globe Earth is true, then light has been shining on it for thousands of years - including before, during, and after the flood. And, I am pretty convinced there was no ice "stuck" to any frozen ground - anywhere - right after the flood.

If sunlight is the majority factor - wind and water currents and other things being minor by comparison - why would it have ever gotten frozen so much more in the South than in the North?

 

[posthuman]

So, this pendulum I just have to say that in 1850 they BS'ed it, and all of the modern ones, if not BS, just use the electromagnets or whatever other third party force to fake it.

I built a rather large one for my thesis project when I earned my physics BS.
I didn't 'fake' anything, and used it both with and without an electromagnetic driver. Without the driver, air resistance acting on the bob slows the pendulum considerably. Great care is taken with the magnetic driver, whose only purpose is to counteract friction, so that it will not impart any sideways motion to the swingarm.

But you're pooh-poohing something you don't entirely comprehend here again, aren't you? Just prepared yourself to parrot whatever flat-earth-wiki or some nutter youtube guy says, not really understanding what the pendulum tells us, and not caring either, because it's not by evidence you've been convinced, but something else, right...?