A proof for the Stationary Earth

[JohnMartin]

Discussion

The question of the stationary earth has been discussed at length at Tweb with claims and counter claims being made concerning many different experiments. Such claims and counter claims seem to only confuse the issues being discussed without either side producing any clear proof for their model. However, I believe I have now found very strong evidence for a stationary earth from the experience of 747 direct flights from Sydney. In short the stationary earth and rotating earth models have very different predictions concerning winds.

1) The rotating earth model assumes the atmosphere rotates with the earth. Therefore large winds will appear to act on 747 at particular locations within the flight path.

2) The stationary earth model assumes the stationary atmosphere over the earth. Therefore no large winds will appear to act on 747 at particular locations within the flight path.

These two major differences between the two models will provide definitive evidence for the stationary earth model over and against the rotating earth model.

The Maths of the Rotating earth ModelSydney London 277 km/hr348 km/hr277km/hr
2) A cyclone wind at London of about 348 km/hr.

Clarification - The rotating earth model requires 1) the atmosphere to rotate with the earth, as the co-rotation of the atmosphere and earth (earth-atm) and 2) the velocity vector of the 747 at Sydney remaining with the 747 for the entire journey. Then according to the rotating earth model, the velocity vector of the 747 of 1392 km/hr remains with the 747. Hence as the velocity vector of the rotating earth changes throughout the 747's flight path from Sydney to the destination, the relative velocity vectors of the 747 and the earths rotating atmosphere translates into a predicted wind vector acting on the 747. The wind vector is caused by the variable difference between the rotating earth-atm velocity vector and the 1392 km/hr velocity vector caused by the 747 beginning its journey from Sydney.

As the relative difference in atmosphere velocities acting on the jet are not experienced in flights over the equator, nor for flights landing at London. The rotating earth model cannot account for the fact that jets do not experience such winds calculated above. Such a large difference between the maths of the rotating earth and the facts of jet flights, which fly direct routes without experiencing the predicted winds, means jets flights are very strong evidence for a stationary earth.

Further evidence is gathered from direct flights from

Sydney to Singapore.277 km/hr

Sydney to Brisbane 92 km/hr

As the global earth/Heliocentric model claims the atmosphere rotates with the earth, then the relative velocity differences are indicative of wind velocities predicted to act against the 747 jet. As such wind velocities are not experienced against the jet, then the rotating globe model has been repeatedly invalidated and the stationary earth model has strong evidence.

Geostationary Claim

Step 1

1) If the rotating atmosphere model is false,

then

2) the non rotating atmosphere model is true.

But

3) The rotating atmosphere model is false,

Therefore

4) The non rotating atmosphere model is true.

5) But, as the non rotating atmosphere model is the stationary earth model.

6) Therefore the stationary earth model is true.

7) Therefore the earth is stationary.

Step 2Step 3

Using in the reasoning of Step 1.

Statements 1 and 3 are true, therefore statements 6 and 7 are also true.

As 6 and 7 are true, then the earth is stationary.

Step 1 is recapped below with the statements marked as true (T).

1) If the rotating atmosphere model is false, (T)

then

2) the non rotating atmosphere model is true.

But

3) The rotating atmosphere model is false, (T)

Therefore

4) The non rotating atmosphere model is true.

5) But, as the non rotating atmosphere model is the stationary earth model.

6) Therefore the stationary earth model is true. (T)

7) Therefore the earth is stationary. (T)



Conclusion

[shunyadragon]

Wowsers!?!?!? You figured out the earth rotates on its axis. Your answer is blowing in the wind.

[Roy]

[QUOTE=JohnMartin;3127301) The rotating earth model assumes the atmosphere rotates with the earth. Therefore large winds will appear to act on 747 at particular locations within the flight path. [/quote]False. If the atmosphere rotates with the Earth, then the air is effectively stationary w.r.t. the Earth's surface - in the same way that the peel of an orange is stationary with respect to the flesh if the orange is rotated - and no such "large winds" will appear.

Rest deleted.

That was easy

[Roy]

Some other trifling points:Rotational velocities are not measured in km/h.

Height of 747 jet above center of earth = 6,371+9144

Mixed units. Should be 6371 + 9.144That's not a rotational velocity, it's an orbital velocity.
That's not at ground level since it uses the value for 9km up

348 km/hr

Only if the plane flies directly north ... and misses London completely.

277km/hr
2) A cyclone wind at London of about 348 km/hr.

...which is 600km/h less than a 747's cruising airspeed. Not a problem.

the velocity vector of the 747 at Sydney remaining with the 747 for the entire journey.

747s are capable of changing their velocity. Also, "velocity vector" is redundant. Velocity is a vector.

Such a large difference between the maths of the rotating earth and the facts of jet flights, which fly direct routes without experiencing the predicted winds,

Jet flights do experience the effects of a rotating Earth. cf Coriolis effect.

Geostationary Claim

False dichotomy.

1) If the rotating atmosphere model is false,

then

2) the non rotating atmosphere model is true.

Same false dichotomy.

5) But, as the non rotating atmosphere model is the stationary earth model.

Not necessarily. The flat Earth, hollow Earth and brain-in-a-vat scenarios can also have non-rotating atmospheres

6) Therefore the stationary earth model is true.

Alternatively, "Therefore The Matrix is a documentary".

Conclusion

Conclusion: JM is still incompetent.

[oxmixmudd]

Discussion

The question of the stationary earth has been discussed at length at Tweb with claims and counter claims being made concerning many different experiments. Such claims and counter claims seem to only confuse the issues being discussed without either side producing any clear proof for their model. However, I believe I have now found very strong evidence for a stationary earth from the experience of 747 direct flights from Sydney. In short the stationary earth and rotating earth models have very different predictions concerning winds.

1) The rotating earth model assumes the atmosphere rotates with the earth. Therefore large winds will appear to act on 747 at particular locations within the flight path.

2) The stationary earth model assumes the stationary atmosphere over the earth. Therefore no large winds will appear to act on 747 at particular locations within the flight path.

These two major differences between the two models will provide definitive evidence for the stationary earth model over and against the rotating earth model.

The Maths of the Rotating earth ModelSydney London 277 km/hr348 km/hr277km/hr
2) A cyclone wind at London of about 348 km/hr.

Clarification - The rotating earth model requires 1) the atmosphere to rotate with the earth, as the co-rotation of the atmosphere and earth (earth-atm) and 2) the velocity vector of the 747 at Sydney remaining with the 747 for the entire journey. Then according to the rotating earth model, the velocity vector of the 747 of 1392 km/hr remains with the 747. Hence as the velocity vector of the rotating earth changes throughout the 747's flight path from Sydney to the destination, the relative velocity vectors of the 747 and the earths rotating atmosphere translates into a predicted wind vector acting on the 747. The wind vector is caused by the variable difference between the rotating earth-atm velocity vector and the 1392 km/hr velocity vector caused by the 747 beginning its journey from Sydney.

As the relative difference in atmosphere velocities acting on the jet are not experienced in flights over the equator, nor for flights landing at London. The rotating earth model cannot account for the fact that jets do not experience such winds calculated above. Such a large difference between the maths of the rotating earth and the facts of jet flights, which fly direct routes without experiencing the predicted winds, means jets flights are very strong evidence for a stationary earth.

Further evidence is gathered from direct flights from

Sydney to Singapore.277 km/hr

Sydney to Brisbane 92 km/hr

As the global earth/Heliocentric model claims the atmosphere rotates with the earth, then the relative velocity differences are indicative of wind velocities predicted to act against the 747 jet. As such wind velocities are not experienced against the jet, then the rotating globe model has been repeatedly invalidated and the stationary earth model has strong evidence.

Geostationary Claim

Step 1

1) If the rotating atmosphere model is false,

then

2) the non rotating atmosphere model is true.

But

3) The rotating atmosphere model is false,

Therefore

4) The non rotating atmosphere model is true.

5) But, as the non rotating atmosphere model is the stationary earth model.

6) Therefore the stationary earth model is true.

7) Therefore the earth is stationary.

Step 2Step 3

Using in the reasoning of Step 1.

Statements 1 and 3 are true, therefore statements 6 and 7 are also true.

As 6 and 7 are true, then the earth is stationary.

Step 1 is recapped below with the statements marked as true (T).

1) If the rotating atmosphere model is false, (T)

then

2) the non rotating atmosphere model is true.

But

3) The rotating atmosphere model is false, (T)

Therefore

4) The non rotating atmosphere model is true.

5) But, as the non rotating atmosphere model is the stationary earth model.

6) Therefore the stationary earth model is true. (T)

7) Therefore the earth is stationary. (T)



Conclusion

To determine if your model is correct, a single contrary observation will suffice to show it is flawed. Observe then the atmosphere of our closest twin, Mars.

Does Mars rotate on its axis? Yes, it has a 'day' of a little more than 24 hours (24 hours, 40 minutes) - very similar to the Earth.

Does the atmosphere of mars rotate with the planet? Yes.

Does Mars exhibit the kind of atmospheric effects John claims must exist on a rotating planet with an atmosphere? No.

End of discussion.


Jim

[Sparko]

I kinda feel sorry for JM. He put a lot of time and effort into his post that proves absolutely nothing.

[JohnMartin]

False. If the atmosphere rotates with the Earth, then the air is effectively stationary w.r.t. the Earth's surface - in the same way that the peel of an orange is stationary with respect to the flesh if the orange is rotated - and no such "large winds" will appear.

Rest deleted.

That was easy

Roy also says this -

Jet flights do experience the effects of a rotating Earth. cf Coriolis effect.

The Coriolis effect is also in some cloud formations, apparently due to earth rotation. Yet, there is no local wind caused by the W-E velocity difference of the 747 at Sydney and the equator, even though the velocity difference is 277 km/hr. So Roy admits the rotating earth does affect the clouds and the 747, but not in the way I have stated. What's going on here?

The same problem enunciated in the OP also occurs with the orange. The outer layer of the orange moves along, just as the earth's atmosphere moves with the earth's surface. The rotational velocity corresponds to the 747's orbital velocity at Sydney. The velocity difference between the earths rotational velocity and the 747 orbital velocity at Sydney is zero. But when the 747 is above the equator, the difference between the earths rotational velocity and the 747's W-E orbital velocity is 277km/hr.

Stated in another way. If the 747 took off from Sydney and flew directly north over the equator. The difference between the earth's rotational velocity and the 747's W-E orbital velocity is 277km/hr. With this difference in velocity, an observer from the 747 would see the earth move under the 747 W-E at 277km/hr. As the global, rotating earth theory requires that the atmosphere rotate with the earth, then the atmosphere will also rotate with the earth, W-E at 277km/hr relative to the 747, causing a local wind against the 747. The local wind is only an effect of the velocity difference between the 747, which is constant, and derived from the rotation velocity at Sydney, of 1392 km/hr and the Earth's rotation velocity of the atmosphere of 1670 km/hr at the equator.

The atmosphere will rotate with the earth at the equator, and no wind will appear from an observer standing on earth. But the wind gust will be generated locally around the 747 due to the above velocity difference.

Stated in another way. If a plane began its journey from the south pole and flew directly north to the equator. The viewer from the 747 would see the earth move under the 747 W-E at about 1670km/hr at the equator. As the atmosphere moves W-E with the earth, then the same velocty would also be experienced against the 747 at the equator. Hence the problem.

Only if the plane flies directly north ... and misses London completely.

The same problem exists at the equator. Hence you have just admitted the problem is real, for the 747 does continue north past the equator.

Because the problem is real, the earth is stationary.

That was easy.

JM

[JohnMartin]

I kinda feel sorry for JM. He put a lot of time and effort into his post that proves absolutely nothing.

I'm still hanging in there.

JM

[JohnMartin]

To determine if your model is correct, a single contrary observation will suffice to show it is flawed. Observe then the atmosphere of our closest twin, Mars.

Does Mars rotate on its axis? Yes, it has a 'day' of a little more than 24 hours (24 hours, 40 minutes) - very similar to the Earth.

Does the atmosphere of mars rotate with the planet? Yes.

Does Mars exhibit the kind of atmospheric effects John claims must exist on a rotating planet with an atmosphere? No.

End of discussion.


Jim

Does Mars have a 747 fly N-S? No.

End of discussion.

JM

[oxmixmudd]

I kinda feel sorry for JM. He put a lot of time and effort into his post that proves absolutely nothing.

Thanks for the reminder. He tries hard - that is for sure. Too bad he doesn't have something real to fight for ...

[JohnMartin]

So do tell us Roy - if the earth was a non rotating globe and the 747 flies N-S from the south pole, what W-E atmospheric velocity effects would occur on the 747?

If if the earth was a rotating globe and the 747 flies N-S from the south pole, what W-E atmospheric velocity effects would occur on the 747?

Assume in both examples above that the atmosphere is stationary relative to the earth's surface.

If there is no difference, why not? If there is a difference, what is it?

JM

[oxmixmudd]

Does Mars have a 747 fly N-S? No.

End of discussion.

JM

Oh - now there is a cogent argument!

The same physical forces that keep the atmosphere rotating with Mars keep the Earth's atmosphere rotating with it. So there is nothing intrinsically flawed in the idea the Earth is rotating and its atmosphere rotates with it. Just pull out a telescope and watch Mars and you should be able to understand that is the case. So I appreciate the time it took for you to put together the post, but the argument just doesn't work, and Mars is simple observational proof of that fact.

Jim

[JohnMartin]

Thanks for the reminder. He tries hard - that is for sure. Too bad he doesn't have something real to fight for ...

Answering you is usually quite easy. I'm expecting the usual Ox comeback routine of "you have already been answered" to resolve the current problem.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Oh - now there is a cogent argument!

The same physical forces that keep the atmosphere rotating with Mars keep the Earth's atmosphere rotating with it. So there is nothing intrinsically flawed in the idea the Earth is rotating and its atmosphere rotates with it. Just pull out a telescope and watch Mars and you should be able to understand that is the case. So I appreciate the time it took for you to put together the post, but the argument just doesn't work, and Mars is simple observational proof of that fact.

Jim

I got the telescope out and could not see a 747 flying N-S. Also the Mars atmosphere does not act like that of Earth. Apparently Mars has near universal dust storms, which means the atmosphere on Mars is very different to that of earth.

No near universal storms on Earth. Therefore not much correspondence between Earth and Mars atmospheres.

That was easy and the problem remains unanswered.

The earth is stationary.

JM

[Sparko]

john you are ignoring two things:

1. The rotational speed of the atmosphere doesn't change suddenly, it is gradual
2. The atmosphere carries the plane along with it as it rotates.

The plane speeds up and slows down along with the speed of the rotation of the atmosphere. That is it's base speed. So if the atmosphere is moving at 1000 k/h so is the plane, and if the atmosphere slows down to 900k/h so does the plane. At that point the plane only observes the difference in it's own speed and the atmosphere's rotation. It is carried along with the air like a bug walking on the surface of that orange if you were spinning it. The bug wouldn't suddenly fly off the orange as it crawled from the top to the 'equator', it would just pick up the rotational speed from the orange and be at rest to the skin of the orange except for it's own crawling speed.