A proof for the Stationary Earth, Part 2

[Sparko]

Question:
When responding to John Martin's assertions did anyone do something other than simply take the word of a textbook?

I'll be honest, I've no idea if the earth is actually rotating or not and I've not the faintest idea on how one would even begin to approach proving it one way or the other. While I've no reason to doubt the common narrative I think it is telling that we had quite a few people posting 'facts' - people with no real ability to back up those 'facts' with anything other than bluster - or worse, simply quoting a source without even understanding it.

Let me give you an example: 50 years ago it was a fact that homosexuality was a mental illness. At the time you could quote doctors/scientists/professionals out the wazoo that there was no question that homosexuality was a mental illness. They were treating it with shock therapy and lobotomies - concerned families were told this was the best thing for their son - and if they questioned it a wise man in a gray beard could pull out the consensus of any number of highly trained professionals to back up the assessment. "Son, this may hurt a bit..." *BZZZZZAAAAT*

I don't think you know what you think you know.
I think you're a poser.

I dont know anyone that posted "text book" facts to JM. Everyone used actual math and physics to show him he is wrong. Maybe you should read the thread(s) before pronouncing your verdict.

[Meh Gerbil]

I dont know anyone that posted "text book" facts to JM. Everyone used actual math and physics to show him he is wrong. Maybe you should read the thread(s) before pronouncing your verdict.

Math and physics formulas developed by other people as recorded in a textbook.

[Sparko]

Math and physics formulas developed by other people as recorded in a textbook.

er, yeah. OKAAAAYYY. You know that math and physics can be tested, right? even by gerbils. or maybe using gerbils. I forget.

[Meh Gerbil]

er, yeah. OKAAAAYYY. You know that math and physics can be tested, right? even by gerbils. or maybe using gerbils. I forget.

I appreciate that, Sparko, but in refuting JohnMartin how many people actually did any testing?
Outside of quoting a textbook how do you know the earth is rotating?

[HMS_Beagle]

Question:
When responding to John Martin's assertions did anyone do something other than simply take the word of a textbook?

I have. I've been involved in the design, launch, and operation of geostationary satellites. I know their orbital parameters and why they exhibit the behavior they do, like tracing analemma patterns in the sky.

So there rodent.

[Meh Gerbil]

I have. I've been involved in the design, launch, and operation of geostationary satellites. I know their orbital parameters and why they exhibit the behavior they do, like tracing analemma patterns in the sky.

So there rodent.

I think this is a reasonable response.

Follow up question:
1: If you were to select 1 million random US Citizens how many of them do you suppose believe the earth rotates?
2: If you were to select 1 million random US Citizens how many of them do you suppose could back up the belief with first hand knowledge?

I don't have an opinion on the rotation of the earth.

My best guess is that our current models are accurate not because of what I read in a textbook but because many countries have done work similar to yours and if our models were incorrect someone, somewhere would be kicking up a fuss about it. In other words, I base my beliefs not on the false notion that humans are honest with science but that the human desire to prove others wrong is so strong that bad models have a tendency to get crushed unless they're back by really big money.

None of that has anything to do with me having the slightest clue as to what the implications of a rotating earth would be.
It's best that I don't have an opinion on the matter.

[Sparko]

I appreciate that, Sparko, but in refuting JohnMartin how many people actually did any testing?
Outside of quoting a textbook how do you know the earth is rotating?

you know how to do math right? You can go back and check Oxx's math and JohnMartin's too and see which is correct. Testing math is a matter of using a calculator or your head. They are pretty simple formulas.

There are lots of ways to know the earth is rotating. A few are: 1. We have satellites in geostationary orbit. If the earth was not rotating, how would they remain above the same point on the earth? they are in orbit. 2. We have wind patterns that are measurable that you can see on weather maps and video showing rotating cloud patterns caused by the Coriolis effect of a rotating sphere. 3. Foucault's pendulum. It directly measures the rotation of the earth using inertia. 4. direct observation by those same before mentioned satellites. 5. rocket launches use the rotational speed of the earth to gain extra speed during take-off. That is why they always go into orbit in an easterly direction and launch as close to the equator as they can.

[HMS_Beagle]

I think this is a reasonable response.

Follow up question:
1: If you were to select 1 million random US Citizens how many of them do you suppose believe the earth rotates?
2: If you were to select 1 million random US Citizens how many of them do you suppose could back up the belief with first hand knowledge?

I don't have an opinion on the rotation of the earth.

My best guess is that our current models are accurate not because of what I read in a textbook but because many countries have done work similar to yours and if our models were incorrect someone, somewhere would be kicking up a fuss about it. In other words, I base my beliefs not on the false notion that humans are honest with science but that the human desire to prove others wrong is so strong that bad models have a tendency to get crushed unless they're back by really big money.

None of that has anything to do with me having the slightest clue as to what the implications of a rotating earth would be.
It's best that I don't have an opinion on the matter.

What's with the requirement that all knowledge be "first hand" to be acceptable? I imagine there are very few people if any who can back up everything science knows with first hand knowledge. Fortunately we don't have to. We have trained professional scientists, experts who study the various topics and who have established beyond any reasonable doubt certain scientific facts. I don't have to do the work myself as long as I understand what I'm discussing and can reference the verified work of others.

If some boob comes along claiming the Earth is hollow I can show him verified scientific results of geologic sonographs with data the Earth isn't hollow. I don't need to dig a tunnel to the Earth's core myself.

[Meh Gerbil]

What's with the requirement that all knowledge be "first hand" to be acceptable? I imagine there are very few people if any who can back up everything science knows with first hand knowledge. Fortunately we don't have to. We have trained professional scientists, experts who study the various topics and who have established beyond any reasonable doubt certain scientific facts. I don't have to do the work myself as long as I understand what I'm discussing and can reference the verified work of others.

If some boob comes along claiming the Earth is hollow I can show him verified scientific results of geologic sonographs with data the Earth isn't hollow. I don't need to dig a tunnel to the Earth's core myself.

No, I wouldn't say all knowledge would have to be first hand to be acceptable.
I would say that arguing about second hand knowledge as if it were first hand knowledge is little more than quote mining.

In all my years of internet trolling I've come up with two conclusions:
1: Most people have no actual experience/expertise with the things they argue - they are little more than quote miners who can link to articles but do no actual thinking of their own.
2: Most of the hotly debated issues have no practical impact whatsoever. For example, if you issued a bulletin tomorrow that declared that the earth wasn't rotating the VAST majority of people would blink their eyes stupidly (including me) and then eat some toast and go to work.

The axiom I'd use is this: The need for something to be first hand observable is directly proportional to it's importance.

Whether or not the earth rotates is important to about 4 people in the world.
You'd be one of them.

[Sparko]

No, I wouldn't say all knowledge would have to be first hand to be acceptable.
I would say that arguing about second hand knowledge as if it were first hand knowledge is little more than quote mining.

In all my years of internet trolling I've come up with two conclusions:
1: Most people have no actual experience/expertise with the things they argue - they are little more than quote miners who can link to articles but do no actual thinking of their own.
2: Most of the hotly debated issues have no practical impact whatsoever. For example, if you issued a bulletin tomorrow that declared that the earth wasn't rotating the VAST majority of people would blink their eyes stupidly (including me) and then eat some toast and go to work.

and promptly get caught in a traffic jam as everyone's GPS units stopped working because there were no gps satellites in orbit. (although gps satellites are not in geostationary orbit, they do need to be able to position themselves relative to the surface of the earth while remaining in orbit. A stationary earth would mean they would be orbiting much too fast for them to work.

edited: I take that back. they could probably be programmed to still work with a stationary earth, but it would have have to be planned that way from the beginning. Meaning the rotating earth would be a massive nefarious plot by the world's scientist to fool us all these years.

[TheLurch]

There are lots of ways to know the earth is rotating.

A neat article came out over the weekend:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/...han-the-earth/

We can explain lots of subtle variations in the timing of day length based on the earth's angular momentum, which only exists because the earth is rotating. With current precision atomic clocks, we can even detect changes in the angular momentum produced as sap rises in trees in the spring, shifting some of the planet's mass to slightly further from the center of its axis of rotation.

Again, i can't see that personally, but it can be done.

[HMS_Beagle]

No, I wouldn't say all knowledge would have to be first hand to be acceptable.
I would say that arguing about second hand knowledge as if it were first hand knowledge is little more than quote mining.

The axiom I'd use is this: The need for something to be first hand observable is directly proportional to it's importance.

When your automatic transmission goes Tango Uniform do you have to do the repair job yourself with your first hand knowledge? Or can you trust an expert's opinion and skill set?

In order to explain pro football to a non-american do you first need to have played pro football yourself to get first hand knowledge? Or will second hand knowledge of the rules and strategy do?

You're making only marginally more sense than JM.

[Carrikature]

and promptly get caught in a traffic jam as everyone's GPS units stopped working because there were no gps satellites in orbit. (although gps satellites are not in geostationary orbit, they do need to be able to position themselves relative to the surface of the earth while remaining in orbit. A stationary earth would mean they would be orbiting much too fast for them to work.

edited: I take that back. they could probably be programmed to still work with a stationary earth, but it would have have to be planned that way from the beginning. Meaning the rotating earth would be a massive nefarious plot by the world's scientist to fool us all these years.

It's more than that. We're using GPS to drive tractors in agriculture. And create self-driving cars. And...

[Carrikature]

2: Most of the hotly debated issues have no practical impact whatsoever.

Say instead that most people don't know what the practical impact is. There's a reason certain issues are hotly debated, even if most people don't know what that reason is.

[Yttrium]

1: Most people have no actual experience/expertise with the things they argue - they are little more than quote miners who can link to articles but do no actual thinking of their own.

You really should check out the other thread more closely. For example, JM was talking about a plane flying, and lilpixieofterror has plenty of experience with aircraft. When it comes to satellites, in addition to HMS_Beagle, I have plenty of satellite experience. I worked in satellite intelligence in the military, and I worked on satellite projects in private industry. I know about satellite propulsion and attitude control systems, which JM disbelieves in. I know about geosynchronous satellites, which would fall down if the Earth isn't rotating. Etc.