The Earth Doesn't Rotate or Move - No...seriously. It doesn't.

[Fletcher]

Just a few thoughts, the first practical ones that come to mind.

Coriolis Effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force and its subsets.

Particularly with reference to atmospheric weather patterns above and below the equator (meteorology is fascinating).

Ballistic effects over long ranges (deflection compensation required to be calculated or you miss the target).

[eccentrically1]

Yes, doesn't Foucault's pendulum show the rotation of the earth?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum

[Silvertiger]

Yeah, Coriolis is a very real effect. However, it may be caused by something as yet undefined. I have looked and looked and looked again at the CMB axis of evil and we just can't get around it. I honestly have no idea how both scenarios can occur simultaneously.

I just keep thinking of special relativity. Is it possible that Coriolis is caused by gravitational interactions by the universe rotating about its COM, which would be right here on Earth? The math works regardless of the frame of reference in the system.

It is conceivable that the earth, based on relativity, experiences all the effects of rotation without actually rotating, as we must in some form feel the effects of a larger rotating system such as the universe. Foucault's pendulum would be included in this system of interactions.

Consider a wind tunnel test for comparison. Whether the plane is flying in the air or whether it is mounted and the air is being moved head-on into it does not matter in the slightest. It yields the exact same predictable results and effects.

Or could it be that Coriolis is a geomagnetic phenomenon, as it is widely held that our molten core of iron and nickel spins which produces the magnetic field? How much mass does our spinning core have? Could the shear size and gravity of the core itself cause Coriolis? The earth doesn't have to rotate. You do all kinds of things inside a space ship, but no matter how many oxygen tanks you rig to zip around inside of it like Iron Man, you will never move the spaceship from its present course.

[eccentrically1]

I had it backwards. In my defense I work third shift so I'm pretty tired when I get on here. He moves faster at the equator. Duh. O.o I made the appropriate edit. The rest still applies.

You deleted the whole example. What do you mean you had it backwards? That you said he moved slower at the equator than the poles? I seem to remember you said it wouldn't possible for him to get to the pole if the earth was moving 1040 mph. No mention of the equator.

[eccentrically1]

So the molten core is spinning but the rest of the earth doesn't? You need to get some sleep.

[Silvertiger]

I had it backwards. In my defense I work third shift so I'm pretty tired when I get on here. He moves faster at the equator. Duh. O.o I made the appropriate edit. The rest still applies.

You deleted the whole example. What do you mean you had it backwards? That you said he moved slower at the equator than the poles? I seem to remember you said it wouldn't possible for him to get to the pole if the earth was moving 1040 mph. No mention of the equator.

He moves faster at the equator then at the pole. I had a brain fart is all. Angular velocity remains the same but the distance traveled becomes greater, hence greater tangential velocity further out.

The "core" idea is weak, I know, as one would think that it would force the rest of the earth to move from contact friction alone, but I still keep thinking of how that spaceship doesn't move regardless of how many walls you bounce off of. Of course a spinning core is just a guess...no one really knows. But if it is spinning it is possible for it to spin at such a rate as to keep the outer shell stationary, almost like how geostatic orbits work. A satellite sits "still" in space as the earth rotates, or vice-versa if the earth doesn't rotate. The concept is the same. It is feasible. If the outer shell of earth has a "spin" that opposes the spin of the core in such a way that the spin is effectively cancelled out, even though tricky, I think it could be done, but only by intelligent design if such is the case. Only then could the earth rotate and yet remain still at the same time lol. :) Ok going to bed now.

[cloud camper]

I thought the earth was hollow!

Just like the spinning tire example.

Yup, I knew it - this was on Art Bell so it must be true!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/book ... truth.html

[Silvertiger]

Hollow might be a stretch lol.

[Silvertiger]

ClouD, you are Jewish as You say so I'll share FRom joshua:

“Sun, stand still over Gibeon;
And Moon, in the Valley of Aijalon.�
13 So the sun stood still,
And the moon stopped,
Till the people had revenge
Upon their enemies.

So heRe we have context. GOD Stopped THE MOON. The MOON moves around the earth. It also says that he stopped the Sun. This implicit that the Sun ALSO moves around the earth.

[cloud camper]

Well, I think you should read the book by Dion Fortune: The Mystical
Qabalah available on Kindle.

This is a non religious explanation of ancient science (actually technology)
that was all developed from the Tanakh (Christian OT) by Jewish scholars
over thousands of years and is actually quite supportive of Christian theology.
Not totally but mostly.

We tend to think our current age has a monopoly on wisdom due to high
technology and communication but this read will prove otherwise.

Basically what we have detailed is an account of the nature of all forces
and structures in the universe both good and bad and how they are currently affecting you and
how they may be "reengineered" to improve your current condition.

Essentially a proactive approach to daily challenges rather than a reactive one.

This is NOT the new age Madonna/Britney Spears Kabbala that has a
popular cult following but the original stuff from millenia ago, basically a
development of ancient physics that actually has more everyday application
then our treasured and supposedly superior "modern" physics.

You will gain a whole new understanding of the universe and your place in
it and I believe you will see that dilemmas such as you have proposed in this
thread fade into insignificance!

[Silvertiger]

To your knowledge, has anyone ever actually tested the weight of an object at the equator along with an object of the same mass at the poles? All I can find is physics problems and examples, thought experiments, lectures, that sort of thing - but no actual test.

I can think of another test as well: an object falling in a vacuum cylinder at the equator and one at either pole. Can't find anything on that either.

I'll check out the book. Normally (in most cases), as far as any treatise on what God really meant to say when he gave words to men to write down, the mind of man can't even remotely speculate or give conjecture toward any alternative. God speaking through man is prophecy, whether it is past, present, or future. Whatever explanation is given by man must be in line with the Word, and must be validated in the Word and among testimony of witnesses, otherwise it merely comes from the minds of men, which are imperfect and natural creations, and as such cannot abide in the Word, in and of themselves and their accord. All books of this kind should be tested under this light. Some pass; most fail.

If God says he stopped the Sun just like he stopped the Moon, can that really be refuted, or explained in any other manner, by those who truly believe Him? That would be a contradiction. One cannot be both of God and of the World at the same time. That would also be a contradiction. To take his words and muddle them into other meanings is of the world. Therefore, to subscribe to such interpretations is a worldly, 100% natural thing. (The lure is that it can be extremely convincing.) And every thing that is natural is in direct opposition to the supernatural, as nature was cast out with Adam. That's why they don't mix. Godly people who don't recognize this are in the same level of danger as the proverbial frog in boiling water. It happens a little bit at time. And before you even know it, you really ARE listening to Art Bell, Erich von Daniken, David Wilcock, and even Michio Kaku and Stephen Hawking.

In the end, you either believe what is written, or you don't. If it says the moon and sun were stopped, it should be beyond contestation if one believes.

[eccentrically1]

From that perspective, the sun and moon stopped. From the other perspective, the earth stopped. Back then people really did think the sun revolved around the earth, so I guess Joshua heard the word wrong.

[Grimer]

...
If God says he stopped the Sun just like he stopped the Moon, can that really be refuted, or explained in any other manner, by those who truly believe Him? ...

Yes.

At Fatima the sun was seen to fall towards the earth.

This miracle was seen by thousands of people at that particular locality.

It was not seen in any other country.

[Silvertiger]

I agree. If the perspective is from the knowledge of God given into men then it is true. If one doesnf believe then all they left with is their own reasoning which of course yields the other perspective.

[Grimer]

From that perspective, the sun and moon stopped. From the other perspective, the earth stopped. Back then people really did think the sun revolved around the earth, so I guess Joshua heard the word wrong.

I think he heard the word correctly but the phenomena was only experienced locally. In other words the sun was in two places at the same time.

St. Padre Pio experienced bilocation. If God does that for the Padre I'm sure he can do it for the sun. :-)