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

[Silvertiger]

You're not saying God minced his words are you lol? Why would he say something a certain way and expect you to interpret it a different way? If the Sun and the moon literally stopped, then it would definitely not be a "local" event. I'm sure that God says exactly what he means and means exactly what he says. There is a distinct difference between commands of authority issued by God and the subjective nature of dreams and visions. One is literal; the other can often times be subjective and metaphorical. Prophecy is also (most of the time) harshly literal and in-your-face. In this case it was a literal and direct command issued by God to the heavens.

[Grimer]

You're not saying God minced his words are you lol?

No.

Why would he say something a certain way and expect you to interpret it a different way?

Because he speaks in parables.

If the Sun and the moon literally stopped, then it would definitely not be a "local" event.

It would be if he created a second sun to be seen locally.

I'm sure that God says exactly what he means and means exactly what he says.

What about the parables. God said one thing to the people and explained the meaning of the parable to the apostles.

There is a distinct difference between commands of authority issued by God and the subjective nature of dreams and visions.

Not necessarily. God sometimes instructs people in dreams.

Matt 2:11. And entering into the house, they found the child with Mary his
...............mother, and falling down they adored him: and opening their
..............treasures, they offered him gifts; gold, frankincense, and myrrh.

.......2:12. And having received an answer in sleep
.............. not return to Herod, they went back another way into their country.

[Silvertiger]

He speaks in parables sometimes. Not all the time. Its not one hundred percent one way or the other which includes dreams and visions. But isn't that what context is for? In looking at the surround text one can conclude whether it is literal or not. Joshua is very literal. So are the books of Moses. And you answered your question: the parables are always explained. :)

If there were a second Sun then half the globe would notice. So that still doesn't make it a local event. The only other second Sun ever mentioned in history is Saturn as it used to be almost as bright. Not anymore though.

[Grimer]

... which include's creams and visions ...

Ice creams or face creams? :-)

[Silvertiger]

Tiny phone + stupid retarded autocorrect = s creams and visions :)

I still would like to know if anyone has actually tested weight at the poles and at the equator, as well as the rate at which an object falls in vacuum. Is there anyone out there who can answer this? O.O

[cloud camper]

From the book "Mystical Qabalah", in turn derived from the Tanakh, we know that the universe is really just a thought form in the mind of the creator, and can be changed instantly at will.

But there are no "masses" to be considered or "efforts" expended to manipulate
anything.

The intended effects can be accomplished by simply overriding ones mental
perception of time and events, since it's all a projection anyway!

See how simple that was!

What's more, since we are all sparks of the divine essence and have been created with great abilities these techniques can actually be learned!

[Silvertiger]

No offense, but it doesn't read like you're Jewish lol.

[cloud camper]

From the book:

"This ancient mystical tradition of the Hebrews possessed three literatures: the Books of the Law and the Prophets, which are known to us as the Tanakh, the Talmud, or collection of learned commentaries thereon, and the Qabalah, or mystical interpretation thereof.

Of these the ancient Rabbis say that the first is the body of tradition, the second it's rational soul, and the third it's immortal spirit.

Ignorant men may with profit read the first; learned men study the second; but the wise meditate on the third.

It is a strange thing that Christian exegesis has never sought the keys to the Old Testament in the Qabalah.

Esoteric tradition avers that the boy Jesus Ben Joseph, when his calibre was recognized by the learned doctors of the Law who heard Him speak in the Temple at the age of twelve, was sent by them to the Essenian community near the Dead Sea to be trained in the mystical tradition of Israel, and that He remained there until He came to John to be baptized in the Jordan before commencing His mission at the age of thirty".

So here's a question for you:

When Jesus performed his first miracle at the Wedding at Cana did he actually change water into wine or just change the perception of those present that he had done so?

Does it make any real difference since the universe is an illusion anyway?

Fun stuff to think about!

[Silvertiger]

I'll just...leave that one alone lol.

Now, since there seems to be no definitive research data and no evidence of experiments conducted on comparative weight and rate of fall between the poles and equator, then I must therefore conclude that all of the available information on the subject is nothing more than speculation, conjecture and assumption. Something so easy to do that hasn't yet been done, at least to my knowledge, is saying something as to the validity of what is taught in education. So moving on.

Did you know that the earth's core has two spins? The inner core rotates eastward in the same direction as earth's "alleged" rate of spin, though slightly faster, such that every 100 years the inner core gains a quarter turn over the surface rotation. The outer core rotates in the westward direction, but slower.

And just in case not everyone knows, the earth has layers: crust, mantle, outer core, inner core. The crust is solid. The mantle, or the outermost part of it, is semiliquidic (viscous) enough that it acts like melted plastic or asphalt and provides lubrication for the plates to take raft rides on magma convection currents, and it comprises 84% of the volume and around 67% of the mass of the earth! The outer core is completely liquid - molten iron and nickel and some other stuff. The inner core is molten iron and nickel and some other stuff that has been compressed back into a solid state, even though it is still very hot.

But let us assume that the earth does not rotate, and more specifically the crust and mantle. This would mean that the inner core spins pretty slow and would take about 400 years to complete one rotation. The outer core however, in this scenario, moves very fast from east to west. And yet the surface remains still. Why? Because the earth is built on a pretty good set of lubricated liquid bearings.

Lubricate thousands of tiny tiny ball bearings with grease and you have the mantle, more specifically the asthenosphere layer of it. Go deeper and you just have liquid as a bearing. Go even deeper and you just may have magnetic suspension at play as well. All in all, it is the best lubricated set of bearings ever made. You could play "spin the core" all day long and the outer shell would never move. There is too much mass involved for anything to be remotely affected.

So the inner core is spinning one way, pretty slowly, and the outer liquid core is spinning the other way, a little faster, while the crust and mantle doesn't move. Why? Because they are 67% of the mass of the earth! No different than pulling a carpet made of liquid from under a 300 Lb man, let alone a fuzzy carpet with an insanely high coefficient of friction. This system is so well-lubricated that the earth's crust and mantle don't even know they are getting tickled.

Just to compare, the mass of the inner core only amounts to 1.7% of the earth's total mass. It can spin however it wants. It can dance and jive all day long if it wants to and the rest of the earth won't feel it. It would be like YOU stepping on a cricket and never even knowing about it..

The outer core, on the other hand, is almost 31% of the earth's mass and combined with the inner core is roughly the size of the moon. Therefore it is completely possible that this is what is responsible for the Coriolis force. It's not just a mass that is rotating. It is also rotating gravity along with it.

Since we now know that gravity is a wave, and that space-time is the pond through which these waves ripple, similar in ways to EM waves moving at varying speeds through materials of varying density, is it a far cry that rotating a gravity field can induce a counter-rotation of the gravity wave in the form of a "pick-up coil" by a connected mass, such as the mantle? This part is purely thought-based, of course. But in the same way that antennas can transmit and receive EM signals, and in the same way that two-way radio communication requires this for operation, are not bodies of mass transmitting and receiving gravity? If the polarity of the signal is reversed in the pick-up, a.k.a. the mantle, then one may indeed experience Coriolis in an eastward direction, even though the outer core spins westward. In another analogy, two magnets can be arranged, end to end, such that when you spin one it will either push or pull the other magnet in a mirrored spin opposite of the driving magnet. Or a big, heavy pick-up can just receive and retransmit in place as the smaller, lighter magnet rotates. Either way, rotating gravity waves from one may be enacting a polaric reversal of gravity waves in the pickup. (This is just an analogy, as I don't want anyone to think the earth changes its poles once a day or something like that lol. This is an analogy for gravity.)

Anyways, if this thought experiment shows us anything, it shows us that the surface of the earth can remain fixed while its innards move around. Coriolis will always prove more complex in this case, and will take a lot of work.

But the fact remains that we are aligned on our equator and ecliptic with two axes in the CMB. THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE on a rotating and orbiting earth. If we eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable must be the truth. All that is left IS to solve Coriolis.

[Grimer]

...
When Jesus performed his first miracle at the Wedding at Cana did he actually change water into wine or just change the perception of those present that he had done so? ...

Yes, he did actually change the water into wine, both substance and accidents.
It was a case of transubstantiation.

To God nothing is impossible or even difficult.
Jesus is God. "I am who am." :-)

Jesus is also a man. It's called the hypostatic union.

[TGM]

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

So ST, you think everything else causes ballistic flight to be diverted and not simply the fact that the Earth rotates beneath the flying object?

I can allow God fearers to make up anything to believe the gospel as long as they don't kill others who disbelieve...like you-know-who.

[Silvertiger]

TGM. Over thirty percent of the mass of the earth spins at the core. On top of that there is a possibility that the gravity waves that propagate spin with it and simply carry over into the mantle and resonate and transmit its now larger amplified magnitude along with that set rotation through the rest of a static mantle which could yield the space-time vortex results of Gravity Probe B. But it could also, once again, be the same effects felt in a different variable of the equation of the cosmos completing a rotation about its COM in 24 hours. Did you know that if this is worked out mathematically, it perfectly accounts for red shift and gravitational anomalies without the need for dark matter and dark energy computations? Interesting, isn't it, that without this framework, such things can only be described by modeling dark matter (gravity) and dark energy (expansion, red shift), two things that have never been truly seen? And I'm not talking about equations and software that fill in gaps of gravitational anomalies by modeling these things.

I just find it oddly coincidental that all measured gravity and apparent gravity, along with red shift and universal expansion is 100% accounted for mathematically and observationally when one simply considers the universe to be completing a rotation about its COM once every 24 hours. I don't know about you, but I certainly have never seen a coincidence quite like that in MY lifetime.

As long as gravity exists, and as long as SOME mass is rotating, the gravity field also spins. So whether you're on a mass that spins or on a static point that is still affected in the same way by a rotating mass, the effect can be the same. This is mere speculation as far as the mantle serving as a "pick-up" and transmitter for a spinning gravity field. Is it possible for a rotating mass to induce a rotating gravity field into a nearby or radially-dispersed interconnected static mass?

Once again, as per data collected from three different satellites using different programs and algorithms since the 1970's, cosmically we are in a "parking spot" that we would not be able to see if we were moving. Is that not a simple fact as well? Imagine that that the earth is the universe and your car is the earth. And there is only one painted parking spot in existence. Do you think that you would ever be able to find it? And would you ever be able to see it unless you were parked right on top of it? No one seems to be addressing this core issue: that the only way we could see what we are seeing is if we are sitting still.

Prove what is provable, and the rest may or may not eventually fall into place. But at least you would be on the right path.

And I wasn't the one who brought up religion in this topic, btw.

[cloud camper]

You're getting all worked up over complexities!

Time to simplify!

Qabalah 101: What is the purpose of the universe?

http://www.simpletoremember.com/media/a ... -kabbalah/

[TGM]

TGM. Over thirty percent of the mass of the earth spins at the core.

Really? You know of someone who has been there and verified it? Anything other than theoretical science?

I launched rockets for a long time and they seemed to go over the horizon with enough velocity; without it they fell.

West Coast launches take more energy than East Coast launches because of that spinning Earth.

My brother is a commercial pilot and has to make course corrections for a moving Earth.

I think your science needs to be tweaked just a bit.

[Silvertiger]

No not really. If you want to get technical, the spinning core is a philosophy in the light that it has never been directly observed, and is thus only based on recorded seismic data of the vibration of earthquakes traveling through the earth's core. The big bang theory is also philosophy, with far less data. In essence, there has been a return to Mach's Principle which no one seems to want to discuss. You're literally talking circles around it, but not about it directly. You're calling it my science as if I made it up. How nice of you to disassociate yourself from the results of direct observation that you don't like because it tastes bad. (And you're also avoiding the largest body of evidence to date: the cosmic microwave background.)

If you recall, it was Isaac Newton who proposed, based on observation and experimentation, that all masses in the universe did not necessarily have to orbit larger or smaller masses, but that they would be tethered to a center of mass. This case would allow for rotation to occur as well as orbits, allowing for the possibility of larger objects to go around smaller objects, or around no object at all, such as would be just the case in a rotating starfield.

In point of fact, Mach's Principle was a great influence in the development of the theory of relativity, and it was on this note that Mach disagreed with Newton. The rest, including the notion of a rotating starfield, like the behavior observed in Newton's bucket experiment, holds true for center of mass based motion of the cosmos. Anyway, it explains your questions, although I'm not certain if you've learned about it or not. You seem intelligent, so I'll assume that you have. This stuff is slightly different than your run-of-the mill merry-go-round calcs lol.

It boils down to this: since up until 2013 rotation was relative, to introduce rotation of the earth against a fixed starfield is to accept the concepts of metaphysics and philosophy without question, which are assumptive in nature, since the measure of centripetal, centrifugal, and inertial forces neither prove nor disprove the rotation or fixation of one or the other, but rather simply prove that a relative motion exists. A rotating starfield around a common but empty center mass that a stationary earth could occupy, like the center of mass of a spinning tire, would produce the same effects as a rotating earth against a stationary starfield. It would still be obloid towards the equator, and Coriolis would be experienced. (Nobody really cares about the speculative nature of the core. It was a separate thought experiment under the philosophical assumption that the starfield doesn't rotate.)