Total Posts:111|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The heliocentric model is sh!t

Edlvsjd
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 9:59:57 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Empirical evidence against the popular heliocentric model. Mercury and Venus are both closer to the sun than Earth. During the daytime, when someone is facing the sun, and both of these planets, the sun blocks the stars and planets off from view. How then, are they visible at all?
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com...
Annnaxim
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 10:41:17 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 9:59:57 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
Empirical evidence against the popular heliocentric model. Mercury and Venus are both closer to the sun than Earth. During the daytime, when someone is facing the sun, and both of these planets, the sun blocks the stars and planets off from view. How then, are they visible at all?
I don't understand...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 10:47:41 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 9:59:57 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
Empirical evidence against the popular heliocentric model. Mercury and Venus are both closer to the sun than Earth.

Earth is 1 Astronomical Unit away from the Sun. 1 AU is defined by the Earth's orbit.

Venus is 0.72 AU from the Sun. This makes it closer to the Earth than the Sun.

Mercury is 0.39 AU from the Sun. This makes it closer to the Sun than the Earth.

During the daytime, when someone is facing the sun, and both of these planets,

Mercury is currently on the opposite side of the Sun from us, while Venus is at 90 degrees from us.
http://www.theplanetstoday.com...

the sun blocks the stars and planets off from view.

The Sun doesn't "block" them, it merely outshines them. If the Sun was dimmer or further away, we might see stars during the daytime.

How then, are they visible at all?

Both can only be observed during twilight hours, when the Earth is facing inwards but not directly at the Sun.
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 12:24:20 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 9:59:57 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
Empirical evidence against the popular heliocentric model.
https://i.imgflip.com...
Mercury and Venus are both closer to the sun than Earth. During the daytime, when someone is facing the sun, and both of these planets, the sun blocks the stars and planets off from view. How then, are they visible at all?

Your question here is stupid. Understand what exposure is? The sun (alongside the part of the atmosphere that is illuminated by it) is far brighter than the rest of the celestial objects, hence the latter cannot be seen during daytime; during nighttime, however, the sun is not present in our field of vision, and the part of the atmosphere between us and the planets, stars, etc. are is dark enough for us to see things such as Venus/Mercury.
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 12:26:08 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 9:00:33 AM, Annnaxim wrote:
At 10/22/2016 11:42:16 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Is this serious?
Probably not.

You'd be surprised; he's quite an idiot.
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 1:41:23 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 11:42:16 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Is this serious?
The guy in question is a paranoid conspiracy theorist and a flat-earther, so I think "seriousness" can never be applied. But a broken clock is right twice a day, as the saying goes.

Because the heliocentric model is in fact incorrect -- but for completely different reasons. The sun follows a set course in the Milky Way, which in turn gravitates in a spiral toward the singularity at the galaxy's center. The closest thing we have to a larger model in the universe would be the formation of galaxy filaments. In the end, the very concept of a fixed center is an outmoded and metaphysical notion.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 1:57:12 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 9:59:57 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
Empirical evidence against the popular heliocentric model. Mercury and Venus are both closer to the sun than Earth. During the daytime, when someone is facing the sun, and both of these planets, the sun blocks the stars and planets off from view. How then, are they visible at all?

Venus is visible if it's brightness is sufficient, it is often visible near the horizon at dawn/sunset, what's your issue here?
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 2:00:04 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 1:41:23 PM, NHN wrote:
At 10/22/2016 11:42:16 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Is this serious?
The guy in question is a paranoid conspiracy theorist and a flat-earther, so I think "seriousness" can never be applied. But a broken clock is right twice a day, as the saying goes.

Because the heliocentric model is in fact incorrect -- but for completely different reasons. The sun follows a set course in the Milky Way, which in turn gravitates in a spiral toward the singularity at the galaxy's center. The closest thing we have to a larger model in the universe would be the formation of galaxy filaments. In the end, the very concept of a fixed center is an outmoded and metaphysical notion.

Also no planet rotates around the sun but rather a point named the barycenter and that simple model fails with multiple planets too.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 2:02:08 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 1:41:23 PM, NHN wrote:
At 10/22/2016 11:42:16 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Is this serious?
The guy in question is a paranoid conspiracy theorist and a flat-earther, so I think "seriousness" can never be applied. But a broken clock is right twice a day, as the saying goes.

Because the heliocentric model is in fact incorrect -- but for completely different reasons. The sun follows a set course in the Milky Way, which in turn gravitates in a spiral toward the singularity at the galaxy's center. The closest thing we have to a larger model in the universe would be the formation of galaxy filaments. In the end, the very concept of a fixed center is an outmoded and metaphysical notion.

Most refer to heliocentric in the solar system context but I don't disagree with your larger view. I was asking about the sanity of the OP
ZeldaMafia
Posts: 56
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 2:38:32 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 9:59:57 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
Empirical evidence against the popular heliocentric model. Mercury and Venus are both closer to the sun than Earth. During the daytime, when someone is facing the sun, and both of these planets, the sun blocks the stars and planets off from view. How then, are they visible at all?

There is a simple answer to this, the sun is very bright as compared to both Mercury and Venus, thus its nearly impossible to observe the two planets as they are point objects and are out shined by the sun. Also let;s not forget that the Earth as well as Mercury and Venus are in different orbits. Thus, for a major part of the year, Earth as well as the two other planets may be on different sides of the Sun.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 3:40:12 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 9:59:57 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
Empirical evidence against the popular heliocentric model. Mercury and Venus are both closer to the sun than Earth. During the daytime, when someone is facing the sun, and both of these planets, the sun blocks the stars and planets off from view. How then, are they visible at all?

Yet, another troll thread by the resident brain dead moron.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Edlvsjd
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 4:19:49 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
How do we know it is not the heavens or "space" which moves above us, instead of the Earth, which causes both the rotation of the stars and any of their hard-to-detect parallax. We now know it is the former, thanks to an experiment in 1871 by Astronomer Royal, George Airy; which is this:

If stellar parallax is too small to see with the naked eye, then why not artificially increase it. If the Earth rotates at the same speed constantly, then by slowing the light down (by filling the telescope with water), the angle of star movement would increase. If stellar parallax increased then the telescope would have to be tilted more to see the same star and prove a rotating Earth once and for all.

And guess what? As confirmed by others, the most careful measurements gave the same angle for a telescope with water as for one filled with air. This is called "Airy"s failure". It proved the rotation of the heavens, not Earth, which moves stars.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 4:28:11 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 4:19:49 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
How do we know it is not the heavens or "space" which moves above us, instead of the Earth, which causes both the rotation of the stars and any of their hard-to-detect parallax. We now know it is the former, thanks to an experiment in 1871 by Astronomer Royal, George Airy; which is this:

If stellar parallax is too small to see with the naked eye, then why not artificially increase it. If the Earth rotates at the same speed constantly, then by slowing the light down (by filling the telescope with water), the angle of star movement would increase. If stellar parallax increased then the telescope would have to be tilted more to see the same star and prove a rotating Earth once and for all.

And guess what? As confirmed by others, the most careful measurements gave the same angle for a telescope with water as for one filled with air. This is called "Airy"s failure". It proved the rotation of the heavens, not Earth, which moves stars.

LOL. So, the stars are all accelerating in a precise pattern, for no reason at all, only to the point of making it appear as if they are rotating around the earth. Friggin hilarious. Brain dead moron.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Edlvsjd
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 4:41:49 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 3:40:12 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/22/2016 9:59:57 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
Empirical evidence against the popular heliocentric model. Mercury and Venus are both closer to the sun than Earth. During the daytime, when someone is facing the sun, and both of these planets, the sun blocks the stars and planets off from view. How then, are they visible at all?

Yet, another troll thread by the resident brain dead moron.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com...
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com...
Edlvsjd
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 4:46:30 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 4:28:11 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/23/2016 4:19:49 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
How do we know it is not the heavens or "space" which moves above us, instead of the Earth, which causes both the rotation of the stars and any of their hard-to-detect parallax. We now know it is the former, thanks to an experiment in 1871 by Astronomer Royal, George Airy; which is this:

If stellar parallax is too small to see with the naked eye, then why not artificially increase it. If the Earth rotates at the same speed constantly, then by slowing the light down (by filling the telescope with water), the angle of star movement would increase. If stellar parallax increased then the telescope would have to be tilted more to see the same star and prove a rotating Earth once and for all.

And guess what? As confirmed by others, the most careful measurements gave the same angle for a telescope with water as for one filled with air. This is called "Airy"s failure". It proved the rotation of the heavens, not Earth, which moves stars.

LOL. So, the stars are all accelerating in a precise pattern, for no reason at all, only to the point of making it appear as if they are rotating around the earth. Friggin hilarious. Brain dead moron.

Year after year the stars return to the same spot in the sky. This positively refutes the heliocentric/BB model. The stars show zero observable parallax to each other, meaning they are at the same distances away from the earth, this refutes the heliocentric model.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 4:54:44 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 4:46:30 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 10/23/2016 4:28:11 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/23/2016 4:19:49 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
How do we know it is not the heavens or "space" which moves above us, instead of the Earth, which causes both the rotation of the stars and any of their hard-to-detect parallax. We now know it is the former, thanks to an experiment in 1871 by Astronomer Royal, George Airy; which is this:

If stellar parallax is too small to see with the naked eye, then why not artificially increase it. If the Earth rotates at the same speed constantly, then by slowing the light down (by filling the telescope with water), the angle of star movement would increase. If stellar parallax increased then the telescope would have to be tilted more to see the same star and prove a rotating Earth once and for all.

And guess what? As confirmed by others, the most careful measurements gave the same angle for a telescope with water as for one filled with air. This is called "Airy"s failure". It proved the rotation of the heavens, not Earth, which moves stars.

LOL. So, the stars are all accelerating in a precise pattern, for no reason at all, only to the point of making it appear as if they are rotating around the earth. Friggin hilarious. Brain dead moron.

Year after year the stars return to the same spot in the sky. This positively refutes the heliocentric/BB model. The stars show zero observable parallax to each other, meaning they are at the same distances away from the earth, this refutes the heliocentric model.

LOL. No, this is just another one of the many facts that you are seriously ignorant about or in denial because you're a brain dead moron troll.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Edlvsjd
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 4:59:53 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 4:54:44 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/23/2016 4:46:30 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 10/23/2016 4:28:11 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/23/2016 4:19:49 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
How do we know it is not the heavens or "space" which moves above us, instead of the Earth, which causes both the rotation of the stars and any of their hard-to-detect parallax. We now know it is the former, thanks to an experiment in 1871 by Astronomer Royal, George Airy; which is this:

If stellar parallax is too small to see with the naked eye, then why not artificially increase it. If the Earth rotates at the same speed constantly, then by slowing the light down (by filling the telescope with water), the angle of star movement would increase. If stellar parallax increased then the telescope would have to be tilted more to see the same star and prove a rotating Earth once and for all.

And guess what? As confirmed by others, the most careful measurements gave the same angle for a telescope with water as for one filled with air. This is called "Airy"s failure". It proved the rotation of the heavens, not Earth, which moves stars.

LOL. So, the stars are all accelerating in a precise pattern, for no reason at all, only to the point of making it appear as if they are rotating around the earth. Friggin hilarious. Brain dead moron.

Year after year the stars return to the same spot in the sky. This positively refutes the heliocentric/BB model. The stars show zero observable parallax to each other, meaning they are at the same distances away from the earth, this refutes the heliocentric model.

LOL. No, this is just another one of the many facts that you are seriously ignorant about or in denial because you're a brain dead moron troll.

And, once again, Dan's complete argument is Ad Hominem. Classic.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com...
Edlvsjd
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 5:04:35 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 4:54:44 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/23/2016 4:46:30 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 10/23/2016 4:28:11 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/23/2016 4:19:49 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
How do we know it is not the heavens or "space" which moves above us, instead of the Earth, which causes both the rotation of the stars and any of their hard-to-detect parallax. We now know it is the former, thanks to an experiment in 1871 by Astronomer Royal, George Airy; which is this:

If stellar parallax is too small to see with the naked eye, then why not artificially increase it. If the Earth rotates at the same speed constantly, then by slowing the light down (by filling the telescope with water), the angle of star movement would increase. If stellar parallax increased then the telescope would have to be tilted more to see the same star and prove a rotating Earth once and for all.

And guess what? As confirmed by others, the most careful measurements gave the same angle for a telescope with water as for one filled with air. This is called "Airy"s failure". It proved the rotation of the heavens, not Earth, which moves stars.

LOL. So, the stars are all accelerating in a precise pattern, for no reason at all, only to the point of making it appear as if they are rotating around the earth. Friggin hilarious. Brain dead moron.

Year after year the stars return to the same spot in the sky. This positively refutes the heliocentric/BB model. The stars show zero observable parallax to each other, meaning they are at the same distances away from the earth, this refutes the heliocentric model.

LOL. No, this is just another one of the many facts that you are seriously ignorant about or in denial because you're a brain dead moron troll.

translation : " I don't know why, but you're an idiot for not believing the Wikipedia Gods"
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com...
Annnaxim
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 5:46:42 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 4:46:30 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
Year after year the stars return to the same spot in the sky. This positively refutes the heliocentric/BB model. The stars show zero observable parallax to each other, meaning they are at the same distances away from the earth, this refutes the heliocentric model.
That is a mute point.
If we were to evaluate a theory merely by how well it fits the observed data, then the geocentric model performs the task equally well.
Why? You can go on adding epicycles until the theory fits the observations.
The point is, the heliocentric model allows us to calculate the orbits of the planets by a much simpler means, which makes it the best available model.

William of Ockham strikes again!
Edlvsjd
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 8:36:47 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
"We believe, with all due deference to the pendulum, and its proprietor, that it proves nothing but the craftiness of the inventor; and we can only describe the show and showman as deceptions. A thing so childish as this "pendulum proof" that it can only be described as one of the most simple and ridiculous attempts to gull the public that has ever been conceived. It has been said that the pendulum experiment proves the rotation of the earth, but this is quite impossible, for one pendulum turns one way; and sometimes, another pendulum turns in the opposite direction. Now we ask does the earth rotate in opposite directions at different places at one and the same time? We should like to know. Perhaps the experimenters will kindly enlighten us on this point " If the earth had the terrible motions attributed to it, there would be some sensible effects of such motions. But we neither feel the motion, see it, nor hear it. And how people can stand watching the pendulum vibrate, and think that they are seeing a proof of the motions of the earth, almost passes comprehension. They are, however, brought up to believe it, and it is thought to be "scientific" to believe what the astronomers teach." -Lady Blount, "The Romance of Science"
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com...
Edlvsjd
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 8:42:19 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 5:46:42 PM, Annnaxim wrote:
At 10/23/2016 4:46:30 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
Year after year the stars return to the same spot in the sky. This positively refutes the heliocentric/BB model. The stars show zero observable parallax to each other, meaning they are at the same distances away from the earth, this refutes the heliocentric model.
That is a mute point.
If we were to evaluate a theory merely by how well it fits the observed data, then the geocentric model performs the task equally well.
Why? You can go on adding epicycles until the theory fits the observations.
The point is, the heliocentric model allows us to calculate the orbits of the planets by a much simpler means, which makes it the best available model.

William of Ockham strikes again!

Do you know what an astrolabe is?
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com...
Annnaxim
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 9:01:10 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 8:36:47 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
"We believe, with all due deference to the pendulum, and its proprietor, that it proves nothing but the craftiness of the inventor; and we can only describe the show and showman as deceptions. A thing so childish as this "pendulum proof" that it can only be described as one of the most simple and ridiculous attempts to gull the public that has ever been conceived. It has been said that the pendulum experiment proves the rotation of the earth, but this is quite impossible, for one pendulum turns one way; and sometimes, another pendulum turns in the opposite direction. Now we ask does the earth rotate in opposite directions at different places at one and the same time? We should like to know. Perhaps the experimenters will kindly enlighten us on this point " If the earth had the terrible motions attributed to it, there would be some sensible effects of such motions. But we neither feel the motion, see it, nor hear it. And how people can stand watching the pendulum vibrate, and think that they are seeing a proof of the motions of the earth, almost passes comprehension. They are, however, brought up to believe it, and it is thought to be "scientific" to believe what the astronomers teach." -Lady Blount, "The Romance of Science"
Of course it is not true, that (Focault's) pendulum can rotate in opposite directions.
Edlvsjd
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 9:18:54 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 9:01:10 PM, Annnaxim wrote:
At 10/23/2016 8:36:47 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
"We believe, with all due deference to the pendulum, and its proprietor, that it proves nothing but the craftiness of the inventor; and we can only describe the show and showman as deceptions. A thing so childish as this "pendulum proof" that it can only be described as one of the most simple and ridiculous attempts to gull the public that has ever been conceived. It has been said that the pendulum experiment proves the rotation of the earth, but this is quite impossible, for one pendulum turns one way; and sometimes, another pendulum turns in the opposite direction. Now we ask does the earth rotate in opposite directions at different places at one and the same time? We should like to know. Perhaps the experimenters will kindly enlighten us on this point " If the earth had the terrible motions attributed to it, there would be some sensible effects of such motions. But we neither feel the motion, see it, nor hear it. And how people can stand watching the pendulum vibrate, and think that they are seeing a proof of the motions of the earth, almost passes comprehension. They are, however, brought up to believe it, and it is thought to be "scientific" to believe what the astronomers teach." -Lady Blount, "The Romance of Science"
Of course it is not true, that (Focault's) pendulum can rotate in opposite directions.

It was, before they started guiding them with magnets.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com...
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 10:15:43 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
I mean, who needs sources anyway, if you can just pull stuff out of your behind?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Edlvsjd
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 3:07:44 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 10:15:43 PM, Fkkize wrote:
I mean, who needs sources anyway, if you can just pull stuff out of your behind?

All continuously powered Pendulums are electromagnetically driven. Honestly if you think the earth moves under a pendulum, you should also ascribe to the idea that i could hover any certain distance over my house and wait for Disneyland to come to me, in a little under an hour. If the earth really affected the swinging pendulum, there would be no still Pendulums on earth. I can't be the only critical thinker in the room.

"Astronomers have made experiments with pendulums which have been suspended from the interior of high buildings, and have exulted over the idea of being able to prove the rotation of the Earth on its "axis," by the varying direction taken by the pendulum over a prepared table underneath - asserting that the table moved round under the pendulum, instead of the pendulum shifting and oscillating in different directions over the table! But, since it has been found that, as often as not, the pendulum went round the wrong way for the "rotation" theory, chagrin has taken the place of exultation, and we have a proof of the failure of astronomers in their efforts to substantiate their theory." -William Carpenter, "100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe"
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com...
Edlvsjd
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 3:17:08 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 12:24:20 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 10/22/2016 9:59:57 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
Empirical evidence against the popular heliocentric model.
https://i.imgflip.com...
Mercury and Venus are both closer to the sun than Earth. During the daytime, when someone is facing the sun, and both of these planets, the sun blocks the stars and planets off from view. How then, are they visible at all?

Your question here is stupid. Understand what exposure is? The sun (alongside the part of the atmosphere that is illuminated by it) is far brighter than the rest of the celestial objects, hence the latter cannot be seen during daytime; during nighttime, however, the sun is not present in our field of vision, and the part of the atmosphere between us and the planets, stars, etc. are is dark enough for us to see things such as Venus/Mercury.

See how early you can see a star, the sun is well below the horizon at my house before I see any stars, so, unless my math adds up, we shouldn't see anything that isn't in a larger orbit than ours in this model. There is that transit CGI, but.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com...