HAS ANYONE EVER BEEN IN A MOTIONLESS OUTER SPACE POSITION?

Dont worry. I know this question is too hard for a heliocentrist to answer. Give it a try anyway.

Of course heliocentrists have not taken a look from the Sun, only the Sun can have a look from his position and continue to live since he's burning fire.

But lets say theres another position,  another point of reference from where you can have a view of the Earth. Is it motionless? If not, then you can NOT prove from an outer space position that our beautiful Earth is moving.

motionless relative to what?

True Myth-You still do not know what you are talking about.

True Myth-You still do not know what you are talking about.

He knows exactly what he's talking about.

Yeah we have see that so far.

Quote from: Rama Set on March 24, 2013, 05:06:55 AM

True Myth-You still do not know what you are talking about.

He knows exactly what he's talking about.

No, he doesn't. Neither do you. TrueMyth can't comprehend more than one frame of reference, and doesn't know how to learn about them. I don't know why his head can't take in more data, but hey, I guess we gotta deal with it.

Like pythagoras asked, motionless relative to what position? And yes, you technically cannot prove that anything is moving, I guess. But, in RE, the sun is a super massive object, so its gravity suggests that the earth rotates along it, rather than the sun rotating around the Earth.

Regarding relativity, you can arbitrarily select something to be moving and mathematically adjust everything else accordingly. It might not be correct, but it is just as valid. Like, in FE, the Earth is moving UP to meet a basketball that I throw in the air. In RE, the ball is moving DOWN to meet the Earth. Both are totally compatible with everything we observe, and there are no immediate errors in both scenarios.

And please, in the future, don't flatter yourself in your first post of the new thread.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 24, 2013, 05:24:58 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 24, 2013, 05:06:55 AM

True Myth-You still do not know what you are talking about.

He knows exactly what he's talking about.

No, he doesn't. Neither do you. TrueMyth can't comprehend more than one frame of reference, and doesn't know how to learn about them. I don't know why his head can't take in more data, but hey, I guess we gotta deal with it.

Like pythagoras asked, motionless relative to what position? And yes, you technically cannot prove that anything is moving, I guess. But, in RE, the sun is a super massive object, so its gravity suggests that the earth rotates along it, rather than the sun rotating around the Earth.

Regarding relativity, you can arbitrarily select something to be moving and mathematically adjust everything else accordingly. It might not be correct, but it is just as valid. Like, in FE, the Earth is moving UP to meet a basketball that I throw in the air. In RE, the ball is moving DOWN to meet the Earth. Both are totally compatible with everything we observe, and there are no immediate errors in both scenarios.

And please, in the future, don't flatter yourself in your first post of the new thread.

Are you finished?

Quote from: darknavyseal on March 24, 2013, 12:46:24 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 24, 2013, 05:24:58 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on March 24, 2013, 05:06:55 AM

True Myth-You still do not know what you are talking about.

He knows exactly what he's talking about.

No, he doesn't. Neither do you. TrueMyth can't comprehend more than one frame of reference, and doesn't know how to learn about them. I don't know why his head can't take in more data, but hey, I guess we gotta deal with it.

Like pythagoras asked, motionless relative to what position? And yes, you technically cannot prove that anything is moving, I guess. But, in RE, the sun is a super massive object, so its gravity suggests that the earth rotates along it, rather than the sun rotating around the Earth.

Regarding relativity, you can arbitrarily select something to be moving and mathematically adjust everything else accordingly. It might not be correct, but it is just as valid. Like, in FE, the Earth is moving UP to meet a basketball that I throw in the air. In RE, the ball is moving DOWN to meet the Earth. Both are totally compatible with everything we observe, and there are no immediate errors in both scenarios.

And please, in the future, don't flatter yourself in your first post of the new thread.

Are you finished?

Getting ready to shit up another thread I see.

If you're not going to be intelligible or make an effort to back your claims, there's no reason for you to post.

The more I think about the OP, the less I understand it. No position is motionless relative to another of a different relative velocity, and every position is motionless relative to itself.  Furthermore, from a more realistic perspective there are few places in the universe in which one can actually be completely motionless, even without accounting for expansion. What point is the OP trying to make?

The more I think about the OP, the less I understand it. No position is motionless relative to another of a different relative velocity, and every position is motionless relative to itself.  Furthermore, from a more realistic perspective there are few places in the universe in which one can actually be completely motionless, even without accounting for expansion. What point is the OP trying to make?

He's saying that no one has been motionless above the earth to observe the earth's (apparent) rotation cause the ground to move underneath them. I think it's supposed to show no one has directly observed earth's rotation.

Why are you so arrogant? Of course I understand your thought. I didnt make any comment for your lack of understanding on my thought.

So relativists believe that when Im standing still, Im actually standing still. When I run, I actually dont run. When I accelerate, I actually dont accelarate. When I decelerate, I actually dont decelerate.

They believe when Im driving a car at a constant speed of 80mph, I dont know if Im actually running at a constant speed of 80mph, I could be even standing still, and I generally need another one to define what is the truth. But the thing gets worse. The other's point of view is not again the truth, but a subjective relative view. So relativity ends in a vicious circle where nothing is true and quest of truth is vain.

Why are you so arrogant? Of course I understand your thought. I didnt make any comment for your lack of understanding on my thought.

So relativists believe that when Im standing still, Im actually standing still. When I run, I actually dont run. When I accelerate, I actually dont accelarate. When I decelerate, I actually dont decelerate.

They believe when Im driving a car at a constant speed of 80mph, I dont know if Im actually running at a constant speed of 80mph, I could be even standing still, and I generally need another one to define what is the truth. But the thing gets worse. The other's point of view is not again the truth, but a subjective relative view. So relativity ends in a vicious circle where nothing is true and quest of truth is vain.

No, it reveals a world where there are many paths to truth.  Open your mind and your textbook.

Why are you so arrogant? Of course I understand your thought. I didnt make any comment for your lack of understanding on my thought.

So relativists believe that when Im standing still, Im actually standing still. When I run, I actually dont run. When I accelerate, I actually dont accelarate. When I decelerate, I actually dont decelerate.

They believe when Im driving a car at a constant speed of 80mph, I dont know if Im actually running at a constant speed of 80mph, I could be even standing still, and I generally need another one to define what is the truth. But the thing gets worse. The other's point of view is not again the truth, but a subjective relative view. So relativity ends in a vicious circle where nothing is true and quest of truth is vain.

True Myth; I am writing the following in good faith. As an unemployed postgrad student, my time isn't worth very much from the perspective of everyone else, but from my perspective it's very valuable (I could be spending my time watching this " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">video of a really cute owl for example), so as I have taken the time to write this response, please be mindful of the contribution I am making and make a genuine attempt to understand what I'm trying to convey. Please make sure you understand what I am saying before attempting to find loophoes.

So relativists believe that when Im standing still, Im actually standing still. When I run, I actually dont run. When I accelerate, I actually dont accelarate. When I decelerate, I actually dont decelerate.

First of all, acceleration is not relative from an inertial frame of reference.

Second, when you are running, rest assured, you are running. No relativist is going to approach you and claim otherwise. If he does, please be assured he is not from my round-earther illuminati club and would never even be allowed in. Furthermore, when you are standing still, provided you are not flailing your arms about or playing "silly willy", then it's perfectly within the round-earth relativist paradigm to say that you are standing still..

Relative motion refers not to the stillness or activity of a person, but to the velocity and position vectors which describe their position. I'm going to get into some maths so please pay attention:

Suppose everyone exists on a flat plane, you can imagine all of us on a flat tarpoline with soap on it, we're all sliding around on it having a jolly good time. The tarpoline and us are the only things that exist; we're just stuck on this trampoline by nothing but the adhesive force of the soap on our butts. Suppose now that each of us state that they are the absolute centre of the universe. Suppose the tarpoline is 100 metres long, and 100 metres wide. Let's say there are 3 of us on the tarpoline:

Bob
Jim
Lucy

Let's call the reference point the "origin", and use the cartesian coordinate (0,0) to describe this position (using the unit of metres). Every person thinks they are at the origin. Now, let's invent a velocity vector, which describes the lengthwise and widthwise velocity of each member. Each member thinks they are the centre and thinks they're not actually moving, so they each state their velocity vector is (0,0), note that velocity is measures in metres/second. If you are confused about the notation, the first number represents the distance and velocity in the lengthwise direction (for the position and velocity vectors respectively) and the second number represents the distance and velocity in the widthwise direction (for the position and velocity vectors respectively).

So just to clarify, if you are moving from left to right at 2m/s your velocity vector would be (2,0), if you are 100m down and 50m to the right your position coordinate would be (50,-100). Does this make sense?

Ok, let's say that Bob is in the middle of the tarpoline, and isn't sliding on it. Jim on the other hand is having a great time, he's currently at the top-right end of the tarpoline and sliding at 1m/s on the tarpoline to the left. Lucy is on the bottom-left of the tarpoline, sliding at the same speed as Jim on the tarpoline but in the other direction.

From bob's perspective, the position of Jim is (50,50), the position of Lucy is (-50,-50), and his position is (0,0). The velocity of Jim is (-1,0) and the velocity of Lucy is (1,0), and his velocity is (0,0).

From Jim's perspective, the position of Bob is (-50,-50), the position of Lucy is (-100,-100) and his position is (0,0). The velocity of bob is (1,0), the velocity of Lucy is (2,0) and his velocity is (0,0).

From Lucy's perspective, the position of Bob is (50,50), the position of Jim is (100,100) and her position is (0,0). The velocity of bob is (-1,0), the velocity of Jim is (-2,0) and her velocity is (0,0).

From the perspective of the tarp, and taking the "origin" (that is the (0,0) point) to be the bottom-left of the tarp, the position of Bob is (50,50), the position of Jim is (100,100) and the position of Lucy is (0,0). The velocity of Bob is (0,0), the velocity of Jim is (-1,0) and the velocity of Lucy is (1,0).

Out of the 4 observers (ie. Bob, Lucy, Jim and the tarp) each one makes different observations; not a single observation is the same as the other. Which is correct? No one knows...

Sigh, I feel sad for people who can't grasp an extremely basic concept

Quote from: True Myth on March 24, 2013, 09:33:02 PM

Why are you so arrogant? Of course I understand your thought. I didnt make any comment for your lack of understanding on my thought.

So relativists believe that when Im standing still, Im actually standing still. When I run, I actually dont run. When I accelerate, I actually dont accelarate. When I decelerate, I actually dont decelerate.

They believe when Im driving a car at a constant speed of 80mph, I dont know if Im actually running at a constant speed of 80mph, I could be even standing still, and I generally need another one to define what is the truth. But the thing gets worse. The other's point of view is not again the truth, but a subjective relative view. So relativity ends in a vicious circle where nothing is true and quest of truth is vain.

True Myth; I am writing the following in good faith. As an unemployed postgrad student, my time isn't worth very much from the perspective of everyone else, but from my perspective it's very valuable (I could be spending my time watching this " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">video of a really cute owl for example), so as I have taken the time to write this response, please be mindful of the contribution I am making and make a genuine attempt to understand what I'm trying to convey. Please make sure you understand what I am saying before attempting to find loophoes.

Quote from: True Myth on March 24, 2013, 09:33:02 PM

So relativists believe that when Im standing still, Im actually standing still. When I run, I actually dont run. When I accelerate, I actually dont accelarate. When I decelerate, I actually dont decelerate.

First of all, acceleration is not relative from an inertial frame of reference.

Second, when you are running, rest assured, you are running. No relativist is going to approach you and claim otherwise. If he does, please be assured he is not from my round-earther illuminati club and would never even be allowed in. Furthermore, when you are standing still, provided you are not flailing your arms about or playing "silly willy", then it's perfectly within the round-earth relativist paradigm to say that you are standing still..

Relative motion refers not to the stillness or activity of a person, but to the velocity and position vectors which describe their position. I'm going to get into some maths so please pay attention:

Suppose everyone exists on a flat plane, you can imagine all of us on a flat tarpoline with soap on it, we're all sliding around on it having a jolly good time. The tarpoline and us are the only things that exist; we're just stuck on this trampoline by nothing but the adhesive force of the soap on our butts. Suppose now that each of us state that they are the absolute centre of the universe. Suppose the tarpoline is 100 metres long, and 100 metres wide. Let's say there are 3 of us on the tarpoline:

Bob
Jim
Lucy

Let's call the reference point the "origin", and use the cartesian coordinate (0,0) to describe this position (using the unit of metres). Every person thinks they are at the origin. Now, let's invent a velocity vector, which describes the lengthwise and widthwise velocity of each member. Each member thinks they are the centre and thinks they're not actually moving, so they each state their velocity vector is (0,0), note that velocity is measures in metres/second. If you are confused about the notation, the first number represents the distance and velocity in the lengthwise direction (for the position and velocity vectors respectively) and the second number represents the distance and velocity in the widthwise direction (for the position and velocity vectors respectively).

So just to clarify, if you are moving from left to right at 2m/s your velocity vector would be (2,0), if you are 100m down and 50m to the right your position coordinate would be (50,-100). Does this make sense?

Ok, let's say that Bob is in the middle of the tarpoline, and isn't sliding on it. Jim on the other hand is having a great time, he's currently at the top-right end of the tarpoline and sliding at 1m/s on the tarpoline to the left. Lucy is on the bottom-left of the tarpoline, sliding at the same speed as Jim on the tarpoline but in the other direction.

From bob's perspective, the position of Jim is (50,50), the position of Lucy is (-50,-50), and his position is (0,0). The velocity of Jim is (-1,0) and the velocity of Lucy is (1,0), and his velocity is (0,0).

From Jim's perspective, the position of Bob is (-50,-50), the position of Lucy is (-100,-100) and his position is (0,0). The velocity of bob is (1,0), the velocity of Lucy is (2,0) and his velocity is (0,0).

From Lucy's perspective, the position of Bob is (50,50), the position of Jim is (100,100) and her position is (0,0). The velocity of bob is (-1,0), the velocity of Jim is (-2,0) and her velocity is (0,0).

From the perspective of the tarp, and taking the "origin" (that is the (0,0) point) to be the bottom-left of the tarp, the position of Bob is (50,50), the position of Jim is (100,100) and the position of Lucy is (0,0). The velocity of Bob is (0,0), the velocity of Jim is (-1,0) and the velocity of Lucy is (1,0).

Out of the 4 observers (ie. Bob, Lucy, Jim and the tarp) each one makes different observations; not a single observation is the same as the other. Which is correct? No one knows...

Thank you for writing.

I have already talked about arrogance. I dont have problem if people dont accept my view, as heliocentrists usually do. And just because I disagree, it doesnt mean that I dont read or dont understand your explanation. I understand the thought, no matter if I have to look some words on the dictionary.

I dont know why you said "relativity is not about motion(running or standing still) but only for the position and velocity".  Motion and velocity are two terms that go hand in hand. For example zero velocity means zero motion, 100m/s velocity means moving 100miles per hours.

In your own example, you gave the answer about what really happens(no matter what the people in the tarpoline think).  Of course taken as granted that you were really a stationary observer. Here is the extract of your answer

<<
Ok, let's say that Bob is in the middle of the tarpoline, and isn't sliding on it. Jim on the other hand is having a great time, he's currently at the top-right end of the tarpoline and sliding at 1m/s on the tarpoline to the left. Lucy is on the bottom-left of the tarpoline, sliding at the same speed as Jim on the tarpoline but in the other direction.>>

I dont know if people have grasped the question of the subject.

It is supposed that people from outer space have recorded the Earth's rotation and revolution. If they believe in relativity, then how do they know it was the Earth that was really moving and not them? How do they teach everything is relative while at the same time they have indoctrinated masses to believe we've seen Earth moving from outer space?

We geocentrists believe that we can find out if Earth is moving or not. We believe Earth is the absolute reference frame because it is stationary. Of course Im talking about the material universe, not the throne of God which is immovable too.

I dont know if people have grasped the question of the subject.

It is supposed that people from outer space have recorded the Earth's rotation and revolution. If they believe in relativity, then how do they know it was the Earth that was really moving and not them? How do they teach everything is relative while at the same time they have indoctrinated masses to believe we've seen Earth moving from outer space?

We geocentrists believe that we can find out if Earth is moving or not. We believe Earth is the absolute reference frame because it is stationary. Of course Im talking about the material universe, not the throne of God which is immovable too.

He answered your question if you bothered to read.  And if you had bothered to read what many of the geocentrists here believe, you would know that many believe the Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8m/s^2.

As a pious Satanist I'm not the one to advertize Biblical Astronomy, and I did not read all of the following link, but it's interesting because it mentions and shortly explains the Lense-Thirring-effect, which effectually describes how the universe must be conceived to match observation  under the premise that earth is stationary.

http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no113/Scientific%20Reconsideration%20of%20geocentricity.pdf

True Myth: it's not that we don't know which is moving, it's that it doesn't matter which is moving. It's physically equivalent. You can only move relative to something else, because if everything is moving at the same velocity then nothing is moving.

I dont know why you said "relativity is not about motion(running or standing still) but only for the position and velocity".  Motion and velocity are two terms that go hand in hand. For example zero velocity means zero motion, 100m/s velocity means moving 100miles per hours.

Motion is a vague term used colloquially to mean a number of things (including velocity but not limited to it). A clock might be said to be motionless once it stops working, even though it never had any "velocity" associated with it for example. A person can be running on a tread-mill and have a zero-velocity from the perspective of someone standing next to him, yet no one would say that he is "motionless". I was merely trying to distinguish between the broad, ambiguous use of the word "motion" and the more specific concept of relative velocity.

In your own example, you gave the answer about what really happens(no matter what the people in the tarpoline think).  Of course taken as granted that you were really a stationary observer.

There was no absolute observer, and there is no such thing, nor did I give it in my example. I gave you an answer for the velocity and position of each member from the perspective of Bob, Jim, Lucy and the tarpoline as the observer. Each was "right", yet each was different.

Just because Lucy was sliding on the tarpoline, doesn't mean she is moving. From her perpective the tarpoline, Bob and Jim were all moving, and she was standing still.

Thank you Jason, for taking the time to post. That was brilliant.

True, there is no "correct" perspective. Bob, lucy, and Jim's perspectives are all "correct". (Read: Valid) or mathematically equivalent, as Tau posted.

Thank you Jason, for taking the time to post. That was brilliant.

True, there is no "correct" perspective. Bob, lucy, and Jim's perspectives are all "correct". (Read: Valid) or mathematically equivalent, as Tau posted.

I'm glad it made sense to you, hopefully I wasn't just preaching to choir though.

True Myth: it's not that we don't know which is moving, it's that it doesn't matter which is moving. It's physically equivalent. You can only move relative to something else, because if everything is moving at the same velocity then nothing is moving.

This is literally all that needs to be understood!

There was no absolute observer, and there is no such thing, nor did I give it in my example. I gave you an answer for the velocity and position of each member from the perspective of Bob, Jim, Lucy and the tarpoline as the observer. Each was "right", yet each was different.

Just because Lucy was sliding on the tarpoline, doesn't mean she is moving. From her perpective the tarpoline, Bob and Jim were all moving, and she was standing still.

Didnt you say
"Ok, let's say that Bob is in the middle of the tarpoline, and isn't sliding on it. Jim on the other hand is having a great time, he's currently at the top-right end of the tarpoline and sliding at 1m/s on the tarpoline to the left. Lucy is on the bottom-left of the tarpoline, sliding at the same speed as Jim on the tarpoline but in the other direction." ?


If you believe there is no absolute observer, why did you?

Now, returning to the subject.

You answer with "relativity" again.  Ok, so you believe in relativity. Now, answer this question.

Why the whole uneducated world, takes for granted that the Earth moves because its supposed that people from outer space have seen this? This is the main reason they believe it, not experiments or logic.

If there is no absolute frame of reference(according to you), why people think that its 100% certain the Earth moves just because someone said so from outer space? Was that person really IMMOVABLE in ABSOLUTE FRAME OF REFERENCE to tell us the truth?

I mean your relativity belief, that says all motions are relative... supposes that this guy that saw the Earth "moving", was in motion relative to something else(the Earth for example). If he was moving, he saw the "apparent" motion of the Earth. It was his imagination, not the reality, because he was moving.

So he cant figure out from outer space if the Earth is moving. Then Nasa is New Age Satanic Agent and False Prophet, that fools masses. Wow...nasa! Wow...scientists...gods!

Didnt you say
"Ok, let's say that Bob is in the middle of the tarpoline, and isn't sliding on it. Jim on the other hand is having a great time, he's currently at the top-right end of the tarpoline and sliding at 1m/s on the tarpoline to the left. Lucy is on the bottom-left of the tarpoline, sliding at the same speed as Jim on the tarpoline but in the other direction." ?

If you believe there is no absolute observer, why did you?

I didn't give an absolute observer. There is no such thing anyway. If you are referring to the tarpoline, I was merely using it as a point of reference to describe where the people are on it. The tarpoline could have been in mexico, it could have been on the moon, it could have been flying past the earth at 100m/s, or it could have been stationary at the bottom of the ocean, it doesn't change any of the coordinates or numbers that I gave in my examples.

Now, returning to the subject.

You answer with "relativity" again.  Ok, so you believe in relativity. Now, answer this question.

Why the whole uneducated world, takes for granted that the Earth moves because its supposed that people from outer space have seen this? This is the main reason they believe it, not experiments or logic.

The earth is not moving relative to us, it's perfectly still. I know this because I'm sitting on a chair and it's stuck on the ground. Observation has concluded that it moves relative to the sun, and that the sun itself moves relative to the galaxy in which it is positioned. Nothing more, nothing less. There is no belief involved, it's simply observation and a conclusion drawn from the most apparent physical explanation.

I mean your relativity belief, that says all motions are relative... supposes that this guy that saw the Earth "moving", was in motion relative to something else(the Earth for example). If he was moving, he saw the "apparent" motion of the Earth. It was his imagination, not the reality, because he was moving.

So he cant figure out from outer space if the Earth is moving. Then Nasa is New Age Satanic Agent and False Prophet, that fools masses. Wow...nasa! Wow...scientists...gods!

I'm sorry but if you don't understand relative motion by now I really don't know how else I can describe it, I've tried every way I know. Let me just finish by saying that relative motion is not a "belief", it's an observation. Absolute motion is a belief. Before you response, please read the following: Taking your example, the guy flying past the earth might believe that the earth is moving, or he might believe that he is moving, and he could make sound arguments for either case. However, from a scientific perspective the only certain conclusion he can make is that he is moving relative to the earth. That is not his imagination, it's an observation (unless he is psychotic and they're one and the same), and it says nothing about which of the two is actually moving, because that concept simply does not exist in science (because it isn't measurable).

I'm disappointed that you have been unable to grasp this concept after I have explained it several times, in several different ways. I don't know how else to describe it because I'm not a teacher, so I will stop trying now.