Earth orbiting Sun 100% Debunked (100% Proof Positive).

It's so simple, that I'm surprised that mostly everyone still believes in this rubbish of the Earth orbiting the Sun. The Math simply doesn't work!



For those having trouble reading the text:

Notice that your day appears to move East in comparison to the Sun which means your day should be shortened because the Sun appears to rise in the East. If you take away physical appearance then you get Westward Sun movement and if the Earth were turning West to East you still get the Sun pushed torward your starting frame either way. No matter how you slice it if Earth is rotating and orbiting the Sun then you should get 23H 52M Solar days and 23H 56M stellar (star) days. But in reality we get 24H long solar days and 23H 56M stellar days. This is why we can know that the Earth doesn't orbit the Sun. We actually live inside of the Earth like this diagram on the right shows.

Wouldn't the length of a solar and stellar day depend on how you define your basic time units?

Anther pointless thread. "The sun rises in the east so the earth is hollow." High quality argument.

At least he posts pictures to support his argument. 
Day 0, earth rotates
Day 30, earth rotates
Day 60, earth rotates
End result, Earth is a Jawbreaker.

Again? But that trick never works!

This time for sure!

http://bullwinkle.toonzone.net/heyrock2.wav
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
Do these remind you of anything?

My day does not move East. I am not even sure what that means. Some help from someone not afraid of commas please.

Wouldn't the length of a solar and stellar day depend on how you define your basic time units?

Sure, but the ratio of whatever you were using would still be the same.

The pictures show your perspective when locked to the Sun, the land appears to move East. If Earth is rotating West to East then your land moving also East will shorten your day. It's very simple in reality once you get how it works. The main problem of course is that it doesn't work at all as it shows heliocentrism to be completely false as if the Earth doesn't rotate then that shows big problems for heliocentrism. Of course Flat Earth, Geocentrism and Concave Earth theory still work but there are other test you can use to actually determine the real shape of the Earth...

Quote from: markjo on October 10, 2014, 12:15:16 PM

Wouldn't the length of a solar and stellar day depend on how you define your basic time units?

Sure, but the ratio of whatever you were using would still be the same.

The pictures show your perspective when locked to the Sun, the land appears to move East. If Earth is rotating West to East then your land moving also East will shorten your day. It's very simple in reality once you get how it works. The main problem of course is that it doesn't work at all as it shows heliocentrism to be completely false as if the Earth doesn't rotate then that shows big problems for heliocentrism. Of course Flat Earth, Geocentrism and Concave Earth theory still work but there are other test you can use to actually determine the real shape of the Earth...

If you move east your days do get shorter. So I guess the earth is round. Glad you agree.

By the way, where did you get your "0, 30, 60 days" pictures? What do they represent? I mean, I think I get what they are supposed to represent, but why are they rotated this way, and not the other way around? How did you get this direction of rotation?

And one more thing: if you define a day as one rotation relative to the Sun(like every other living being which understands the word "day" does), all of these pictures should look exactly the same. Why do they not look the same in your drawing?

By the way, where did you get your "0, 30, 60 days" pictures? What do they represent? I mean, I think I get what they are supposed to represent, but why are they rotated this way, and not the other way around? How did you get this direction of rotation?

And one more thing: if you define a day as one rotation relative to the Sun(like every other living being which understands the word "day" does), all of these pictures should look exactly the same. Why do they not look the same in your drawing?

It's locked on the Sun and the days are defined as 'Sidereal' Days. The only thing that changes the day is the position of the Earth relative to the Sun. This shows what would happen if Earth was orbiting counter-clockwise, then also if it was rotating the same way as it was orbiting you would have your solar day shorter then your sidereal day because the Sun would move West. It's pretty easy to see from this image.

Notice that your day appears to move East in comparison to the Sun...
 

This sentence makes no sense at all.  A "day" is a period of time, and cannot "move" in any direction.  A day (nominally 24 hours) is the same in Sydney as it is further east in San Francisco.

Quote from: Sculelos on October 10, 2014, 11:16:27 AM

Notice that your day appears to move East in comparison to the Sun...
 

This sentence makes no sense at all.  A "day" is a period of time, and cannot "move" in any direction.  A day (nominally 24 hours) is the same in Sydney as it is further east in San Francisco.

Yeah, I meant sidereal day vs solar day.

If heliocentrism was true and Earth orbited and rotated West to East, then you day would be 23H 52M and your sidereal day would be 23H 56M, but heliocentrism is false and your true (solar) day is 24H and your star day is 23H 56M. This indeed does prove that the Earth is not orbiting the Sun nor is it rotating.

Therefore all we are left with is Geocentrism, Flat Earth theory or Concave Earth theory, however because we also know Earth curves upward by the Rectilineator experiment we know for sure that we live inside the Earth. If Earth truly was convex or flat you would see a sky to ground ratio of 3:1 and you would have to look down at the horizon (at a 45 degree angle from the horizon)

Quote from: Macpie on October 11, 2014, 01:24:17 AM

By the way, where did you get your "0, 30, 60 days" pictures? What do they represent? I mean, I think I get what they are supposed to represent, but why are they rotated this way, and not the other way around? How did you get this direction of rotation?

And one more thing: if you define a day as one rotation relative to the Sun(like every other living being which understands the word "day" does), all of these pictures should look exactly the same. Why do they not look the same in your drawing?

It's locked on the Sun and the days are defined as 'Sidereal' Days. The only thing that changes the day is the position of the Earth relative to the Sun. This shows what would happen if Earth was orbiting counter-clockwise, then also if it was rotating the same way as it was orbiting you would have your solar day shorter then your sidereal day because the Sun would move West. It's pretty easy to see from this image.

If that's what those globes represent, then you have them in the reverse order. The one on the right is Start and the one on the left is 60 sidereal days later (by "right" I mean rightmost of the three, not the bolllxed-up thing at far right).

Remember this? It shows what you're trying to show (but got backwards) pretty well:



At the December Solstice position (rightmost earth), the Americas are directly facing the Sun and are also facing Sagittarius. About 90 days later, at the March Equinox (top), the Sun has moved to be the Earth has moved so that the Sun is directly over Africa when the Americas are facing Sagittarius.

This makes the Sun appear to move slowly eastward against the background stars, as we observe, and sidereal days about 4 min shorter than solar days, as expected.

Presto!

[Edit] Slight clarification (twice).

you would have to look down at the horizon (at a 45 degree angle from the horizon).

Boo-hoo. The only case where it would look like this, would be if you were (sqrt(2)-1) times the RE's radius tall. You would have to have eyes at around 2637km above the sea level. Do you? I don't think so.

I heard that in RET the daylight gets an additional 4 minutes from refraction of the sun...  However, I need to point out that if the sky was blue because of the principles of refraction, the sun would have to be red throughout the day (even at noon)...  And we all know the sky is blue throughout the day... Am I right?

This basic tenet expresses itself in the milk tank experiments performed several decades ago.... It turns out a flashlight shown through a tank of water slightly tainted with soap or milk causes the water to turn blue and the flashlight, as observed from the other side, reddish in color...

However, I need to point out that if the sky was blue because of the principles of refraction, the sun would have to be red throughout the day (even at noon)...  And we all know the sky is blue throughout the day... Am I right?

The blue colour of the daylight sky is due to Rayleigh Scattering and has nothing to do with refraction.  Most flat earthers have very little idea of the optical theories of refraction.  They use it as a throw away term to explain everything from sunsets and sunrises, the size of the sun, the direction of shadows, the illumination of clouds' undersides, the shape of the moon, the "sinking ship effect", lunar and solar eclipses, and to all the photos captured from space showing earth's curved horizon.

To the flat earthers, "refraction" is like gaffa tape is to the round earthers LOL.  It easily fixes all or any problems.

I heard that in RET the daylight gets an additional 4 minutes from refraction of the sun...  However, I need to point out that if the sky was blue because of the principles of refraction, the sun would have to be red throughout the day (even at noon)...  And we all know the sky is blue throughout the day... Am I right?

This basic tenet expresses itself in the milk tank experiments performed several decades ago.... It turns out a flashlight shown through a tank of water slightly tainted with soap or milk causes the water to turn blue and the flashlight, as observed from the other side, reddish in color...

Aus already mentioned that the blue sky is due to scattering, not refraction.

More blue light being scattered than longer wavelengths gives the disk of the Sun a slightly yellowish appearance.

That four minutes of extra direct sunlight due to refraction sounds about right for someone located on the Equator. At the poles it would be much longer since the Sun can be "down" but skimming just barely below the horizon for much longer times at high latitudes.

Quote from: Sculelos on October 11, 2014, 11:33:52 AM

Quote from: Macpie on October 11, 2014, 01:24:17 AM

By the way, where did you get your "0, 30, 60 days" pictures? What do they represent? I mean, I think I get what they are supposed to represent, but why are they rotated this way, and not the other way around? How did you get this direction of rotation?

And one more thing: if you define a day as one rotation relative to the Sun(like every other living being which understands the word "day" does), all of these pictures should look exactly the same. Why do they not look the same in your drawing?

It's locked on the Sun and the days are defined as 'Sidereal' Days. The only thing that changes the day is the position of the Earth relative to the Sun. This shows what would happen if Earth was orbiting counter-clockwise, then also if it was rotating the same way as it was orbiting you would have your solar day shorter then your sidereal day because the Sun would move West. It's pretty easy to see from this image.

If that's what those globes represent, then you have them in the reverse order. The one on the right is Start and the one on the left is 60 sidereal days later (by "right" I mean rightmost of the three, not the bolllxed-up thing at far right).

Remember this? It shows what you're trying to show (but got backwards) pretty well:



At the December Solstice position (rightmost earth), the Americas are directly facing the Sun and are also facing Sagittarius. About 90 days later, at the March Equinox (top), the Sun has moved to be the Earth has moved so that the Sun is directly over Africa when the Americas are facing Sagittarius.

This makes the Sun appear to move slowly eastward against the background stars, as we observe, and sidereal days about 4 min shorter than solar days, as expected.

Presto!

[Edit] Slight clarification (twice).

This image clarifies your image to see what is properly happening. Remember from the South pole counter-clockwise is clockwise which if Earth would be orbiting clockwise from the South pole then the Sun would appear to go counter-clockwise from the South pole. The same problem remains though, being that there should still be 4 minutes less per solar day then sidereal day if heliocentrism was true. As for the refraction comments, refraction will only make higher things appear higher and lower things appear lower, so in theory if refraction effected the day when it started it would also effect it when it ended counter-balancing the difference so refraction cannot be making any significant different to day times.

For the time being, I will only address one point from your last post(I'm quite busy):

refraction will only make higher things appear higher and lower things appear lower, so in theory if refraction effected the day when it started it would also effect it when it ended counter-balancing the difference

No, it wouldn't. In case of sunrise/sunset there is no "higher/lower", as they are more or less symmetrical and the same. What is the difference between, say, 10 minutes after sunrise, and 10 minutes before sunset, regarding the angle above Earth? Nothing. Refraction doesn't involve some time shift; it involves angles and atmospheric conditions. If the Sun is at the same height above ground at these two times of day, why do you expect this to work differently?

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on October 11, 2014, 02:22:32 PM

Quote from: Sculelos on October 11, 2014, 11:33:52 AM

Quote from: Macpie on October 11, 2014, 01:24:17 AM

By the way, where did you get your "0, 30, 60 days" pictures? What do they represent? I mean, I think I get what they are supposed to represent, but why are they rotated this way, and not the other way around? How did you get this direction of rotation?

And one more thing: if you define a day as one rotation relative to the Sun(like every other living being which understands the word "day" does), all of these pictures should look exactly the same. Why do they not look the same in your drawing?

It's locked on the Sun and the days are defined as 'Sidereal' Days. The only thing that changes the day is the position of the Earth relative to the Sun. This shows what would happen if Earth was orbiting counter-clockwise, then also if it was rotating the same way as it was orbiting you would have your solar day shorter then your sidereal day because the Sun would move West. It's pretty easy to see from this image.

If that's what those globes represent, then you have them in the reverse order. The one on the right is Start and the one on the left is 60 sidereal days later (by "right" I mean rightmost of the three, not the bolllxed-up thing at far right).

Remember this? It shows what you're trying to show (but got backwards) pretty well:



At the December Solstice position (rightmost earth), the Americas are directly facing the Sun and are also facing Sagittarius. About 90 days later, at the March Equinox (top), the Sun has moved to be the Earth has moved so that the Sun is directly over Africa when the Americas are facing Sagittarius.

This makes the Sun appear to move slowly eastward against the background stars, as we observe, and sidereal days about 4 min shorter than solar days, as expected.

Presto!

[Edit] Slight clarification (twice).

This image clarifies your image to see what is properly happening. Remember from the South pole counter-clockwise is clockwise which if Earth would be orbiting clockwise from the South pole then the Sun would appear to go counter-clockwise from the South pole. The same problem remains though, being that there should still be 4 minutes less per solar day then sidereal day if heliocentrism was true. As for the refraction comments, refraction will only make higher things appear higher and lower things appear lower, so in theory if refraction effected the day when it started it would also effect it when it ended counter-balancing the difference so refraction cannot be making any significant different to day times.

Would you mind describing what is unclear about this illustration?

Why suddenly change the perspective to looking from the south in your description? The results will be the same as the looking from the north we had already been using, of course, but why do you think this is necessary or helpful?

I can re-post the illustration that shows clearly why solar days are longer than sidereal days if you want. It demonstrates why solar days are longer than sidereal days. It's really simple.

Your "clarified" image doesn't seem to be illustrating anything like what the one here does. You may know what it's supposed to mean, but it doesn't mean a thing to me and, probably, most others. Why is there an Azimuthal equidistant projection centered on the South Pole in the center of the diamond? Is the diamond a representation of earth's orbit using straight lines? What does the orientation of the globe represent at each point? It is an interesting take on the Brazilian flag, however.

It's simple, if Earth is turning and orbiting East to West then the Sun appears to orbit West to East. If they do this they are getting closer to each other East and West are infinite directions so they never cross each other but if your going west to west it will be longer or going east to east it will be longer but if one object is west and another is east they will take less time to cross. (For Solar day to be longer then stellar day you would have to be orbiting clockwise and rotating counterclockwise from the same reference frame or the other way around orbiting counter-clockwise and rotating clockwise). Like I said once you know this, you know heliocentrism is wrong.

Well once again you can't make a coherent argument. Anyways, to see how you are wrong you could just do as I have stated earlier, just place a basketball on a table and then walk around the table while spinning. You will see that the basketball can rise in the east. Not that hard.

Well once again you can't make a coherent argument. Anyways, to see how you are wrong you could just do as I have stated earlier, just place a basketball on a table and then walk around the table while spinning. You will see that the basketball can rise in the east. Not that hard.

That's not what I was saying at all. In my last post I said "if Earth is turning and orbiting East to West then the Sun appears to orbit West to East.". In heliocentrism Earth turns and orbits West to East. Thus the Sun would be going west throughout the (side-real) day thus your (solar) day would be shortened (compared to your sidereal), because Earth would be turning West to East, the Sun would appear to be moving East to West. However because the rising of the Sun in the East would just be an illusion of the Earth moving West to East, if you physically moved the Sun west throughout the day because of Earth's eastern orbit, then your westward starting point of the day prior would have moved so that it was closer to you, thus the solar day would be shorter then the sidereal day. It's so obvious, once you know this fact, you know that Earth simply cannot be orbiting nor rotating about the Sun and because I also know that the Earth curves up by measuring the horizon, I know that I have to be living inside the Earth. (Also there was an experiment that ran parallel with the horizon and found that indeed the land does curve up exactly as I expected, it was my data that led me to the concave Earth theory before I knew others believed in the same thing as I did)

Quote from: sokarul on October 13, 2014, 02:08:37 PM

Well once again you can't make a coherent argument. Anyways, to see how you are wrong you could just do as I have stated earlier, just place a basketball on a table and then walk around the table while spinning. You will see that the basketball can rise in the east. Not that hard.

That's not what I was saying at all. In my last post I said "if Earth is turning and orbiting East to West then the Sun appears to orbit West to East.". In heliocentrism Earth turns and orbits West to East.

Saying "earth orbits west to east" is confusing you. Again.

Please look at and see if you can understand the figure below. It shows a representation of the Earth with its direction of rotation, and the direction it follows in its orbit about the sun, viewed from north of the orbital plane. Also shown are two stick figures - "Mr. D" on the daylit side of earth, and "Mr. N" on the nighttime side. Each of these two gents has his east and his west indicated.

If there's something about the following figure or the explanation you don't understand, please ask before wasting your time drawing yet another figure or embellishing this one, and wasting our time trying to figure out what the hell you mean.



Note that, for "Mr. N", the arrow representing the rotation of earth that's going through him is generally pointing toward the top of the figure, same as the general direction of the longer arrows representing direction the Earth is traveling in its orbit. "Mr. N" could say the Earth appears to be travelling in its orbit from his west toward his east (bottom to top of the drawing). Now, at the exact same time, the rotation arrow skewering "Mr. D" is pointing generally toward the bottom of the picture - the opposite direction as the longer arrows indicating earth's travel in orbit. "Mr. D" could say the Earth appears to be travelling from his east toward his west (remember, earth is still moving along its orbit toward the top of the drawing). Who is right? They both are, of course. This is why saying the Earth is traveling west to east or east to west in its orbit has no meaning in your context.

Thus the Sun would be going west throughout the (side-real) day thus your (solar) day would be shortened (compared to your sidereal), because Earth would be turning West to East, the Sun would appear to be moving East to West. However because the rising of the Sun in the East would just be an illusion of the Earth moving West to East, if you physically moved the Sun west throughout the day because of Earth's eastern orbit, then your westward starting point of the day prior would have moved so that it was closer to you, thus the solar day would be shorter then the sidereal day.

OK. This is where your confusion is. The sun appears to be going west during the daytime because of the west to east rotation of the Earth (I think we both agree on this). At the same time, the Earth is moving slowly to the west along its orbit (from "Mr. D's" perspective - it's daytime, remember), which makes the Sun appear to be drifting slowly to the east against the background stars to "Mr. D". Because the Sun continuously drifts in this direction (whether "Mr. D" is facing it or not at any given moment), it rises a little later, relative to some star, each day, making the solar day longer than the sidereal day.

It's so obvious, once you know this fact, you know that Earth simply cannot be orbiting nor rotating about the Sun

I hope this clears that up for you.

and because I also know that the Earth curves up by measuring the horizon, I know that I have to be living inside the Earth. (Also there was an experiment that ran parallel with the horizon and found that indeed the land does curve up exactly as I expected, it was my data that led me to the concave Earth theory before I knew others believed in the same thing as I did)

You have never adequately explained why the horizon should only occupy only the bottom quarter of your field of view on a flat or convex earth when centered on the horizontal. Nor have you adequately explained why we wouldn't see distant parts of the Earth rising above us with no horizon whatsoever if the earth were concave, and how a sunset would work in such a world.

The experiment you refer to is, I think, the "Rectilineator". This was an experiment to measure the curvature of earth using 12-foot long wooden beams with brass fittings supported on wooden posts set end-to-end,  and painstakingly adjusted to be absolutely straight, along an ocean beach, for more than four miles. The experiment was conducted by a group trying to prove that the Earth was concave. Not much chance to have errors creep into that, is there?

Are you setting up for another "sidefake" gag? If so, please don't. It was cute once, but only once, and we get it. It's "sidereal" (which means "of or with respect to the distant stars"), without the hyphen.

Are you setting up for another "sidefake" gag? If so, please don't. It was cute once, but only once, and we get it.

It's a bit like the flat earthers' joke word "atmoplane".  I'm also guessing rather than describing a basketball as spherical, they'd have to say it was an ovoid with its major and minor axes of symmetry of equal length LOL.

Easy way is just to think of it like a clock. The Earth and the orbit thereof would be like clock-hands running both parallel at different speeds but the Sun would be the clock itself. Imagine the clock itself is rotating backwards and the clock hands are moving forwards. Now if you locked the frame of reference on the clock it would look like a stationary clock, but if you watched this clock it would take less time to pass then on a real stationary clock. That would be the difference. The stationary clock takes longer then the non-stationary clock...

Easy way is just to think of it like a clock. The Earth and the orbit thereof would be like clock-hands running both parallel at different speeds but the Sun would be the clock itself. Imagine the clock itself is rotating backwards and the clock hands are moving forwards. Now if you locked the frame of reference on the clock it would look like a stationary clock, but if you watched this clock it would take less time to pass then on a real stationary clock. That would be the difference. The stationary clock takes longer then the non-stationary clock...

That makes no sense.  Parallel at different speeds...

I see that round Earthers(for a lack of better term) like to use their astronomy knowledge to prove the Earth is not flat. However, have you ever thought for a second about the reality of what you actually see? You see lights in the sky and you are brainwashed to believe that these lights are really solid objects which can be reached and some of them are much bigger than the Earth itself, and the stars are huge suns very far away in the universe.

OK, but what if you're wrong, what if the celestial objects are simply celestial phenomena or projections on the celestial sphere? What then, how can you be so arrogant to claim you know something for a fact when it is just observations! You cannot verify that these observations represent solid objects. It is just an assumption made by the scientists to develop their theory of the universe.

Unfortunately, the only proof for that theory is the fake NASA and other space agencies missions to space. Space travel is impossible and you should know it if you were a bit more discerning and didn't believe in the media nonsense. The whole thing was done for political and propaganda purposes and was never real. 

Humans have not been in outer space. I think those who believe in something they haven't experienced themselves are those who should provide the evidence and not the ones who are skeptical.

In this particular debate, the topic is the Earth is round or flat. Well it appears flat, so please provide evidence it is round which can be experienced by anyone on the planet. There is nothing like that. You can never provide such evidence. You cannot prove the Earth rotates either. It is impossible regardless of how many Foucault pendulums you believe in. It is impossible to experience it. You need to believe in it. So please cut the arrogant "scientific" smartass attitude, when it boils down to your beliefs only. Be skeptical! You can only verify if something is real if you have experienced it first-hand yourself.

You cannot prove the Earth rotates either. It is impossible regardless of how many Foucault pendulums you believe in. It is impossible to experience it. You need to believe in it. So please cut the arrogant "scientific" smartass attitude

Great... So, how do you think would it be possible to fake these results? To me the pendulum is the most obvious and simple evidence that Earth rotates. If you have other explanation for it, I will gladly read it.

Sunrise and sunset across the world prove a round earth.  Also explain satellite communications.