Simplest of experiments proves the Earth revolves around the sun. Take two spectra of light from a star six months apart. One spectra will be blue shifted and one will be red shifted due to Doppler effects. Simple.
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA....
1. It was not only experiments like those of
Sagnac and
Michelson and Gale which pointed to the earth as central.
Edwin Hubble discovered that the fainter a galaxy appeared in his telescope (and therefore presumably the further away), the more its spectrum was shifted to the red.
It did not matter in which direction he looked. In every direction, the further away from the earth the more "red shifted" the spectrum.
This is usually explained in terms of what is called the "Doppler" effect. The "redder" the spectrum, the faster something is supposed to be moving away from us. This leads to the idea of the "expanding universe". The further an object is from us, the faster it is moving away from us.
It is almost certain that this interpretation is wrong. Scientists like
Halton C. Arp and
W.G. Tift have shown that the red shifts are not due to the Doppler Effect and the universe may no be expanding at all.
Halton C. Arp, was a provocative son of American astronomy whose dogged insistence that astronomers had misread the distances to quasars cast doubt on the Big Bang theory of the universe and
led to his exile from his peers and the telescopes he loved died on Dec. 28 2013. in Munich. He was 86.
2. Michelson and
Morley planned to turn their apparatus until they found the maximum fringe shift produced by light travelling in two perpendicular directions. The position of maximum fringe shift would show the direction in which the earth was moving, the size of the fringe shift would be a measure of the speed of the earth through the aether.
But they found that no matter how they turned their apparatus, there was no significant fringe shift. They had once again established that the earth does not move. They reasoned that the movement of the earth around the sun, and the sun around the universe must have exactly cancelled out, so that just at that moment the earth happened to be stationary. The obvious thing to do was to repeat the experiment six months later, when the earth would be going in the opposite direction, on the "other side" of its orbit around the sun, and the motions would no longer cancel.
So they repeated the experiment six months later, but still there were no significant fringe shifts. The earth was still standing still! They repeated the experiment at all seasons of the year. They repeated it at all times of the day and night. They repeated it in Berlin, in Chicago, on the tops of mountains...and everywhere... no fringe shift.
In other words, the earth was not moving.3. If we accept the Copernican viewpoint and its unavoidable extrapolations with regard to the structure of the universe, we have to accept the consequences. Then we cannot hold on to the picture of a simple sun- centered cosmos, of which not even
Newton was fully convinced, but which Bradley and
Molyneux took for granted. Today the astronomers assure us that our Great Light is only an insignificant member of a spiral Milky Way galaxy, containing billions of stars. Our sun flies at a speed of about 250 km/sec around the center of this system. And that is not all, the ruling cosmology also tells us how the Milky Way itself whirls at 360,000 km/hr through the space occupied by the local group of galaxies. Now all these imposing particulars are theoretically gathered from observations assuming the speed of light to be 300,000 km/sec, at least, everywhere through our spatial neighborhood. But if this cosmological panorama is put through its paces, there is a hitch somewhere. The astronomical theorists cannot have their cake and eat it. If they accept— as all the textbooks still do!—
Bradley's “proof” of the Copernican truth, then their cosmological extrapolations of that truth clash with a not-yet developed simple heliocentrism; that is to say, with the model of an earth orbiting a spatially unmoved sun.
The other way around, when holding on to their galactic conjectures, they are at a loss how to account for a steady 20”.5 stellar aberration. For in that scheme our earth, dragged along by the sun, joins in this minor star's 250 km/sec revolution around the center of the Milky Way.
If, for instance, in March we indeed would be moving parallel to the sun's motion, our velocity would become 250+30 = 280 km/sec, and in September 250-30 = 220 km/sec. The “aberration of starlight,” according to post- Copernican doctrine, depends on the ratio of the velocity of the earth to the speed of light. As that velocity changes the ratio changes. Hence Bradley's 20”.496 should change, too. But it does not. Therefore, there is truly a fly in this astronomical ointment, paraded and promoted as a truth. 4.Most people who accept that the Earth is in motion believe it is a proven fact. They do not realize that not only has the motion of the Earth never been proven, but by the constructs of modern physics and cosmology cannot be proven.
Again, even modern cosmology does not claim to be able to prove that the Earth is in motion.
In fact the very best argument for Earth’s motion is based on pure ‘modesty’ not logic, observation and experience. If anyone could prove the Earth’s motion, that someone would become more famous than Einstein, Hawking and others. They may all be fools but even they would not make such an ignorant claim to proof of Earth’s motions, and those who do so don’t realize just how ignorant of physics they really are! Before folks go demonstrating how ignorant they are, they should consider: A. The relationship between Mach’s principle and relativity.
B. The relationship between Gravity and Inertia, and Gravity and Acceleration (and the paradoxes that exist).
C. Relativity does not claim to prove Earth’s motions, in fact it ‘dictates’ the ridiculous idea that motion cannot be proven period.
D. Relativity proposes motion, it does not nor can it claim to disprove that the Earth is the center of the universe!
E. Only those who are ignorant of physics attempt to make arguments based on weather patterns, ballistic trajectories, geosynchronous satellites, and Foucault’s pendulums for evidence of Earth’s motions!
For all those ‘geniuses’ out there, not even Einstein would claim such stupidity.5. "Take two carefully-bored metallic tubes, not less than six feet in length, and place them one yard asunder, on the opposite sides of a wooden frame, or a solid block of wood or stone: so adjust them that their centres or axes of vision shall be perfectly parallel to each other. Now, direct them to the plane of some notable fixed star, a few seconds previous to its meridian time. Let an observer be stationed at each tube and the moment the star appears in the first tube let a loud knock or other signal be given, to be repeated by the observer at the second tube when he first sees the same star. A distinct period of time will elapse between the signals given. The signals will follow each other in very rapid succession, but still, the time between is sufficient to show that the same star is not visible at the same moment by two parallel lines of sight when only one yard asunder. A slight inclination of the second tube towards the first tube would be required for the star to be seen through both tubes at the same instant. Let the tubes remain in their position for six months; at the end of which time the same observation or experiment will produce the same results--the star will be visible at the same meridian time, without the slightest alteration being required in the direction of the tubes: from which it is concluded that if the earth had moved one single yard in an orbit through space, there would at least be observed the slight inclination of the tube which the difference in position of one yard had previously required.
But as no such difference in the direction of the tube is required, the conclusion is unavoidable, that in six months a given meridian upon the earth's surface does not move a single yard, and therefore, that the earth has not the slightest degree of orbital motion." -
Samuel Rowbotham,
"Zetetic Astronomy"6. Yes, why wouldn't we see Polaris if north-south tangent line at the equator would be exactly parallel to the Earth's axis of rotation?
Hm, strange question i must admit, pay attention to a green line in above picture and meditate some more on this issue...
Well, i just have finished my meditation on Polaris issue, and here is my conclusion:
Since Polaris declination is 89 degrees 19 ' even if we presumed that the distance between the Earth and Polaris is so idiotically great, we have to notice one problem associated with visibility of Polaris at the Equator:
Let's say that at midnight 1th January from the same point at the Equator we can see Polaris due to 0,8 degree (less) difference between 90 degree and 89 degree 19 ', this very same difference will be at midnight 1th June the reason with counter effect, am i right?
So, how come that there is no difference in visibility of Polaris from the same point at the Equator with respect to the constant half-annualy shifts of angles?
So, when someone says that we can see Polaris 1 or 2 degrees south of the Equator due to refraction, then that someone should take into account this 0,8 degree also!Let alone seeing Polaris 12 degrees south of the Equator!
7. Now, see this :
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62998.msg1667067#msg1667067PONDER ON THIS VERY CAREFULLY!!! THIS IS PURE LOGIC AND SCIENCE. THERE IS NO OPTION BETWEEN THESE TWO OPTIONS?
If the Earth is immovable, a shape of the Earth MUST BE in accordance with FET, if the Earth is movable a shape of the Earth MUST BE in accordance with RET.Everything depends on whether the Earth is immovable or not!!!
My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1655872#msg1655872http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1675999#msg1675999http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1669224#msg1669224