Does the Earth Rotate?

why don't you continue ... ?
 the atmosphere spins with the Earth....
and cosmonauts spin with the atmosphere !!! 

Cosmonauts have momentum meaning that even though they are not connected to the Earth in any way they still have the same velocity as the Earth, however the Coriolis effect causes a suborbital space craft launched strait up to land a bit west of where they launched.

because all these places are near the united states  !

Well, when the space shuttle program was still operational, you could find NASA team in  Spain and France, waiting in different Air Force Bases with long enough runways, in case the shuttle needed to abort its flight and perform an emergency landing. Fortunately (or unfortunately for the crews of Challenger and Columbia), these facilities were never used, but they could have. So the Shuttle could have landed far away from the US, contrarly to what you just said.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 18, 2015, 08:15:25 AM

Classic answer. And now we are off to the milky way at 1.3 million mph that us humans just laugh at.
Like I said. Arguments from people that have no clue what they are talking about, except to regurgitate what their masters told them to.

OK - since we're in the Q&A, I have a question for Skipti. If you believe we should be able to sense the earth's rotation, then how come on a flat earth you quite happily accept that you don't sense the ever accelerating flat earth? I remind you, the round earth's acceleration is pretty much 0, whereas your flat earth is constantly accelerating)

No answer Skepti?

what do you want me to say to any one who argue with " you could ...they could ..." this is your opinion, (I respect it) and I have my opinion !

" To you be your religion, and to me my religion. ..." Alkafiroun verse 6 - The Holy Quran

"To you be your religion, and to me my religion. ..."  Alkafiroun verse 6 - The Holy Quran

You need to understand that the question of the earth's rotation—or lack thereof—is not one that can be addressed and/or resolved using any sort of religious base or holy book.

It can only be decided by science, and not myths and magic and fairy tales written thousands of years ago.  So there's no point in you repeatedly posting excerpts from your Quran;  it's meaningless and disruptive to the questions at hand.

the earth doesn't rotate,
when you travel by plane from East to West or from West to East, you will spend the same time, if the earth was really turning around itself, travelling from East to West would be much shorter, actually it's not the case ! The cosmonaut goes up for a while and returns back to earth  ( in the same place, the same continent, the same country ) why ? I have never seen a space shuttle deviating in the sky so as to recover its home country !!! have you ?

"Here you are - those who have argued about that of which you have [some] knowledge, but why do you argue about that of which you have no knowledge? ..." -Surat 'Āli `Imrān (chapter 3), verse 66, the Quran. 

what do you mean by science ? relativity ? I call the Quran, the book of all times !
stephan hawking descovered the so called black holes in the 21st Century, the Quran had described them 1400 years ago !

" Nay, I swear by the places where the stars fall " Chapter (56) sūrat l-wāqiʿah

is this a myth ?

Quote from: mohamed on February 19, 2015, 09:26:04 AM

the earth doesn't rotate,
when you travel by plane from East to West or from West to East, you will spend the same time, if the earth was really turning around itself, travelling from East to West would be much shorter, actually it's not the case ! The cosmonaut goes up for a while and returns back to earth  ( in the same place, the same continent, the same country ) why ? I have never seen a space shuttle deviating in the sky so as to recover its home country !!! have you ?

"Here you are - those who have argued about that of which you have [some] knowledge, but why do you argue about that of which you have no knowledge? ..." -Surat 'Āli `Imrān (chapter 3), verse 66, the Quran.

Nice one!

What do you mean by science?

Science:  A branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws;  systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation;  the system of acquiring knowledge through use of the scientific method—that is, generating hypotheses and theories through observation and testing.

...the Quran had described them 1400 years ago!

No it didn't.  It's ludicrous to interpret "nay, I swear by the places where the stars fall" as defining black holes.  It could well have been defining the visible horizon line, or an insurmountable mountain range, or any one of a number of things.  The problem with religionists is that they all too often interpret holy scripture with the benefit of scientific hindsight, and read into it things that were never intended by the original authors.

what do you mean by science ? relativity ? I call the Quran, the book of all times !
stephan hawking descovered the so called black holes in the 21st Century, the Quran had described them 1400 years ago !

" Nay, I swear by the places where the stars fall " Chapter (56) sūrat l-wāqiʿah

is this a myth ?

So you say that the Quran predicts the existence of black holes as proof that the Quran is true, but you don't believe that black holes exist?  I am really confused.

From what I can gather there isn't too much consensus on a few issues, so I'd like to hear what I can. No matter the mechanism, do you personally believe that the Earth rotates, and why?

I don't believe it does.  Two easily provable examples are the circular rings that stars make around the pole stars during long exposure photography.  If the earth moves, this becomes impossible.  A rotating earth would destroy these circular patterns.

Quote from: BiJane on February 17, 2015, 05:37:37 AM

From what I can gather there isn't too much consensus on a few issues, so I'd like to hear what I can. No matter the mechanism, do you personally believe that the Earth rotates, and why?

I don't believe it does.  Two easily provable examples are the circular rings that stars make around the pole stars during long exposure photography.  If the earth moves, this becomes impossible.  A rotating earth would destroy these circular patterns.

A rotating Earth and a rotating sky would produce the exact same apparent motion of the stars.

Quote from: GrindStone on February 24, 2015, 08:06:34 PM

Quote from: BiJane on February 17, 2015, 05:37:37 AM

From what I can gather there isn't too much consensus on a few issues, so I'd like to hear what I can. No matter the mechanism, do you personally believe that the Earth rotates, and why?

I don't believe it does.  Two easily provable examples are the circular rings that stars make around the pole stars during long exposure photography.  If the earth moves, this becomes impossible.  A rotating earth would destroy these circular patterns.

A rotating Earth and a rotating sky would produce the exact same apparent motion of the stars.

I see you haven't actually setup the scenario to test it....otherwise you would know, as I do, it is physically impossible.  Please, try it.  Get a globe, attach a camera to the side of the globe, pointed at the "pole star".  Hold a large sheet above it with lights attached.  Spin the globe.  Look at the resulting picture.  Not a circle.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on February 24, 2015, 08:12:47 PM

Quote from: GrindStone on February 24, 2015, 08:06:34 PM

Quote from: BiJane on February 17, 2015, 05:37:37 AM

From what I can gather there isn't too much consensus on a few issues, so I'd like to hear what I can. No matter the mechanism, do you personally believe that the Earth rotates, and why?

I don't believe it does.  Two easily provable examples are the circular rings that stars make around the pole stars during long exposure photography.  If the earth moves, this becomes impossible.  A rotating earth would destroy these circular patterns.

I see you haven't actually setup the scenario to test it....otherwise you would know, as I do, it is physically impossible.  Please, try it.  Get a globe, attach a camera to the side of the globe, pointed at the "pole star".  Hold a large sheet above it with lights attached.  Spin the globe.  Look at the resulting picture.  Not a circle.

A rotating Earth and a rotating sky would produce the exact same apparent motion of the stars.

You're wrong.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on February 24, 2015, 08:12:47 PM

Quote from: GrindStone on February 24, 2015, 08:06:34 PM

Quote from: BiJane on February 17, 2015, 05:37:37 AM

From what I can gather there isn't too much consensus on a few issues, so I'd like to hear what I can. No matter the mechanism, do you personally believe that the Earth rotates, and why?

I don't believe it does.  Two easily provable examples are the circular rings that stars make around the pole stars during long exposure photography.  If the earth moves, this becomes impossible.  A rotating earth would destroy these circular patterns.

I see you haven't actually setup the scenario to test it....otherwise you would know, as I do, it is physically impossible.  Please, try it.  Get a globe, attach a camera to the side of the globe, pointed at the "pole star".  Hold a large sheet above it with lights attached.  Spin the globe.  Look at the resulting picture.  Not a circle.

A rotating Earth and a rotating sky would produce the exact same apparent motion of the stars.

On that globe example try pointing the camera up at an angle and then spinning the globe.  Everything would apear to go around where the axis is pointing (like Polaris in the case of Earth).

had to fix my previous post.  accidentally posted within the previous comment's quote.

On that globe example try pointing the camera up at an angle and then spinning the globe.  Everything would apear to go around where the axis is pointing (like Polaris in the case of Earth).

You must not have a good spatial judgement capacity.  It only takes a moment of thought to play out the correct alignment of the star field in this rotating earth scenario, and you would see plainly, without even needing to do the experiment....the stars would not create circular patterns.  The camera is on a moving platform....on the outer edge....   NOT at the pole...... 

Quote from: mikeman7918 on February 24, 2015, 09:25:00 PM

On that globe example try pointing the camera up at an angle and then spinning the globe.  Everything would apear to go around where the axis is pointing (like Polaris in the case of Earth).

You must not have a good spatial judgement capacity.  It only takes a moment of thought to play out the correct alignment of the star field in this rotating earth scenario, and you would see plainly, without even needing to do the experiment....the stars would not create circular patterns.  The camera is on a moving platform....on the outer edge....   NOT at the pole......

So does the distance to the stars not matter in their apparent motion? Parallax not exist now?

Quote from: mikeman7918 on February 24, 2015, 09:25:00 PM

On that globe example try pointing the camera up at an angle and then spinning the globe.  Everything would apear to go around where the axis is pointing (like Polaris in the case of Earth).

You must not have a good spatial judgement capacity.  It only takes a moment of thought to play out the correct alignment of the star field in this rotating earth scenario, and you would see plainly, without even needing to do the experiment....the stars would not create circular patterns.  The camera is on a moving platform....on the outer edge....   NOT at the pole......

But stars are many light years away while if you are at the equator you are never any more then 8,000 miles from your starting position.  For comparison purposes, a light year is 5,878,499,810,000,000 miles.  Think about that for a moment, how extreme to you think the parallax would be?

You guys seriously can't play this spatial movement out in your heads can you?  Hahahahaha!  i thought you were joking.  Um.....wow.  Okay, no.....  just no.  Get some 3D rendering software, and setup the models.  Take them through the rotation.  You will see what I am talking about.

You guys seriously can't play this spatial movement out in your heads can you?  Hahahahaha!  i thought you were joking.  Um.....wow.  Okay, no.....  just no.  Get some 3D rendering software, and setup the models.  Take them through the rotation.  You will see what I am talking about.

Gotcha. Don't know what we are talking about so deflect. Careful you pretentious prick, mike does make 3D simulations to prove his point. And you're demonstrably wrong.

Quote from: GrindStone on February 25, 2015, 06:33:36 PM

You guys seriously can't play this spatial movement out in your heads can you?  Hahahahaha!  i thought you were joking.  Um.....wow.  Okay, no.....  just no.  Get some 3D rendering software, and setup the models.  Take them through the rotation.  You will see what I am talking about.

Gotcha. Don't know what we are talking about so deflect. Careful you pretentious prick, mike does make 3D simulations to prove his point. And you're demonstrably wrong.

I wish he would.

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on February 25, 2015, 06:45:02 PM

Quote from: GrindStone on February 25, 2015, 06:33:36 PM

You guys seriously can't play this spatial movement out in your heads can you?  Hahahahaha!  i thought you were joking.  Um.....wow.  Okay, no.....  just no.  Get some 3D rendering software, and setup the models.  Take them through the rotation.  You will see what I am talking about.

Gotcha. Don't know what we are talking about so deflect. Careful you pretentious prick, mike does make 3D simulations to prove his point. And you're demonstrably wrong.

I wish he would.

I will do it later today when I get home.  In the animation I am thinking I will make the stars be a background image which will simulate the lack of measurable paralax of an object many light years away across a distance of 8,000 miles.  Will that be a problem or does parallax have something to do with your argument?

I really dont see how 3D animations prove anything, though. You're using an RE model. I could make a working 3D animation of my aetheric wind model, would that prove to you people unequivocally that my model is correct?



How about this?

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Does this prove that Discworld is a true account of the shape of the Earth?

I really dont see how 3D animations prove anything, though. You're using an RE model. I could make a working 3D animation of my aetheric wind model, would that prove to you people unequivocally that my model is correct?

If it was mathematically simulated and not animated by hand then it actually would be proof in favor of your model, it wouldn't necessarily be unequivocal proof but it would certainly make your hypothesis worthy of more attention and further investigation.

This is not a debate forum.  If you do not have a question or answer about the flat Earth, then please refrain from posting here.