Orbisect-64's Experiment 1 and Experiment 2 as proposed in Q&A

• 7 Replies
• 1075 Views
?

Alpha2Omega

• 3913
Orbisect-64's Experiment 1 and Experiment 2 as proposed in Q&A
« on: June 24, 2015, 06:16:51 PM »
Quoted from the original Q&A posts so they can be discussed. Initial editorializing and some excess white space omitted; experiments exactly as proposed.

EXPERIMENT 1

Take a marker and make a small dot on your ceiling. Place an object in the center of your room. Tie a small laser to the top of a spinning-top, pointing directly upward. Spin said top. Try to make it go in a circle around the stationary object in the center of the room (the sun) in an elliptical orbit. When the top is moving around the stationary object, in an elliptical orbit, and the top is spinning on a tilt, and when the top begins to wobble... try to make it point directly to the dot on the ceiling. If you can make this happen... (lol) ...now find a room with the highest ceiling you can find, and perform the same experiment—can you get the top to point at the dot even ONCE? What, you can't!!! Wow, it's pretty IMPOSSIBLE to make this happen [by chance], isn't it... maybe if there was a very large explosion it will help you (like a “big bang”). Now imagine performing the same experiment, except that the dot is trillions and trillions and trillions of miles away...

Amazingly, the star Polaris, which is the northern star, is said to be some 390 lightyears from earth—trillions, and trillions, and trillions, and trillions of miles away (this distance is no exaggeration, and is in fact a gross simplification).

Earth, which is spinning around at 1,038 miles per hour, is moving around the sun at a speed of 66,000 miles per hour! …in an elliptical orbit… and the earth is on a tilt… and the earth is wobbling!

Considering the above experiment, how is it possible that Polaris is ALWAYS in the center above the north pole, with only very slight variation???

Either you have to conclude that modern science is completely wrong... or an intelligent being/person designed and finely tuned the earth to the northern star.

(Note to the crab and his friends: Only an [intelligent] mind could cause this to happen... and [you] can not... get the point?)

Personally I don't believe the earth wobbles or tilts, because this simple experiment proves that impossible. However, if science wants to use stupid reasoning, I see no reason not to use it to prove God's existence.

"Answer someone stupid according to his foolishness, that he may not become someone wise in his own eyes."—Proverbs 26:5

—Rx

Now we're going to show how truly IMPOSSIBLE this really is, because earth has to point at the southern pole-stars at the same time.

EXPERIMENT 2

1) For the next experiment, go to your local crafts store and get one of those foam spheres (this will act as Earth for our experiment).
2) Take a straight stick (like a skewer or a sharp dowel) and poke a hole through the top and bottom, perfectly center.
3) Take two lasers and push one through each end so that they are pointing outward (lasers are cheap these days and can be found at your local convenience store at the counter for a dollar or two).
4) With a marker, make a dot on the ceiling (representing Polaris), and another dot on the floor (representing the southern pole-stars).
5) Turn on the lasers and hold the sphere in the center of the room.
6) Make the lasers point at both points (stars).
7) While TILTING the globe, and making it WOBBLE, try to make the laser point directly at both points (stars) at the same time.

Note: It doesn't matter that the wobble happens slowly in "reality," any wobble will prove the point that it's impossible; For this experiment we have not even made the earth move in an orbit as if around the sun - which would increase the impossibility of the matter - as if "impossibility" can be increased.

I await the video of you making this happen.

With the two experiments above, one of the following has been proved (to people with brains).

a) There is an intelligent creator (God) who tuned the universe so well that earth points at two poles trillions of miles away in each direction, and it does this while moving in orbit, tilting, and wobbling - this is absolutely impossible by chance; and only possible by design and fine tuning.

b) The scientific community has lied to you and me; in which case they are liars and can't be trusted, and therefor you are trusting liars regarding things like evolution and flat-earth.

c) I have just proved science wrong. Now this makes me smarter than NASA and all your scientists... In which case I have to ask: why are you even arguing with someone smarter than all your scientists; and I must ask myself: why would I even bother to carry on a discussion with YOU?

(If you respond that science is wrong about this observable fact, then how can it be right about evolution, which has no observable evidence. You disbelieve what you can see, but believe what you can not see. Further, you have admitted that science is wrong about this simple matter, and now you have no scientific legs to stand upon - you have pulled them out from under yourself. Science can not be trusted - even in the most elementary matters. In choosing option c. that science is wrong, you can not do so without admitting that I am right, and that I am smart enough to figure out what they could not... and yet you're still arguing with me (I find this foolish to the nth). They are what Jesus called "Blind guides." And as he said, a blind guide can not lead another who is blind.)

How much does anyone want to bet that a responder will avoid discussing the experiments - and even more so, attempting to prove it wrong in a video presentation?

Let them be. Blind guides is what they are. If, then, a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.”—Matthew 15:14

—Rx
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

?

Alpha2Omega

• 3913
Re: Orbisect-64's Experiment 1 and Experiment 2 as proposed in Q&A
« Reply #1 on: June 24, 2015, 07:12:52 PM »
Let's start with Experiment 1 (this seems like a logical place to start)

Take a marker and make a small dot on your ceiling. Place an object in the center of your room. Tie a small laser to the top of a spinning-top, pointing directly upward. Spin said top. Try to make it go in a circle around the stationary object in the center of the room (the sun) in an elliptical orbit.

How large is the ellipse in relation to the distance to the ceiling?

Quote
When the top is moving around the stationary object, in an elliptical orbit, and the top is spinning on a tilt, and when the top begins to wobble... try to make it point directly to the dot on the ceiling.

How fast and how much is it wobbling? If this is to simulate precession of the Equinoxes, it needs to complete one wobble in 26,000 orbits. If it's not simulating precession of the Equinoxes, what does this wobble represent?

Quote
If you can make this happen... (lol) ...now find a room with the highest ceiling you can find, and perform the same experiment—can you get the top to point at the dot even ONCE?

Even assuming you an find an ideal spinning-top that has anything remotely approaching the stability of the spinning Earth, what's the ratio of the distance to the highest ceiling you can find to the size of your elliptical orbit? It needs to be about 10 million times as far i.e. if it's a 20-meter ceiling,the major axis of your elliptical orbit is about 2 microns. In that case the laser will trace an ellipse varying by up to about 1 micron around the dot. I suspect you wouldn't be able to detect this from 20m away; heck, the dot itself (not to mention the laser's spot), is going to be hundreds of times larger than 1 micron, so, over the period of a few hundred orbits (assuming the wobble represents precession), effectively, yes.
Quote
What, you can't!!! Wow, it's pretty IMPOSSIBLE to make this happen [by chance], isn't it... maybe if there was a very large explosion it will help you (like a “big bang”). Now imagine performing the same experiment, except that the dot is trillions and trillions and trillions of miles away...

I take it from all the carrying on that you haven't actually tried, or even thoroughly thought out, this experiment. If you have, would you kindly describe, in detail, the distance to the ceiling, the size of the elliptical orbit, the period and amplitude of the "wobble" and, if actually done, the equipment you used, especially the type of spinning top, what type of bearing it uses, and how you controlled for irregular motion while tracing the elliptical orbit.

Quote
Amazingly, the star Polaris, which is the northern star, is said to be some 390 lightyears from earth—trillions, and trillions, and trillions, and trillions of miles away (this distance is no exaggeration, and is in fact a gross simplification).

A bit further than 20 million AU, or 10 million times the diameter of the Earth's nearly-circular elliptical orbit, which is where the 10 million, referred to above, came from.

Quote
Earth, which is spinning around at 1,038 miles per hour, is moving around the sun at a speed of 66,000 miles per hour! …in an elliptical orbit… and the earth is on a tilt… and the earth is wobbling!

Can you get back to us on that "wobble", please.

Quote
Considering the above experiment, how is it possible that Polaris is ALWAYS in the center above the north pole, with only very slight variation???

Actually, it's not. It's fairly close, currently about 3/4° away from the pole and slowly decreasing (because of precession) until it will be as little as 2/3° from the pole in a few decades. Not exact, but close enough for moderately good estimates.

Quote
Either you have to conclude that modern science is completely wrong... or an intelligent being/person designed and finely tuned the earth to the northern star.

That, or perhaps we caught a lucky break that a fairly bright star was fairly near the North Celestial Pole in our time. In a few thousand years Vega will be almost as close to the pole as Polaris is now. Now there's a bright star!

Quote
(Note to the crab and his friends: Only an [intelligent] mind could cause this to happen... and [you] can not... get the point?)

Personally I don't believe the earth wobbles or tilts, because this simple experiment proves that impossible. However, if science wants to use stupid reasoning, I see no reason not to use it to prove God's existence.

As already asked, have you actually done, or at least analyzed in detail, this experiment? Were the distances involved representative of the actual geometry using suitable equipment? If not, you haven't demonstrated anything. Sorry.

Let's give Orbisect a chance to to discuss this before we move on to Experiment 2.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

JerkFace

• 10543
• Looking for Occam
Re: Orbisect-64's Experiment 1 and Experiment 2 as proposed in Q&A
« Reply #2 on: June 24, 2015, 10:50:44 PM »
I don't see the point of the experiment,  it's well known that the North Celestial Pole and the South Celestial Pole move about over time.
Even if it wasn't for the precession and wobble,  the motion about galactic center would change the star field over sufficient time.

Maybe a better question would be how can a flat earth have two poles.

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

mikeman7918

• 5431
• Round Earther
Re: Orbisect-64's Experiment 1 and Experiment 2 as proposed in Q&A
« Reply #3 on: June 24, 2015, 11:11:11 PM »
I will try to debunk this as fast as possible.

Experiment 1:

Earth is not a top, it's rotation is in no way dependent on it's motion.  Try throwing a sphere with rotation and watch how it behaves, it acts just like the Earth with poles and a fixed axis.

Experiment 2:

It's wellknlwn that as Earth's axis wobbles it points at different stars.  Speaking of which, how would you explain this on a flat Earth?  Ancient star charts clearly depict the celestial poles to be in slightly different places.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.

JerkFace

• 10543
• Looking for Occam
Re: Orbisect-64's Experiment 1 and Experiment 2 as proposed in Q&A
« Reply #4 on: June 24, 2015, 11:43:03 PM »
Quote
Earth, which is spinning around at 1,038 miles per hour, is moving around the sun at a speed of 66,000 miles per hour! …in an elliptical orbit… and the earth is on a tilt… and the earth is wobbling!

Also he forgot that the whole solar system is moving at 500,000 mph about the galactic center,  and the whole galaxy is moving at 250,000 mph towards Andromeda.
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

Dog

• 1162
• Literally a dog
Re: Orbisect-64's Experiment 1 and Experiment 2 as proposed in Q&A
« Reply #5 on: June 24, 2015, 11:58:12 PM »
Quote
Earth, which is spinning around at 1,038 miles per hour, is moving around the sun at a speed of 66,000 miles per hour! …in an elliptical orbit… and the earth is on a tilt… and the earth is wobbling!

Also he forgot that the whole solar system is moving at 500,000 mph about the galactic center,  and the whole galaxy is moving at 250,000 mph towards Andromeda.

I think I'm gonna puke....

JerkFace

• 10543
• Looking for Occam
Re: Orbisect-64's Experiment 1 and Experiment 2 as proposed in Q&A
« Reply #6 on: June 25, 2015, 12:54:25 AM »
Quote
Earth, which is spinning around at 1,038 miles per hour, is moving around the sun at a speed of 66,000 miles per hour! …in an elliptical orbit… and the earth is on a tilt… and the earth is wobbling!

Also he forgot that the whole solar system is moving at 500,000 mph about the galactic center,  and the whole galaxy is moving at 250,000 mph towards Andromeda.

I think I'm gonna puke....

Just as well it's relative motion,    at  500,000 mph it would take  about 1300 years to travel 1 light year,    Polaris is 400 odd light years away,  so you might expect to see some detectable relative motion due to parallax shift over a thousand year time scale,  just from galactic rotation,  neglecting precession and wobble.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2015, 12:56:11 AM by Rayzor »
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

?

Alpha2Omega

• 3913
Re: Orbisect-64's Experiment 1 and Experiment 2 as proposed in Q&A
« Reply #7 on: June 25, 2015, 07:59:14 AM »
No clarification from Orbisect about his first experiment although he's actively posting elsewhere. He's probably unwilling to answer questions about, clarify, and defend his rather poorly-defined procedures.

Moving along to Experiment 2 with the assumption that the "wobble" he refers to is the 26,000-year precession of the Equinoxes. Orbisect: if this is not what was intended, please speak up!

Now we're going to show how truly IMPOSSIBLE this really is, because earth has to point at the southern pole-stars at the same time.

EXPERIMENT 2

1) For the next experiment, go to your local crafts store and get one of those foam spheres (this will act as Earth for our experiment).
2) Take a straight stick (like a skewer or a sharp dowel) and poke a hole through the top and bottom, perfectly center.
3) Take two lasers and push one through each end so that they are pointing outward (lasers are cheap these days and can be found at your local convenience store at the counter for a dollar or two).
4) With a marker, make a dot on the ceiling (representing Polaris), and another dot on the floor (representing the southern pole-stars).
5) Turn on the lasers and hold the sphere in the center of the room.
6) Make the lasers point at both points (stars).

In order for this to simulate the Earth's orientation with respect to (wrt) its orbital plane, and assuming the simulated plane of the Earth's orbit is parallel to the floor and ceiling midway between them (it can be anything you want, but this is convenient to visualize) you need to place the dots representing the celestial poles so that the axis of the Earth is tilted roughly 23.5° wrt the floor, plane, and ceiling (since they're all parallel).

Quote
7) While TILTING the globe, and making it WOBBLE, try to make the laser point directly at both points (stars) at the same time.

OK, we have the tilt part set up. Now, slowly rotate your simulated earth about an axis perpendicular to the plane of the orbit (i.e. straight up and down) and watch the lasers trace circles on the floor and ceiling. This simulates the movement of the Celestial Poles due to precession; the circles represent the path the celestial poles take around the ecliptic poles, directly above and below our model, and one complete circuit takes 26,000 years to complete in real time. After completing one complete "wobble", you're right back at the celestial poles where you started.

Quote
Note: It doesn't matter that the wobble happens slowly in "reality," any wobble will prove the point that it's impossible; For this experiment we have not even made the earth move in an orbit as if around the sun - which would increase the impossibility of the matter - as if "impossibility" can be increased.

The "wobble" happens slowly enough that it's not noticeable to the casual observer on a year-to-year basis, but for precision work it needs to be continuously accounted for, and after several decades accumulates enough that even printed celestial catalogs and atlases must be re-issued; the epoch for most recent catalogs is J2000.0 (2000 Jan 1.5 Terrestrial Time; roughly noon UTC Jan 1, 2000); the previous set was B1950.0 (1950 January 0.9235 TT; roughly 10 pm UTC Dec 31, 1949). See epoch for more information about Julian and Besselian dates, and astronomical epochs in general.

Recall from the previous experiment that a 20-meter high ceiling (representing the distance to Polaris) above our spinning globe means that the simulated orbit would be a couple of microns in diameter to be at scale. If we use a more realistic 8-foot (2.44-meter) ceiling (standard in the USA), it's 4 feet (1.22m) above our simulated earth (middle of the room, remember); the slant-line distance is slightly longer ("Polaris" isn't directly above us - it's at an angle) so let's call it 1.5m. In this case, the scaled diameter of the orbit would be about 0.15 microns, or fifteen hundredths of one thousandth of a millimeter - the wavelength of short-wave UV light. I think we can all agree that the effect of the Earth's orbit about the Sun at this scale is so small it can be safely ignored.

Quote
I await the video of you making this happen.

If it's up to me, you're in for a long wait. I don't "do" videos.

Quote
With the two experiments above, one of the following has been proved (to people with brains).

a) There is an intelligent creator (God) who tuned the universe so well that earth points at two poles trillions of miles away in each direction, and it does this while moving in orbit, tilting, and wobbling - this is absolutely impossible by chance; and only possible by design and fine tuning.

The axis is going to point at something in two directions, and the poles aren't any set distance from earth; effectively, they're at infinity. One direction happens to be fairly close to a moderately bright star for the time being. This will happen from time to time during the 26,000-year cycle, so it's convenient, but not particularly meaningful.

Quote
b) The scientific community has lied to you and me; in which case they are liars and can't be trusted, and therefor you are trusting liars regarding things like evolution and flat-earth.

Thank you for sharing your opinion. It will be given all the consideration it deserves. Have a nice day.

Quote
c) I have just proved science wrong.

Where?

Quote
Now this makes me smarter than NASA and all your scientists... In which case I have to ask: why are you even arguing with someone smarter than all your scientists; and I must ask myself: why would I even bother to carry on a discussion with YOU?

(If you respond that science is wrong about this observable fact, then how can it be right about evolution, which has no observable evidence. You disbelieve what you can see, but believe what you can not see. Further, you have admitted that science is wrong about this simple matter, and now you have no scientific legs to stand upon - you have pulled them out from under yourself. Science can not be trusted - even in the most elementary matters. In choosing option c. that science is wrong, you can not do so without admitting that I am right, and that I am smart enough to figure out what they could not... and yet you're still arguing with me (I find this foolish to the nth). They are what Jesus called "Blind guides." And as he said, a blind guide can not lead another who is blind.)

More opinion based on the erroneous idea that the experiments proposed contradict what is already known. Thankyouverymuch. Haveaniceday.

Quote
How much does anyone want to bet that a responder will avoid discussing the experiments - and even more so, attempting to prove it wrong in a video presentation?

Since this has been restarted in a "discussion friendly" area of the forums, I'm delighted to discuss the experiments. Now all you have to do is respond, otherwise, the discussion will be kinda one-sided. No video is going to "prove" anything, so I don't traffic in them.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan