If the earth is at rest, can she still be round? If yes then why, if no then why?
Yes, the shape of Earth has nothing to do with if it is moving or not, and vice versa.
The earth is motionless, there isn't the slightest doubt about that, now since we know for the fact that the earth is at rest, round-earth hypothesis isn't sustainable any more for many reasons.
No. You have it the wrong way around.
Earth is moving. There is no doubt about that.
All arguments for a stationary Earth contain massive flaws.
No experiment has ever been performed with such excruciating persistence and meticulous precision, and in every conceivable manner, than that of trying to detect and measure the motion of the Earth. Yet they have all consistently and continually yielded a velocity for the Earth of exactly ZERO mph.
You mean linear motion or rotational motion?
For rotational motion, they have all fairly consistently measured a speed of 15 degrees an hour on a round Earth.
For linear motion, you cannot detect it, you can only detect it relative to other objects.
We have detected a variety of speeds depending upon what object you are using.
But the fact is, they all knew a non-moving Earth was the simplest solution. Take for example the words of physicist G. J. Whitrow in the 1950s:
No it isn't. The simplest solution has Earth orbitting the sun, just like all the other planets, and rotating about its axis. Otherwise you have to explain some seriously insane paths which make no sense at all.
Also, these were carried out long after we KNEW Earth was round.
The result would surely have been interpreted as conclusive evidence for the immobility of the Earth
Except, while some experiments showed no movement, others did. They were not consistent with each other.
For example, Michelson Morley showed no movement relative to the aether.
But Airy's failure was an experiment based upon movement relative to this aether that was already detected.
It wasn't to determine if there was relative motion, it was to determine if the aether was moving or Earth was, it was a failure because regardless of which, the same result would occur.
But again, Michelson Morley showed no relative movement of the aether.
The Sagnac experiment showed rotational motion relative to the aether.
So we have contradictory experiments, some show motion relative to the aether, supporting an aether model of light, others show no motion, supporting a ballistic model of light.
When taken together it shows both models of light are wrong.
So no, they wouldn't be taken by any rational people to be proof that Earth is stationary.
Relativity is capable of explaining all the results.
As "preposterous" as the measurements of Arago, Trouton and Noble, Airy, Thorndyke and Kennedy, Theodore de Coudres and several others. They also found the earth to have a zero velocity through space.
But the important thing to note is that Airy (among others) measured a motion relative to the aether.
None measured the speed of Earth, just the speed of Earth relative to the aether.
Some showed no motion, some showed motion.
“If Michelson-Morley is wrong (IF AETHER EXISTS), then Relativity is wrong.” (Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 107.).
And if he is wrong, is the aether stationary or moving?
According to that experiment, it is stationary relative to Earth. According to Sagnac and Airy, it is moving relative to Earth.
It can't be both.
This shows that the aether model is incapable of explaining light and thus it likely doesn't exist.
“No physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.”
Because all experiments are only capable of measuring relative linear motion. So all you would do is prove that Earth is moving relative to some object.
However experiments have detected Earth's rotational motion.
-- If the earth is the center of the universe then the most plausible philosophical assumption is that the earth is the largest object in the universe. But it is not just philosophical assumption, we can also prove this assumption with a simple experiment like this : This simple experiment not only proves that the earth is at rest, it also proves that the sun is very close.
No. It doesn't. It shows a complete ignorance of light trails.
They are identical if the object is moving or the camera is.
In your 3 seconds the sun would have changed angular position by roughly 0.0125 degrees.
The size of the sun is roughly 0.5 degrees.
So it wouldn't be detectable.
During your 20 cm motion to the left, you change the angle of the camera, resulting in a massive change.
So no, it proves no such thing.
-- Now that we know that the sun is very close to the earth
You know no such thing. You are just baselessly asserting it.
So, if the sun is so small (few dozens km in diameter) how can you illuminate SO BIG - ROUND earth in adequate proportions with such a small sun? Geometrically impossible.
And do you know what is even more impossible? Illuminating the sections of Earth which are illuminated. The angles to the sun at various times.
Even if you bring the sun "ONLY" 100 times closer to the earth
This makes no sense. Do you mean bring it to one 100th of the distance?
If so, that puts it at 150 000 km. The change in angle from one side to the other (which I will round up to 13 000 km for simplicity) would thus be a mere 5 degrees, not much, and still much closer to reality than that predicted by the FE model.
Once, you lost this PARALLEL SUN RAYS EXCUSE, round earth geometry falls to pieces.
Good thing we haven't lost it as you haven't shown the sun is close.
-- If the earth is stationary first DIRECT consequence of this truth is an annihilation of the TILT OF THE EARTH hypothesis. As soon as you lost this another heliocentric "holly grail", round earth geometry falls to pieces once again because there is no way how you can account for sun's DAILY UP & DOWN MOTION (as we know it) using such GEOCETRIC-ROUND earth model.
It is actually the other way around.
Without the tilt you have no explanation for the sun's path. It makes no sense at all. And it doesn't matter if Earth is flat or round, it makes no sense.
It seems that the sun travels in a straight line (at least we see it's trajectory as a straight line). That fact is one ancient argument in favor of the flatness of the earth. I never saw valid refutation of this argument, so although this argument is ancient it is still sound argument in favor of the flat earth hypothesis.
No. It doesn't. It looks like it travels in a circular arc.
The only place that would happen on a FE is at the north pole. Every where else should see it appear to travel in an ellipse.
A real killer is the equator on the equinox.
Here the sun appears to rise due east, go directly overhead, and set due west, travelling in a circle in a plane perpendicular to the surface of Earth. But that would require it to go underneath the flat Earth, which never happens.
Instead, in the FE model it is meant to be above Earth at all times, circling in a plane parallel to the surface of Earth.
Rather than rising due east, going directly overhead and setting due west, it should rise from the north east (more technically it should appear well above the horizon from a north east direction), go directly overhead and then set (again, technically just disappear, well above the horizon) north west.
Notice how the observations do not match the FE model.
But in the RE model, with either Earth spinning on its axis, or the sun moving around Earth, at the equinox, the sun traces a circle above the equator, in the same plane as the equator.
This perfectly matches observations. When you have a distant sun, this also matches the observations of everywhere else in the world where it appears to rise due east and set due west on the equinox.
So it isn't looking good for a FE.
If you haven't seen a valid refutation of your baseless claim, you likely have been ignoring them.
-- If the proportions of the universe remained in the form (size) which is recognized by today's science what would be A DAILY orbital speed of a distant galaxy? Here is the answer
Yes, quite massive. But in the FE, the position of this galaxy makes no sense at all.
I have heard EVERY argument that a ball earth proponent can come up with and it still doesn't tell me why out of the hundreds of thousands of satellites, we see none. why nasa, in at least TWO separate NASA MADE videos state that they can go NO HIGHER THAN LOWER EARTH ORBIT when they claim to be ON MOTHERFUCKING MARS!?!?!?!?!
Because they are tiny. If you use binoculars, you can see them at the right time. Alternatively you can occasionally see a bright flashing light passing overhead, much too high and much too fast for a plane.
NASA has never stated we can't go higher than low Earth orbit.
A) If the earth is stationary round-earth geometry falls to pieces!
B) There isn't ONE SINGLE authentic picture of the earth from space!
Now, you have to ask yourself this : What is more likely :
C) There isn't ONE SINGLE authentic picture of the earth from space because the earth is ROUND (although stationary)?
D) There isn't ONE SINGLE authentic picture of the earth from space because the earth is FLAT and stationary?
-If the earth is round, it wouldn't matter if the earth were stationary, would it? If the earth were round (although stationary) there would be no problem (for NASA or anyone else) to present to us at least ONE SINGLE (if not thousands) AUTHENTIC picture of the earth from space!
A - No it doesn't. The geometry remains the same regardless of if Earth is moving or stationary.
B - Sure there is, you just reject them.
C - But there are plenty, which clearly show Earth being round.
D - If Earth was flat, why don't we have a picture of Earth from space showing all of it?
-On the other hand, if the earth is flat, there would be a huge problem to show us ONE SINGLE authentic picture of the earth from space!
No, there would be no problem. They could take a picture of the flat Earth and show us that.
THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHETHER THE EARTH IS ROUND OR FLAT. There are some serious astronomical reasons which compel us to think that the earth is round, but here are some very serious reasons which compel us NOT to believe that the earth is round, either:
There are very serious astronomical reasons to believe Earth is round. There is not a single one to believe Earth is flat.
If we want to compute the orbital speed of the sun within geocentric ROUND earth model, we have to surmount this huge obstacle
Which just further shows Earth to be moving. It doesn't show Earth to be flat.
IF THE EARTH IS ROUND, THEN IT'S ROUNDNESS DICTATES THE VALUES OF THE HEIGHT ANGLES OF THE SUN, THAT IS TO SAY : SUN'S RAYS HAVE TO BE PARALLEL, AND IF THEY WERE PARALLEL, THEN THE SUN WOULD HAVE TO BE AT LEAST SEVERAL TIMES BIGGER THAN EARTH, WHICH MEANS THAT THE DISTANCE TO THE SUN CAN'T BE LESS THAN 3 000 000 MILES (AS COPERNICUS ESTIMATED)...
Again, not evidence for Earth to be flat.
The angles to the sun make no sense on a flat Earth.
So if you are going to appeal to angles, that shows that Earth is round and the sun is far away.
There isn't a solution to Earth being flat and the sun circling above us.
The only possible solution is the sun is very far away and Earth is round.
For example, consider 3 points on the equinox, the equator, 45 degrees north and the north pole.
The observed angles:
Equator - straight up.
45 degrees north - 45 degrees.
North pole - Almost right at the horizon.
For a FE using the first 2 places the sun 5000 km above the equator.
Using the first and third, you have the sun basically 0 km above the equator.
Using the second and third, you have basically 0 km above 45 degrees north.
3 different sets of points, 3 completely different sun positions.
You can also use bearings.
Consider 3 points on the equator at the equinox.
Sun-rising due east, sun directly overhead and sun setting due west.
Using the first and middle, you have the sun in a physically impossible position which makes no sense at all.
If it is overhead on the equator it should be north east at sunrise, not due east.
Taking the sunrise and sun set, it places the sun very far off Earth no where near the equator, again.
Now compare that with a round Earth with a close sun.
In this case with it directly overhead the equator, it would not be visible at the north pole, so it can't be real.
Similarly, it couldn't be rising and setting half way around the world.
So clearly it is very distant, lets assume it is so distant the slight change in angle from moving around Earth will be 0.
That means for the 3 points, the equator, north pole and 45 degrees north:
The equator it is directly above.
As 45 degrees north is 45 degrees north of that, the sun will be 45 degrees lower in the horizon, making it appear at 45 degrees.
As the north pole is an additional 45 degrees north, the sun will appear a further 45 degrees lower, making it appear near 0 degrees.
Similarly, with the 3 points around the equator, it is directly overhead one point, rising around 1/4 of the world away, due east, and setting 1/4 of the world away in the opposite directing, due west.
These angles ONLY make sense on a round Earth with a distant sun.
So if Earth is stationary, the sun has to be moving in a ridiculous path at a ridiculous speed for its size.
Rational people will accept that as indicating Earth is moving.
Now, even if the sun were only 3 000 000 miles (as Copernicus thought), then the length of sun's orbit would be 31 400 000 km and orbital speed of the sun (since within geocentric ROUND earth model the sun has to complete one full circle around the earth DAILY) would be 1 308 333 km/h. In the same way as we don't feel any motion of the earth (and only on the basis of our senses are able to discard idiotic presumptions about different kinds of earth's motion), our senses (eyes) clearly tell us that the sun is not hurling through space at such incredible speed, as well. If the sun were 3,9 times bigger than earth (supposing that the distance to the sun is only 3 000 000 miles) we should ask this question also : Why would so much bigger sun orbit so much smaller earth? That is why geocentric ROUND earth model doesn't add up!
Again, just further evidence that Earth is moving, not that Earth is flat.
Yes, they are massive problems for a stationary round Earth, but they indicate the stationary part is wrong, not the round part.