Heliocentric Hypothesis busted with mathematics and the moon!!!

Then I suggest you use one.

Let extrapolate the math at this rate:

So would the day length during the age of the dinosaurs have been 21 hours?

"The dinosaurs were around 100 million years ago, which at the current rate [of day lengthening] adds up to 2000 seconds, which is less than an hour."

Evolution is pure bullshit and so is the Heliocentric Hypothesis and below is the mathematically proof:

Evolution is to have taken billions of years to happen and life on earth set foot some 300 million years. I believe that this is what “Scientist” say?

In order for Evolution to happen, you need the Earth to also be at least 300 million years old

Let’s do the math

Have you heard of leap year, every 4 years we add a date to the calendar (February 29).

There is also something called leap second.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second

Since this system of correction was implemented in 1972, 27 leap seconds have been inserted, the most recent on December 31, 2016 at 23:59:60 UTC

So the rate that the leap second is added is

27 seconds / 44 years = 0.613636364 seconds/year
.

What does that actually means?

Last year the earth needed 0.614 seconds to complete it’s revolution.

Than in turn means that last year was spinning faster than this year.

Let extrapolate the math at this rate:

PS. Carbon dating, and rock dating work on a linear calculations!!!

I'm not assuming anything. It's a scientific principles that everything dealing in time is calculated on a linear,

The speed of light,
Carbon Dating
Radiometric dating

Your scientist are saying it, not mine!!!

It is simple physics, are you saying that the physics behind angular motion is wrong, when it comes to debunk the heliocentric hypothesis.

If I use exponential rate, the news is even worse. I did the best scenario for you. You can't go any slower than a linear growth.

In order to decrease the rotation, it means that the angular acceleration is negative.

It is simple physics, are you saying that the physics behind angular motion is wrong, when it comes to debunk the heliocentric hypothesis.

You know, I'm going to spot calling it hypothesis hypothesis and start calling it hypothesis fair-tail.

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 25, 2017, 02:38:29 AM

Evolution is pure bullshit and below I will prove it mathematically:

Evolution is to have taken billions of years to happen and life on earth set foot some 300 million years. I believe that this is what “Scientist” say?

In order for Evolution to happen, you need the Earth to also be at least 300 million years old

Let’s do the math

Have you heard of leap year, every 4 years we add a date to the calendar (February 29).

There is also something called leap second.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second

Since this system of correction was implemented in 1972, 27 leap seconds have been inserted, the most recent on December 31, 2016 at 23:59:60 UTC

So the rate that the leap second is added is

27 seconds / 44 years = 0.613636364 seconds/year

What does that actually means?

Last year the earth needed 0.614 seconds more to complete it’s revolution.

Than in turn means that last year was spinning faster than this year.

Let extrapolate the math:



We see that in the bible timeline, the earth rotation is very close to our about 23 hours in a day, but at 140,800 years, the earth spins at 60 RPM, that is 60 revolutions per minute.

At 1 million years ago, the earth rotated at a rate of about 480 RPM

At 100 million years ago, the earth rotated at a rate of 42,613.6 RPM

But let me guess, gravity was much stronger back them and kept everything in place…

Busted!!!

You could have at least read the page you linked that said that the length of the day becomes about 1.7ms every century. Which, assuming it is stable, means that 300.000.000 years ago, one solar day would be shorter than it is now by 1.41 hours approximately. Lol. I'm assuming so many leap seconds had to be added because a day wasn't exactly 86400 seconds when the counting started either, so leap seconds would still have to be added even if the rotation of the earth wasn't slowing down. Besides, the Wiki page states that since 1971 the rotation has sped up a bit. Try to look a bit more carefully into the sources you're quoting next time.

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 25, 2017, 06:12:06 AM

That is pure speculation to excuse the fact that their theory is wrong.

It's not speculation, the wiki page says that 86400 seconds was close to the length of a day in like 1750. So a day is inherently a few milliseconds longer than 86400 seconds. Do you even read your sources?

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 25, 2017, 06:19:33 AM

It is simple physics, are you saying that the physics behind angular motion is wrong, when it comes to debunk the heliocentric hypothesis.

I think that you're trying to grossly over simplify the physics involved.

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 25, 2017, 06:19:33 AM

If I use exponential rate, the news is even worse. I did the best scenario for you. You can't go any slower than a linear growth.

In order to decrease the rotation, it means that the angular acceleration is negative.

It is simple physics, are you saying that the physics behind angular motion is wrong, when it comes to debunk the heliocentric hypothesis.

You know, I'm going to spot calling it hypothesis hypothesis and start calling it hypothesis fair-tail.

If days are slowing at an exponential rate, it's not "worse", it's much, much "better". It would mean that the rate with which the rotation slowed down in the past used to be much lower.

But all that is pretty irrelevant. I explained where you go wrong in the other thread.

The earth slowing down because of tidal forces is just ONE factor contributing the inconsistency between earth rotation and atomic time. So your argument is invalid.

Quote from: aisantaros on July 25, 2017, 08:26:20 AM

The earth slowing down because of tidal forces is just ONE factor contributing the inconsistency between earth rotation and atomic time. So your argument is invalid.

tidal forces???

OK smart ass, show me your mathematical model to prove it!!!!

Oh, you have to believe me, because the scientist said it, it must be true, just like the Russians did it!!!

Quote from: aisantaros on July 25, 2017, 08:26:20 AM

The earth slowing down because of tidal forces is just ONE factor contributing the inconsistency between earth rotation and atomic time. So your argument is invalid.

tidal forces???

OK smart ass, show me your mathematical model to prove it!!!!

Oh, you have to believe me, because the scientist said it, it must be true, just like the Russians did it!!!

Since you asked it soooo nicely

http://jkas.kas.org/journals/2012v45n2/v45n2p049_naa.pdf

Quote from: aisantaros on July 25, 2017, 08:43:06 AM

Since you asked it soooo nicely

http://jkas.kas.org/journals/2012v45n2/v45n2p049_naa.pdf

That reference cannot be used as proof of anything.

It is totally based on the results first published by J. Laskar, namely this one:

https://www.imcce.fr/fr/presentation/equipes/ASD/preprints/prep.2004/La_2004_prep.pdf

Those types of calculations are useless without specifying first THE SET OF INITIAL VALUES of the orbital equations of motion.

All of the necessary details here, including an analysis of Laskar's papers:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1774581#msg1774581

For example, a difference in the initial position of 1 cm grows to ∼1 AU (= 1.496 x 10^11 m) after 90–150 million years.

Quote from: markjo on July 25, 2017, 07:30:46 AM

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 25, 2017, 06:19:33 AM

It is simple physics, are you saying that the physics behind angular motion is wrong, when it comes to debunk the heliocentric hypothesis.

I think that you're trying to grossly over simplify the physics involved.

Physics is not hard, it's child's play

OK, show me the math and experimental results that disproves what I have stated.

Citation please and the dates that we subtracted a leap second.

I have documentations for these years that we added a leap second

1972 - +2 second
1973 - +1 second
1974 - +1 second
1975 - +1 second
1976 - +1 second
1977 - +1 second
1979 - +1 second
1981 - +1 second
1982 - +1 second
1983 - +1 second
1985 - +1 second
1987 - +1 second
1989 - +1 second
1990 - +1 second
1992 - +1 second
1993 - +1 second
1994 - +1 second
1995 - +1 second
1997 - +1 second
1998 - +1 second
2005 - +1 second

Evolution is pure bullshit and so is the Heliocentric Hypothesis and below is the mathematically proof:

Evolution is to have taken billions of years to happen and life on earth set foot some 300 million years. I believe that this is what “Scientist” say?

In order for Evolution to happen, you need the Earth to also be at least 300 million years old

Let’s do the math

Have you heard of leap year, every 4 years we add a date to the calendar (February 29).

There is also something called leap second.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second

Since this system of correction was implemented in 1972, 27 leap seconds have been inserted, the most recent on December 31, 2016 at 23:59:60 UTC

So the rate that the leap second is added is

27 seconds / 44 years = 0.613636364 seconds/year
.

What does that actually means?

Last year the earth needed 0.614 seconds to complete it’s revolution.

Than in turn means that last year was spinning faster than this year.

Let extrapolate the math at this rate:




We see that in the bible timeline, the earth rotation is very close to our about 23 hours in a day, but at 140,800 years, the earth spins at 60 RPM, that is 60 revolutions per minute.

At 1 million years ago, the earth rotated at a rate of about 480 RPM
At 100 million years ago, the earth rotated at a rate of 42,613.6 RPM

But let me guess, gravity was much stronger back them and kept everything in place…

Busted!!!

PS. Carbon dating, and rock dating work on a linear calculations!!!

If it is a scientific method for Spherical Earthers, then it's good for Flat Earthers...

How about this for the reason for the tides,

A Letter Dated 1577 from Mercator to John Dee which talk about a magnetic moutain that pulled the nails out of two ship that sank and I believe 4 ships got lost in the giant whirpool in the center of the North Poll.

This letter was written for the King, and the author was the Einstein of the time for making maps. I don't believe that if Eistein would have written a letter to the President of the United States, that he would lie.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1150242?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Also below is a video of a Russian airplane over the North Poll. I don't know if the video it is true or not, but let me throw it out their for you to decide.

But the letter is real

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 25, 2017, 05:16:08 AM

Evolution is pure bullshit and so is the Heliocentric Hypothesis and below is the mathematically proof:

Evolution is to have taken billions of years to happen and life on earth set foot some 300 million years. I believe that this is what “Scientist” say?

In order for Evolution to happen, you need the Earth to also be at least 300 million years old

Let’s do the math

Have you heard of leap year, every 4 years we add a date to the calendar (February 29).

There is also something called leap second.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second

Since this system of correction was implemented in 1972, 27 leap seconds have been inserted, the most recent on December 31, 2016 at 23:59:60 UTC

So the rate that the leap second is added is

27 seconds / 44 years = 0.613636364 seconds/year
.

What does that actually means?

Last year the earth needed 0.614 seconds to complete it’s revolution.

Than in turn means that last year was spinning faster than this year.

Let extrapolate the math at this rate:




We see that in the bible timeline, the earth rotation is very close to our about 23 hours in a day, but at 140,800 years, the earth spins at 60 RPM, that is 60 revolutions per minute.

At 1 million years ago, the earth rotated at a rate of about 480 RPM
At 100 million years ago, the earth rotated at a rate of 42,613.6 RPM

But let me guess, gravity was much stronger back them and kept everything in place…

Busted!!!

PS. Carbon dating, and rock dating work on a linear calculations!!!

If it is a scientific method for Spherical Earthers, then it's good for Flat Earthers...

Close but wrong.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/why-in-the-jurassic-era-an-earth-day-may-have-been-only-23-hours-long/2013/09/23/a75c548a-f2dc-11e2-ae43-b31dc363c3bf_story.html?utm_term=.a8bf388065b1

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 25, 2017, 08:04:07 AM

Quote from: markjo on July 25, 2017, 07:30:46 AM

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 25, 2017, 06:19:33 AM

It is simple physics, are you saying that the physics behind angular motion is wrong, when it comes to debunk the heliocentric hypothesis.

I think that you're trying to grossly over simplify the physics involved.

Physics is not hard, it's child's play

OK, show me the math and experimental results that disproves what I have stated.

Citation please and the dates that we subtracted a leap second.

I have documentations for these years that we added a leap second

1972 - +2 second
1973 - +1 second
1974 - +1 second
1975 - +1 second
1976 - +1 second
1977 - +1 second
1979 - +1 second
1981 - +1 second
1982 - +1 second
1983 - +1 second
1985 - +1 second
1987 - +1 second
1989 - +1 second
1990 - +1 second
1992 - +1 second
1993 - +1 second
1994 - +1 second
1995 - +1 second
1997 - +1 second
1998 - +1 second
2005 - +1 second

Right.  They do that because a day is not a perfect 24 hours.  Same reason we do leap year.  It has nothing to do with the earth speeding up or slowing down.

Quote from: sokarul on July 25, 2017, 09:45:14 AM

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 25, 2017, 05:16:08 AM

Evolution is pure bullshit and so is the Heliocentric Hypothesis and below is the mathematically proof:

Evolution is to have taken billions of years to happen and life on earth set foot some 300 million years. I believe that this is what “Scientist” say?

In order for Evolution to happen, you need the Earth to also be at least 300 million years old

Let’s do the math

Have you heard of leap year, every 4 years we add a date to the calendar (February 29).

There is also something called leap second.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second

Since this system of correction was implemented in 1972, 27 leap seconds have been inserted, the most recent on December 31, 2016 at 23:59:60 UTC

So the rate that the leap second is added is

27 seconds / 44 years = 0.613636364 seconds/year
.

What does that actually means?

Last year the earth needed 0.614 seconds to complete it’s revolution.

Than in turn means that last year was spinning faster than this year.

Let extrapolate the math at this rate:




We see that in the bible timeline, the earth rotation is very close to our about 23 hours in a day, but at 140,800 years, the earth spins at 60 RPM, that is 60 revolutions per minute.

At 1 million years ago, the earth rotated at a rate of about 480 RPM
At 100 million years ago, the earth rotated at a rate of 42,613.6 RPM

But let me guess, gravity was much stronger back them and kept everything in place…

Busted!!!

PS. Carbon dating, and rock dating work on a linear calculations!!!

If it is a scientific method for Spherical Earthers, then it's good for Flat Earthers...

Close but wrong.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/why-in-the-jurassic-era-an-earth-day-may-have-been-only-23-hours-long/2013/09/23/a75c548a-f2dc-11e2-ae43-b31dc363c3bf_story.html?utm_term=.a8bf388065b1

Int he word of our President, FAKE NEWS

Quote from: Badxtoss on July 25, 2017, 09:40:54 AM

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 25, 2017, 08:04:07 AM

Quote from: markjo on July 25, 2017, 07:30:46 AM

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 25, 2017, 06:19:33 AM

It is simple physics, are you saying that the physics behind angular motion is wrong, when it comes to debunk the heliocentric hypothesis.

I think that you're trying to grossly over simplify the physics involved.

Physics is not hard, it's child's play

OK, show me the math and experimental results that disproves what I have stated.

Citation please and the dates that we subtracted a leap second.

I have documentations for these years that we added a leap second

1972 - +2 second
1973 - +1 second
1974 - +1 second
1975 - +1 second
1976 - +1 second
1977 - +1 second
1979 - +1 second
1981 - +1 second
1982 - +1 second
1983 - +1 second
1985 - +1 second
1987 - +1 second
1989 - +1 second
1990 - +1 second
1992 - +1 second
1993 - +1 second
1994 - +1 second
1995 - +1 second
1997 - +1 second
1998 - +1 second
2005 - +1 second

Right.  They do that because a day is not a perfect 24 hours.  Same reason we do leap year.  It has nothing to do with the earth speeding up or slowing down.

let me explain it to to   y  o  u     v  e  r y     s  l  o  w.

We we are going slower today from yesterday, that means that yesterday was going faster... do the math

You are right, the earth is slowing down. That has nothing to do with leap seconds though. Leap seconds are because a day is not exactly 24 hours. It is a little different, by about 1 second every 1.5 years (rough ballpark estimate). But this difference stays the same! (Well roughly, we have slowed down by a few microseconds since the last million years, but this is basically neglible).

Do you really think scientists are this stupid?

That such a simple argument would not have been detected decades ago?

You are extremely ignorant.

Quote

You are right, the earth is slowing down. That has nothing to do with leap seconds though. Leap seconds are because a day is not exactly 24 hours. It is a little different, by about 1 second every 1.5 years (rough ballpark estimate). But this difference stays the same! (Well roughly, we have slowed down by a few microseconds since the last million years, but this is basically neglible).

In the last 44 years, the scientist have added 27 lead seconds and subtracted 0 leap second. Their is  a pattern in the leap second.

If the scientist have added a leap second in the last 44 years, that is from the time that they began talking about time correction and leap seconds, please post citation of the year.

Quote

Do you really think scientists are this stupid?

No Liars, when it comes to defend the heliocentric fair-tail

Quote

That such a simple argument would not have been detected decades ago?

When did it become important to have a an accurate time system?
Oh yes in the computer age.

When did the computer age start?
in the 60's

Quote

You are extremely ignorant.

So tell me, how does it feel that an ignorant man was able to debunk your heliocentric fair-tail?

But if I am wrong, please post citation where it states that from 1972 and afterwards they subtracted a leap year!!!