Can Not Prove the Earth is Spinning - Amazing, after 500 years of Heliocentrism!

It is empirically impossible to prove the earth is spinning and NASA has never filmed the earth spinning from space. If you read the history of modern physics, most of it is theory, and most of it is theorized to defend heliocentrism, from Copernicus, to Kepler (who supported the theory with math) to Newton (gravity theory to support model) to Einstein (relativity to support model) But even after this, Mach's principle states that if the heliocentric theory is correct the same proof demands the possibility of its opposite: that the earth is the stationary center of the solar system. amazing. there is an amazing line in Thessalonians that says that those who do not love the truth will be sent 'errors of operation'. amazing line just as literature. the translation is from the 1600s and uses almost computer terminology to express the idea that your heart has to be in the right place for your mind to reach its full potential. amazing.

It is empirically impossible to prove the earth is spinning and NASA has never filmed the earth spinning from space. If you read the history of modern physics, most of it is theory, and most of it is theorized to defend heliocentrism, from Copernicus, to Kepler (who supported the theory with math) to Newton (gravity theory to support model) to Einstein (relativity to support model) But even after this, Mach's principle states that if the heliocentric theory is correct the same proof demands the possibility of its opposite: that the earth is the stationary center of the solar system. amazing. there is an amazing line in Thessalonians that says that those who do not love the truth will be sent 'errors of operation'. amazing line just as literature. the translation is from the 1600s and uses almost computer terminology to express the idea that your heart has to be in the right place for your mind to reach its full potential. amazing.

5 stars for you!

And this thread is not about flat earth.

They send robots on mars and there most be hundreds of vidéos of our eart spinning...

Take a string, hang a heavy object on one end, the other end to something high, like your ceiling. Adjust the string so that the object is a few inches from the ground. Pull back on the object to about chest height and let go. The object will start to turn in its swing.


Cause?

The big rock spinning we are stuck on with you idiots!

The only thing missing from this post is a crappy youtube video with the ever-infamous robot voice.

It is empirically impossible to prove the earth is spinning and NASA has never filmed the earth spinning from space. If you read the history of modern physics, most of it is theory, and most of it is theorized to defend heliocentrism, from Copernicus, to Kepler (who supported the theory with math) to Newton (gravity theory to support model) to Einstein (relativity to support model) But even after this, Mach's principle states that if the heliocentric theory is correct the same proof demands the possibility of its opposite: that the earth is the stationary center of the solar system. amazing. there is an amazing line in Thessalonians that says that those who do not love the truth will be sent 'errors of operation'. amazing line just as literature. the translation is from the 1600s and uses almost computer terminology to express the idea that your heart has to be in the right place for your mind to reach its full potential. amazing.

Coriolis effect proves you wrong, and if you had ever done long distance shooting in different parts of the world, or just in 4 oposing directions you'd know that.

The OP is correct: no scientific experiment has ever been conducted to demonstrate that the Earth is in motion either dirunally or annually. The failure of science to experimentally prove the Earth's motion was what led the Michelson-Morley experiment which was devised to prove the Earth's movement. It failed to do so and fairy tales such as Special Relativity, Space-curvature, Dark Matter, the Big Bang, etc. were conjured to explain away the inconvenient results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. But the Michelson-Morley results were conclusive: there is an Ether and it rotates around a fixed Earth in 24hrs.

Coriolis effect is just an effect in the Heliocentric frame of reference. In the Geostatic frame of reference, it is a real force, not an effect. If your only frame of reference is our Solar System, then the Heliocentric system is adequate. But if you take into consideration the entire Universe, then one must determine where the Center of Mass is located. The Center of Mass can be identified by the fact that it must be motionless. Find that object or location, and you will have found the center of mass. As it turns out, the Michelson-Morely interferometer experiment demonstrated conclusively that the Earth is in fact motionless. And discoveries such as the isotropic red-shift of galaxies and the Earth-aligned Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, etc. only further confirmed the results of Michelson-Morley.

There is in fact another way to confirm the results of Michelson-Morely for those who doubt it's integrity: preform an interferometer experiment on the Moon. There would be a positive result and it would be the speed of the Moon through the Ether. But I can guarantee you that TPTB will NEVER allow an interferometer experiment to be conducted on the Moon.

[link to books.google.nl (secure)]

[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]

[link to en.wikibooks.org (secure)]

Many students confuse Relativity Theory with a theory about the propagation of light. According to modern Relativity Theory the constancy of the speed of light is a consequence of the geometry of spacetime rather than something specifically due to the properties of photons; but the statement "the speed of light is constant" often distracts the student into a consideration of light propagation. This confusion is amplified by the importance assigned to interferometry experiments, such as the Michelson-Morley experiment, in most textbooks on Relativity Theory.

The history of theories of the propagation of light is an interesting topic in physics and was indeed important in the early days of Relativity Theory. In the seventeenth century two competing theories of light propagation were developed. Christiaan Huygens published a wave theory of light which was based on Huygen's principle whereby every point in a wavelike disturbance can give rise to further disturbances that spread out spherically. In contrast Newton considered that the propagation of light was due to the passage of small particles or "corpuscles" from the source to the illuminated object. His theory is known as the corpuscular theory of light. Newton's theory was widely accepted until the nineteenth century.

In the early nineteenth century Thomas Young performed his Young's slits experiment and the interference pattern that occurred was explained in terms of diffraction due to the wave nature of light. The wave theory was accepted generally until the twentieth century when quantum theory confirmed that light had a corpuscular nature and that Huygen's principle could not be applied.

The idea of light as a disturbance of some medium, or aether, that permeates the universe was problematical from its inception (US spelling: "ether"). The first problem that arose was that the speed of light did not change with the velocity of the observer. If light were indeed a disturbance of some stationary medium then as the earth moves through the medium towards a light source the speed of light should appear to increase. It was found however that the speed of light did not change as expected. Each experiment on the velocity of light required corrections to existing theory and led to a variety of subsidiary theories such as the "aether drag hypothesis". Ultimately it was experiments that were designed to investigate the properties of the aether that provided the first experimental evidence for Relativity Theory.


The aether drag hypothesis[edit]

The aether drag hypothesis was an early attempt to explain the way experiments such as Arago's experiment showed that the speed of light is constant. The aether drag hypothesis is now considered to be incorrect.

According to the aether drag hypothesis light propagates in a special medium, the aether, that remains attached to things as they move. If this is the case then, no matter how fast the earth moves around the sun or rotates on its axis, light on the surface of the earth would travel at a constant velocity.

[link to en.wikibooks.org (secure)]

Stellar Aberration. If a telescope is travelling at high speed, only light incident at a particular angle can avoid hitting the walls of the telescope tube.

The primary reason the aether drag hypothesis is considered invalid is because of the occurrence of stellar aberration. In stellar aberration the position of a star when viewed with a telescope swings each side of a central position by about 20.5 seconds of arc every six months. This amount of swing is the amount expected when considering the speed of earth's travel in its orbit. In 1871, George Biddell Airy demonstrated that stellar aberration occurs even when a telescope is filled with water. It seems that if the aether drag hypothesis were true then stellar aberration would not occur because the light would be travelling in the aether which would be moving along with the telescope.

What a load of crap.

you mean other than the stars moving across the sky at night

If the Earth were flat and stationary, you would see a completely different night sky if you were in the southern hemisphere looking south from lets say, South America and Australia.

But instead you see the same sky.