Earth Not Rotating

Props for the puns.

In a related note; checking 'literally' on either merriam-webster.com or dictionary.com yields as the 3rd or 4th entry 'virtually'....which means the degradation of the language has reached the point that 'literally' virtually means 'figuratively'.

Ouch. No wonder no one knows what anyone is talking about.

That's the problem with a language that has life it changes and evolves.. now dead languages such as Latin on the other hand....

They should have killed off the Roman numerals rather than the language.

In Roman algebra, x is always 10, which helps a lot...

Mot only that, the changes are region in this country. What becomes the norm in one region, is total confusioning and idiotic in another region of the country. And one of the the outcome when this happens is it's tolerated and eventually becomes accepted

so the language syntax deteriorates. In my opinion.

with this said, how to you feel about, imo, afk, lmao as an example as well as other shorten sentences.

To me, a TLA, FFLA, or FFLLA, is not problematic. When I understand the phrase the acronym refers to, I just see it as shorthand or perhaps an alternate spelling. The acronym causes the same words to be brough to mind and the meaning has not changed, so this is an improvement in efficiency with little downside.

.

I think some more deliberate changes to our language might be of benefit. As an example, we could get ride of a couple letters in the alphabet. 'C' for example can be replaced by 'K' in many cases and 'S' in the other cases. Other letters could be merged as well.

The only problem I see, and it shows here at times. Is that where some are familiar with acronyms in their area or industry, it has a whole new meaning, or none at all in a other areas.

the. The acronyms has to be explained, losing the whole meaning of the use of acronym and then some.

Acronyms are best utilized after they are spelled out in an earlier paragraph of a technical paper, just in order to support brevity.

Ad homonyms are best utilized in response to only the worst kind of insults, as a sort of levity.

If one continues to figuratively insult the English language by means of reverse syntax, bad spelling, phrases that end in period, and other floating fragments, one should not be shocked to find the language reach up and slap the abuser literally.

If someone who cannot properly utilize language to communicate an idea (depends on the audience I suppose, but the majority of responsibility is with the speaker), they had best not ever resort to being their own lawyer, for then lawyer would have fool for a client.

Since cursive writing is pretty much out of todays education teaching... I would be surprised if they soon will have Acronyms and Emoji 101 as elective credits courses.

^{said with tongue in cheek.}

If cursive is out, is cussive in?

MAYBE,.... that an acronym for 'maybe'.

Ya gonna resurrect the ghost of Z_man? Hwot a sement hed.

Based on the value of this thread, I suggest throwing out the entire alphabet, and all grammar, and words too. I don't get acronym speak at all, other than "three letter acronym - TLA". I had to look all of them up, because I have no sense of context when those are just thrown out there, and the last ones I got nothing on them as a search result.

Any aliens listening in on our radio and television broadcasts will so confused by the time they arrive here, they will have no chance of communicating (with Americans). I wonder if other languages in other countries are experiencing this, or are we the only lazy ones too lazy to learn our own language?

If people cannot distinguish between literally and figuratively, then there is really no basis to communicate with them other than hand gestures, and maybe facial expressions. - It's the Planet of the Apes all over again.

Perhaps genetics through some sort of selection process is playing a stronger part in language degradation than I would have thought.

Ostensibly people asking more questions about pregnancy are more likely to be involved in a pregnancy.....

How was that "focusing" on religion or politics? I was merely mentioning there are those that handle snakes, and that speak in tongues. I did mention a book called the Bible in passing.

Why soooo sensitive lately Lyn, something is bothering you, and I do not really believe it is me. If it is, I apologize, because you are like a brother to me.

My head is spinning. Can you believe that?

I'm still right, so there!

Many of us at NASA who were involved in various space and aeronautical projects were members of the Flat Earth Society. Click Here.

But we still went to the moon and saw earthrise.

Hooker

I suppose some members of the Flat Earth Society are in it for the games, such as jiggling celestial navigation to somehow fit a flat earth. That might be fun. But then there are the true believers, who understand nothing.

Pretty much the same with any pseudoscience.

We looked at being members of the Flat Earth Society as the ultimate irony. And it gave our flight crews something to toast when we went to dinner while we were on the road flying a project.

Hooker

If the earth was truly flat, why wouldn't all the rain keeping running to the so-called low places, then run over the edge. It would not be long until we would be out of water all together. Don't say that mountains pile up at the edge of the world to prevent run-off.

There do be beasties, but they be in our noggins. The only way to ward them off is with a physics textbook, and a bottle of whiskey.

Hey, I just said I was a member. I didn't say I believed all that crap.

Just like I was once a JFK democrat which, in today's environment is somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan, but don't even think about linking me with today's left wing wackos.

Sorry, the political example was just to fully illustrate the folly of believing stuff like a flat earth or "free" college.

Hooker

It's all good, brother. I can clearly stand with you on that GA!

God got Escher to design the water flow so that it falls back into the sky.

It's easy. If you run west, you get lighter. If you run east you get heavier. I thought everyone knew that!

I thought about posting an opinion, but seeing how I'm the less educated, maybe I should keep my perspective's to myself.

Please go for it. You have as much right as anyone.

By all means, post your opinion, this is not a scientific white paper, and who says you are less educated? Obviously, this thread transcends that threshold. This topic is for an open mind who is willing to think about things with or without prejudice and willing to share the thoughts or proofs you currently adhere to. Go for it. That's why we use monikers so we are not held to account in the next job interview lol. Share your thoughts and insights.

Well this is a very interesting discussion and it reminds me every time I see the sun and moon high in the sky at the same time, I think "gosh, the people on the other side of the planet must be ticked off and in the dark". Just last week I observed the fully lit moon setting in the western horizon, and that was an hour before the light from the sun began to show in east. How does that work out? Emperical observation beats theoretical bs every time. Time will tell.

How does that work? Isn't it obvious? Light from the sun hits the moon and is reflected into your eyes. In the setup you describe it's a full moon, or close to it.

My point was the moon was fully lit up and setting in the west with only the top half visible about 5a.m. and when I look to the east it's dark as night about an hour before any light from the sun is available to reflect off the moon. Me thinks the moon is self illuminated as the lesser light to rule the night. And yes I am one of those weirdos who believe we have never landed on the moon and we never will.

Please admit they you are joking.

I'm left shaking my head.

When I worked at Motorola, after several moon landings, I encounted a janitor who thought as you do.

I dismissed him as merely ignorant and uneducated and continued the conversation.

Now, almost 40 years later I can't imagine how anyone could believe such nonsense.

However, in light of the current presidential election it has become obvious that there are literally millions of Americans walking around totally clueless and violently dangerous.

This scares me, because I've seen what these insane, hate filled people can do.

At least, I believe that you are rational.

Hey lyn, I am going to vote for Trump. Does that answer your concerns? LOL!

Really? Yikes!

That is your privilege.

Thanks lyn, but actually it is my right as a US citizen to vote and not a privalige.

A quote from Albert Einstein's 'self-portrait': "what does a fish know about the water in which he swims all his life? "

And in another place he states: " when you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change"

Sorry I spelled Privilege wrong, I am not accustomed to using Privilege. LOL

Indeed it is your right.

GA for that lyn, thanks for being a good sport.

And a responsibility too, though that doesn't give much consolation in the present climate.

When the earth is roughly between the sun and the moon, there is plenty of room for sunlight to illuminate the moon. Except during a lunar eclipse, which doesn't apply in your scenario as if it did you would be able to see the shadow of the earth on the moon. You can easily see it if you draw a sketch.

Also posting this as a test. I've stopped getting email notification of new posts, hence late reply as I only recently found #78. I posted a query about this last night, in General as I can't see a way to send it direct to Admin, but strangely it hasn't appeared. Hoping somebody will reply to this to check whether I get a message.

At 5:51 AM MST, Savvy said, "I checked your profile and it looks like you are set up ok to receive one alert per discussion. This means you'll receive an email for the first new comment to a thread, but not subsequent comments unless you mark all the new comments as read in the thread.

Are you marking all new comments as read after you review them? If not, that may be what's preventing you from receiving further notifications."

You're most welcome, but Savvy is the brains.

Is comment #66 really off topic? Or does it just make someone think? It is on topic albeit uncomfortable. Don't be afraid. Whatever the reality is will be known sooner or later. But this is the same thing that prompted the OP to post the initial question. I contend the earth is stationery and the sun moon traverse around the circle of the earth. Now, do you want to have a discussion or are you just going to mark 'off topic'?

So you really think you are smarter than Copernicus, Ptolemy, Kepler, and so many others.

You can't even seem to figure out that the sun and moon do not reach the same azimuth in the sky at the highest point in the traverse. The moon does not orbit in the planetary plane, and not entirely orthogonal to the earth's rotation axis. Why do the stars seem to mark out a circle in the long nights above the arctic circle?

Why does Alaska have midnight sun in the summer, while tropical areas only get 12 hours. You silly idea is complete bullshine. Please do come into the 21st Century like the rest of us, it is starting to become embarrassing.

Everything you said makes sense to me. Again no problem with any of it. It all falls in line. It is all explainable in a flat Earth model.

But that all being said, I know absolutely nothing about the Flat earth society.

I have never visited any of their web sites and I know absolutely nothing about them but I know the earth is fixed in place and ALL the 'heaveanly bodies' rotate around us. It is wonderful and beautiful. This place is a special place. You do not have to be embarrassed, close your eyes, think, and accept the truth.

"I know the earth is fixed in place"

How did you come to know this?

Was it from reading a book?

This troubles me almost as much as the current political fiasco we are witnessing, except that current events are even more puzzling and certainly more frightening.

Good Question,

Occam's Razor

Confirmed by a book.

Personal observation.

1000 mile long straight dead flat level rail train tracks.

The only current opposing information comes from Never A Straight Answer

The constellations are the same now as they have always been. This Earth ain't flying around anywhere.

Sorry about the bold print. I couldn't turn it off

"1000 mile long straight dead flat level rail train tracks."

So, now the Earth is both stationary, and flat?

Where are these supposed train tracks? Can you see 1000 miles? Really? I have to call bull sheite on every single post you have made to this thread.

You're welcome to join Hooker and me at the bar.

Yeah, and the new guy buys.

Someone say "bar"?

You fly, we'll buy!

That sounds familiar.Cheers.

Massey, I reported your post to Admins and I hope they take your posts down. If it is not trolling then you just backing yourself with your believes.

By now you should know this is not how we work!

Go for it. Stop thinking and go with the herd. That is unbelievable. May as well get used to not having a 1st ammendment or semblance of a constitution at all.

I have proof of every thing I have posted. Albeit inconvenient to some but go ahead and sensor it.

You have proof for yourself that Earth is flat.

No need to convince us otherwise!

Please, you are not going to convince anybody here of anything but your lunacy.

You are sounding like a:

Oh, I didn't expect a "flat earther" member in a strictly scientific forum like CR4... Ha, ha... Indeed they live among us...

"It is all explainable in a flat Earth model."

No, absolutely not. None of your "flat Earth models" can explain what we see. This can be proved by just observation and simple reasoning. It's not even necessary to have scientific education in order to do so.

"It is wonderful and beautiful."

Yes Mr Massey. It's wonderful and beautiful like every fairy tale. And that's exactly what it is: a fairy tale.

Why it is so difficult for you to admire the beauty of our world but, also, accept the scientific truth???

G.K. - I suspect Mr. Massey is no flat-earther, but is really just a contrarian.

For every good accomplishment of engineers, there has to be a detractor to say we didn't go to the moon, we didn't defeat Nazi Germany, and the Twin Towers falling on 9/11 was a nefarious US Gov't. plot to get us all in another war. There are these conspiracy nuts all over the place, with a substandard education (the rod was spared, and the child was spoiled), who think they can get away with nearly anything up to and sometimes including murder, but they always get caught by their own devices. Sometimes people have even made up falsehoods, and others have suffered as a result of the false accusations, stereotypes, etc.

I say that for every contrarian, there must be 10 affirmative engineers who debunk the nonsense, and stop the myths, fairy tales, untruths, conspiracies, and outright lies from propagating. That is unless it is OK for humanity to stand at the pinnacle of our progress, and say, "not so great", then turn back and recede backward into a degenerate future, where there are no morals, no science, no learning, only hatred and death. Some have already chosen whom they will serve. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

You are absolutely right James. However, it is so sad to see all these deluded guys trying to convince all the others about their absolutely foolish ideas. And -most of the times- it is really worthless to try to change their minds. Their obsessions are so firmly established inside them. And even if you succeed to change the mind of one "contrarian", you'll find out that many more will take his place. It's like the Lernaean Hydra.

Oh, come on guys. Please don't initiate conversion of yet another standard English word with a very useful definition into a general catchall derogatory phrase for the reasoning-challeneged.

Don't we have enough names to call people without having to donate 'contrarian' for conversion into a slur?

Lest, you think I am exaggerating the risk, the next time you hear someone use the term 'liberal' as a noun; ask that person for a definition of 'liberalism' (so as to elicit a definition relating to politics).

Dollars to donuts, their answer typically will completely miss the salient part about valuing/promoting individual liberty. It is unlikely any mention of support for freedom of religion, freedom of speech, democracies, secular governments or freedom of the pressence will occur either. I place the loss of utility of this previously useful term squarely at the feet of those who have hijacked the word to use as a disparagement.

Your own comments aren't immune from this same unfortunate dumbing down to slander effect. 'Conspiracy' has a specific useful meaning that can be completely unrelated to paranoia, pseudoscience, lizardpeople, alien abduction or chemtrails. Conspiracy merely requires two or more people to make plans in secret to do harm or break the law. Any definition that adds a requirement that it is never a reality and only considered plausible by fools is sad.

.

Be more creative in your disparagement of fools. If nothing else, it will further demonstrate you don't belong to that group.

Frankly, I'm surprised this thread is still going... it was DOA at the start...

I have to reply to tnc's last comment. What I basically gleaned from the obloviation was that because I lean in a direction (somewhat conservation and loyal to what I understand from my education)

Is it happy hour already?

Flat earth or not, I'm sure somewhere on this planet it's happy hour.

Always happy to obloviate for those who glean and lean in a direction somewhat conservation and loyal.

right in the middle of typing what was to be a lengthy response worthy of Clarence Darrow, I was interrupted by plant business that resulted in some over time. Sorry about that incoherent sentence fragment.

Obliviate away!

He never travelled?

That's not really a good example. If you had a point at the end of a line segment and as you traveled along the line as you got closer to the point, the point would appear higher the closer you got to it.

Not if you travel along the line!

Idea Smith, let me explain : say you are standing on a flat piece of ground and a 25 story building is in font of you 30 miles away. From where you are standing, the building appears short. You start moving toward the building, the closer you get, the taller the building appears. When you get to the base of the building, you need to look straight up .

This angular progression is similar to what you will see on a curved surface.

The farther you are from the point, the lower it appears and the closer you are to the point the higher it appears.

I hope this is a better explanation.

I think you mean "an apparently" flat piece of ground.

"The farther you are from the point, the lower it appears and the closer you are to the point the higher it appears" - not if the point is at ground level (i.e. on the line).

Xactly. That was my point!

If Earth is fixed then you are spinning!

Enjoy the ride!

This one is for free!

Lyn, said I should post something, so here it is:

It is a series of questions & thoughts.

1. In school i was taught that at the center of the earth, there is a solid magnetic iron core, that is surrounded by liquid molten magma. If the core is indeed iron and iron is placed into a blast furnace and it melts, and the solid core is iron, then why doesn't the the core melt if it is surrounded by liquid magma ?

2. How does anyone know that the core is solid, if nobody has been to the core ?

3. If the earth didn't rotate, then why couldn't a rocket come straight down from space ?

4. If all of the planets and moons in our solar system rotate and there is no fixed point, then how is the rotational speed of the earth and other planets and moons determined ?

5. If the earth rotates, does this mean that the core rotates ? And based on the earths rotation, is there a mathematical calculation that can be used to determine the size of the core ?

6. I know that researchers have done drilling and core sampling on earth and astronauts have picked up moon rocks, why haven't scientists done core sampling on the moon ? Are they wary that if core sampling was done, this might change tidal action on earth ?

The deepest we can drill into the earth so far has been 8 miles. Only 3200 miles to go, almost there, we'll keep working on it...check back later for an update.

Based on a rough radial estimate of 4000 miles we may have to drill another 3992 miles, but we are working on it Boss...

You say that they have drilled 8 miles deep, when they hit the liquid magma, will this create a man made volcano ?

The deepest borehole reached about 12 miles down. No magma. They quit because of higher temps than expected and lack of funding. But they did find lots of water and hydrogen.

Click here for details

Hooker

I am not sure what stopped them. When I was drilling water wells with a cable tool rig, the deepest well I made was only 324 feet so I don't know what they ran into. But that was a long time ago.

Heat, technology and money stopped them.

Besides, I don't think we want to find out what even a small hole would do when it released the pressure and superheated magma below it. Maybe Yellowstone x 1,000?

Well, to address a couple of your issues:

If the core wasn't solid iron that rotates in sync with the rest of the Earth we wouldn't have a stable magnetic field which would most likely result in the end of life on earth. Some amount of the center doesn't melt because of the density from the pressure of the material around it.

But then, deny'ers can come up with any number of objections to this.

Hooker

1. Phase transitions like melting depend on pressure. The is a lot of pressure inside the earth.

2. Earthquakes generate sound waves which travel through the earth and also reflect from different layers. By measuring the time of arrival at different locations, scientists can reconstruct the location of these boundaries.

3. It could.

4. By the fixed stars. The earth actually rotates in 23 hours, 56 minutes. It needs another 4 minutes per day because it is revolving around the sun.

5. Yes, because of friction. There is some slight movement, I believe, between the crust and the core due to the movement of magma which transfers momentum.

6. There aren't any geologists on the moon.

1. In school i was taught that at the center of the earth, there is a solid magnetic iron core, that is surrounded by liquid molten magma. If the core is indeed iron and iron is placed into a blast furnace and it melts, and the solid core is iron, then why doesn't the the core melt if it is surrounded by liquid magma ?

The high pressure increases the melting temperature.

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

2. How does anyone know that the core is solid, if nobody has been to the core ?

Scientists study the sound waves that are generated by earthquakes. These sound waves reflect and refract at boundary layers.

http://eqseis.geosc.psu.edu/~cammon/HTML/Classes/IntroQuakes/Notes/waves_and_interior.html

3. If the earth didn't rotate, then why couldn't a rocket come straight down from space ?

It could.

4. If all of the planets and moons in our solar system rotate and there is no fixed point, then how is the rotational speed of the earth and other planets and moons determined ?

By relation to the fixed stars.

5. If the earth rotates, does this mean that the core rotates ? And based on the earths rotation, is there a mathematical calculation that can be used to determine the size of the core ?

Because of friction, the earth's core rotates almost exactly the same speed as the earth. The is a very slight difference due to angular momentum transfer caused by magma circulation.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/record/archives/vol22/vol22_iss1/Core_Spin.html

6. I know that researchers have done drilling and core sampling on earth and astronauts have picked up moon rocks, why haven't scientists done core sampling on the moon ? Are they wary that if core sampling was done, this might change tidal action on earth ?

I suspect it might have to do with there being no geologists there.

1. In school i was taught that at the center of the earth, there is a solid magnetic iron core, that is surrounded by liquid molten magma. If the core is indeed iron and iron is placed into a blast furnace and it melts, and the solid core is iron, then why doesn't the the core melt if it is surrounded by liquid magma ?

The high pressure increases the melting point of iron.

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

2. How does anyone know that the core is solid, if nobody has been to the core ?

Scientists can detect the different layers withing the earth by the way seismic waves from earthquakes refract and reflect.

3. If the earth didn't rotate, then why couldn't a rocket come straight down from space ?

It could.

4. If all of the planets and moons in our solar system rotate and there is no fixed point, then how is the rotational speed of the earth and other planets and moons determined ?

By relation to the distant fixed stars.

5. If the earth rotates, does this mean that the core rotates ? And based on the earths rotation, is there a mathematical calculation that can be used to determine the size of the core ?

The core rotates very slightly faster than the rest of the planet. This is caused by angular momentum transfer from the circulation of magma.

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

6. I know that researchers have done drilling and core sampling on earth and astronauts have picked up moon rocks, why haven't scientists done core sampling on the moon ? Are they wary that if core sampling was done, this might change tidal action on earth ?

Could be because there are no geologists on the moon. No, it would not affect the tides.