Message from HoppeanSnake_ZA in Willem Petzer Live Chat #info-wars
Yeah but Gravity is not theoretical physics...
The definition of a scientific theory (often contracted to theory for the sake of brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word theory. In everyday speech, theory can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, the opposite of its meaning in science. These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of "prediction" in science versus common speech, where it denotes a mere hope.
Four conclusive experiments performed by the top scientists of their day proved that the Sun, Moon and stars revolve around us, and that Earth is the fixed, motionless centre of the universe.
The Michelson-Morley, Michelson-Gale, Airy's Failure and Sagnac experiments scientifically proved Geocentrism and nearly crushed the dying Heliocentric theory until Mr. Einstein came through with his Special Relativity mathematical denial of the proven Aether and philosophically (not scientifically) banished the Aether from study ever since.
These studies and peer reviewed experiments are never covered in any university courses. These conclusive peer-reviewed and repeated scientific results are nowhere debated or denied, merely suppressed and ignored. The fact of the matter is that Geocentrism has been conclusively proven for over a century.
In 1913 Sagnac conducted an experiment to test the speed and constancy of light and proved the existence of the Aether (Disproves relativity) Therefore, The Michelson-Morley experiment, conducted using an interferometer clearly demonstrated that the Earth was motionless. The Michelson-Gale experiment detected the Aether/Firmament passing over the surface of the motionless Earth. Airy's Failure, demonstrated that it is the stars moving relative to a stationary Earth, and not the fast orbiting Earth moving relative to comparatively stationary stars.
I think you are having trouble visualising what a force is and how we can interpret it in a way that is easy to understand. Scientists and applied mathematicians use free body diagrams for this purpose.
here is a link to a textbook that will help you understand what it is I am talking about
I shall post my question again. @HoppeanSnake_ZA How was the 1600kmph speed of earth's axial rotation measured? When, where and what instruments were used?
@Deejay from Earth okay so when we know what forces are acting on an object in space we draw Free Body Diagrams (FBDs) with all those forces acting in different directions, from there we can calculate things like angular velocity which gives us that figure that you gave.
This was a good troll man, you did well.
Why are you avoiding my question?
I just answered it for you
@HoppeanSnake_ZA How was the 1600kmph speed of earth's axial rotation measured? When, where and what instruments were used?
okay so when we know what forces are acting on an object in space we draw Free Body Diagrams (FBDs) with all those forces acting in different directions, from there we can calculate things like angular velocity which gives us that figure that you gave.
You only speculated as to how it may be done.
angular velocity is rotational speed
When was this done?
What instruments were used?
this is some epic shitposting
I'm just getting warmed up.
Yeah its a real pleasure having our own pet Flat-Earther
Notice carefully which side of the argument gets personal first.
**Makes sure that @Deejay from Earth has enough food, water and tinfoil**
Lol interesting read
If you had an argument why are you spamming it here? Publish your thesis and research on the subject in a science forum where it can be discussed. Pro tip: memes are not an argument.
@cµrvy Well then why don't you just post the evidence for your model to make me go away? You completely ignored one of my previous posts which tells you which peer-reviewed papers you can go look up. If you had any proof of your Heliocentric philosophical fantasy you would have posted it by now. Edit Typo
what benefit is there to you to care about this issue or to attempt to convince others?
@Hyko Great question. It's more about the implications. Firstly, educational. If the earth actually is flat, how and why is Heliocentrism taught if it's not the truth? What does that say about the entire education system? (Same goes for evolution by the way). Secondly (and more importantly in my opinion) , we have the spiritual implications. People say they believe in God, the Bible etc, and they are Christian and believe that their God, who made the Earth, LIED to them in their very own Bible.