Saudi cleric declares fascinating new theory:the earth does not rotate around the sun - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Hamsteronfire;47160982]and the islamic calendar just went back 100 years[/QUOTE] because the sunni islam views of a saudi cleric is align to everyone else under the calendar of islam as a whole? you probably didn't mean it that way, i know, but it is a bit problematic thing to say

[QUOTE=butt2089;47160370]Oh god some of those comments [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/3gGU8Cr.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] Jeeze, he even has the Canadian Space Agency logo for his display picture. He should know better.

To be fair his actual theory is based on [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_YFrXfexnM]a very good experiment by a famous professor[/url]

[QUOTE=Mooe94;47161006]because the sunni islam views of a saudi cleric is align to everyone else under the calendar of islam as a whole? you probably didn't mean it that way, i know, but it is a bit problematic thing to say[/QUOTE] I didn't no, I thought the same thing when Ken Ham tried to prove his theories by debating against Bill Nye, the Western Calendar just went back a few years, that kind of thing.

He's absolutely right, inshallah.

[QUOTE=Paramud;47161251]To be fair his actual theory is based on [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_YFrXfexnM]a very good experiment by a famous professor[/url][/QUOTE] That was painful to watch.

[QUOTE=Swebonny;47164405]He's absolutely right, inshallah.[/QUOTE]^SWEDEN YES

Here we have it folks, a perfect example of idiocy disguised as Islam.

Uh, isn't he just talking about relativity?

[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;47165399]Uh, isn't he just talking about relativity?[/QUOTE] This quote [quote]He illustrates his theory with a sealed water cup, trying to explain how a stationary plane would have trouble reaching China if the country was rotating away from it.[/quote] makes it sound like he's an idiot who's just accidentally slightly right.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;47165537]This quote makes it sound like he's an idiot who's just accidentally slightly right.[/QUOTE] His logic is perfectly sound until the next second when you actually think about it.

[QUOTE=LarparNar;47159747]He's actually entirely off. He was trying to say that the Earth is completely stationary, not that the sun is in any way also revolving around the Earth. What he's saying is completely ridiculous and the example he used to "prove" his point is nothing but idiotic.[/QUOTE] Because who the fuck needs inertia and relative motion when you can pretend whatever you say is true.

Have we ever proved the absolute motion of any body? It seems we have only proved relative motion thus far.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;47168655]Have we ever proved the absolute motion of any body? It seems we have only proved relative motion thus far.[/QUOTE] "Absolute speed" is not a thing except with respect to things that travel at c. All observers agree on the speed of something at c, and observers can disagree on the speed of anything traveling less than c. No observer is right or wrong. [I]However[/I], this only applies to unaccelerated frames. You can't feel how fast you are going in deep space, but you can feel when your rockets kick on and accelerate you. Likewise, a spinning observer can measure centrifugal and Coriolis forces appearing in his frame, whereas a non-rotating observer does not see these forces. [I]However[/I], general relativity also says that, contrary to Newton, an observer in freefall (e.g. orbit) is in an inertial frame. So, ignoring the Earth's rotation, we can reasonably claim that we are not revolving around the sun. That's a lot of howevers, but basically the guy is vaguely right in one way (we can claim we're not moving around the sun), but he's also wrong in claiming that we aren't rotating (we can measure that we are), and he wrong in saying that it's invalid to treat it like we're rotating around the sun. Obviously we [I]do[/I] treat it as though we're rotating around the sun because it's a much simpler model.

[QUOTE=Mooe94;47159754]im going to play the devil's avocado here but who's to say he isn't right? for all we know, science is completely 100% theory[/QUOTE] You know, his religion is 100% made-up too. Who's to say that the astronomer isn't right?

I don't get it when people use the "but if the earth were moving anything going off the ground would be flung away from earth." Like have you never been in a car or fuck, even walking/running, and thrown something? It carries your momentum with it. That's why if you were in a bus and you threw something to someone it doesn't immediately slam to the back.

[QUOTE=Plattack;47171882]I don't get it when people use the "but if the earth were moving anything going off the ground would be flung away from earth." Like have you never been in a car or fuck, even walking/running, and thrown something? It carries your momentum with it. That's why if you were in a bus and you threw something to someone it doesn't immediately slam to the back.[/QUOTE] I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here? Your velocity is tangential to the surface of the earth - if gravity suddenly stopped working then you would actually get flung off because there would be no centripetal force to pull you down. It does have something to do with you keeping your momentum, but it's not really the same as your bus example? Can you explain what you mean?

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;47171957]I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here? Your velocity is tangential to the surface of the earth - if gravity suddenly stopped working then you would actually get flung off because there would be no centripetal force to pull you down. It does have something to do with you keeping your momentum, but it's not really the same as your bus example? Can you explain what you mean?[/QUOTE] I've seen the argument a couple times that people who believe the earth is stationary use - the earth can't be moving, because if it were you'd go flying the moment you left the ground. Of course, this isn't right because you are moving at the same speed as the earth when you jump, so from your point of view the only movement would be a small jump up and down. The bus example was just to bring that down to a reference point that can be easily observed. From within a bus if you were to toss a ball straight up, it would come back down and land in your hand, because you are moving at the same speed as the bus, and the ball is moving at the same speed as you. If you were to graph what it looked like it would be a straight line- up and down. But for someone standing outside the bus, the ball's position would look like an arc because it is also moving to the side. The argument used is that you wouldn't keep your momentum, even though you do because it's sort of a physical law. The ball in this case is the person, while the bus (which represents the earth) is moving, from on the bus you don't see that sideways movement, but it is still there.