Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Poll

Which do you believe?

Geocentrism of the Bible
8 (80%)
Heliocentrism of science
2 (20%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Author Topic: Geocentrism or Heliocentrism?  (Read 614 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cassini

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1459
  • Reputation: +749/-88
  • Gender: Male
Re: Geocentrism or Heliocentrism?
« Reply #15 on: April 24, 2018, 03:19:23 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  •  What is the Axis of Evil by the way?

    It is a long story forlorn so I will try to shorten it for you and readers.

    ‘In 1978 Penzias and Wilson received the Nobel Prize in physics for their discovery of the CMR in 1965. Study of the CMB continued with the United States government’s agency the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). In June, 2001 a satellite WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) was launched from Cape Canaveral aboard a Delta rocket. Then there was the European Space Agency’s PLANCK mission launched in 2009 to map the CMB in greater detail. By 2013 the cosmologists reckoned the temperature variations of the cosmos were now known and from these had conjured up a history of the universe since the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago. Throughout the world, in scientific institutions and universities, massive crowds turned out to hear of and see the ‘proofs’ the CMB had established for their Big Bang theory. One of these, they claim, was the first evolution of the stars from particles 200,000,000 years old. Hundreds of websites were created to show the world what their science had discovered. But the truth will out if you seek it that is:

    ‘Irrespective of how it originated, the most important fact about the CMR is that it represents unequivocal evidence of an absolute reference frame in the universe… I suggest [this] evidence which has received worldwide acclaim as confirmation of the Big Bang is really its death knell for, ironically, it is now clear that the existence of the CMR essentially falsifies the fundamental postulates of the theory of relativity [that there is no reference frame in the universe]… In simple terms, the theory of relativity has been falsified because a major prediction of the theory is now known to be contradicted by [another] unambiguous experimental result.’ (R. Gentry: Creation’s Tiny Mystery, Earth Science Associates, 2004, pp.284-5)


    Good, someone did notice George Smoot's claim to have witnessed the variation in the CMB that showed the Earth’s movement in its supposed orbit. But now let us address Robert Gentry’s 2004 quote above: ‘Irrespective of how it originated, the most important fact about the CMR is that it represents unequivocal evidence of an absolute reference frame in the universe.’ One of these reference frames has become known as the ‘Axis of Evil,’


    ‘The light is the CMB, and it provides some of the best knowledge we have about the structure, content, and history of the Universe. But it also contains a few mysteries: on very large scales, the cosmos seems to have a certain lopsidedness. That slight asymmetry is reflected in temperature fluctuations much larger than any galaxy, aligned on the sky in a pattern facetiously dubbed “the axis of evil.” The lopsidedness is real, but cosmologists are divided over whether it reveals anything meaningful about the fundamental laws of physics.’ --- Arstecnica website.

    During this time of discovery two scholars, Robert Sungenis and Richard Delano also took an interest in the CMB’s findings. To them, interpretation of the data shows the Earth sits at the centre of the universe.
     
    ‘All in all, there are three basic [CMB] alignments of the Earth with the universe:
    (1) The cosmic microwave radiation’s dipole is aligned with the Earth’s equator.
    (2) The cosmic microwave radiation’s quadrupole and octupole are aligned with the EarthSun ecliptic.
    (3) The distant quasars and radio galaxies are aligned with the Earth’s equator and the North Celestial Pole. Essentially, these three alignments provide the X, Y and Z coordinates to place Earth in the very center of the known universe.’ (Robert Sungenis: website, Debunking David Palm, 2014.)




    Offline forlorn

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 539
    • Reputation: +230/-273
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Geocentrism or Heliocentrism?
    « Reply #16 on: April 24, 2018, 03:26:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It is a long story forlorn so I will try to shorten it for you and readers.

    ‘In 1978 Penzias and Wilson received the Nobel Prize in physics for their discovery of the CMR in 1965. Study of the CMB continued with the United States government’s agency the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). In June, 2001 a satellite WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) was launched from Cape Canaveral aboard a Delta rocket. Then there was the European Space Agency’s PLANCK mission launched in 2009 to map the CMB in greater detail. By 2013 the cosmologists reckoned the temperature variations of the cosmos were now known and from these had conjured up a history of the universe since the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago. Throughout the world, in scientific institutions and universities, massive crowds turned out to hear of and see the ‘proofs’ the CMB had established for their Big Bang theory. One of these, they claim, was the first evolution of the stars from particles 200,000,000 years old. Hundreds of websites were created to show the world what their science had discovered. But the truth will out if you seek it that is:

    ‘Irrespective of how it originated, the most important fact about the CMR is that it represents unequivocal evidence of an absolute reference frame in the universe… I suggest [this] evidence which has received worldwide acclaim as confirmation of the Big Bang is really its death knell for, ironically, it is now clear that the existence of the CMR essentially falsifies the fundamental postulates of the theory of relativity [that there is no reference frame in the universe]… In simple terms, the theory of relativity has been falsified because a major prediction of the theory is now known to be contradicted by [another] unambiguous experimental result.’ (R. Gentry: Creation’s Tiny Mystery, Earth Science Associates, 2004, pp.284-5)


    Good, someone did notice George Smoot's claim to have witnessed the variation in the CMB that showed the Earth’s movement in its supposed orbit. But now let us address Robert Gentry’s 2004 quote above: ‘Irrespective of how it originated, the most important fact about the CMR is that it represents unequivocal evidence of an absolute reference frame in the universe.’ One of these reference frames has become known as the ‘Axis of Evil,’


    ‘The light is the CMB, and it provides some of the best knowledge we have about the structure, content, and history of the Universe. But it also contains a few mysteries: on very large scales, the cosmos seems to have a certain lopsidedness. That slight asymmetry is reflected in temperature fluctuations much larger than any galaxy, aligned on the sky in a pattern facetiously dubbed “the axis of evil.” The lopsidedness is real, but cosmologists are divided over whether it reveals anything meaningful about the fundamental laws of physics.’ --- Arstecnica website.

    During this time of discovery two scholars, Robert Sungenis and Richard Delano also took an interest in the CMB’s findings. To them, interpretation of the data shows the Earth sits at the centre of the universe.

    ‘All in all, there are three basic [CMB] alignments of the Earth with the universe:
    (1) The cosmic microwave radiation’s dipole is aligned with the Earth’s equator.
    (2) The cosmic microwave radiation’s quadrupole and octupole are aligned with the EarthSun ecliptic.
    (3) The distant quasars and radio galaxies are aligned with the Earth’s equator and the North Celestial Pole. Essentially, these three alignments provide the X, Y and Z coordinates to place Earth in the very center of the known universe.’ (Robert Sungenis: website, Debunking David Palm, 2014.)
    Very interesting theory, however it does not suggest that the Sun orbits the Earth. Here's a quote of the part I bolded:
    Quote
    (2) The cosmic microwave radiation’s quadrupole and octupole are aligned with the EarthSun ecliptic.
    This means they believe such an elliptic does exist, that the Earh does indeed orbit the Sun. So according to the alignments, the universe seems to be centered around the Earth even as the Earth rotates around the Sun.



    Offline cassini

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1459
    • Reputation: +749/-88
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Geocentrism or Heliocentrism?
    « Reply #17 on: April 24, 2018, 04:15:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Very interesting theory, however it does not suggest that the Sun orbits the Earth. Here's a quote of the part I bolded:
    This means they believe such an elliptic does exist, that the Earh does indeed orbit the Sun. So according to the alignments, the universe seems to be centered around the Earth even as the Earth rotates around the Sun.

    First forlorn it is not a theory, it is empirical science. The CMB exists in the form that they found it. It shows empirically the Earth is at the center of the universe.

    As I understand it, the exercise by Sungenis and Delano is to show the Earth is at the centre of the universe. Yes, it could be said the 'solar system,' be it geocentric or heliocentric, does exist at the center of the CMB. But given the ammended Tychonian model is the only one that can account for a same size annual physical circling of all the stars of the universe that contains the CMB, and the earth is at the center of the Tychonian system, then the evidence is that it is the Earth that is at the center.    

    Offline cassini

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1459
    • Reputation: +749/-88
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Geocentrism or Heliocentrism?
    « Reply #18 on: April 24, 2018, 04:21:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • apologies, posted twice instead of modify.

    Offline apollo

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 201
    • Reputation: +127/-37
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Geocentrism or Heliocentrism?
    « Reply #19 on: April 24, 2018, 05:58:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Question. What keeps the Sun in orbit around the Earth ?
    Does it have fins like a rocket that keep it turning in a circular direction?
    Does the gravitational pull of the Earth keep the Sun in orbit?  Like with
    the Moon?  Would the Sun go in a straight line if the Earth did not have
    gravity?

    The only feasible answer is: the gravity of the Earth.  I know about the
    pseudo forces that Robert Sungenis talks about.  But let's limit this discussion
    to what we can measure.

    OK then the Sun is 93,000,000 miles from Earth.  We can measure that.
    The Sun "orbits" the Earth in 24 hours.  

    So, 93,000,000 miles x 2 x 3.1416 / 24 hours = 24,347,400 miles per hour.
    The Sun is traveling about 24 million miles per hour.  

    Don't you think there would be a trail of fire following behind the Sun, like
    comets have a trail of some kind?

    If the Earth were orbiting the Sun ...
    93,000,000 miles x 2 x 3.1416 / 365 days / 24 hrs = 66,705 miles per hour.
    The Earth would be going 66,705 miles per hour.

    Which has more gravity?  The Sun.  Therefore it makes more sense that the
    Earth is orbiting the Sun.  It's total lunacy to think the Earth has enough
    gravity to keep the Sun (going 24 million MPH) in orbit around the Earth.  

    For the Moon ...
    252,000 miles (at most) x 2 x 3.1416 / 28 days / 24 hours = 2,356 MPH.

    If the Moon were going 24 million MPH, do you think it would still be orbiting
    the Earth?  No way.  It would be far away in outer space.  

    Then how could the Sun still be orbiting the Earth.  It would take some kind
    of astronomical force to keep it circling the Earth.  

    Conclusion.  Geocentrism only makes sense when you can find some kind of
    unbelievable force not understandable to humans.  Imagine how fast the
    nearest star is traveling ... faster than the speed of light.  

    I dare say that Geocentrism is a mere fantasy of people who try to make the
    Bible a science textbook, using a view of the universe which was popular in
    the time of David (in the old Testament), using vague terminology such as,
    "shall not be moved".  

    Like I said before, not many people's brain can function in the world of math
    and astronomy.  I don't mean to be condescending, but the arguments for
    Geocentrism really require a person to believe in magic.




    Egyptian hermit, founder, and miracle worker. Saint Apollo was born in Egypt about 310 AD and spent forty years in the desert region around Thebes. He then founded a community of monks in Hermopol, Egypt, ultimately numbering five hundred, and became their abbot. Feast day: January 25.


    Offline wallflower

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1861
    • Reputation: +1979/-86
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Geocentrism or Heliocentrism?
    « Reply #20 on: April 24, 2018, 07:31:32 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • I have a small gripe about the wording "Heliocentrism of science".

    I'd say Heliocentrism of modernism. Or Heliocentrism of modern scientists.

    Otherwise we give up a very important vocabulary word to the modernists and perpetuate the myth that the Faith and science are opposed.  

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17627
    • Reputation: +8113/-609
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Geocentrism or Heliocentrism?
    « Reply #21 on: April 28, 2018, 11:55:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    Don't you think there would be a trail of fire following behind the Sun, like
    comets have a trail of some kind? 
    .
    A)  Comets don't have a "trail of some kind" following them. Comets move through the vacuum of outer space. The tail of a comet is caused by the solar wind (from the sun) which is the force of sunlight and charged particles emitted from the sun, which impact dust and such small bits of the comet that are moving along with the comet through space, giving them a slight push away from the larger mass of the comet itself, while the dust particles continue to remain nearby the comet. The tail proceeds away from the sun as the comet orbits close by the sun, making the tail extend out to the side as the comet approaches, then swings around the outside of the comet like a shadow would. Then the tail of the comet extends out in FRONT of the comet (and slightly to one side) as the comet moves away from the sun.
    .
    B)  This "trail of fire" you imagine seems to presume the sun is passing through some kind of atmosphere, but it is not doing so. The sun is surrounded by the vacuum of space, with only a very sparse cloud of particles hanging about, which mostly move along with the sun. Only small portions move away from the sun such as the dangerous material in coronal mass ejections, which are charged particles that travel away from sunspots where they are emitted, and move at a speed somewhat less than the speed of light. Charged particles of this sort are what causes the aurora borealis, the northern lights.
    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17627
    • Reputation: +8113/-609
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Geocentrism or Heliocentrism?
    « Reply #22 on: April 29, 2018, 12:00:40 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I have a small gripe about the wording "Heliocentrism of science".

    I'd say Heliocentrism of modernism. Or Heliocentrism of modern scientists.

    Otherwise we give up a very important vocabulary word to the modernists and perpetuate the myth that the Faith and science are opposed.
    .
    Your complaint is well founded. However, modern scientists don't adhere to heliocentrism anymore.
    So it wouldn't be proper to say "heliocentrism of modern scientists."
    Just as it isn't right to say "heliocentrism of science" because heliocentrism is not scientific.
    Your idea of "heliocentrism of modernism" (or Modernist heliocentrism) would be okay, but most today don't know anything about what Modernism is. If anything they think it's a movement in modern art, or architecture, or furniture styles.
    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.


    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17627
    • Reputation: +8113/-609
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Geocentrism or Heliocentrism?
    « Reply #23 on: April 29, 2018, 12:59:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    Very interesting theory, however it does not suggest that the Sun orbits the Earth. Here's a quote of the part I bolded:

    Quote
    Quote
    (2) The cosmic microwave radiation’s quadrupole and octupole are aligned with the EarthSun ecliptic.

    This means they believe such an elliptic [ecliptic] does exist, that the Earh [Earth] does indeed orbit the Sun. So according to the alignments, the universe seems to be centered around the Earth even as the Earth rotates around the Sun.
    .
    The ecliptic (not "elliptic") is defined as the plane in outer space through which the sun passes in its daily cycle about the earth, a plane which also passes through the center of Earth. From the viewpoint of Earth, the ecliptic makes a curving line across the sky since the Sun's path is a curved path. The existence of the ecliptic doesn't preclude the Sun orbiting the Earth. Nor does the ecliptic's existence demand that the Earth does not orbit around the Sun.
    .
    The ecliptic exists due to the fact that the path the sun makes across the sky as viewed from Earth is a predictable path that projects itself onto the celestial sphere where we see the stars every night. Nor does the ecliptic always remain in the same place. As the seasons change so too the ecliptic makes small movements, but these have to be measured with sensitive astronomical instruments. 
    .
    The ecliptic is not obvious to casual observers because of the fact that during the day, when we can see the sun, we cannot see the stars in the sky since the sun is so bright. It takes sophisticated filters to find out where the stars are in the daytime sky (nearby or behind the Sun), such devices that the ancients did not have for their use as far as we know. Therefore, one must keep track of where the sun WAS each day, perhaps using some device that traces the direction to the sun, and then wait until sunset to see where the stars are in the sky while continuing to move the device to follow where the sun must be even though it is no longer visible since it's night time, and the sun is below the horizon. Then, keeping this information on record, later in the year when that part of the sky that was obscured by the daytime Sun is then visible at night, it can be determined in retrospect, where the Sun was when the measurements were taken. Note: you really have to be a serious GEEK to be diligent about this process.
    .
    This process, by the way, is a most embarrassing one for flat-earthers, who insist that the sun does not go down below the horizon but continues somehow to hover out of sight and around the horizon past the north pole (but never past the south pole in the southern hemisphere!) and then inexplicably becomes visible in the east not because it is rising from BELOW the horizon, but because it is getting closer (even while it does not get larger to our sight) and therefore its light is able to reach us (but they're unable to explain why the Sun's light is suddenly able to reach us -- they say things like "light can't travel forever"). 
    .
    The process alluded to, using a sun tracking device (which all excellent telescopes have BTW) is able to show us where to find the sun at any time during the night, and it is found not along the northern hemisphere but under our feet at some precise angle which is measurable and predictable. This is how lunar eclipses are foreseeable in the future, because the precise location of the sun is not a mystery but rather it is something that can be determined quite accurately even years in advance for each day of the year.
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17627
    • Reputation: +8113/-609
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Geocentrism or Heliocentrism?
    « Reply #24 on: April 29, 2018, 01:32:33 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • ... most today don't know anything about what Modernism is. If anything they think it's a movement in modern art, or architecture, or furniture styles.
    .
    .  So-called Modernism in pool design.
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline forlorn

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 539
    • Reputation: +230/-273
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Geocentrism or Heliocentrism?
    « Reply #25 on: April 29, 2018, 05:45:56 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    Your complaint is well founded. However, modern scientists don't adhere to heliocentrism anymore.
    So it wouldn't be proper to say "heliocentrism of modern scientists."
    Just as it isn't right to say "heliocentrism of science" because heliocentrism is not scientific.
    Your idea of "heliocentrism of modernism" (or Modernist heliocentrism) would be okay, but most today don't know anything about what Modernism is. If anything they think it's a movement in modern art, or architecture, or furniture styles.
    .
    Maybe not Copernicus' Heliocentrism, but yes they do believe the Earth orbits the Sun. 


    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17627
    • Reputation: +8113/-609
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Geocentrism or Heliocentrism?
    « Reply #26 on: April 30, 2018, 08:24:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Maybe not Copernicus' Heliocentrism, but yes they do believe the Earth orbits the Sun.
    .
    It seems to me that "they" are very cautious to give the impression that they "believe" the earth orbits the sun, however, upon closer examination it would seem they have an abiding concern that perhaps the sun orbits the earth -- but they can't dare admit as much because far too many consequences hang in the balance.
    .
    For example, go to JPL and find out how they compute the landing and takeoff trajectory of rockets given that the earth is rotating on its axis and revolving around the sun with the whole solar system chugging along towards some common destination far, far away. You actually don't need to mention the second two movements. Just say, while the earth turns on its axis, or, "while the earth is spinning at 1,000 miles an hour at the equator." 
    .
    "How can you calculate where a rocket is going to or coming from, when the earth is spinning at 1,000 miles an hour at the equator?"
    .
    If you get a knowledgeable and honest person to answer your question, he'll assure you that for the purposes of making computations simple, they presume the earth to be stationary. They just can't say that openly because the only thing fit for public consumption is that the earth revolves around the sun and spins on its own axis of rotation. That's the pat answer to simpletons. You know, like roscoe.
    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17627
    • Reputation: +8113/-609
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Geocentrism or Heliocentrism?
    « Reply #27 on: April 30, 2018, 08:32:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    Designers and builders speak with glowing tones about "contemporary" or "modernism" --- can you imagine waking up every morning and looking at this scene while still keeping your sanity?


    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline forlorn

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 539
    • Reputation: +230/-273
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Geocentrism or Heliocentrism?
    « Reply #28 on: May 01, 2018, 02:40:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    It seems to me that "they" are very cautious to give the impression that they "believe" the earth orbits the sun, however, upon closer examination it would seem they have an abiding concern that perhaps the sun orbits the earth -- but they can't dare admit as much because far too many consequences hang in the balance.
    .
    For example, go to JPL and find out how they compute the landing and takeoff trajectory of rockets given that the earth is rotating on its axis and revolving around the sun with the whole solar system chugging along towards some common destination far, far away. You actually don't need to mention the second two movements. Just say, while the earth turns on its axis, or, "while the earth is spinning at 1,000 miles an hour at the equator."
    .
    "How can you calculate where a rocket is going to or coming from, when the earth is spinning at 1,000 miles an hour at the equator?"
    .
    If you get a knowledgeable and honest person to answer your question, he'll assure you that for the purposes of making computations simple, they presume the earth to be stationary. They just can't say that openly because the only thing fit for public consumption is that the earth revolves around the sun and spins on its own axis of rotation. That's the pat answer to simpletons. You know, like roscoe.
    .
    What sort of rockets are we talking about? Any rockets that never leave the atmosphere would always continue to rotate with the Earth, and most that leave the Earth's atmosphere either don't come back or only come back ages later, when they'd just need to make certain it entered the atmosphere at the right spot and then it'd continue to rotate with the Earth. So I don't really see where the rotation calculation would come into play when a rocket was preparing for takeoff. 
    Apologies if I have your point entirely misunderstood, a lot of this stuff is way over my head. 

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17627
    • Reputation: +8113/-609
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Geocentrism or Heliocentrism?
    « Reply #29 on: May 01, 2018, 05:37:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • What sort of rockets are we talking about? Any rockets that never leave the atmosphere would always continue to rotate with the Earth, and most that leave the Earth's atmosphere either don't come back or only come back ages later, when they'd just need to make certain it entered the atmosphere at the right spot and then it'd continue to rotate with the Earth. So I don't really see where the rotation calculation would come into play when a rocket was preparing for takeoff.
    Apologies if I have your point entirely misunderstood, a lot of this stuff is way over my head.
    .
    Even a rocket that leaves the atmosphere continues to carry with it the momentum it had from being in contact with the earth. As soon as a rocket leaves the launch pad, it no longer is in contact with the earth, but just like an airplane or a flying bird, it has the kinetic energy from its position of "rest" on the ground before it launched. Whatever the earth was doing at the time of launch, so the rocket is doing, PLUS whatever additional movement is imparted to it by its own propulsion system.
    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16