Re: Earth is Motionless Copernicus Is Wrong (HD and new audio)

Uploaded by shanedk on 26.10.2009

Thunderf00t has a series on "Why Do People Laugh At Creationists?"
Well, if creationists deserve to be laughed at for believing that the Earth is 6,000 years old,
how much more does someone deserve to be laughed at
for saying the Earth is the center of the universe?
Enter this guy, PawelKolasa:
"In this video, I am proving that the Earth is motionless center of the universe."
"If the Earth revolved, the centrifugal force
"would cause people to weigh twice less on equator
"than, for example, in Vancouver in Canada.
"The equation for centrifugal force is this."
This is a classic example of "garbage in, garbage out."
Physics equations are wonderful, but useless in the hands of a moron
who doesn't have a clue how to use them.
"Put your weight as mass.
"But if you really care about the concept of mass,
"take it up with physicists who put mass in equations,
"then substitute weight for it in kilograms."
Uh, no. The gram--and, by extension, the kilogram--is a measure of mass, not weight.
If you're 80kg on Earth, then you're 80kg on the moon,
80kg in deep space, and so forth.
Weight is a product of mass and acceleration due to gravity.
The metric unit of weight is the newton, not the gram.
If you see a scale that weighs things in kilograms,
they are automatically factoring in Earth's gravitational pull.
Not a very good start for someone who wants to overturn 300 years of science!
"Or just look it up in Wikipedia and don't ask me stupid questions."
Right, because even stupid questions are beyond your ability to answer.
Let's see how this REALLY works:
At the north pole, with no centrifugal force,
your weight is your mass times the pull of Earth's gravity, which is 9.86m/s^2.
So if your mass is 80kg, your weight at the north pole is 788.8 newtons, or about 177.3 pounds.
As for the equator, you can't just use the regular equation for centrifugal force,
because it doesn't take gravity into consideration.
The first factor to consider is that the Earth bulges at the equator,
due to this very same centrifugal force that this brainchild denies exists.
In fact, the equatorial radius of the Earth is about 22km greater than its polar radius.
The gravitational pull therefore drops to about 9.80m/s^2.
So already the force of gravity is lower.
Now, we need to calculate the centripetal acceleration at the equator.
This is done using the formula, 4pi^2r/T^2.
We plug in the period of rotation, which is NOT 24 hours
but about 23.93 hours, or 86,164 seconds.
The equatorial radius of the Earth is 6,378km,
which as I said is about 22km greater than the polar radius.
Plug all of that into our equation, and the result is about .03m/s^2.
This counteracts part of the gravitational acceleration,
taking it down to about 9.77m/s^2.
Remember that our 80kg man weighed about 177 pounds at the North Pole.
Now, with these two factors lowering his acceleration,
his weight drops to 781.6 newtons, or about 175.7 pounds.
So he's lost 1.6 pounds just by being at the equator instead of at the north pole.
And yes, this has all been verified experimentally.
"The centrifugal force would affect the weight of objects on Earth greatly.
"We would be transporting gold and diamonds from the equator,
"where it would weigh less, and selling it up north."
I just showed it makes very little difference on the Earth's surface.
The amount of fuel you would save from the loss of weight of your cargo
would be more than outweighed by the extra amount of fuel
you would burn getting to the equator and back.
"Another issue is satellites.
"The satellites have no engine, yet once brought up to the orbit
"they start going around the Earth on their own."
Uh, wrong. Satellites DO have rocket engines.
In addition to the rocket that gets them into orbit,
the satellites have to maneuver the rest of the way and get into the correct orbital position,
and make adjustments through the life of the satellite.
And they absolutely do benefit from equatorial launches.
The SeaLaunch platform is a privately owned and operated rocket launching facility
which launches from international waters, greatly easing the burden of regulatory compliance
since it only has to deal with international law, not the laws of any one country.
But there's another advantage.
Since it's at sea, it's just as easy to launch the rocket from the equator as anywhere else.
This gives the rocket an extra orbital boost from the approximately 1,674km/h of equatorial speed,
which again would not exist if this guy's delusions were correct.
This means that, once the satellite gets into the proper position,
it has a greater amount of fuel remaining, increasing its lifespan.
"Because the space around the Earth is revolving around it,
"otherwise they would just drop.
"Even a can of Coca-Cola would become a satellite of the Earth
"if it was placed on the orbit,
"again, for no reason, it would start going around the Earth?
"No, that's because the space around the Earth is revolving around it,
"so a can of Coca-Cola, or satellites, without an engine,
"would start going around the Earth."
Okay, so how do you explain geosynchronous orbit?
This is where the satellite orbits the Earth at the same rate
as Earth's axial rotation period.
From our point of view, the satellite is stationary in the sky.
So you can point your satellite dish at one point in the sky, and you never have to move it.
But if the Earth weren't turning,
that means that these satellites wouldn't be orbiting at all,
and absolutely would fall back to the ground!
"Another proof that satellites provide is the fact that
"they keep on orbiting the Earth from the same height,
"despite the supposed travel of the Earth through the space.
"If the Earth was travelling through the space,
"the satellites would have to constantly adjust their speed in order to keep up."
As I said, they DO.
That's why a satellite's life ends when it has no more fuel.
"Astronomers also observe that the universe is expanding away from the Earth,
"in all directions, with the same speed.
"That proves that the universe started from the Earth."
No, because anywhere else in the universe you might happen to be,
you'd notice the same thing.
EVERYWHERE appears as the center of the Universe!
"There are millions of life forms on Earth,
"yet there is not a single life form observed anywhere in the known universe.
"And we can see pretty much billions and trillions of stars."
Which might mean something, if we can tell just by looking at the stars
whether or not there's life there.
But we CAN'T. From space, our solar system looks just like any other;
even from a near Earth orbit you can't see any signs of life
(although you could pick up our radio signals).
Download Google Earth and see just how far down you have to go
in order to see definite signs of life, such as roads and canals,
and how much further you have to go to see the individual life forms themselves.
I think you'll be surprised!
We don't have anywhere close to the technology needed to visually confirm life.
We've only recently been able to take a picture of a planet orbiting a sun-like star!
And THAT'S only because the planet is very large--eight times the mass of Jupiter!
It's also 330 times the distance from its sun as Earth is from ours!
If we can't yet visually confirm an Earth-like planet
orbiting a sun-like star in the Goldilocks Zone,
how on can you POSSIBLY say there can't be life elsewhere because we haven't seen it yet?
"If the Earth revolved, the resulting difference in speed of the revolving Earth
"and the stationary atmosphere around the Earth..."
Earth's atmosphere is NOT stationary.
In particular, hurricanes are caused by the Earth's rotation creating a coriolis effect,
which is what makes the hurricane spin.
This can be verified experimentally using a Foucault Pendulum.
The pendulum is free to swing, and the direction of the swing changes in predictable ways
depending on the latitude where the pendulum is located.
On the poles, it would come back around to its initial direction in 12 hours.
On the equator, it wouldn't change at all.
"And it's impossible for planets to have elliptical orbits.
"That's because they would have to speed up and slow down for no reason."
Not "for no reason"!
It's because the elliptical orbit takes them closer to and further away from the sun.
The closer they get to the sun, the greater the acceleration from gravity.
The further away, the lesser the acceleration.
And yes, this HAS been observed and measured!
"And they would have to go away from another planet,
"and then go farther, and come closer, go farther, and they couldn't do it!
"Because the gravity is the same at all times."
No, it isn't.
Gravity increases exponentially as the distance between the two bodies decreases, and vice-versa.
The MASS never changes, but distance is VERY important in gravitational equations--
much more important than mass!
Mass is only proportional; distance is exponential!
"There is an experiment in physics called 'Airy's failure,'
"that proves that the Earth is motionless.
"Yet this is ignored by scientists for precisely
"because of its proving that the Earth is motionless."
No, it's not ignored at all,
it just doesn't mean the stupid thing that geocentrists say it means.
"Airy's failure" wasn't a failure at all;
it was an experiment where a telescope filled with water
detected no stellar aberrations due to drags from the luminiferous ether.
This experiment demonstrated that the ether does not exist,
and has NOTHING to do with the rotation of the Earth!
What these idiots think the refraction of light by water
has to do with the rotation of the Earth is anybody's guess.
Throughout the rest of the video, he makes the same stupid creationist claims:
that this theory is being pushed on people to promote atheism
because people don't want to be moral.
The next time you hear a creationist or anyone else make that argument,
remember this stupid guy.