Creation vs. Evolution

[The Barbarian]

That's a very nice video to send. I love to see the earth rotating. But why are the clouds seemingly staying exactly the same, like not moving at all but frozen? Do you know what I mean?!

They are moving, but the Earth is moving a lot faster. Remember, at the equator, it's going about 1,000 miles per hour. The atmosphere is rotating with it, and seen from space, the clouds are moving on the average, by a factor of about 50 times slower than the rotation. So you'd expect that at the scale of a planet, they would look to be standing still at frame rates that would show the Earth rotating.

 

[DavisBJ]

… That's a very nice video to send. I love to see the earth rotating. But why are the clouds seemingly staying exactly the same, like not moving at all but frozen? Do you know what I mean?!

Michael (and Daniel, et al), I took screen shots at 1 second intervals of the Galileo probe video of the Earth that gcthomas linked to. Then I looked carefully at each pair of successive screen shots to see if I could see changes in the cloud cover. The large-scale patterns – like the big swirls and the areas that were either clear of clouds or solid clouds showed little change. These are things covering hundreds, or even thousands of miles. But when I carefully examined the fine detail – the edges of the cloudy parts, the wispy areas, there were huge differences. The rapid turning motion of the video tends to mask the substantial change in the fine structure, change on a scale that corresponds to what you see outside in your local sky.

 

[User Name]

If you are uncertain about the necessary math, I would be glad to provide it.

I'm no good at maths. I found this graphic. If it isn't too much trouble, could you tell us if it is accurate:

Spoiler

 

[DavisBJ]

I'm no good at maths. I found this graphic. If it isn't too much trouble, could you tell us if it is accurate:

Spoiler

User Name, thanks for the graphic. I have no issues with the math, except for one minor (but important) note. To use the equations as written, the heights of the ship’s mast and the height of the tower must be measured in meters. I hope that is explicitly stated somewhere on the site you extracted the graphic from.

If you want to use different units (miles, or feet, etc) then some adjustments to the equations would be required.

In more detail, notice the radius of the earth is given in megameters (millions of meters), and the answer is supposed to come out in Km (kilometers). But nowhere in the diagram do they explicitly say what units the “h” values must be expressed in. Dimensional analysis (keeping track of what units things are expressed in at every stage of the mathematics) shows that the ship and tower heights must be entered in meters.

The equations are essentially the same as I used, just applications of the Pythagorean Theorem (in a right triangle, the square of the length of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the lengths of the other two sides).

In my analysis of Daniel’s Bear Mountain view of NYC, I only needed to find one of the “D” distances shown in the figure, so that simplified the diagram and math.

Want more detail, ask.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear User Name And DavisBJ,

Your proof and efforts are ridiculous. Is this what you managed to come up with to dispel the uncertainty of Daniel1611's questions? I have no intention of even considering your mathematical equations. You sure are a debate clutter distributor. How is anyone supposed to respond to this bit of mathematical gibberish? What a post sinker.

Talk in layman's terms. Not in these ridiculous equations. Enough said. This is all unacceptable.

May God Help Your Minds,

Michael

:duh: :angel: :angel: :angel: :cloud9: :cloud9: :guitar:

 

[MichaelCadry]

To be fixed.

 

[DavisBJ]

Dear User Name And DavisBJ,

Your proof and efforts are ridiculous. Is this what you managed to come up with to dispel the uncertainty of Daniel1611's questions? I have no intention of even considering your mathematical equations. You sure are a debate clutter distributor. How is anyone supposed to respond to this bit of mathematical gibberish? What a post sinker.

Talk in layman's terms. Not in these ridiculous equations. Enough said. This is all unacceptable.

Michael, if you were asked about whether New York City could be seen from the top of Bear Mountain on a spherical earth, how would you approach the problem?

 

[MichaelCadry]

Michael, if you were asked about whether New York City could be seen from the top of Bear Mountain on a spherical earth, how would you approach the problem?

Dear DavisBJ,

I would go there to the top of Bear Mountain and see if I could see NYC. I used to live in NYC, on Manhattan and Staten Island. I worked at CBS-TV&Records (Columbia) for a while, then I worked at ABC-TV, in the Accounting Dept. for a Comptroller, for 6 mos. They gave me a promotion and I cinched the interview, and got it, but then told them to forget it, because I wanted to go back home to Westland, MI and be with my family and friends. I couldn't get a transfer because ABC-TV didn't have any positions open in their Detroit office. Oh well. Life's been very good to me and has also been a horrid challenge. The good outweighs the bad, thank God!! Oh, I've contacted a moderator to see about getting some help with this spoiler messing up my line length on my posts.

In A Bit!!

Michael

 

[User Name]

User Name, thanks for the graphic. I have no issues with the math, except for one minor (but important) note. To use the equations as written, the heights of the ship’s mast and the height of the tower must be measured in meters. I hope that is explicitly stated somewhere on the site you extracted the graphic from...

Thanks for the reply. Here is a link to the source page for the graphic I posted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon

 

[MichaelCadry]

Thanks for the reply. Here is a link to the source page for the graphic I posted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon

Dear User Name,

See Post #10579 for my reply. I don't know what happened here, but it's not like I don't know how to send a post. One slip--and it's all over!!

EeeeeekkK!

Michael

 

[seehigh]

Dear User Name And DavisBJ,

Your proof and efforts are ridiculous. Is this what you managed to come up with to dispel the uncertainty of Daniel1611's questions? I have no intention of even considering your mathematical equations. You sure are a debate clutter distributor. How is anyone supposed to respond to this bit of mathematical gibberish? What a post sinker.

Talk in layman's terms. Not in these ridiculous equations. Enough said. This is all unacceptable.

May God Help Your Minds,

Michael

:duh: :angel: :angel: :angel: :cloud9: :cloud9: :guitar:

I, for one, actually appreciated the explanation.

It's called a proof. Which is sadly lacking in many of these discussions as most depend on faith, which could never be proven.

 

[The Barbarian]

I would go there to the top of Bear Mountain and see if I could see NYC.

Very scientific. It's what Galileo said when he was told that heavy objects fall faster than light ones. He did do a thought experiment involving the issue, and it seemed to indicate that the claim was absurd. But the key was to go and take a look.

Nice work.

 

[MichaelCadry]

I'm no good at maths. I found this graphic. If it isn't too much trouble, could you tell us if it is accurate:

Spoiler

DEAR Sherman,

Thank you so very much for fixing the line length on this page. I really appreciate it immensely.

Praise God,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Very scientific. It's what Galileo said when he was told that heavy objects fall faster than light ones. He did do a thought experiment involving the issue, and it seemed to indicate that the claim was absurd. But the key was to go and take a look.

Nice work.

Dear The Barbarian,

Well, thank you. Yes, Galileo did the right thing. Well, The Barbarian, you've got to go to the source of the problem. And I could visit Manhattan while I'm out there.

Michael

:angel: :angel: :cloud9: :rapture: :guitar:

 

[StanJ]

I'm no good at maths.

Hmmm... a Brit aye?

 

[Daniel1611]

They are moving, but the Earth is moving a lot faster. Remember, at the equator, it's going about 1,000 miles per hour. The atmosphere is rotating with it, and seen from space, the clouds are moving on the average, by a factor of about 50 times slower than the rotation. So you'd expect that at the scale of a planet, they would look to be standing still at frame rates that would show the Earth rotating.

Or it's just a painting or cgi they're rotating. NASA is deceptive anyway, so I'm not surprised to see outright lies.

 

[The Barbarian]

I notice that a closer look actually shows cloud movement, but at the relative rate I predicted.

So what we need is a video from a geosynchronous satellite. At about 22,000 miles, the speed necessary for an orbit is the same as the rotational velocity of the Earth.

Notice that the clouds do change...

Earth Video from Geosynchronous Orbit

 

[MichaelCadry]

Thanks for the reply. Here is a link to the source page for the graphic I posted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon

Dear User Name,

No prob. with the graphic. It was just too wide. It happens. Now, it's been years since I did the algebra/trig thing and I was excellent at it, but it's been so long, that I don't remember tons of it right off hand. I'd have to jump back into it for a month or so to get back in shape. Yes, I guess I should have taken Calculus also.

Jesus is more important. And, Of Course, God Too!!

May He Be With You 2Nite And Every Nite!!

Michael

:cloud9: :angel: :guitar: :singer: :rapture: :thumb:

 

[MichaelCadry]

I, for one, actually appreciated the explanation.

It's called a proof. Which is sadly lacking in many of these discussions as most depend on faith, which could never be proven.

[color="Dark Brown"]
Dear seehigh,

It's called math, calculations, science...whatever. I'd rather stick with God. I really don't care how tall a ship is or the curvature of the Earth. What I'm interested in is Who made the sea that the boat is floating in; and the air we breathe. I'm not much into science. It's okay though. The Master Chemist And Creationist is Who I'm very interested in. It's just written on my heart.

God Be With You, seehigh,

Michael

:cloud9: :angel: :angel: :angel: :cloud9:

 

[MichaelCadry]

I, for one, actually appreciated the explanation.

It's called a proof. Which is sadly lacking in many of these discussions as most depend on faith, which could never be proven.

Dear seehigh,

I see further than that. Reality. Who is going to take the time to put the equations to use? They've been posted for nothing.

God Bless You And Your Family And Friends!!

Michael