Search results

Duh, Dave, because your speed relative to the earth is 0 mph. Once again: An external frame of reference is needed to determine motion. Relative to you standing on the earth, the earth is not moving. Relative to the earth, you are not moving. Relative to a car traveling down the highway you're...

About 1037.5 mph, actually. If it were in a geosynchronous orbit above the earth, sure. Dave, you try turning around 360 degrees in 24 hours. You'll be turning pretty slow too. The only difference is the size. What's the same is that whereas you're only about 2 feet wide (about a foot...

https://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?p=5344080

This is incorrect, by the way. At the earth's spin axis, the angular momentum is 0 mph. At the equator, the angular momentum is ~1037.5 mph. Why would it be impossible for us to live on? Saying it doesn't make it so.

This is just plain dishonesty. The earth rotates once per day. That means, that a point at the equator moves 24,901 miles per day. That's about 1521.7 ft/s, or 463.8 m/s. That's not very fast at all considering the size of the earth.

No. We APPEAR to be motionless. No. ALL heavenly bodies, including the one you're on, are moving. The object one is using as a frame of reference is arbitrarily designated as motionless.

This is why saying, "The earth is not moving because we cannot feel it moving" doesn't work. You would be using the earth as a frame of reference to describe it's own movement. It's circular reasoning, and confirmation bias to say that, "because we on the earth cannot feel it moving, therefore...

It has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DISCUSSION, Dave. Stay on topic.

Equivocation, and has nothing to do with this discussion. Equivocation. It has nothing to do with this discussion. No, Dave, God created an earth that He "hangs on nothing." You can't "hang" something if it cannot be moved. So, either God contradicted Himself, or "the earth will never be...

By definition, EVERYTHING is moving, as there is no absolute frame of reference, and since a frame of reference is REQUIRED to describe movement, therefore all frames of reference are ARBITRARY, not ABSOLUTE.

Sorry Dave, but you're question begging. By definition, motion requires a "frame of reference." From Wikipedia: In physics, motion is the change in position of an object with respect to its surroundings in a given interval of time. Motion is mathematically described in terms of displacement...

The original thread had over 5000.

You clearly don't, because you're responses have nothing to do with the topic currently being discussed. So what? I can just as easily end it. Hypocrite. First, remove the beam from your own eye, then you can see clearly enough to remove the mote in your brother's eye. The topic is NOT...

So which atoms/molecules in solid form make up the earth, Dave? This is faulty logic. You have been shown stellar parallax, which shows the earth to be moving relative to distant stars, and the orbits of the planets in our solar system is INEXPLICABLE unless the sun is the center of our solar...

YES YOU DID. The earth is in motion relative to everything else but itself. We're talking about relative motion, Dave, by definition, that's "relativity." What we are not talking about, and I would agree with you on, is the "theory of relativity." But yes, Dave, relativity is exactly...

NO, DAVE, WATER IS NOT A SOLID! ICE is a solid. Water is a liquid. The earth is motionless relative to itself, but it is NOT MOTIONLESS relative to the sun or stars or planets. Things that move in the atmosphere see the earth as motionless, but that doesn't change the fact that the earth is...

Saying it doesn't make it so, Dave. So are you also asserting that the oceans are part of the earth as well? Water isn't a solid. It is. No, Dave. Now you're contradicting yourself. Things that move through the atmosphere are moving RELATIVE TO THE EARTH. The earth does not move relative...

You are asserting that the atmosphere is separate from the earth. That's not a negative. The onus is still on you.

You need to prove that it doesn't. You're the one bringing the challenge to the accepted standard, the onus is ON YOU to provide evidence for your challenge.

Saying it doesn't make it so, Dave.