How does the Earth move in space in 3 seperate trajectories?

Hello again Fresco: no disrespect, but I would rather base my findings/opinions (for the present at least, due to my lack of experience in this field) on my 'gut feelings' as I already have a firm foundation for truth i believe........I very seldom tell an outright lie as I absolutely don't appreciate being lied to myself...................Shalom.

Hello again Maporsche: Yes, you are correct in your assumption that I believe the Earth to be a flat, vast expanse and stationary, but beyond this I really do not have much of an idea (I doubt many truly do)............there is plenty of evidence to support a flat Earth which pretty much 'anyone' can confirm and as I feel absolutely zilch by way of motion, this despite the fact we are supposed to be moving at incredible speeds, all of which do not even impact one iota on 'anything here on Earth' including high altitude emitions from volcanoes.........common sense informs me we would need to literally live in a bubble (a void within a void) to even a chance of not being impacted by the given speeds and subsequent forces imposed on us (Earth)...........I will say this though, that there is a growing opinion that we, the masses as a collective, shape our own 'world' through our collective thought, intent, will, etc; I strongly urge anyone to take a look at the truly captivating work of professor Rupert Sheldrake.............Shalom.

Maybe you can provide us with links to where you are getting the information you are trying to validate.

Nah...you are on a minor ego trip! You havn't got a cat in hell's chance of denting an established mechanical paradigm with 'gut instincts'.
Note that we've even had other simplistic naive realists come and go here attempting to discredit Einstein whom at least transcended 'normal' geometry!

BTW Sheldrake has recently 'gone religious' having married 'a believer'. Morphogenis surrenders to Christianity !

Ah yes, the human "gut instinct" response. Never in the history of humanity has that ever not worked.

Hello there Myticmind and sorry for the late response and thanks also for your explaination..........I seem to have rustled a few feathers re my query and if I am honest I didn't quite get the answer I was hoping for but enjoyed the experience all the same............Shalom.

Don't flatter yourself. Windbags don't rustle (or even ruffle) feathers.

Think of Earth like a propeller blade on a toy helicopter held by a child riding the tilt-a-whirl ride at a carnival. Now imagine there is another tilt-a-whirl spinning in the opposite direction nearby, with another child who also has a toy helicopter, whose propeller is spinning in the opposite direction also.

So if you add up the speed of the toy propeller and the speed of the car on the tilt-a-whirl, plus the total speed of the tilt-a-whirl's rotation, you come up with a very high speed; and then if you consider that the same speed is happening in the opposite direction for the other toy propeller on the other tilt-a-whirl, the two propellers are moving toward each other extremely fast.

Now, you ask if the Earth can be moving so fast around the sun as the sun moves so fast around the galaxy, and another galaxy is rotating in the opposite direction, with other planets orbiting stars to further accelerate them in the opposite direction as the Earth; then couldn't the two planets cumulatively moving toward each other at speeds faster than the speed of light as it is measured by observers on either planet?

I think so, only they can't measure each others' speeds as being faster than light, so what they measure is blueshift of the light coming from the other planet. I.e. the light waves moving between the two planets gets compressed by their motion and causes them to appear bluer and time appears to move faster, but the actual speed at which they are moving relative to each other is irrelevant because there is no straight-line path that is actually traversable between the two planets.

The only way to actually go from one to the other would be to trace all the orbital contours of the gravity wells between the two planets that would lead you through all the lagrangian points you would have to cross through to do so. In other words, it would be like Odysseus trying to sail through the whirlpool, except each gravity well is its own whirlpool.

There is no 'space' outside of all those 'whirlpool' trajectories as you pass through different gravity wells, so it makes no sense to think of all the various objects throughout the universe as moving relative to each other in same big room, so to speak. They're all in different rooms with each room spinning in its own way, and though it is theoretically possible to go through a sequence of such 'spinning rooms' to arrive at a distant destination, there is curvature in all the paths that can be taken by any and all things, including light.

Ruffling feathers.... yea, i am new to this website as well, and i have definitely noticed a few characters here that seem to get offended just by the fact that you exist let alone DARED to post on the forum!

The sooner you learn who these type are, the sooner you can start ignoring them.

To All: with ref to 'what do i have' by way of evidences concerning my present stance........if I were to inform you that there were considerably more examples (of Deception) than the 66,600mph figure (emphasis on the first 3 digits) given as our Earth' orbit round the Sun, would you not think it odd?........I am treading carefully with my choice of words here as my posts tend to get blocked when attempting to expose said evidences...........Shalom.

Well, you do have quite a few posts already giving you the information you asked for.

If you want to talk about a conspiracy theory then you might be better off making a new topic with that heading, and just be honest about what you think!

The sooner you learn that this forum was originally. established to exchange 'expertise' and not pass the time with idle chatter, or promoting crackpot ideas by the 'educationally challenged', the sooner your posts will not be thrown out by long established members whose 'credentials' have been forged over many years of debate.

There are plenty of other forums (and barbers shops) to pass time of day if you simply need somebody to talk to.

Morning to you Livinglava: Thanks for the explaination, but if I'm honest, I kinda got a bit lost after the merry-go-round part.........is this stuff theory or has it been proven? I will say this though by way of stating that I will revert back to a globe convert if 'anyone out there' can provide footage of a rocket entering our supposed space, but this has to be 'convincing footage' i.e. no lack of continuity, one-take footage or non-edited footage, from take-off stage right through to the 'all important' entering space (final stage)...........with a guesstimated 17,000+ rockets launched into 'space' then one would imagine this to be a very simple undertaking..............Shalom.

What is a "globe convert"?

He means he will do us a favour by accepting findings (post circa 1492) that the earth is a globe!

You are dealing with scientific ignoramus who has no concept of the functionality of elegant modelling. Going on past experience, he is likely to be another educational dropout on a futile self validation mission using the adolescent game of attention seeking by nonconformity.

In other words.... he is a philosooher.

I like the double zero !

...or even better, the Greco-phonetic implication 'sewer lover' !

You should not believe anything. Doing so causes you to fear being tricked. As long as you regard all information with only tentative belief, you can more fully contemplate what you read without worrying about being duped.

The only reason for the 'merry-go-round' analogy, as you put it, was to note that planets rotate within solar systems, galaxies rotate, etc. so there is cumulative motion. That was supposed to answer the question about the total cumulative speed of the Earth being high; BUT it was also supposed to help you realize that there is no straight-line path between different rotating systems. That's what Einstein was showing when he started talking in terms of 'geodesics.'

I share you skepticism about space travel. It's not that I believe or disbelieve it, though. I just take the information I get about it tentatively, while continuing to think of reasons why it isn't plausible. One such reason is the ionosphere. Ionized gas is basically flame, so these rockets and re-entry vehicles would have to pass through flame, which they supposedly do by using shielding.

Also, once you get beyond the ionosphere, you are still surrounded by ionized subatomic particles, only the material is sparser, so the density of the flame keeps getting less and less dense as you move farther from any gravity well. This of course discounts solar wind and other density variations in the plasma-space.

But your grand question of whether it is 'just theory or proven?' That is a deep philosophical question that can only be answered by you fully reviewing and critically questioning whether mistakes have been made in the interpretations of observed and experimental data. Rejecting received knowledge from others puts you in the precarious position of Adam and Eve rejecting the warning not to eat the forbidden fruit. Certainly God could have been tricking them while the serpent was revealing the truth to them; that was the outcome they bet their lives on anyway, but then of course they died, as God warned them they would.

I don't relate this Bible story to discourage careful review of received knowledge, which is good, but to also note that it is good to believe tentatively, if only to avoid the worst possible consequences of flouting something that might otherwise enable you to avert problems. But even if you do choose the safe route of tentative belief, you should still never stop questioning and thinking critically in order to, hopefully, uncover deeper and fuller truths.

How about Krumple's philosophist?

I don't remember that but the literal meaning 'love of a teacher of philosophy' doesn t seem too problematic.