Re: Earth is Motionless Copernicus Is Wrong

The Earth is NOT motionless, and this guy deserves to be laughed at.

Along the way, we'll see how much lighter you are at the equator, how to extend the life of a satellite, and see a planet orbiting a sun-like star.

Here's the link to the Bad Astronomy page I mention: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/12/31/happy-new-year-arbi...

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• skeptic
• debunk
• Copernicus
• geocentrism
• geocentricity
• geocentric
• earth
• motionless
• universe
• creationist
• creationism

[CapriciousBlackBox]

Thanks for this video; I much appreciate ACTUAL science, facts and data over drivel. I nearly fell off my chair when I found Pawel's video; I had no idea people actually believed these things in this day and age. Ah, Dogma.

[pelikan88]

@PawelKolasa

When I look around, YOU are the best proof that God does NOT exist...

[pelikan88]

@TCupUK

It`s obvious that a wager does only make sense on the basis of a well defined subject.

So what about the text of our wager I proposed ?

Does it represent our differences adaequately?

Might even be that you suddenly agree with the three statements herein (answering all 3 with YES).

But be shure: by doing so all you posted before (except Wiki-quotes) will thus be proved WRONG!

[pelikan88]

@TCupUK

Oh, you think you will get away by quietly turning over to our side by simply avoiding all the fallacies you posted, hoping we´d not notice and already had forgotten about them?? No way!

It took you WEEKS to peform the latest cutback ( "in everday use") and now you´re acting as this was always clear to you! We recall your efforts to cut the everyday use passage out of every wiki quote you posted.

How about the bet? Or may I say in advance: You`r a FUCKING LIAR and a really BAD LOSER?

[shanedk]

@pelikan88 No, it sounds like I had it right: using kilograms for "weight" is just something that lay people do, but it doesn't conform to any proper usage of "kg."

[pelikan88]

@shanedk copy from my post @TCupUK

"Q: Weight given in kg is technically the non‑SI unit of measure known as the kg-force."

Yor interpretation of this sentence is wrong (I admit it´s ambiguous):

What is means: If someone (erroneosly) gives (speaks of) weight in kg then the real quantity "behind it" is weight in kg-force! The word technically in this context means: "to be exact".

Try to read it again this way round, and you´re there! I`m sure shanedk misunderstood that too cause this way its ok!

[pelikan88]

@TCupUK

"Quote: Weight given in kilograms is technically the non‑SI unit of measure known as the kilogram-force."

Yor interpretation of this sentence is wrong (I admit it´s ambiguous):

What is means: If someone (erroneosly) gives (speaks of) weight in kg then the real quantity "behind it" is weight in kilogram-force! The word technically in this context means: "to be exact".

Try to read it again this way round, and you´re there! I`m sure shanedk misunderstood that too cause this way its ok!

[TCupUK]

@shanedk Your so stupid.

[shanedk]

@TCupUK And you STILL haven't figured out the proper contraction, have you?