The question of the stationary earth has been discussed at length at Tweb with claims and counter claims being made concerning many different experiments. Such claims and counter claims seem to only confuse the issues being discussed without either side producing any clear proof for their model. However, I believe I have now found very strong evidence for a stationary earth from the experience of 747 direct flights from Sydney. In short the stationary earth and rotating earth models have very different predictions concerning winds.

1) The rotating earth model assumes the atmosphere rotates with the earth. Therefore large winds will appear to act on 747 at particular locations within the flight path.

2) The stationary earth model assumes the stationary atmosphere over the earth. Therefore no large winds will appear to act on 747 at particular locations within the flight path.

These two major differences between the two models will provide definitive evidence for the stationary earth model over and against the rotating earth model.

The Maths of the Rotating earth Model

Earth rotation velocity at equator – 1670 km/hr

If we assume the atmosphere rotates with the earth, then the atmosphere rotation velocity at 30,000 ft (9144m) above the earth’s surface is then –

Earth radius = 6,371 km

Earth rotation period = 24 hrs

Height of 747 jet above center of earth = 6,371+9144 = 6,380,144 m = 6380.14 km

Rotation velocity of the atmosphere at the equator, at 9.14 km above sea level is – 2 pi (6,380.14)/24 = 1669.47 km/hr


Sydney – latitude = 33°52′S

Rotation velocity at ground level = e cos (a)

Where e is velocity at the equator and a is latitude in degrees

Sydney rotation velocity rate at latitude = 1670 cos (33°52′S) = 1392 km/hr

Assume the atmosphere at the ground level rotates with the earth. Consequently the atmosphere rotation velocity 1392 km/hr

London - latitude - 51°30′N

London rotation velocity rate at latitude = 1670 cos (51°30′N) = 1044.15 km/hr

A flight from Sydney to London means the 747 begins at Sydney with a rotation velocity of 1392 km/hr. The jet takes off and reaches its cruising altitude of 9.14 km above sea level. When the jet crosses the equator at 9.14km above sea level, the relative rotation velocity of the atmosphere is –

1669.47 – 1392 = 277 km/hr

When the jet comes into land at London, the relative rotation velocity difference between the jet and the landing strip is –

Rotation velocity at Sydney ground level - Rotation velocity at London ground level

1392 – 1044 = 348 km/hr

If we take into account that a cyclone has a maximum velocity of about 280km/hr, the jet has to fly through the equivalent of –

1) A cyclone wind at the equator of about 277km/hr
2) A cyclone wind at London of about 348 km/hr.

Clarification - The rotating earth model requires 1) the atmosphere to rotate with the earth, as the co-rotation of the atmosphere and earth (earth-atm) and 2) the velocity vector of the 747 at Sydney remaining with the 747 for the entire journey. Then according to the rotating earth model, the velocity vector of the 747 of 1392 km/hr remains with the 747. Hence as the velocity vector of the rotating earth changes throughout the 747's flight path from Sydney to the destination, the relative velocity vectors of the 747 and the earths rotating atmosphere translates into a predicted wind vector acting on the 747. The wind vector is caused by the variable difference between the rotating earth-atm velocity vector and the 1392 km/hr velocity vector caused by the 747 beginning its journey from Sydney.

As the relative difference in atmosphere velocities acting on the jet are not experienced in flights over the equator, nor for flights landing at London. The rotating earth model cannot account for the fact that jets do not experience such winds calculated above. Such a large difference between the maths of the rotating earth and the facts of jet flights, which fly direct routes without experiencing the predicted winds, means jets flights are very strong evidence for a stationary earth.

Further evidence is gathered from direct flights from

Sydney to Singapore.

Sydney latitude 33°52′S

Sydney rotation velocity rate at latitude = 1670 cos (33°52′S) = 1392 km/hr

Singapore latitude 1°17′N

Singapore rotation velocity rate at latitude = 1670 cos (1°17′N) = 1669 km/hr

Velocity difference = 1669 -1392 = 277 km/hr

Sydney to Brisbane 

Sydney latitude 33°52′S

Sydney rotation velocity rate at latitude = 1670 cos (33°52′S) = 1392 km/hr

Brisbane latitude 27°28′S

Ground surface rotation velocity - 1670 cos (27°28′S) – 1484 km/hr

Velocity difference = 1484 -1392 = 92 km/hr

As the global earth/Heliocentric model claims the atmosphere rotates with the earth, then the relative velocity differences are indicative of wind velocities predicted to act against the 747 jet. As such wind velocities are not experienced against the jet, then the rotating globe model has been repeatedly invalidated and the stationary earth model has strong evidence.

Geostationary Claim – the lack of wind velocity experienced on 747 jets by the relative rotation of the atmosphere is proof that the rotating atmosphere model is false and therefore the stationary earth model is true.

Argument –

Step 1

1) If the rotating atmosphere model is false,

then

2) the non rotating atmosphere model is true.

But

3) The rotating atmosphere model is false,

Therefore

4) The non rotating atmosphere model is true.

5) But, as the non rotating atmosphere model is the stationary earth model.

6) Therefore the stationary earth model is true.

7) Therefore the earth is stationary.

Step 2

To prove rotating atmosphere model is false.

Argument –

1) A model makes predictions.
2) Predictions are tested by evidence.
3) If the evidence does not match the predictions, then the model is invalidated.
4) If the model is invalidated, then the model is false.

The four lines above correspond to the four lines below –

1) The rotating atmosphere model predicts large relative atmosphere velocities on jets at Brisbane, Singapore and London.
2) The large relative atmosphere velocities on jets is tested by observable evidence.
3) The evidence shows a lack of atmospheric winds against the jet at Brisbane, Singapore and London which does not match the predictions, then the model is invalidated.
4) As the model is invalidated, then the rotating atmosphere model is false.

Step 3

Using in the reasoning of Step 1.

Statements 1 and 3 are true, therefore statements 6 and 7 are also true.

As 6 and 7 are true, then the earth is stationary.

Step 1 is recapped below with the statements marked as true (T).

1) If the rotating atmosphere model is false, (T)

then

2) the non rotating atmosphere model is true.

But

3) The rotating atmosphere model is false, (T)

Therefore

4) The non rotating atmosphere model is true.

5) But, as the non rotating atmosphere model is the stationary earth model.

6) Therefore the stationary earth model is true. (T)

7) Therefore the earth is stationary. (T)



Conclusion – the earth is stationary.