exactly.

Edited 4/22/2015 20:31:03

How do you know that the stars aren't orbiting around us as well???

You really haven't thought this through, have you? I have read expert opinions in this field, and if I went all technical, my brain would literally explode, so I'm going to stick to short, common-senseical answers.

>Expert opinions
>Tfw theyre just preachers

By the end of the 11th century, Western Europe had emerged as a significant power in its own right, though it still lagged far other Mediterranean civilization such as that of the Byzantine Empire and the Islamic empire of the Middle East and North Africa. Meanwhile, Byzantium was losing considerable territory to the invading Seljuk Turks, who defeated the Byzantine Army at the battle of Manzikirt in 1071 and went on to gain control over much of Anatolia. After years of chaos and civil war, the general Alexius Comnenus seized the Byzantine throne in 1081 and consolidated control over the remaining empire as Emperor Alexius I.
In 1095, Alexius sent envoys to Pope Urban II asking for mercenary troops from the West to help confront the Turkish threat. Though relations between Christians in East and West had long been fractious, Alexius’ request came at a time when the situation was improving. In November 1095, at the Council of Clermont in southern France, the pope called on Western Christians to take up arms in order to aid the Byzantines and recapture the Holy Land from Muslim control. Pope Urban’s plea met with a tremendous response, both among lower levels of the military elite as well as ordinary citizens; it was determined that those who joined the armed pilgrimage would wear a cross as a symbol of the Church.

The First Crusade (1096-99)

Four armies of Crusaders were formed from troops of different Western European regions, led by Raymond of Saint-Gilles, Godfrey of Bouillon, Hugh of Vermandois and Bohemond of Taranto (with his nephew Tancred); they were set to depart for Byzantium in August 1096. A less organized band of knights and commoners known as the “People’s Crusade” set off before the others under the command of a popular preacher known as Peter the Hermit. Peter’s army traipsed through the Byzantine Empire, leaving destruction in their wake. Resisting Alexius’ advice to wait for the rest of the Crusaders, they crossed the Bosporus in early August. In the first major clash between the Crusaders and the Muslims, Turkish forces crushed the invading Europeans at Cibotus. Another group of Crusaders, led by the notorious Count Emicho, carried out a series of massacres of Jews in various towns in the Rhineland in 1096, drawing widespread outrage and causing a major crisis in Jewish-Christian relations.

When the four main armies of Crusaders arrived in Constantinople, Alexius insisted that their leaders swear an oath of loyalty to him and recognize his authority over any land regained from the Turks, as well as any other territory they might conquer; all but Bohemond resisted taking the oath. In May 1097, the Crusaders and their Byzantine allies attacked Nicea (now Iznik, Turkey), the Seljuk capital in Anatolia; the city surrendered in late June. Despite deteriorating relations between the Crusaders and Byzantine leaders, the combined force continued its march through Anatolia, capturing the great Syrian city of Antioch in June 1098. After various internal struggles over control of Antioch, the Crusaders began their march toward Jerusalem, then occupied by Egyptian Fatimids (who as Shi’ite Muslims were enemies of the Sunni Seljuks). Encamping before Jerusalem in June 1099, the Christians forced the besieged city’s governor to surrender by mid-July. Despite Tancred’s promise of protection, the Crusaders slaughtered hundreds of men, women and children in their victorious entrance into the city.

The Crusader States and the Second Crusade (1147-49)

Having achieved their goal in an unexpectedly short period of time, many of the Crusaders departed for home. To govern the conquered territory, those who remained established four large western settlements, or Crusader states, in Jerusalem, Edessa, Antioch and Tripoli. Guarded by formidable castles, the Crusader states retained the upper hand in the region until around 1130, when Muslim forces began gaining ground in their own holy war (or jihad) against the Christians, whom they called “Franks.” In 1144, the Seljuk general Zangi, governor of Mosul, captured Edessa, leading to the loss of the northernmost Crusader state.

News of Edessa’s fall stunned Europe, and led Christian authorities in the West to call for another Crusade. Led by two great rulers, King Louis VII of France and King Conrad III of Germany, the Second Crusade began in 1147. That October, the Turks crushed Conrad’s forces at Dorylaeum, site of a great victory during the First Crusade. After Louis and Conrad managed to assemble their armies at Jerusalem, they decided to attack the Syrian stronghold of Damascus with an army of some 50,000 (the largest Crusader force yet). Previously well disposed towards the Franks, Damascus’ ruler was forced to call on Nur al-Din, Zangi’s successor in Mosul, for aid. The combined Muslim forces dealt a humiliating defeat to the Crusaders, decisively ending the Second Crusade; Nur al-Din would add Damascus to his expanding empire in 1154.

The Third Crusade (1189-92)

After numerous attempts by the Crusaders of Jerusalem to capture Egypt, Nur al-Din’s forces (led by the general Shirkuh and his nephew, Saladin) seized Cairo in 1169 and forced the Crusader army to evacuate. Upon Shirkuh’s subsequent death, Saladin assumed control and began a campaign of conquests that accelerated after Nur al-Din’s death in 1174. In 1187, Saladin began a major campaign against the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem. His troops virtually destroyed the Christian army at the battle of Hattin, taking the city along with a large amount of territory.

Outrage over these defeats inspired the Third Crusade, led by rulers such as the aging Emperor Frederick Barbarossa (who was drowned at Anatolia before his entire army reached Syria), King Philip II of France and King Richard I of England (known as Richard the Lionheart). In September 1191, Richard’s forces defeated those of Saladin in the battle of Arsuf; it would be the only true battle of the Third Crusade. From the recaptured city of Jaffa, Richard reestablished Christian control over some of the region and approached Jerusalem, though he refused to lay siege to the city. In September 1192, Richard and Saladin signed a peace treaty that reestablished the Kingdom of Jerusalem (though without the city of Jerusalem) and ended the Third Crusade.

From the Fourth to the Sixth Crusade (1198-1229)

Though the powerful Pope Innocent III called for a new Crusade in 1198, power struggles in and between Europe and Byzantium drove the Crusaders to divert their mission in order to topple the reigning Byzantine emperor, Alexius III, in favor of his nephew, who became Alexius IV in mid-1203. The new emperor’s attempts to submit the Byzantine church to Rome met with stiff resistance, and Alexius IV was strangled after a palace coup in early 1204. In response, the Crusaders declared war on Constantinople, and the Fourth Crusade ended with the conquest and looting of the magnificent Byzantine capital later that year.

The remainder of the 13th century saw a variety of Crusades aimed not so much at toppling Muslim forces in the Holy Land as at combating any and all of those seen as enemies of the Christian faith. The Albigensian Crusade (1208-29) aimed to root out the heretical Cathari or Albigensian sect of Christianity in France, while the Baltic Crusades (1211-25) sought to subdue pagans in Transylvania. In the Fifth Crusade, put in motion by Pope Innocent III before his death in 1216, the Crusaders attacked Egypt from both land and sea, but were forced to surrender to Muslim defenders led by Saladin’s nephew, Al-Malik al-Kamil, in 1221. In 1229, in what became known as the Sixth Crusade, Emperor Frederick II achieved the peaceful transfer of Jerusalem to Crusader control through negotiation with al-Kamil. The peace treaty expired a decade later, and Muslims easily regained control of Jerusalem.

End of the Crusades

Through the end of the 13th century, groups of Crusaders sought to gain ground in the Holy Land through short-lived raids that proved little more than an annoyance to Muslim rulers in the region. The Seventh Crusade (1239-41), led by Thibault IV of Champagne, briefly recaptured Jerusalem, though it was lost again in 1244 to Khwarazmian forces enlisted by the sultan of Egypt. In 1249, King Louis IX of France led the Eighth Crusade against Egypt, which ended in defeat at Mansura (site of a similar defeat in the Fifth Crusade) the following year. As the Crusaders struggled, a new dynasty known as the Mamluks–descended from former slaves of the sultan–took power in Egypt. In 1260, Mamluk forces in Palestine managed to halt the advance of the Mongols, an invading force led by Genghis Khan and his descendants that had emerged as a potential ally for the Christians in the region. Under the ruthless Sultan Baybars, the Mamluks demolished Antioch in 1268, prompting Louis IX to set out on another Crusade, which ended in his death in North Africa (he was later canonized).

A new Mamluk sultan, Qalawan, had defeated the Mongols by the end of 1281 and turned his attention back to the Crusaders, capturing Tripoli in 1289. In what was considered the last Crusade, a fleet of warships from Venice and Aragon arrived to defend what remained of the Crusader states in 1290. The following year, Qalawan’s son and successor, al-Ashraf Khalil, marched with a huge army against the coastal port of Acre, the effective capital of the Crusaders in the region since the end of the Third Crusade. After only seven weeks under siege, Acre fell, effectively ending the Crusades in the Holy Land after nearly two centuries. Though the Church organized minor Crusades with limited goals after 1291–mainly military campaigns aimed at pushing Muslims from conquered territory or conquering pagan regions–support for such efforts disappeared in the 16th century, with the rise of the Reformation and the corresponding decline of papal authority.

I hate seeing people wrong

also

How does Earth keep its orbit around the Sun and not come closer to the Sun.

Answer 1:

The Earth is always being pulled towards the Sun by gravity. If the Earth were stationary compared to the Sun, it would fall into the sun under the force of gravity. However the Earth is actually moving sideways compared to the center of the Sun at 3 km/second (~2 miles/second). The Earth is not moving fast enough to "escape" the Sun's gravity and leave the solar system, but it is going too fast to be pulled into the Sun. Therefore, it keeps going around and around - orbiting the Sun. It is rather like a tether ball. Think of the top of the post as the Sun and the ball as the Earth. The string between them is like the force of gravity keeping them the same distance apart. When you hit the tether ball it spins around the post. If there were no air or rope friction, the ball would spin forever without getting any closer to the post. That is essentially what the Earth is doing when it orbits the Sun - it the vacuum of outer space, it does not loose speed to air friction, so it just keeps going around the Sun.



Answer 2:

Well, that's a good question, and Newton worried about the same thing! Actually, due to conservation of angular momentum, all the planets are in fairly stable orbits, with minor changes over millions of years, but no chance that they will fly off or anything! The earth's orbit is in the shape of an ellipse, which means that we get a little bit closer and farther from the sun over the course of a year. We also wobble in the tilt of our axis, so that the North Pole does not always point to the star Polaris, which is currently our north star. But, the orbits are pretty stable, because there is a fairly constant gravitational force between the sun and the earth keeping the earth in its orbit. The strength of this force changes slightly over the course of an orbit,being a bit stronger when the earth is a bit closer - at those times(currently, when the northern hemisphere is having winter) the earth actually orbits a bit faster. (Not to be confused with spin!)



Answer 3:

The Earth is "falling" around the Sun. The Earth has some initial momentum - it is moving in a direction,which is perpendicular to the direction of the Sun from the Earth. The Sun's gravity is enough to keep the Earth from flying off in a straight line, away from the Sun, but not enough to bring the Earth closer in - the Earth is continually changing its direction of movement, but in such a way that it follows a nearly circular path around the Sun.
If the Sun's gravity were stronger, it would pull the Earth in closer, but then the angle between the Earth's motion would also be changing more rapidly, so it would continue revolving around the Sun.
This concept is called the conservation of angular momentum, which is one of the basic principles of physics



Answer 4:

Kepler's law and Newtons laws explains this very well. If we could just STOP the Earth for a moment relative to the sun and then allow it to freely move it WOULD fall into the sun. But the earth was born from a ring of material that was MOVING around the sun on a stable orbit. So after the debris coagulated to form the earth, this initial orbital energy was retained. Hence the earth is moving on a stable orbit of fixed radius. Look up Keplers laws the period of revolution of a body squared is proportional to the distance between the sun and the body cubed.

colonel wins:

The earth does not move closer to the sun because of an equal force acting in the opposite way: namely spin.

Vote Colonel for the Nobel prize!

Exactly... why do idiots just believe everything their teachers tell them without consideration???

Colonel ; are you just trolling us? Are you being obedient to Islam? Fuck man (sorry for my french) this is just pathetically ignorant.
When we have people giving us a heliocentric evidence since 1500s, when we have evidence from space expeditions and when astronomers overwhelmingly agree, it's obvious fact.
I completely respect the beliefs of others, when they're educated on the matter and are willing to move on. But this is just unbelievably retarded.
I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrWoG8IckyE

I completely respect the beliefs of others, when they're educated on the matter and are willing to move on. But this is just unbelievably retarded

This is no more retarded than believing the earth is 6000 years old. Or that we were made out of clay. Or that a great flood killed everything on the planet 4000 years ago. Or that people lived to 900 years old. Or that people rise from the dead. All of those beliefs are equaly retarded.

This is no more retarded than believing the earth is 6000 years old. Or that we were made out of clay. Or that a great flood killed everything on the planet 4000 years ago. Or that people lived to 900 years old. Or that people rise from the dead. All of those beliefs are equally retarded.

You know what else is retarded? Believing that the universe started from a random mass of energy (That apparently was just there) which exploded for no reason, and somehow a massive explosion managed to turn into all the complex things we see in the universe. Or believing that some weird sea creature crawled up on a beach and eventually transformed into animal life that we see today.

Sure, people like einstein, hawkins, and all the elite scientists... They are well known to be retarded.

Sure, people like einstein, hawkins, and all the elite scientists... They are well known to be retarded.

A person can be a genius and still be wrong on certain matters. A high IQ does not make you immune to anything.Nor does having a belief that is stupid make you unintelligent in general. (I could also point out that by your line of logic your first post called half the planet retarded)

Also, I think what you're currently using is called Argument from Authority, which is a logical fallacy.

Well, when every genius on the planet, every person that have devoted their life to science agrees that you are wrong, you might consider that you may actualy be wrong. Even if half the planet have the same beliefs. I dont know why an argument of authority would be a logical fallacy. It is not meant to prove anything, rather than just put things into perspective.

Edited 4/24/2015 02:33:47

Well, when every genius on the planet, every person that have devoted their life to science agrees that you are wrong,

This implies that science itself is always right and can never go wrong. Science, the thing which is always changing and has taken nearly every stance under the sun at one point in time.

Also, plenty of philosophers have devoted their entire life to studying things like creationism. (You may not agree with it, but that doesn't make their views any less valid.)

I dont know why an argument of authority would be a logical fallacy.

I brought that up because your immediate reaction when it was your beliefs being targeted was to start listing off big names. "Oh, so you're saying these people are retarded?"

If you want to believe in the Big Bang, fine. I don't really care. Just don't act like your position is somehow superior or better to other beliefs on the issue. Nobody knows the true origin of the universe, it's all speculation and in the end faith. (Whether that faith is in religion or the processes of modern science). I only went after your position so harshly to show you what's it like as you essentially did the same thing.

It's always ironic though to see people pushing scientific theories with religious fervor. (Especially since science is supposed to be about "free thought", yeah it's free alright, as long as you agree with everything modern science says without question)

The Sun Revolves around the Earth: FACT. Do some research, then come back to us.

If you want to believe in the Big Bang, fine. I don't really care.

You were the that brought up the big bang. I only commented what gengis said when He said that the Sun revolving around the Sun was retarded. I just said that it is no-more retarded than believing in the other myths that are clearly not true in a scientific point of view.

Just don't act like your position is somehow superior or better to other beliefs on the issue

My position is of course superior and better, because my position is to follow the evidences. As opposed to blindly believe some 2000 years old myths without any scientific evidence, and even if the scientific evidences proves the myths wrong.

Nobody knows the true origin of the universe, it's all speculation and in the end faith. (Whether that faith is in religion or the processes of modern science)

Speculation yes (based on evidences and rational thought), faith no. Never faith.

It's always ironic though to see people pushing scientific theories with religious fervor. (Especially since science is supposed to be about "free thought", yeah it's free alright, as long as you agree with everything modern science says without question)

I pushed scientific theories? you were the one that brought up the big bang theory! I never mentioned it. If you don't agree with science and you have scientific argument as to why it is wrong, please say it. Please, thats how science progress. By questioning everything.

The Sun Revolves around the Earth: FACT. Do some research, then come back to us.

I suppose if you take the Earth as stationary referential, you can say that the Sun revolve around the Earth. It depends on the referential.

The referential IS the earth. That's the whole point. These people think it's the sun because they think it conforms with their beliefs.

But it's not lol the Earth revolves around the sun and that's all there is to it.