Geocentrism

[DMac]

I think most on this thread are open enough to entertain the possibility that the moon landing was faked. Even if not the case, it is understandable why it could be questioned. For one thing it would expose the extent of the deception that is occuring.

I do not think that many on this thread have an open enough mind to question even a bigger assumption:

http://www.geocentrism.com

JQP,

I did not want to derail the moon landing thread by attacking this post of yours, I thought it warranted it's own thread. According to the model at the link you provide the earth is the unmoving center of the universe.

In other words, when I take my telescope out back, park it on a star system near Sirius, do you think everything in space is actually rotating around the earth? This is basic science here. I am not assuming the earth is moving, I am observing that we move with my own eyes! But in the geocentric model it makes more sense to say that star system is actually rotating somehow around earth? This is just plain silly.

I guess I won't qualify for your magic underwear either.

How about the idea that everything is in motion. Assuming we are the center of the universe because we wrote a book that says we are is pretty conceited, don't you think? That's BLT thinking.

[JohnQPublic]

DMac:

You say you observe the earth moving. What is your fixed reference that you use to gauge this motion?

[sirgonzo420]

How about this one:

Everything is in motion, but everything is in the same place.

[Skirnir_]

I recall Galileo questioned an assumption of that size, and fanatical papists took umbrage.

[DMac]

Gonzo hints on the truth; that all things are moving, simultaneously and in several directions all at once. It all depends on scale and perspective. At a glance, because of relativity, everything looks like it is sitting still.



DMac:

You say you observe the earth moving. What is your fixed reference that you use to gauge this motion?


I gauge this motion on several things. My observation of the moon and its path through the sky. The moon and its relation to the sun. The sun and its movement. Stars and planets being in certain points at predictable, cyclical times.

GPS satellites are our biggest observational proof along side of the International Space Station - which is real, in space and able to see the earth is rotating in the same fashion as other planets.

Astronomers are able to see distant planets rotating around their own suns, just like we do.

If I had access to more refined equipment back when I was really into astronomy I could have produced a film like this:

Below is a short video of time-lapse pictures of Jupiter. You can visibly see with your own eyes and $1200 worth of telescope Jupiter slowly spinning on its axis, moons rotating around Jupiter and with your naked eye Jupiter moves across the night sky.

Under a geocentric model this would make absolutely no sense. Why would earth and its moon be subject to some completely different set of rules in the same little piece of the universe? Literally, because the bible says so?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsWMaAF0kmU&


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsWMaAF0kmU&

[DMac]

JQP appears to be mentioned in the comments of this link (http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/09/13/geocentrism-was-galileo-wrong/) on this subject:

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/09/13/geocentrism-was-galileo-wrong/



Chris Ho-Stuart
September 13, 2010, 8:52 pm

I’ve met up with these folks. Specifically, Mark… who is some kind of Sungenis sidekick. Surreal; but you certainly don’t bother trying to see what evidence would convince them.


Robert Sungenis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sungenis


Geocentrism

Sungenis has become known for his advocacy of geocentrism. He believes that physics and the Bible prove that the sun and all the planets orbit the Earth and that the Earth does not rotate. In support of his beliefs, Sungenis published the book Galileo Was Wrong in the hope that people will "give Scripture its due place and show that science is not all it's cracked up to be." Mainstream scientists reject this cosmological view as demonstrably false and untenable.[13]

[vacuum]

As any physicist knows, one can freely define one's coordinate system to be anything one desires. So the question of geocentrism needs to be more strictly defined.

If you're solving kinematics problems on earth, the coordinate system would be a geo-centrist one to make the math feasible to do. If however you are trying to map the rotation of the galaxy, a non-geocentrist one makes more sense.

[sirgonzo420]

It's his damn forum; if he says the Earth is the center of the Universe, then dammit, the Earth is the center of the Universe.

Some of you guys are making this harder than it needs to be.

;D

Having said that, since ancient days astrologers have used an Earth-based system (that is to say, the perception of the relative positions of the stars and planets as viewed from Earth).

Here's a slick little app that shows where the planets are at any given time: http://www.theplanetstoday.com/

[iOWNme]

How will the 300+ million Americans who think the world revolves around them feel?

[JohnQPublic]

Gonzo hints on the truth; that all things are moving, simultaneously and in several directions all at once. It all depends on scale and perspective. At a glance, because of relativity, everything looks like it is sitting still.

Within relativity, this is true. Any point can be considered center.






I gauge this motion on several things. My observation of the moon and its path through the sky. The moon and its relation to the sun. The sun and its movement. Stars and planets being in certain points at predictable, cyclical times.

They can be predictable in a geocentric system, a heliocentric system or an acentric system.


GPS satellites are our biggest observational proof along side of the International Space Station - which is real, in space and able to see the earth is rotating in the same fashion as other planets.

They do not know whether they are rotating around the earth or if the earth is rotating beneath them. This is a simple matter of relative motion. Your argument is that since they see the earth rotating below them, this proves the earth rotates. Why can't I argue that since I see the stars rotating around me, this proves the stars are rotating? I won't, because both observations have two possible answers (at least). First the earth is stationary and the stars rotating around it. Second the earth is rotating within the fixed star field. See the issue? That was why my first question was 'what is your fixed reference', which you gave a rational answer, 'there is not one', yet now you are claiming relative references as fixed.


Astronomers are able to see distant planets rotating around their own suns, just like we do.

This was Galileo's answer 300-400 years ago. No cosmologist would hang his hat on it. It is quite possible that everywhere besides the center, this occurs, which logically makes sense if there is a center. The idea that there is no center is strictly philosophical, and a "principal" (the Copernican Principle) that cosmologists agree to. There is no firm evidence that it is actually true.


If I had access to more refined equipment back when I was really into astronomy I could have produced a film like this:

Below is a short video of time-lapse pictures of Jupiter. You can visibly see with your own eyes and $1200 worth of telescope Jupiter slowly spinning on its axis, moons rotating around Jupiter and with your naked eye Jupiter moves across the night sky.

Under a geocentric model this would make absolutely no sense. Why would earth and its moon be subject to some completely different set of rules in the same little piece of the universe? Literally, because the bible says so?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsWMaAF0kmU&



Why? How about because earth is actually at the center, but Jupiter is not? You know that Venus takes something like 247 days for a single rotation right (that is a heck of a long work day)? This does not make sense relative to Jupiter. Why would Venus be different? How about because it is.

Here is a quote from George Ellis:

George Ellis, a famous cosmologist, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995


People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. "You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”


Stephen Hawking says:

...all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe.


He does provide and alternative view, though:


There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe.

I have studied this issue for almost 10 years now. I have talked to cosmologists, astronomers, etc. Everything observationally looks like we are in the center. Science objects to it on philosophical grounds, and has spent $billions to try and prove their case, while ignoring the obvious. But of course no establishment would ever do something like that, right?

The current scientific case is unraveling. First they thought the cosmic background was going to prove their case. What did they find? They found that the random noise had an alignment in the universe. Do you know what it is aligned to? The ecliptic! That is not supposed to be there. the CMB is supposed to be completely random. They are so desperate now that they are proposing that there are infinite other universes. Not because there is any evidence there is, nor that they could even produce such evidence, but in order to maintain the Copernican principle AT ANY COST. They are understanding that the earth is in a special place, but are saying, but only in this of infinite other universes. Take a look at this. (http://geocentrism.com/progrel.htm)

[JohnQPublic]

JQP appears to be mentioned in the comments of this link (http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/09/13/geocentrism-was-galileo-wrong/) on this subject:

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/09/13/geocentrism-was-galileo-wrong/



Robert Sungenis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sungenis

I have been working on this issue with Robert Sungenis since about 2003. I have some involvement in a movie project which is going to blow the lid off this. We have interviewed George Ellis, Max Tegmark, Lawrence Krauss, and may others.

I know what your initial reaction is, and I understand it. When I first came across this, I had a similar reaction. I urge all of you to keep an open mind on this. The banks are in waa-waa land, the govt. is too. Most of society is in waa-waa land. Do you think cosmology is any different? It is the underlying philosophical assumptions of all these organizations that are leading to the current chaos everywhere. It is the largely anti-Christian/anti-Western perspective that leads to all of this. Keep in mind that cosmology is 90-95% philosophy and 5-10% science (we asked most of the interviewees this question, and they pretty much all answered supporting this conjecture). Again, George Ellis, "What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that." I would give pure science and engineering the position of being more rational than much of society, but cosmology is far from pure science.

[JohnQPublic]

Robert Sungenis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sungenis

Geocentrism

Sungenis has become known for his advocacy of geocentrism. He believes that physics and the Bible prove that the sun and all the planets orbit the Earth and that the Earth does not rotate. In support of his beliefs, Sungenis published the book Galileo Was Wrong in the hope that people will "give Scripture its due place and show that science is not all it's cracked up to be." Mainstream scientists reject this cosmological view as demonstrably false and untenable.[13]

This is typical Wikipedia. What can I say. You notice that Wikipedia attacks him hardest for what- his view on the Jews. The statement that geocentrism is demonstrably false is ludicrous, and written by an amateur. A true statement would be "Mainstream scientists reject this cosmological view as philosophically false and contra to their views."

The funny thing is most cosmologists will not outright reject geocentrism. They will give reasons why they don't accept it, some scientific, some practical, but largely they will admit they cannot dismiss it entirely. It is mid-level scientists who get in a huff and claim that it is disproven. Just like the rest of society, they are spouting what they perceive to be the correct opinion. This is something you need to study on your own. Just like whether there are four or a lone shooter in Wisconsin, do not expect guidance from establishment sources.

[JohnQPublic]

It's his damn forum; if he says the Earth is the center of the Universe, then dammit, the Earth is the center of the Universe.

Some of you guys are making this harder than it needs to be.

;D

Having said that, since ancient days astrologers have used an Earth-based system (that is to say, the perception of the relative positions of the stars and planets as viewed from Earth).

Here's a slick little app that shows where the planets are at any given time: http://www.theplanetstoday.com/

I certainly do not want or expect everyone to agree with me for that reason. This is an intelligent group, and they rightfully should question what counters what they have believed since knee high. But given everything else we learn on this site, I hope they will be open minded enough to think this through before cognitive dissonance sets in! QUESTION THE ASSUMPTIONS FOLKS! Just think for a moment- if this is true, how does this change things? I would never promote something I did not believe was true, and after 10 years of studying this, I have yet to run into anyone who can disprove it. THINGS ARE NOT WHAT THEY SEEM. It is not as obvious as many make it out to be.

Get Galileo Was Wrong. The PDF version is pretty cheap.

http://catholicintl.com/index.php/store#ecwid:category=1548576&mode=category&offset=0&sort=nameAsc

Don't get the abridged version. Get the full book. Volume I is the scientific part. Vol II is theological.

[chad]

this may be a stupid question, but couldn't they just put up a satellite with a huge field of vision and set it up to watch the full range of everything for a year? it seem like ti would be pretty simple to do.

[JohnQPublic]

this may be a stupid question, but couldn't they just put up a satellite with a huge field of vision and set it up to watch the full range of everything for a year? it seem like ti would be pretty simple to do.

What if the entire universe is rotating? What would you see? You are starting with the idea that space is a static container (Newton).

If you are on a huge carousel (say at night so you do not see a fixed background, which is not available in THE universe), and you set-up a camera on an edge looking across the carousel, you will see a stationary carousel with a rotating center shaft. You could conclude from the images that the shaft is rotating and the carousel is staying still (kinetics). Now the dynamics are a different story, but general relativity and/or Mach's principle will account for the dynamics in the universe (as would other possible scenarios).

It is not a stupid question. That is why I started with the "fixed reference" issue.

[chad]

i guess you couldn't really ever tell if the universe was rotating, because you'd have to be outside of it to observe this, correct? so, there's really no way of knowing :O

[JohnQPublic]

i guess you couldn't really ever tell if the universe was rotating, because you'd have to be outside of it to observe this, correct? so, there's really no way of knowing :O

Bingo! You are past the first issue (reference point).

[madfranks]

Very interesting thread. I never even knew such a movement existed. To me it's more interesting that my whole life I've accepted the standard model as it's all I've ever known, and less interesting that geocentrism may or may not be a valid theory. How many other worldviews do we hold because we've never known an alternative?

[JohnQPublic]

Very interesting thread. I never even knew such a movement existed. To me it's more interesting that my whole life I've accepted the standard model as it's all I've ever known, and less interesting that geocentrism may or may not be a valid theory. How many other worldviews do we hold because we've never known an alternative?

The awakening continues into new realms.

[big country]

My dome gets blown every single day on this forum.

Thanks JQP. I now have some reading to do.

[vacuum]

Does Geocentrism make any specific claims, other than the Earth being a stationary center of the universe, that disagrees with modern science?

For example, is the Sun considered thousands of times larger than Earth? Are the distances and sizes of stars disagreed with? Are stars assumed to be like our sun? Do planets potentially orbit stars? Do planets, for example Jupiter, have moons which orbit around them?

[JohnQPublic]

Does Geocentrism make any specific claims, other than the Earth being a stationary center of the universe, that disagrees with modern science?

For example, is the Sun considered thousands of times larger than Earth? Are the distances and sizes of stars disagreed with? Are stars assumed to be like our sun? Do planets potentially orbit stars? Do planets, for example Jupiter, have moons which orbit around them?

vacuum- you really should get the book I linked (Galileo Was Wrong). In synopsis, we could accept many of the distances sizes, etc., and have a viable theory. Especially close objects, like the sun, stars within measurable distance by parallax, etc., are somewhat indisputable. Once you start talking about using redshift as a measure of the size of the universe, the assumptions start piling on. The universe could conceivably be much (much, much, much...) smaller than the imagined billions of light years. In fact Max Tegmark and others considered a much smaller universe when they discovered the cosmic background was aligned to the ecliptic (you do not hear about that on NOVA do you? The cmb alignment is the cause of much consternation behind the scenes), but rejected it in favor of infinite universes (go figure).

In the neo-Tychonian system, the planets (earth not included) orbit the sun with parabolic (Keplerian) orbits. The planets and sun are a local system. The sun moves with the universe around the universe's center, which is also where the earth is- trapped by the power of the universe in the center. The neo-Tychonian is an extension of Tycho Brahe's alternative to Copernicus' heliocentric system.

Many geocentrists actually prefer an aether based system, but you should read the book to understand that one. In this case, the aether provides much of the needed forces, gravitational effect, etc.

[singular_me]

Many geocentrists actually prefer an aether based system, but you should read the book to understand that one. In this case, the aether provides much of the needed forces, gravitational effect, etc.

dont know if you fully agree with the aether explanation but it surely is my very point o view... glad to see it mention by you... :)

[Blink]

Here's a slick little app that shows where the planets are at any given time: http://www.theplanetstoday.com/


Hey, wheres Nibiru? This map sucks............ lol.

[JohnQPublic]

dont know if you fully agree with the aether explanation but it surely is my very point o view... glad to see it mention by you... :)

On one hand, modern science dismisses it. On the other hand, in quantum mechanics, they need to have a substance for space. For the standard model, the need dark matter and dark energy. For galaxy rotation curves, they need dark matter. So, no one has really gotten away from aether.

[singular_me]

On one hand, modern science dismisses it. On the other hand, in quantum mechanics, they need to have a substance for space. For the standard model, they need dark matter and dark energy. For galaxy rotation curves, they need dark matter. So, no one has really gotten away from aether.

Exactly. The academy, as we know it, has always been highly deceptive... but I read several month ago that even Einstein was taking it into account in secret but more or less denying it in public. Unfortunately my thread about it in the philosophy forum was unsuccessful, maybe didnt I formulated it well. Acknowledging the importance of dark energy will have to be faced at some point.

[JohnQPublic]

Exactly. The academy, as we know it, has always been highly deceptive... but I read several month ago that even Einstein was taking it into account in secret but more or less denying it in public. Unfortunately my thread about it in the philosophy forum was unsuccessful, maybe didnt I formulated it well. Acknowledging the importance of dark energy will have to be faced at some point.

Actually, Einstein did say:

"…in 1905 I was of the opinion that it was no
longer allowed to speak about the ether in
physics. This opinion, however, was too
radical, as we will see later when we discuss
the general theory of relativity. It does
remain allowed, as always, to introduce a
medium filling all space and to assume that
the electromagnetic fields (and matter as
well) are its states…once again “empty”
space appears as endowed with physical
properties, i.e., no longer as physically
empty, as seemed to be the case according to
special relativity. One can thus say that the
ether is resurrected in the general theory of
relativity….Since in the new theory, metric
facts can no longer be separated from “true”
physical facts, the concepts of “space” and
“ether” merge together."

Albert Einstein, “Grundgedanken und Methoden der
Relativitätstheorie in ihrer Entwicklung dargestellt,”
Morgan Manuscript, EA 2070, as cited in Ludwik Kostro,
Einstein and the Ether, Aperion, 2000, p. 2.

(this is from Galileo Was Wrong)

Also Einstein is quoted as saying,

"According to the general theory of relativity
space is endowed with physical qualities; in
this sense, therefore, there exists an ether.
According to the general theory of relativity
space without ether is unthinkable; for in
such space there would not only be no
propagation of light, but also no possibility
of existence for standards of space and time
(measuring rods and clocks), nor therefore
any space-time intervals in the physical
sense. But this ether may not be thought of
as endowed with the quality characteristic of
ponderable media, as consisting of parts
which may be tracked through time. The
idea of motion may not be applied to it."

Albert Einstein, “Geometry and Experience,” in
Sidelights on Relativity, 1983 (originally published 1921), p. 30, cited in De Labore
Solis, p. 65.

[Santa]

The universe could conceivably be much (much, much, much...) smaller than the imagined billions of light years. In fact Max Tegmark and others considered a much smaller universe when they discovered the cosmic background was aligned to the ecliptic (you do not hear about that on NOVA do you? The cmb alignment is the cause of much consternation behind the scenes), but rejected it in favor of infinite universes (go figure).

I have a philosophical difficulty with the notion of a small or smaller universe myself.

A small universe implies a universe that has an end. A boundary. Which implies there's something outside the universe that the universe resides within, which solves nothing philosophically.
To solve that problem, we either have an expanding universe, multiple universes or some sort of holographic universe.

Isn't that the gist of why it's so universally dismissed?

Unless that's the point. That something much bigger resides outside this little onion called a universe. Perhaps something like God?

[singular_me]

oohh, tnx for posting this...

edit: here is what I read... not saying that I believe this article to be entirely true, but also taking into account the Academia's position which has track records of remaining blurred about the topic.

It would take Einstein 15 years before he addressed this glaring misconception but the damage had already been done... This lecture received little notice, it was ignored in Roland Clark’s watershed biography on Einstein published in 1971, and so the 20th and early 21st centuries evolved in such a way to dismiss entirely ether theory. http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/articles/tesla-vs-einstein-the-ether-the-birth-of-the-new-physics


===========

Actually, Einstein did say:

"…in 1905 I was of the opinion that it was no

longer allowed to speak about the ether in
physics. This opinion, however, was too
radical, as we will see later when we discuss
the general theory of relativity. It does
remain allowed, as always, to introduce a
medium filling all space and to assume that
the electromagnetic fields (and matter as
well) are its states…once again “empty”
space appears as endowed with physical
properties, i.e., no longer as physically
empty, as seemed to be the case according to
special relativity. One can thus say that the
ether is resurrected in the general theory of
relativity….Since in the new theory, metric
facts can no longer be separated from “true”
physical facts, the concepts of “space” and
“ether” merge together."

Albert Einstein, “Grundgedanken und Methoden der
Relativitätstheorie in ihrer Entwicklung dargestellt,”
Morgan Manuscript, EA 2070, as cited in Ludwik Kostro,
Einstein and the Ether, Aperion, 2000, p. 2.

(this is from Galileo Was Wrong)

Also Einstein is quoted as saying,

"According to the general theory of relativity
space is endowed with physical qualities; in
this sense, therefore, there exists an ether.
According to the general theory of relativity
space without ether is unthinkable; for in
such space there would not only be no
propagation of light, but also no possibility
of existence for standards of space and time
(measuring rods and clocks), nor therefore
any space-time intervals in the physical
sense. But this ether may not be thought of
as endowed with the quality characteristic of
ponderable media, as consisting of parts
which may be tracked through time. The
idea of motion may not be applied to it."

Albert Einstein, “Geometry and Experience,” in
Sidelights on Relativity, 1983 (originally published 1921), p. 30, cited in De Labore
Solis, p. 65.

[iOWNme]

This is an incredibly interesting topic, and thanks to all who have contributed so far.

Im still reading a lot of what JQP has posted, all the links etc. But i searched for Robert Sungenis in youtube and found every debate imaginable EXCEPT for a Geocentric one. I did find these videos though:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYFqeuV_F3U&feature=fvwrel


This is a 3 part video series on the complete explanation of Geocentricity, Ive watched the first part and it seems pretty good so far.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quUpQLtKEB8

[Santa]

I like the idea that every point in the universe is the center of the universe.

[Horn]

I like the idea that every point in the universe is the center of the universe.

There would be no gravity there, only the centrifugal.

http://www.freewebs.com/firstperfidian/PB-1-UNIVERSE%20SHAPE.bmp

Also found on your computers PC Board.

http://www.kitsandparts.com/minikits/toroid-ccw.jpg

[DMac]

JQP - as the resident proponent of this theory I have several questions for you, TIA:

1. Is the earth the center of the known universe?
2. Is the earth rotating on its axis?
4. Is the bible correct that the earth is ~6000 years old?

[JohnQPublic]

JQP - as the resident proponent of this theory I have several questions for you, TIA:

1. Is the earth the center of the known universe?
2. Is the earth rotating on its axis?
4. Is the bible correct that the earth is ~6000 years old?

1. Yes
2. No
4 (?). I don't know. I am very skeptical about it benig 4 billion years old.

[Skirnir_]

I sure hope I do not get burnt at the stake for posting this. Oh wait...I'm not Galileo.

http://io9.com/5464810/the-earth-revolves-around-the-sun--prove-it

[vacuum]

I sure hope I do not get burnt at the stake for posting this. Oh wait...I'm not Galileo.

http://io9.com/5464810/the-earth-revolves-around-the-sun--prove-it


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRRnFF7bob0&feature=relmfu

[Horn]

1. Yes
2. No
4 (?). I don't know. I am very skeptical about it benig 4 billion years old.

3. Have you ever flushed a toilet bowl below the equator?

http://www.soundsnap.com/tags/toilet_flush

[JohnQPublic]

3. Have you ever flushed a toilet bowl below the equator?

http://www.soundsnap.com/tags/toilet_flush

Yes. I tried it in Australia. If I recall I really did not get a swirl going (and I really did not try hard on the experiment). Most scientists say the Coriolis force is not strong enough to effect water flow, but works on larger scales with things like hurricanes.

The Coriolis force in the simplest form (Machian) is a result of relative motion of the earth and distant matter. The presence of Coriolis force, the action of the Foucalt's pendulum, flattening at the equators, etc. cannot distinguish between a rotating earth in a stationary star field and a fixed earth in a rotating star field (at least not according to Einstein and Mach, as well as many other scientists).

[JohnQPublic]

I sure hope I do not get burnt at the stake for posting this. Oh wait...I'm not Galileo.

http://io9.com/5464810/the-earth-revolves-around-the-sun--prove-it

First that was attributed to Giordano Bruno, and second, that that even occurred is speculative (my understanding is there is only one source for that statement, and the source was a protestant hundreds of years later). am not saying the Church was not capable of doing this, just that the evidence it occurred is not substantiated.

The neo-Tychonian model is basically an earth-shifted Keplerian model, which will have the exact same observational attributes. This illustrates that observations cannot prove that the earth is moving (as George Ellis said- “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” ). Much like Janadele, those that put forth these arguments do not understand, and/or want to keep their beliefs intact (at any cost, including believing in infinite universes, etc.).

[Horn]

You're a skinny fellow, JQP?

http://www.discovery.com/area/skinnyon/skinnyon970523/skinny1.html

[klasG4ever]

For anyone interested in listening to a debate featuring Robert Sungenis (www.galileowaswrong.com and www.galilewaswrong.blogspot.com) on the side of geocentrism you may want to check out the following: http://www.aotmclub.com/index.asp?PageID=9&EID=24. Don't be thrown off by the title of the argument: "The Church and the Modern University: Who's the Real Enemy of Science?" Its main content deals with geocentrism.

The debate is not the greatest, but that is not due to a lack of knowledge or debating skills by Dr. Sungenis, but rather due to the somewhat bombastic and even bullying tone of his opponent who apparently took this approach to make up for his somewhat limited and or erroneous knowledge of much of the subject matter. You can also listen to a Q & A after the debate.

James Phillips

[Horn]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/Foucault-rotz.gif/250px-Foucault-rotz.gif


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=S2id35aQH0s&NR=1


The Foucault pendulum (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/Loudspeaker.svg/11px-Loudspeaker.svg.png / (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English)f (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)uː (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)ˈ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)k (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)oʊ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English) foo-KOH (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pronunciation_respelling_key)), or Foucault's pendulum, named after the French physicist Léon Foucault (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9on_Foucault), is a simple device conceived as an experiment to demonstrate the rotation of the Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_rotation). While it had long been known that the Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth) rotated, the introduction of the Foucault pendulum in 1851 was the first simple proof of the rotation in an easy-to-see experiment. Today, Foucault pendulums are popular displays in science museums and universities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum

[Horn]

http://tamarynwhite.com/Lookbook/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/fibonaccispiral.jpg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsXurnvwWgw

[vacuum]

Horn, the video I posted in post #36 explains that if all stars are rotating around the sun, which is rotating around us, it would create the funny forces we see, like to Coriolis force. Also parallaxes, and red shift/blue shift.

[Horn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n3QwhXUzfw

[Horn]

Horn, the video I posted in post #36 explains that if all stars are rotating around the sun, which is rotating around us, it would create the funny forces we see, like to Coriolis force. Also parallaxes, and red shift/blue shift.

Funny, or not everything spins, everything.

For you to say the earth does not, is creating a world that is not natural & also unfit for man.

Evil.

[Horn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HspwwT1Mzp4


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GA8ejIuZYwA&feature=related

[Skirnir_]

I suggest to proponents of geocentrism undertaking a study physics, either by working through a textbook, or by taking a class, so that the amusing ignorance displayed herein might be banished.

I will help with that for $40/hr using Skype and flockdraw if anyone is interested.

[vacuum]

All I'm saying is that it appears geocentrism cannot be disproven. The reason is that someone can always say that everything around us moves in impossibly complex ways and we are fixed. That part is a model, not a theory. I personally would not use such a complex model if I was trying to do astronomy because I wouldn't be smart enough to.

From what I can tell, the only way it could be disproven is if we could see every star in the universe, and it was shown we were not located at the center of mass.

[Horn]

From what I can tell, the only way it could be disproven is if we could see every star in the universe, and it was shown we were not located at the center of mass.

It was already proven with Foucault's pendulum, see below post #42.

See also, this video.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VWM0XswwGg

See also, the weather radar on your local news channel.

See also, your toilet bowl.

[Skirnir_]

Horn, it's a wonder why they are not burning alleged witches at the stake. If one is not making money wading through their nonsense, why bother?

[Horn]

Ps. I stated before, vacuum.

If you were at the center of mass there would be no gravity.

As it would be distributed equally around you.

You might be torn to shreds by it, but I'm hoping its weaker than you think.

[mick silver]

so are we moving though the universe all the time , are we fixed to one place ?

[JohnQPublic]

Sorry Horn. The Foucalt's pendulum cannot distinguish between a spinning earth in a stationary universe, or a rotating universe with a stationary earth. Let's look at the definition you posted:

"The Foucault pendulum (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/Loudspeaker.svg/11px-Loudspeaker.svg.png / (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English)f (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)uː (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)ˈ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)k (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)oʊ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English) foo-KOH (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pronunciation_respelling_key)), or Foucault's pendulum, named after the French physicist Léon Foucault (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9on_Foucault), is a simple device conceived as an experiment to demonstrate the rotation of the Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_rotation). While it had long been known that the Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth) rotated, the introduction of the Foucault pendulum in 1851 was the first simple proof of the rotation in an easy-to-see experiment. Today, Foucault pendulums are popular displays in science museums and universities."

True if we KNOW the earth is rotating, then the pendulum DEMONSTRATES this rotation to observers on earth. But if we do not KNOW, then it cannot distinguish between a spinning earth in a stationary universe, nor a rotating universe with a stationary earth.

So how does the pendulum work? Basically, the explanation is that the pendulum swings back and forth, and the earth rotates beneath it.


Questions:

1. What is keeping the pendulum from following the earth?
2. What is it that keeps the pendulum swinging in the plane it is swinging?

[JohnQPublic]

Ps. I stated before, vacuum.

If you were at the center of mass there would be no gravity.

As it would be distributed equally around you.

You might be torn to shreds by it, but I'm hoping its weaker than you think.

This is not necessarily true either. Your statements are loaded with unproven assumptions. The first is that gravity is universal (i.e., gravity is a magic force acting between all matter in the universe). This may or may not be true. Second, even if it is universal, and even if it follows Newton's simple law (F=m1m2G/r^2), if the universe is finite, then past the edge of matter, there is no more gravity, and the universe could collapse into itself, or if objects are far enough apart, then there is not this huge force that will tear us apart.

Now general relativity has localized gravity by positing that "warping of space" due to local mass is the explanation for gravity. So thus effect you speak of would not occur under general relativity. In some aether systems, there is no universal gravity. Instead all objects are moved about by aether motion (i.e., George Stokes). In other aether type systems, gravity is a pushing force caused by very tiny corpuscles emanating from outside our region of space creating pressure on objects (except where two objects block the corpuscles), thus pushing themselves together (this is the gravity of Le Sage, which Newton considered, but ultimately did not accept in favor of magic gravity). Funny thing is if you go through the mechanistic mathematical calculations to describe this pushing gravity, you end up with the following equation: F=m1m2K/r^2, where K= a constant. Call K=G, then F=m1m2G/r^2, the exact same equation used for Newton's magic gravity (magic meaning that matter in some mysterious way attracts other matter, also known in philosophy as the "action at a distance" problem). Science cannot distinguish between pushing and attractive gravity, and frankly, science has no explanation for one of the most basic effects we observe (the gravitational effect). Inertia is another effect that science has no explanation for (this is where Mach's principle comes in).

[sirgonzo420]

For anyone interested in listening to a debate featuring Robert Sungenis (www.galileowaswrong.com (http://www.galileowaswrong.com) and www.galilewaswrong.blogspot.com (http://www.galilewaswrong.blogspot.com)) on the side of geocentrism you may want to check out the following: http://www.aotmclub.com/index.asp?PageID=9&EID=24. Don't be thrown off by the title of the argument: "The Church and the Modern University: Who's the Real Enemy of Science?" Its main content deals with geocentrism.

The debate is not the greatest, but that is not due to a lack of knowledge or debating skills by Dr. Sungenis, but rather due to the somewhat bombastic and even bullying tone of his opponent who apparently took this approach to make up for his somewhat limited and or erroneous knowledge of much of the subject matter. You can also listen to a Q & A after the debate.

James Phillips

Welcome!

;D

[Horn]

Everything spins, JQP. The reason for all things natural to curve.

The result of those "mysterious forces" is the evidence, along with that video of the Earth rotating.

Simple Black and White does exist, even when insisting that it must be a mixed Gray area.

Now you deny a center mass of the Universe at all... I can agree with a moving center point.

Like a top wobble. The Sun does this also to an extent.

http://www.freewebs.com/firstperfidian/PB-1-UNIVERSE%20SHAPE.bmp

[Santa]

But but but, if the earth is standing still while everything else in space is revolving around it,

"where does the spin begin?"

Am I spinning?

Or does the spin begin just over my head? :D

That rotating toroid is a gorgeous model, by the way....

[JohnQPublic]

Everything spins, JQP. The reason for all things natural to curve.

The result of those "mysterious forces" is the evidence, along with that video of the Earth rotating.

Simple Black and White does exist, even when insisting that it must be a mixed Gray area.

Now you deny a center mass of the Universe at all... I can agree with a moving center point.

Like a top wobble. The Sun does this also to an extent.

http://www.freewebs.com/firstperfidian/PB-1-UNIVERSE%20SHAPE.bmp

Videos of the earth rotating prove nothing. Look at my carousel example. Is the camera rotating arouind the earth or is the earth rotating beneath the camera? The video looks the same either way.

Tops wobble, but their center of mass does not (until they run out of all momentum and fall). Tops wobble around their stationary center of mass, and so could the universe. This is what gives tops (and gyroscopes, bicycle wheels, etc.) their stability- the fact that they maintain their center of mass.

As to the toroid universe, this is one of many possible explanations.

Where did I deny a center of mass?

Are you going to answer my questions about the pendulum?

[Horn]

Where did I deny a center of mass?


The first is that gravity is universal (i.e., gravity is a magic force acting between all matter in the universe). This may or may not be true.

The pendulum is fixed to the Earth.

What you are proposing is the orbit of Earth is the center "wobble" of the Universe.

Given the entire mass of the Universe in relation to, would be observed as absurd.

The observations of everything escaping away is because of the above diagram shape.

[JohnQPublic]

The pendulum is fixed to the Earth.

What you are proposing is the orbit of Earth is the center "wobble" of the Universe.

Given the entire mass of the Universe in relation to, would be observed as absurd.

The observations of everything escaping away is because of the above diagram shape.

Who says everything is escaping away? This is one possible assumption about the what redshift is. Another one is described by George Ellis' model of a central earth, and Paul Davies' remarks about it. Paul Davies was editor of the journal, Nature at the time. Paul Davies said:

Often the simplest of observations will have the most profound consequences. It has long been a cornerstone of modern science, to say nothing of man’s cosmic outlook, that the Earth attends a modest star that shines in an undistinguished part of a run-of-the-mill galaxy. Life arose spontaneously and man evolved on this miscellaneous clump of matter and now directs his own destiny without outside help. This cosmic model is supported by the Big-Bang and Expanding Universe concepts, which in turn are buttressed by the simple observation that astronomers see redshifts wherever they look.



These redshifts are due, of course, to matter flying away from us under the impetus of the Big Bang. But redshifts can also arise from the gravitational attraction of mass. If the Earth were at the center of the universe, the attraction of the surrounding mass of stars would also produce redshifts wherever we looked! The argument advanced by George Ellis in this article is more complex than this, but his basic thrust is to put man back into a favored position in the cosmos. His new theory seems quite consistent with our astronomical observations, even though it clashes with the thought that we are godless and making it on our own.

[JohnQPublic]

The pendulum is fixed to the Earth.



Ok. So why does it swing in a plane while the earth rotates below it? Why does the pendulum not turn with the earth? The claim of the museum curators is the pendulum swings in some plane, while then earth rotates below it. From your Wikipedia article:

"The experimental apparatus consists of a tall pendulum free to swing in any vertical plane. The actual plane of swing appears to rotate relative to the Earth; in fact the plane is fixed in space while the Earth rotates under the pendulum once a sidereal day."

So, my question to you is what keeps the pendulum in the plane it swings in is rather than following the earth's rotation?

Well again, according to Wikipedia:

"At either the North Pole or South Pole, the plane of oscillation of a pendulum remains fixed relative to the distant masses of the universe while Earth rotates underneath it, taking one sidereal day to complete a rotation. So, relative to Earth, the plane of oscillation of a pendulum at the North Pole undergoes a full clockwise rotation during one day; a pendulum at the South Pole rotates counterclockwise."

So the answer is the "distant masses of the universe" create an inertial reference frame that the pendulum swings in. I.e., the combined distant masses of the universe have more influence on the pendulum then does the earth.

So I ask you the next question: What if the earth were fixed, and the "distant masses of the universe" were rotating around it? What would the plane of the pendulum do? Well if the distant masses have more influence on the pendulum than the fixed earth, they would cause the plane of the pendulum to rotate. What we see on earth in either case is exactly the same. The floor beneath the pendulum rotates relative to the plane of the pendulum swing. We cannot differentiate between a rotating plane of the pendulum and a fixed floor and a fixed plane of pendulum swing under a rotating floor. Since the pendulum is free to swing in any plane, and we do not know whether the earth is fixed or rotating, it is a matter of relative rotation. Mach and Einstein agreed on this decades ago.

This is pure disinformation. They are stating that the stars are fixed. So of course, if the stars are fixed, then obviously it is the earth that is rotating. But that the stars are fixed has not been established, only stated. Please see my sticky on disinformation tactics. If we mantain an open mind we realize that we cannot distinguish between a stationary earth in a rotating universe and a rotating universe with a stationary earth with a pendulum. The Foucalt pendulum only indicates that a relative rotation is occurring. If the early astronomers built this pendulum, they could state that obviously the earth is fixed, so therefor the rotation is due to the heavens rotating, and the sheeple would buy it.

[JohnQPublic]

...
What you are proposing is the orbit of Earth is the center "wobble" of the Universe.

Given the entire mass of the Universe in relation to, would be observed as absurd.

...

If the universe were a rotating system, and the earth just happened to be in the center, it would not be absurd. It is not absurd that a top rotates, and happens to rotate around its center of mass is it? It is physics.

[Horn]

even though it clashes with the thought that we are godless and making it on our own.
Typical mindset for a moon base who's directive is to blow the Earth up so it (the moon base) can travel to Alpha Centauri, with the offset in centrist's wobble...



"making it on our own" pfft... gimme some ego centrist Love: sarc. right....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKE3FSPJu-4

Why is it so hard to travel with Venus?

3380

[Horn]

http://www.co-intelligence.org/newsletter/images/sun-etc.jpg.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akjIwpMfc3o

With your mysterious Catholic hand, your people I do not understand.

[JohnQPublic]

These are really cool pics and movies, but now you are using disinformation tactics. The universe is much bigger than the sun, so if it is a rotational system, the sun goes with it. Spaceships will still make it to their destinations, as coordinate systems are changed anyway depending on where they are launching from, and where they are going. Can you try and deal with the Foucalt pendulum first, then state your next hypothesis (I guess it is "the smaller revolves around the larger" or something to that effect)? Notice that I am being honest and I am discussing this with you. I am not plugging my ears like Janadele (sorry for picking on you), and saying your points are "anti-geocentric" or something, then ignoring them. I think a lot of the board sees where you are going with this, and it is the same thing the mainstream media and politicians do.

http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?62875-Disinformation-How-It-Works
4) Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.

“Ron Paul is a crackpot.” “Gold bugs are crazy.” “Constitutionalists are
fringe extremists.” Baseless ridicule is almost impossible to counter because it
is meant to be irrational. It infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to
your advantage. It also works as a pressure point to force the enemy into
concessions.

Do you at least in principle accept that the Foucalt pendulum cannot distinguish between a rotating earth in stationary space and a stationary earth in rotating space? If not why not?

Believe it or not, I am not stupid. I have been studying this for 10 years, and yes, it has totally changed my perspective on things. Please do not slip into cognitive dissonance. If you cannot handle this, take a break from it for a while.

[VX1]

Back to DMac's mention of GPS satellites… they and so many other types (such as weather) are geosynchronous. They had to be launched and placed in orbit at just the right velocity, per their orbital distance to match the spin of the Earth. It must balance velocity, gravity and centrifugal force. What say you?

[JohnQPublic]

Back to DMac's mention of GPS satellites… they and so many other types (such as weather) are geosynchronous. They had to be launched and placed in orbit at just the right velocity, per their orbital distance to match the spin of the Earth. It must balance velocity, gravity and centrifugal force. What say you?

"The best evidence against geocentrism (http://www.catholic-forum.com/forums/showthread.php?875-The-best-evidence-against-geocentrism)"

In a nut shell, our current scientists tell us that Einstein's general relativity is pretty much true, and they base their cosmology on it. General relativity tells us that we can pick any point in space and make it the reference point, and the physics will adjust to make it so. So, if we pick earth as a reference point, and generate the physics from that reference point in general relativity, then geosynchronous satellites had better still sit where they do, or else general relativity does not work. The small detail that general relativity cannot deal with rigid bodies is an issue, but in theory it should still work.

Also, just replace "general relativity" with "Mach's Principle", and it is an even easier explanation (Mach's principle posits the distant masses of the universe as the source of inertia here). Einstein basically agreed with Mach's principle, and somewhat included it in general relativity (though he localized it). In either case (general relativity or Mach's principle), it is the effect of the distant masses (i.e., other galaxies, stars, matter, etc.) that help hold the satellite near the earth. See the Gron and Eriksen quote I used, and replace "moon" with "geosynchronous satellite" just to get a flavor of how general relativity operates:

Gron and Erickson in General Relativity and Gravitation (vol. 21, no. 2, pages 109-110, in
1989) Explain why the moon ( natural satellite) does not fall to the earth:

"As an illustration of the role of inertial dragging for the validity of the strong principle of relativity, we consider the Moon orbiting the Earth. As seen by an observer on the Moon, both the Moon and the Earth are at rest. If the observer solves Einstein’s field equations for the vacuum space-time outside the Earth, he might come up with the Schwarzchild solution and conclude that the Moon should fall toward the Earth, which it does not. So it seems impossible to consider the Moon at rest, which would imply that the strong principle of relativity is not valid.

This problem has the following solution. As observed from the Moon the cosmic mass rotates. The rotating cosmic mass has to be included when the Moon observer solves Einstein’s field equations. Doing this he finds that the rotating cosmic mass induces the rotational non-tidal gravitational field which is interpreted as the centrifugal field in Newtonian theory. This field explains to him why the Moon does not fall toward the Earth."

Finally, aether based systems can handle this situation by having the aether slow to a stop near the earth, and having a neutral zone in the small band where geosynchronous satellites do operate.

[Santa]

Again, if the earth is fixed, then where does the movement of the rest of the universe begin? The ionosphere? At the core?
There would have to be a point or plane in space that is the start at which the spinning begins... Where would it be?

[Santa]

Finally, aether based systems can handle this situation by having the aether slow to a stop near the earth, and having a neutral zone in the small band where geosynchronous satellites do operate.

Aha! Ok, a neutral zone.... hmmm.

Like a really slippery lubed up zone?

[Horn]

4) Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.

There is no gravity at center mass of the Universe at this moment.

When it moves (as it does), there will be no gravity there.

There has been Gravity on Earth for as long as I remember.

Everything spins, nothing is fixed.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Orbit3.gif

[Horn]

Ok. So why does it swing in a plane while the earth rotates below it?

The swing of the pendulum is only an integral part of the pendulum, a greater majority of it is the fixed portion.

Your imaginary spoon is swinging.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzm8kTIj_0M

[JohnQPublic]

Again, if the earth is fixed, then where does the movement of the rest of the universe begin? The ionosphere? At the core?
There would have to be a point or plane in space that is the start at which the spinning begins... Where would it be?

That is a fair question, and it is a question that pertains to other systems besides geocentrism. I have not formulated the answer to this. I also don't really see it as the earth and the rest of the universe, they are both part of the universe. Martin Selbrede has some good explanations that show how the rotating universe "locks" the earth in the center. This is illustrated in the book Galileo Was Wrong. It is based on some concepts discussed in the tome Graviation by Wheeler, Thorne, and Misner.

[JohnQPublic]

Aha! Ok, a neutral zone.... hmmm.

Like a really slippery lubed up zone?

In fluid dynamics, we have a concept of "no velocity at the boundaries". This relates to aether fluidic theories, your question of where the motion of the "rest of the universe" starts. Depending on the nature of interaction between aether and the atmosphere, the motion of the aether needs to stop or slow down somewhere relative to the atmosphere/surface of the earth. Also, there need to be some local vortices to support the slight velocity of the moon. This neutral zone may arise due to these interactions.

[JohnQPublic]

There is no gravity at center mass of the Universe at this moment.

When it moves (as it does), there will be no gravity there.

There has been Gravity on Earth for as long as I remember.

Everything spins, nothing is fixed.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Orbit3.gif

Where do you think the center of mass of the universe is?

[JohnQPublic]

The swing of the pendulum is only an integral part of the pendulum, a greater majority of it is the fixed portion.



The fixed portion is attached to the earth, so it does whatever the earth is doing. Why is the pendulum swinging in the plane of the stars?

[Horn]

Why is the pendulum swinging in the plane of the stars?

Rotation of the Earth.

[JohnQPublic]

Rotation of the Earth.

So the earth rotating beneath the pendulum forces the pendulum to swing in the non-rotating plane of the stars? That is the first time I have heard that one. Most people will say the pendulum swings in the inertial reference frame of the stars, or something to that effect. I don't think you understand my question.

The pendulum is a heavy object on a string or chain attached to a near frictionless bearing or bushing, which itself is attached to a building structure. The pendulum is free to swing in any plane it wants to. It "chooses" to swing in the plane not-rotating relative to the stars. The observer "sees" the pendulum rotating relative to the floor, but we are told it is not rotating, but rather the floor is rotating beneath the swinging pendulum. Regardless of what you believe is rotating or not rotating, there is a relative rotation between the swinging pendulum's plane and the floor of the building. That is why the bowling pins, cylinders, or whatever is on the floor get knocked down by the pendulum. The pendulum appears to be rotating on the frictionless bearing/bushing, and as it rotates it goes around the circle and knocks down the pins.

The key is that the pendulum swings in a stationary plane relative to the starfield. So either the earth is turning beneath the pendulum, advancing the pins to be knocked down by the pendulum, or the starfield is rotating above the stationary earth causing the pendulum to rotate around and knock down the pins.

I was asking why is the pendulum swinging in the plane it swings. The answer is [likely] because it is aligning itself to the reference frame of the starfield rather than the earth. But as you can see there are two explanations for HOW this is happening:

1. The earth turns beneath the pendulum, which is held in place by the starfield;
2. The pendulum is turning with the starfield above the stationary earth;

This all has to do with the nature of inertia, but it does not prove the earth is rotating.

[Horn]

I was asking why is the pendulum swinging in the plane it swings.

If the Earth were not rotating, it would not.

"Starfield forces" are as far away from any forces on it as Major Tom is in his tin can wishing for a fixed point.

There are none.

[Horn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4e34GEuoFM

[JohnQPublic]

If the Earth were not rotating, it would not.

"Starfield forces" are as far away from any forces on it as Major Tom is in his tin can wishing for a fixed point.

There are none.


What is your view of cosmology? Big bang? Steady state, infinite? Aether? Newtonian? Relativistic (general, special, Lorentzian)? Machian?

[singular_me]

I believe in vortices/toruses. eventually everything goes back to the center, passing by a contraction first. Thats the way the universe is breathing... in and out.

ps: great thread! Lots of food for the thought

[vacuum]

What is your view of cosmology? Big bang? Steady state, infinite? Aether? Newtonian? Relativistic (general, special, Lorentzian)? Machian?

Know "for sure":

Universe is very large
Composed of 'cosmos within cosmos', also known as 'as above so below'. Basically, every level follows similar principles. For example, our bodies are composed of tiny things that we're barely aware of individually (cells). Similarly, the Earth has all of us on it, which it's barely aware of any one of us. Compared to the sun, earth is almost unnoticeable. The basic structure of everything is layered or fractal. (The crazy thing is we can only see things so large and so small. we have no idea if it keeps going in either direction)
Energy is the key thing that animates the universe, other forces and phenomena are secondary


Highly probable:

Universe is infinite, at least in some respects
Life everywhere, consciousness in everything
There are 'non-material' aspects that aren't in any scientific theories (yet), including psychic, metaphysical, and/or spiritual phenomena. These things aren't unknowable in principle like any other theory, but perhaps impossible for humans to understand entirely at least in their current state.
Space consists of a medium
Current scientific theories are fundamentally flawed


Likely:

Big bang is false
Relativity is wrong
Quantum mechanics is about half wrong

[Horn]

Universe is a great egg in my estimation. Most likely a complex system of creation & balance, just like our planet. along with just as many chaotic surprises, and paths to get around it.

We haven't even begun to see the potential. Light wave theory, and plasma cosmology are just forming.

Possible other dimensions out there without limits.

[JohnQPublic]

Ok.

We have established a couple of points:

1. Observations cannot prove geocentrism false. Unless we can stand outside the universe, and look in we cannot use observations.
2. The Foucalt pendulum cannot distinguish between a stationary earth in a spinning universe, and a spinning earth in a stationary universe. Horn disagrees, but has not shared why, or explained how his version works.
3. I also linked an older thread on another forum addressing geostationary satellites, and how their existence does not disprove geocentrism. This explanation is really related to the pendulum.

These are some of the first responses that you get when you try and broach this subject. Galileo Was Wrong deals with these and some other common questions in the first few chapters:

Doesn’t the Smaller Always Revolve Around the Larger?
Doesn’t Stellar Parallax Prove the Earth is Moving?
Doesn’t the Foucault Pendulum Prove Earth is Rotating?
Doesn’t the Retrograde Motion of Mars Prove Heliocentrism?
Doesn’t NASA Use the Heliocentrism for Space Probes?
Don’t the Phases of Venus Disprove Ptolemy?
Isn’t it Impossible for the Stars to Travel so Fast Around the Earth?
Didn’t Science Prove that Ether Doesn’t Exist?

Usually once you get past these misconceptions (and not everyone has all of them, it depends on how much kool-aid you drank- and we have all drank some at some point).

[JohnQPublic]

3391


Arago is one of France’s most celebrated scientists. He had his hands in many fields of interest, but his unique work with light set the pace for many years to come. For our purposes, there are two things of note in his discoveries between the years 1810 to 1818. First, Arago observed one star through a telescope for the whole course of a year. In that year, the star would move toward the Earth and then move away (which is true in either the heliocentric or geocentric frames). Arago reasoned that the focal length of his telescope would have to change in viewing the star, since the speed of light coming from a receding star would be different from that of an approaching star (in the heliocentric system it would be the Earth moving toward or away from the star). To his astonishment, he observed no difference and thus he was not required to change the focal length. This was the first indication that the stars were far enough away that, regardless of whether the Earth was moving, the star, seen through a telescope, actually is where it appears to be.

Second, Arago experimented with light beams traveling through glass. He showed that light traveled slower in denser mediums, such as glass or water, and this, in turn, helped support the wave theory of light (as opposed to the particle theory). Since he understood light as consisting of waves, it was assumed that these waves had a uniform speed through the ether, but if the Earth was moving against the ether (as would be the case if it were revolving around the sun) then the ether should impede the speed of light, just as did glass or water. Arago showed, however, that whether the light beam going through the glass was pointed in the direction of the Earth’s supposed movement, or opposite that movement, there was no effect on its speed going through the glass. Moreover, he showed that a light beam pointed toward or away from the Earth’s supposed orbit had the same refraction in glass as the refraction of starlight in glass. Hence, in whatever way he tested the incidence of light, it always showed Earth at rest in the ether. Here was the first confirmed evidence since the Copernican hypothesis arose three centuries prior that science had been far too presumptuous in opting for a heliocentric solar system. In order to stop the hemorrhaging, science had to find the proper tourniquet to save the appearances for a moving Earth.

(excerpts from Galileo Was Wrong, pgs. 130-131, footnotes and illustrations not included)

[JohnQPublic]

3392


Fresnel worked with Arago on various occasions, and it was left to Fresnel, the more famous of the two, to explain Arago’s results by retaining the moving Earth model. Both Arago and Fresnel were advocates of the wave theory of light, and Arago asked Fresnel if it would be possible to explain the results of his starlight experiment by the wave theory. Fresnel came up with an ingenious answer and explained it to Arago in a letter dated 1818. He postulated that there was no effect on the incidence of starlight because the ether through which it traveled was being “dragged,” at least partially, by the glass of the telescope. Because ether was understood to permeate all substances, Fresnel hypothesized that there was a certain amount of ether trapped within the glass, and this amount of ether would be denser than, and independent from, the ether in the surrounding air. The key to understanding this theory is that Fresnel held that the ether outside the glass was immobile. As the glass moved with the Earth’s assumed movement and against the immobile ether outside, the glass would “drag” its trapped ether with it. Thus Fresnel conveniently concluded that Arago couldn’t detect any difference in the speed of light because the glass in his experiment was dragging the ether just enough in the opposite direction to the Earth’s movement so as to mask the Earth’s speed of 30 km/sec through the immobile ether.

...By this clever manipulation of something he couldn’t even detect (i.e., the ether) and a nature of light he hadn’t even proven (i.e., exclusively waves), Fresnel helped science avoid having to entertain a non-moving Earth as the most likely answer to Arago’s puzzling findings. Obviously, to fairminded observers, Fresnel’s explanation appears to be a little too convenient, especially since he arrived at his solution without any physical experimentation; rather, he merely postulated various assumptions just so he and Arago could escape the geocentric implications that were haunting them and the rest of the science community.

(excerpts from Galileo Was Wrong, pgs. 131-132, footnotes and illustrations not included)

[JohnQPublic]

3393

Armand Fizeau['s] ... initial experiments found that the speed of light through glass varied with the color of the light, something for which neither Arago nor Fresnel tested. This meant, of course, that the ether would have to be reacting differently with various colors of light; or, there was a different amount of ether trapped in the glass for each particular color, options which seemed far-fetched. Fizeau proposed the hypothesis that the ether possessed elasticity, and varying degrees of elasticity would cause various reactions with light. Thus, Fizeau set out to test the constitution of the ether in 1851. He sent two parallel light beams in opposite directions through tubes of water in which the water was flowing rapidly. In this way, one beam would be traveling with the flow of water, the other against the
flow. When the light beams meet back at the receiving plate, the one traveling against the flow of water should arrive later, just as a person swimming against a water current will need more time to complete a journey than one swimming with the current. As the light beams arrive at the final destination at different times, the peaks and troughs of their wavelengths will not be in synch, which will then cause light and dark fringe markings to appear on the receiving plate. Water was the perfect medium to make such a test. Since light’s speed in water is two-thirds of the upper limit at which it is said to travel in a vacuum, the water-medium would provide enough margin from the upper limit so that one could easily notice whether its speed was changed. As it turned out, the interference fringes showed a difference in the arrival times of the two beams and this result was said to support the Fresnel “drag” formula.

Although Fizeau helped to give credibility to Fresnel’s “drag” theory, he did little to establish that the Earth was moving through the ether. If we on Earth are moving through ether, then the speed of the light in the water tube will be increased with the speed of the Earth’s motion (30 km/sec). But the outcome was quite different than what Fizeau expected. The speed of light was not a sum of the velocity of the light added to the velocity of the Earth. Rather, the only effect on the speed of light Fizeau found was that which was induced by the water’s refractive index. This was quite a dilemma. On the one hand, it showed that light was affected by a medium (i.e., water), but on the other hand, the light was not being affected by the medium of ether, that is, its speed was not increased or decreased as it went through the ether.

The logical conclusion of this experiment is that it was presumptuous of Fizeau to assume the Earth was moving through the ether, since a fixed-Earth can easily account for why the light was not affected by the ether but only by the water (i.e., by refraction). In order to escape this problem, Fizeau postulated that, as the water flowed, it would drag only some of the ether with it, and thus make the light move against only some of the ether, which would then appear as an alteration in the speed of the light in the water, and which, coincidentally, would equal the refractive index of the water, and which would also equal the Fresnel “drag” coefficient. Thus it seemed that Fizeau’s experiment supported Fresnel’s, at least the way it was interpreted. In reality, both Fresnel and Fizeau, without any proof whatsoever, were already discounting a fixed-Earth as a viable solution to the unexpected results of their experiments. Despite this apparent “solution,” there was still an open question: would Fizeau’s use of water to drag ether and impede the speed of light prove to be true for starlight?




(excerpts from Galileo Was Wrong, pgs. 134, 136, footnotes and illustrations not included)

[JohnQPublic]

3394


...During the years of 1725-1728 he noticed that during the course of a year the star [Gamma Draconis- JQP] inscribed a small ellipse in its path, almost the same as a parallax would make. In the heliocentric system, parallax is understood as a one-to-one correspondence between Earth’s annual revolution and the star’s annual ellipse, but Bradley noticed that the star’s ellipse was not following this particular pattern....

At this point, astronomical science was still waiting for a confirmed parallax of any star, since no one had ever measured one. A confirmed measurement of parallax would not be made until more than a century later by Friedrich Bessel in 1838. So Bradley, reasoning that Gamma Draconis was too far away to register a parallax, found another explanation, and it was rather an ingenious one. He theorized that the star’s annual ellipse was being formed because the speed of light was finite. That is, the star wasn’t actually moving in the sky; rather, its light, moving at a finite speed, was hitting a moving Earth, an Earth that for six months was moving toward the star, and in the next six months was moving away from the star. While the Earth moved toward the star, the star’s light would hit the Earth sooner, but while the Earth moved away, the light would hit it later. Bradley reasoned that, if light’s speed was infinite, there would be no such effect, but since it is finite, these back-and-forth movements of the Earth would translate into seeing the star move in an ellipse in the sky over the course of a year. This explanation was a welcome relief for the heliocentric view, since until Bradley, no one, including Galileo who died in 1642, had supplied any real evidence that the Earth could be revolving around the sun. The only “evidence” Galileo’s contemporaries provided was that of analogy, that is, because he saw moons revolving around Jupiter through his telescope he conjectured that smaller bodies (such as the Earth) had to revolve around larger bodies (such as the sun). As one author put it [Thomas Kuhn- JQP], in Galileo’s day, “the telescope did not prove the validity of Copernicus’ conceptual scheme. But it did provide an immensely effective weapon for the battle. It was not proof, but it was propaganda.”

[B]Thus, the Arago/Fresnel/Fizeau affair was more or less an interlude until someone would come along and either prove or disprove Bradley’s hypothesis.

(excerpts from Galileo Was Wrong, pgs. 137, 138, footnotes and illustrations not included)

[hvacak47]

Im about as dumb as they come.

But if the earth is still and space is spinning and that spinning starts outside of earths atmosphere then the pendulum should swing in a straight line.

Tell me how dumb I am.

Thanks

[Horn]

Ok.

We have established a couple of points:

4. You're an enigma.

[JohnQPublic]

Im about as dumb as they come.

But if the earth is still and space is spinning and that spinning starts outside of earths atmosphere then the pendulum should swing in a straight line.

Tell me how dumb I am.

Thanks

That is not a dumb question, and it leads to an important point. It is not exactly clear that where space starts spinning.

It comes back to what causes inertia. Newton told us that if something is traveling in a straight line, it will continue to do so unless acted on by another force. Our earthly and near space experiences support that statement. Newton said it because he presumed that space was a giant container, and the ultimate reference frame for everything. He did not know why this was, but he created his physics around that idea. Generally, Newton's cosmology is rejected today.

This is the insight you used to ask your question. What you took for granted is that inertia has an explanation. Unfortunately science does not know what it is (same for gravity).

Let's go back the the rotating earth case. The pendulum is swinging on the north pole (the simplest case). It swings in a plane, and the earth turns beneath it. Why? Well the typical explanation is that it is swinging relative to all the distant masses (stars, galaxies, black holes, etc.). Since they are stationary, then the pendulum stays stationary. Scientists wold say the distant masses form a reference frame for the pendulum. Of course the earth is also a huge mass, and much closer to the pendulum. But obviously, all the other mass out there, though much further away, when summed up act more strongly on the pendulum than the earth's mass. Also, the earth can be seen as rotating in this larger reference frame, too.

Now if the stars have the power to create this reference frame for the pendulum, then if the earth were stationary, and the stars turning, why wouldn't the more powerful stars not drag the pendulum around above the stationary earth? In this case the reference frame is turning, and the earth is stationary relative to it. If the pendulum is dragged, then this is a consequence of what is called Mach's principle (mass out there creates inertia here).

Whether Mach's principle is true or not is not known. Einstein incorporated something like it into general relativity.

So it may not matter exactly where the turning space starts or ends relative to the earth's surface. It is more a question of 'what is inertia'.

It can be looked at from an aether perspective, also, but it gets complicated by such questions as how much if any aether is dragged? Is the aether penetrating the atmosphere? etc. In the case of aether theories, the aether could contain the explanation for some properties (inertia, gravity, etc.).

[JohnQPublic]

4. You're an enigma.

I'll take that as a compliment! :rolleyes:

enigma [ɪˈnɪgmə]n a person, thing, or situation that is mysterious, puzzling, or ambiguous

[Horn]

Of course the earth is also a huge mass, and much closer to the pendulum. But obviously, all the other mass out there, though much further away, when summed up act more strongly on the pendulum than the earth's mass.

Event horizons do not occur just due to the number of words placed in a single post.

This is a case where ones ability to regard the post as having any potential whatsoever is taken into account only by those few chosen ones, such as myself... lol

[JohnQPublic]

Event horizons do not occur just due to the number of words placed in a single post.

This is a case where ones ability to regard the post as having any potential whatsoever is taken into account only by those few chosen ones, such as myself... lol

Well, please offer your explanation, then.

[Horn]

Well, please offer your explanation, then.

Sorry, orbit with no rotation has caused Space dust build up in my one ear over the millennium.

What was said?

[JohnQPublic]

3397


As ingenious as Bradley’s answer was to the ellipse formed by Gamma Draconis, so was Airy’s experiment to prove it right or wrong. Accepting that light’s speed was finite, Airy had to figure out some way of determining whether the light from a star was affected by Earth’s supposed motion. Whereas Bradley used only one kind of telescope, Airy had the ingenious idea of using a second telescope filled with water. Since Arago/Fresnel/Fizeau had already shown that light’s speed was slowed by glass or water, Airy assumed
that if a telescope was filled with water then the starlight coming through the water should be slower than it would be in air, and thus bend the starlight outward toward the upper side of the telescope and away from the eyepiece (just as we see light bent when we put a pencil in water). In order to compensate for the outward bending of the starlight, Airy assumed he would have to tilt his water-filled telescope just a little more toward the lower end of the star so that its light would hit his eyepiece directly rather than hitting the side of the telescope.the light from a star was affected by Earth’s supposed motion.

...Although Airy had suspected the outcome prior to the actual experiment, indeed, he soon discovered that he was not required to tilt his water-filled telescope toward the star to any greater degree than his air-filled telescope. These results indicated that Earth wasn’t moving, since if there is no additional adjustment necessary for a water-filled telescope toward the direction of the starlight, it means the starlight is coming into both telescopes at the same angle and speed, that is, directly overhead. If Earth were moving, then a water-filled telescope would have to be titled toward the starlight a little more acutely than an air-filled telescope. This is so for two related
reasons: (1) in the heliocentric model, the Earth is moving sufficiently against the incidence of distant starlight upon it, and thus the water-filled telescope would not be able to catch all of the starlight in the slower medium of water. It would have to be titled slightly ahead of the air-filled telescope to make up for light’s slower speed in water; and (2) since the starlight is coming from outside Earth’s ether environment, then one cannot readily explain Airy’s failure by saying that the denser medium (i.e., water as opposed to air) carried a higher or lower amount of ether, as Fresnel had claimed. Starlight seemed to be unaffected by the ether, or any medium, since Airy proved that its light was coming to Earth at one specified angle and speed.

...Science was in a bind once again. Unless Airy’s experiment could be answered, the world was about to stand still in space, both literally and figuratively.

[Airy published his results in 1871- JQP]

(excerpts from Galileo Was Wrong, pgs. 138-140, footnotes and illustrations not included)

[JohnQPublic]

3398


So now we have a better picture of the circumstances that led to the Michelson-Morley experiments. To save the world from having to “scuttle the Copernican theory,” just a few years after George Airy’s experiment, Albert Michelson invented a somewhat sophisticated piece of equipment to test Airy’s results. The interferometer he assembled was similar to Hoek’s, but it was built a little better and was more accurate, yet it was very sensitive to vibration and heat, and therefore its results could be thrown off a bit. Nevertheless, if the Earth were moving through ether this machine was designed to detect it. The idea was to split a light beam into two beams and send them in perpendicular directions, which beams are then reflected back and recombined on a photographic plate. The distances traveled by the beams are not the same, thus the waves from the two beams will not be in synch, producing a pattern of light and dark fringes after they recombine. These fringes prove that the principle behind the interferometer indeed works, since non-synchronous light waves will produce fringes. Identical to Hoek’s experiment, Michelson’s procedure was to turn, slightly and periodically, the table on which the interferometer rested. The speeds of the two beams
with respect to the ether will thus change, and so will the times taken for the beams to recombine. Because troughs and crests of the light waves would not match up the same as in a non-rotating table, the original fringes would shift in their pattern of bright and dark lines...

The first interferometer trial was in 1881. After Michelson drew up plans for the device and submitted them to a company in Berlin for construction, Alexander Graham Bell, famous for the invention of the telephone, provided the needed funds. Michelson had not met Edward Morley as yet and thus he worked alone. Lo and behold, when Michelson performed the experiment he did not see a significant shifting of fringes, at least not those he was expecting. Using a 600 nanometer wavelength of light, Michelson expected to see fringe shifts (or, as he called them, “displacement of the interference bands”) of at least 0.04 of a fringe width. The 0.04 figure corresponds to an Earth moving at 30 km/sec around the sun. If this was combined with what Michelson believed was the solar system’s apparent movement toward the constellation Hercules, the fringes should have shifted on the order of 0.10 of a fringe width. But Michelson didn’t see any fringe shifting close to either value. He writes:

The interpretation of these results is that there is no displacement of the interference bands. The result of the hypothesis of a stationary ether is thus shown to be incorrect, and the necessary conclusion follows that the hypothesis is erroneous. This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation of aberration which has been hitherto generally accepted, and which presupposes that the Earth moves through the ether, the latter remaining at rest.

...Perhaps Michelson was so astounded at his 1881 results and the interpretation he was forced to admit (i.e., “This conclusion directly contradicts…[the idea] which presupposes that the Earth moves through the ether”) that he had to do the test again just to make sure he could convince himself to believe what his own eyes were showing him, and to reassure every other concerned physicist that this experiment was not a fluke. After attending a series of lectures by William Thomson (aka Lord Kelvin) in 1884, Michelson’s interest in redoing the 1881 interferometer experiment was sparked. Michelson secured financial aid from the Bache Fund of the National Academy of Sciences. This involvement reveals that many influential people were intently anticipating the desired results. Michelson, and his newfound partner Edward Morley, created a new instrument for the occasion, which was much more accurate and not so easily upset by environmental factors...

Michelson did not find what he expected. The experiment was repeated a number of times, but regardless of location, season, elevation, or orientation of instruments Michelson found the results were the same as the 1881 experiment, within a reasonable margin of error. As Michelson records it:

Considering the motion of the Earth in its orbit only, this displacement should be 2D v2/V2 = 2D × 10-8. The distance D was about eleven meters, or 2 × 107 wavelengths of yellow light; hence, the displacement to be expected was 0.4 fringe. The actual displacement was certainly less than the twentieth part of this, and probably less than the fortieth part. But since the displacement is proportional to the square of the velocity, the relative velocity of the Earth and the ether is probably less than one-sixth the Earth’s orbital velocity, and certainly less than one-fourth.

In a letter to Lord Rayleigh (aka John William Strutt), he states it more simply:

...result is decidedly negative. The expected deviation of the interference fringes from the zero should have been 0.40 of a fringe – the maximum displacement was 0.02 and the average much less than 0.01 – and then not in the right place. As displacement is proportional to squares of the relative velocities it follows that if the ether does slip past [the Earth] the relative velocity is less than one sixth of the Earth’s velocity.

...Unfortunately, the scientists interpreting Airy, Hoek and Michelson-Morley simply did not want to consider a motionless Earth as even a possible solution to these astounding experiments. They “knew” the Earth revolved around the sun, and thus they set their heart toward finding other solutions to the problem. As Einstein’s biographer [Clark- JQP] describes it:

In the United States Albert Michelson and Edward Morley had performed an experiment which confronted scientists with an appalling choice. Designed to show the existence of the ether, at that time considered essential, it had yielded a null result, leaving science with the alternatives of tossing aside the key which had helped to explain the phenomena of electricity, magnetism, and light or of deciding that the Earth was not in fact moving at all.


(excerpts from Galileo Was Wrong, pgs. 138-140, footnotes and illustrations not included)

[Horn]

3403

FZ:
Alone in the hissing laboratory of his wishes, Mr. Pugh minces among bad vats and jeroboams, spinneys of murdering herbs, and prepares to compound for Mrs. Pugh a venomous porridge hitherto unknown to toxicologists which will scald and viper through her 'til her ears fall off like figs, her toes grow big and black as balloons, and steam comes screaming out of her navel.

[JohnQPublic]

34013402


...A November 10, 1894 letter from Lorentz to Fitzgerald shows that the Michelson-Morley experiment was driving them to these positions:

My dear Sir, in his “Aberration Problems” Prof. Oliver Lodge mentioned a hypothesis which you have imagined in order to account for the negative result of Mr. Michelson’s experiment.

“Imagination,” indeed. Fitzgerald revealed this imaginative “hypothesis” to Oliver Lodge in early 1892 on a visit to Liverpool. He told him the following:

Well, the only way out of it that I can see is that the equality of paths must be inaccurate; the block of stone must be distorted, put out of shape by its motion…the stone would have to shorten in the direction of motion and swell out in the other two directions.

But as Clark [Einstein's biographer- JQP] shows, initially it was not well received:

For some years this explanation appeared to be little more than a plausible trick. ‘I have been rather laughed at for my view over here,’ Fitzgerald wrote to Lorentz from Dublin in 1894.

But when Fitzgerald learned of Lorentz’s support for the hypothesis, he suddenly changed his tune and wrote these words:

My dear Sir, I have been preaching and lecturing on the doctrine that Michelson’s experiment proves, and is one of the only ways of proving, that the length of a body depends on how it is moving through the ether… Now that I hear you as an advocate and authority I shall begin to jeer at others for holding any other view.

Obviously, Fitzgerald was “laughed at” because his solution seemed all too convenient...

...All that was needed now was to package Fitzgerald’s idea in scientific language and a mathematical formula since this would give it an air of prestige and intelligence. This task was left to Henrick Lorentz. As he puts it:

The first example of this kind is Michelson’s well-known interference experiment, the negative result of which has led Fitzgerald and myself to the conclusion that the dimensions of solid bodies are slightly altered by their motion through the ether.

[And thus, the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction is born. The door is now open for Albert Einstein.]


(excerpts from Galileo Was Wrong, pgs. 147-151, footnotes and illustrations not included)

[JohnQPublic]

3403

FZ:
Alone in the hissing laboratory of his wishes, Mr. Pugh minces among bad vats and jeroboams, spinneys of murdering herbs, and prepares to compound for Mrs. Pugh a venomous porridge hitherto unknown to toxicologists which will scald and viper through her 'til her ears fall off like figs, her toes grow big and black as balloons, and steam comes screaming out of her navel.

So, how is that change thing going for you?

3406

[JohnQPublic]

The previous sketches show how desperate the scientists of the 19th and early 20th century were to prove heliocentrism, while simultaneously never even considering as possible the alternative, geocentrism. They had near zero proof for heliocentrism, and a lot of evidence that the earth may not be moving, yet "unbiased" science could not even consider one of the possibilities highlighted by a string of experiments. Of course, as the story considers, Einstein steps in, and develops a new science to equation over the facts.

[Horn]

For those of you in the audience this evening.

Please Don't the Eat the Yellow Snow, as expounded by our hither to unknown resident Geocentrist.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acqzDcTRzaY

[JohnQPublic]

For those of you in the audience this evening.

Please Don't the Eat the Yellow Snow, as expounded by our hither to unknown resident Geocentrist.


Horn- you have offered your opinion, and a few diagrams and statements, plus a lot of sarcasm. Can you counter the arguments made? You still have not explained how the Foucalt Pendulum works. I have explained the scientific and cosmological issues with the Foucalt Pendulum. You claim movies from spacecraft prove the earth's rotation, I have explained the issue of a reference frame, and used the simple example of a carousel. You seem like you have some knowledge of science, why not share it with us instead of ridiculing?

Do you see your reaction? Look at the reaction of the scientists in the 19th century. They could not even consider what the evidence points to, so they ignored it, and stepped around it. Supposedly unbiased scientists basically not even considering half of the possible answers because of their beliefs. You don't have to believe geocentrism is true. Just have an open mind. Maybe read Galileo Was Wrong. Your ridicule may work on other boards (like Brtiney Spears fan club forum, 'oooh... a geocentrist'), but I don't think it is going to have the impact you seem to want on this board.

I am sure that anyone that has some knowledge of science reads Galileo Was Wrong, they will at least admit (to themselves at least), that geocentrism is not as far-fetched as they have been programmed to believe, and in fact could be possible.

[Horn]

They could not even consider what the evidence points to, so they ignored it, and stepped around it.

The weight of evidence (roughly the same weight as the round Earth itself) in relation to the distance and mass of the Sun. Along with seasonal changes, ocean & weather, other planets, other planets moons, recently all other planetary systems being observed. Not to mention the recently rotationally geo-syncronus satellites previously mentioned, along with all the observational data of the known universe its galaxies & nebula, the lack of space dust in only one of my ears counter to & only point to one conclusion.

The Earth rotates beneath the Foucalt's Pendulum.

[JohnQPublic]

The weight of evidence (roughly the same weight as the round Earth itself) in relation to the distance and mass of the Sun. Along with seasonal changes, ocean & weather, other planets, other planets moons, recently all other planetary systems being observed. Not to mention the recently rotationally geo-syncronus satellites previously mentioned, along with all the observational data of the known universe its galaxies & nebula, the lack of space dust in only one of my ears counter to & only point to one conclusion.

The Earth rotates beneath the Foucalt's Pendulum.

All of that is covered in Gallileo Was Wrong. I suggest you read it. In fact most of it gets covered in the early chapters where the misconceptions are dealt with.

Your points are:

1. The smaller revolves around the larger;

This is true in isolated systems. If the earth, planets and sun were alone in a giant vacuum with some initial velocity, and gravity is magic gravity (i.e., mass attracts other mass) or there is a source of La Sagean gravitons, then yes, the solar system would be as you described. All objects in this type of system would theoretically revolve around their common center of mass, and with the sun being so large, it would dominate this isolated system.

What you are not considering when you bring up this argument is the rest of the universe. Once you sum up all the billions and billions [Carl Sagan] or even trillions of stars, galaxies imagined black holes, etc., if earth happened to end up at the center of mass, and the universe were spinning, then the universe cold be geocentric. All the bodies ni the universe would spin around their common center of mass.

If an aether type system is the truth, and the aether has great mass (as in a Planck particle aether), the known mass of the universe could be insignificant. The aether could be flowing, and causing all the motions we see, and causing the local pressure we interpret as gravity.

There are other possibilities.


2. Complex motions of the universe (seasons, weather, etc.);

There are systems (such as the neo-Tychonic described earlier) that can explain the seasons. The book spends a lot of pages describing the possibilities here, discusses weather, etc. I will try and dedicate some time to discuss these issues.

3. Analogies: other planets orbit bodies (plus other galaxies, etc.), therefor earth must be a planet and do the same.

The earth is not bound by what any other body in the universe does. Analogies can be good guides, but are not definitive. No other planet we know of yet has anywhere near the unique properties earth does allowing life to flourish. I cannot say that there may not be other such planets, but we have yet to find anything.


So do you find the big bang theory believable?

The key thing for me is not what is possible, but rather (as documented in the book), the fact that science has consistently stumbled across evidence for which the simplest explanation is that the earth is central and/or not moving, yet consistently and blatantly dismisses this evidence, and instead creates more complicated and convoluted theories to explain how everything looks like we are not moving and are central, yet in fact we are moving and are non-central. Some examples:

1. We see redshift all around moving away from us. You saw Stephen Hawking's quote. Here is one from Hubble, credited with discovering redshift (though he was not actually the first):

He Said (The Observational Approach to Cosmology):


…Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth...This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility.... the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs.... such a favored position is intolerable...Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position…must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape."



Basically, even though Hubble was against the relativistic expansion interpretation of red shift, he ultimately accepted it, because not accepting it leads to earth being in a unique position. which is a horror and intolerable.

2. The Cosmic microwave background: this was supposed to be the crown jewel of the big bang theory. Unfortunately it had a flaw in it. The noise in the CMB has signals that are aligned to the ecliptic! Of course many scientists are disregarding this finding.

3. The other is the story I just told today culminating in the Michelson Morley experiment, followed by Einstein offering relativity as an escape (as Hubble said).

There are lots of other observations, and experiments for which a central earth should at least be considered, but science just disregards them.

[Horn]

if earth happened to end up at the center of mass, and the universe were spinning, then the universe cold be geocentric. All the bodies ni the universe would spin around their common center of mass.

I feel like I've been here before, has the 0 gravity center mass of the universe changed its position again?

Common center would move lightyears in an instant.

[sirgonzo420]

This thread is interesting, and I love that this discussion can be had here.

How do you feel about astrology, John?

Astrology is about the positions of heavenly bodies in the sky, as perceived from Earth. So, in practicality, it operates under a geocentric model.

[vacuum]

Great background info on the experiments previously done JQP. This type of info is very important. Do you have any more experimental examples?

[JohnQPublic]

I feel like I've been here before, has the 0 gravity center mass of the universe changed its position again?

Common center would move lightyears in an instant.

A number of points related to this.

First in Machian or general relativistic mechanics, the physics are formulated specifically to pick any point the universe, and be able to formulate the physics from that point, with the rest of the universe spherically symmetrical around it. Secondly, in an aether universe with no universal gravitation (i.e., aether flow models such as Stokes), this is not an issue.

In a static Newtonian universe, with equal mass distribution, you would experience cancellation of gravity at the center. But with a rotating universe, we would still experience inertial forces due to the rotation. If the rotation had gyroscopic stability, these inertial forces would tend to act to maintain the earth in place as a gyroscope or top tends to maintain the stability and position of its center of mass. Rotational systems tend to be stable. You would also feel some local gravity of the earth on its surface. Perhaps at the center of the earth gravity would cancel completely.

A quip from Galileo Was Wrong, " ...The geocentrist explains ...all the matter in the universe is more or less equally distributed around the Earth, and thus its mutual gravitational attraction is canceled at the neutral point, Earth, the center of mass, as required by Newtonian physics. We, however, experience the effect of the universe’s collective gravitational force in the form of the phenomenon we know as “inertia.” Inertia is the property in which an object remains at rest, or remains in motion if it is already in motion, unless acted upon by a net external force. The rotating universe creates a ubiquitous and balanced force around the Earth whose primary
responsibility is to keep the Earth in place so that it cannot be moved (as the barycenter of a spinning gyroscope remains in place). Since the force is balanced, we do not feel it, unless we move against it (as when we try to turn the gyroscope or suddenly
put on the brakes in a moving car). Moreover, the rotation of the universe around the Earth creates the additional forces we understand as centrifugal, Coriolis and Euler forces. These gravitational forces are transmitted (i.e., “action-at-a-distance”) through the universal ether, and we see its differing effects in the various forces we experience (e.g., inertia, centrifugal, etc.). Since the ether is dense and supergranular, it can transmit the forces very rapidly."

Also, keep in mind that it is not that the matter of the universe is spinning around the earth through static space, rather the entire universe is a rotational system.

[JohnQPublic]

This thread is interesting, and I love that this discussion can be had here.

How do you feel about astrology, John?

Astrology is about the positions of heavenly bodies in the sky, as perceived from Earth. So, in practicality, it operates under a geocentric model.

As a Catholic, I do not get into astrology. Astronomy is ok!

[JohnQPublic]

Great background info on the experiments previously done JQP. This type of info is very important. Do you have any more experimental examples?

There are tons of them. I will try and outline some more. Galileo Was Wrong Volume I (the scientific case) is 600+ pages, and much of it talks about these experiments, observations, etc.

[JohnQPublic]

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~huterer/PRESS/CMB_Huterer.pdf

"...Armed with multipole vectors, and joined by Dominik J. Schwarz of the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), we have discovered unexpected patterns in the CMB. Not only are the quadrupole and octopole planar, but their planes are nearly perpendicular to the ecliptic. Moreover, we found that the ecliptic plane lies precisely between the warmest and coolest lobes of the combined quadrupole plus octopole map. The likelihood of these alignments happening by chance is less than 0.1 percent. Finally, the quadrupole and octopole planes are also perpendicular with the CMB dipole, which points to the direction of motion of the solar system. Why CMB patterns are oriented to the solar system is not at all understood at this time."

Maybe it was before Copernicus' time?

[Horn]

Rotational systems tend to be stable. You would also feel some local gravity of the earth on its surface. Perhaps at the center of the earth gravity would cancel completely.

All the materials, comets meteors liquids, and gases moving at different speeds away, and towards each other in the entire universe would surely beg to differ.

[sirgonzo420]

As a Catholic, I do not get into astrology. Astronomy is ok!

And a good catholic I presume you to be!

Your answer in an expected one.

Anyway, it's fortunate that the Magi were into astrology, or else they may have never found baby Jesus!

[DMac]

All the materials, comets meteors liquids, and gases moving at different speeds away, and towards each other in the entire universe would surely beg to differ.

This and I think JQP you are in denial a bit my friend. The math required, using your model, would be quite different in calculating how to send stuff into space and keep it there. Assumptions about the nature of gravity and other forces allow us to do these things! The collective 'we' in humanity might not have all the answers of why, but math is a very specific subject. Changing position of heavenly bodies would mean different calculations altogether.

This seems so obvious to me, why do you not agree?

[JohnQPublic]

All the materials, comets meteors liquids, and gases moving at different speeds away, and towards each other in the entire universe would surely beg to differ.

The entire universe is a rotational system, but that does not preclude local motion. The planets, asteroids, dust clouds, etc. still orbit the sun for instance. If we look at the universe as an aether, then the aether carries the momentum of the universe with it, but within in any small local area, galaxies can form and rotate, planetary systems can be exist, etc.

[DMac]

GPS satellites are our biggest observational proof along side of the International Space Station - which is real, in space and able to see the earth is rotating in the same fashion as other planets.

Astronomers are able to see distant planets rotating around their own suns, just like we do.


They do not know whether they are rotating around the earth or if the earth is rotating beneath them. This is a simple matter of relative motion. Your argument is that since they see the earth rotating below them, this proves the earth rotates. Why can't I argue that since I see the stars rotating around me, this proves the stars are rotating? I won't, because both observations have two possible answers (at least). First the earth is stationary and the stars rotating around it. Second the earth is rotating within the fixed star field. See the issue? That was why my first question was 'what is your fixed reference', which you gave a rational answer, 'there is not one', yet now you are claiming relative references as fixed.

You did not answer my point JQP, you brought up a strawman to the point and knocked it down. GPS satellites use VERY specific math and engineering. The exact same equations in math and engineering are used to get a satellite circling Jupiter (which is in motion, rotating) or in orbit around Earth (also in motion, rotating).

Seriously, this point needs to be addressed specifically. Geocentrists need to put up formula on how and why GPS works within a stationary earth framework and show that the calculations are IDENTICAL to those of a rotating Earth, otherwise, move this theory back to the junk bin where it belongs!

This is the crux of my argument and why Geocentrism does not make sense. We have applied physics, engineering and mathematics that one must ignore for the Geocentric model to work.

You cannot deny this. Math is math regardless of the motives behind the calculator.

Edit to add: for those unaware, GPS technology completely refutes the geocentric model because GPS positioning systems use math based on a rotating earth with specific stars chosen as the fixed point of reference! Not the stationary earth, but as it appears, the stationary stars. Using general relativity in calculating time, global positioning is achieved. None of this is possible under the Geo model, as JQP wrote earlier arguments against the accuracy of general relativity.

Without these specific details, which are the literal antithesis of geocentrism, GPS tech as known by humanity today, would not exist.

[JohnQPublic]

This and I think JQP you are in denial a bit my friend. The math required, using your model, would be quite different in calculating how to send stuff into space and keep it there. Assumptions about the nature of gravity and other forces allow us to do these things! The collective 'we' in humanity might not have all the answers of why, but math is a very specific subject. Changing position of heavenly bodies would mean different calculations altogether.

This seems so obvious to me, why do you not agree?

DMac- geocentrism uses the same physics as heliocentrism or any other known system. On a solar system level, things are very similar. If a space craft passes near earth ot mars or any other planet, it feels the gravitational effect of that planet, and for engineering purposes, the other planets can largely be ignored. NASA uses whatever reference frame makes sense for the part of the mission they are in. If they are going to orbit mars, they are going to use a mars-centric reference frame, and largely ignore the rest of the planets in their calculations. This is engineering, not cosmology. The relative motions of the planets, moons, etc. are the same whether you look at the solar system from a sun or earth centered perspective. It has to be, or coordinate transforms would not work. Keep in mind that almost all our observational data until very recently started as earth centered observations, then was transformed to sun centered, or whatever (Mars centered, Jupiter centered, etc., depending on the mission). No one is proposing a Ptolemaic system. What we are proposing is a system that has all the same relative motions at any given time, and this is possible.

What you are saying seemed obvious to me in say 2003, but after studying this, and getting past all the misconceptions, what is obvious is that geocentrism is possible. I have worked with PhD physicists who can see it is possible. As you peel back the onion on the picture presented to us by modern science, you come to realize that they know much less than their promotional materials imply. If you read the sketches I posted yesterday, you can see a pattern of modern scientists protecting their cherished ideas (which they believed dogmatically, yet had no proof for), to the point that they abandoned simple ideas that could explain the observed phenomenon, and developed a very complex and unwieldy science to support their ideas. If you really look at the big bang theory it is extremely complex, unwieldy, and untenable, and the scientists themselves say that. Yet they push forward with it because the only viable alternative that does not require the complexity is unthinkable to them (a stationary earth). Keep in mind that the reason the 19th century science is interesting is that they did not have the benfit of a lot of the instruments, satellites, etc, we have now. To them the aether really explained a lot and gave them a theoretical framework that allowed them to explore their ideas (like general relativity today). Yet they abandoned the aether-not because they could not find aether, but because they could not find an aether that supported their presumptions (that the earth was moving).

I will try and present some other concepts to help paint this picture, but if you have any interest, get Galileo Was Wrong. The PDF version is pretty inexpensive. It lays out the entire case in a pretty easy to read format; though some sections do get more technical (as you would expect is required for this topic).

[mick silver]

so are we moving though the universe all the time , are we fixed to one place ? if the earth does not turn then are we a fixed in place?

[JohnQPublic]

so are we moving though the universe all the time , are we fixed to one place ? if the earth does not turn then are we a fixed in place?

Yes. In most forms of geocentrism, the earth is stationary. some say that Geostationism is a more accurate term. There is one theory that has the earth spinning in the center. I don't buy into that theory.

[JohnQPublic]

You did not answer my point JQP, you brought up a strawman to the point and knocked it down. GPS satellites use VERY specific math and engineering. The exact same equations in math and engineering are used to get a satellite circling Jupiter (which is in motion, rotating) or in orbit around Earth (also in motion, rotating).

Seriously, this point needs to be addressed specifically. Geocentrists need to put up formula on how and why GPS works within a stationary earth framework and show that the calculations are IDENTICAL to those of a rotating Earth, otherwise, move this theory back to the junk bin where it belongs!

This is the crux of my argument and why Geocentrism does not make sense. We have applied physics, engineering and mathematics that one must ignore for the Geocentric model to work.

You cannot deny this. Math is math regardless of the motives behind the calculator.

Edit to add: for those unaware, GPS technology completely refutes the geocentric model because GPS positioning systems use math based on a rotating earth with specific stars chosen as the fixed point of reference! Not the stationary earth, but as it appears, the stationary stars. Using general relativity in calculating time, global positioning is achieved. None of this is possible under the Geo model, as JQP wrote earlier arguments against the accuracy of general relativity.

Without these specific details, which are the literal antithesis of geocentrism, GPS tech as known by humanity today, would not exist.

DMac- I think I was mixing up your point with Horn's video of the earth rotating beneath a satellite. That is what my response was based on.

GPS is a very interesting animal, and it is discussed in Gallileo Was Wrong. I will address it next since you bring it up. Do I recall from previuous comments that you work on the GPS?

For starters here is what one of the readers of the book says (I offer it not as proof, but an interesting comment):


Ironically, aerospace engineers assume an “earth-centered, earth-fixed” coordinate system when launching and flying satellites. The Global Positioning System (GPS) does the same for navigation on earth and in space. In Galileo Was Wrong, Sungenis and Bennett examine the ‘anomalies’ that arise from the Copernican model, anomalies that are swept under the rug by the same scientists who assume the earth is mobile in order to ‘simplify’ complex problems. A must read for those who can set aside prejudices and a priori assumptions.

Joseph A. Strada, Ph.D.Aerospace Engineer, NRO

[Gaillo]

I've so far stayed out of this thread... I've viewed it as retarded almost beyond belief! ;D

OK... for the geocentrists of the forum, I have 2 simple questions:

(1) Geocentrism implies that the Earth is immobile, and that all other objects in the Universe are moving around it. WHAT causes the sun to orbit the Earth? There is obviously not enough mass/gravity inherent in the Earth. Is it "the power of God" or some other similar Deus Ex Machina? As a side question, if the Sun is orbiting the Earth, then why are the other planets apparently in orbit around the Sun instead of also in orbit around the Earth?

(2) With some of the measured motion of other stars and galaxies in relation to the Earth, many of those objects (assuming a fixed Earth) would have to be travelling faster than the speed of light, violating what has been CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED by decades of scientific and engineering discipline as a fundamental physical constant. Does Geocentrism throw out this constant as inconvenient? Or does it just ignore all of the technical advances that have relied upon this constant for their functionality?

[JohnQPublic]

I've so far stayed out of this thread... I've viewed it as retarded almost beyond belief! ;D

OK... for the geocentrists of the forum, I have 2 simple questions:

(1) Geocentrism implies that the Earth is immobile, and that all other objects in the Universe are moving around it. WHAT causes the sun to orbit the Earth? There is obviously not enough mass/gravity inherent in the Earth. Is it "the power of God" or some other similar Deus Ex Machina? As a side question, if the Sun is orbiting the Earth, then why are the other planets apparently in orbit around the Sun instead of also in orbit around the Earth?

(2) With some of the measured motion of other stars and galaxies in relation to the Earth, many of those objects (assuming a fixed Earth) would have to be travelling faster than the speed of light, violating what has been CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED by decades of scientific and engineering discipline as a fundamental physical constant. Does Geocentrism throw out this constant as inconvenient? Or does it just ignore all of the technical advances that have relied upon this constant for their functionality?

1. The sun does not orbit the earth in a gravitational sense. The entire universe is viewed as a rotational system. The universe rotates and carries all objects in it in this rotation. The earth for a variety of possible reasons is in a sense trapped in the location it is, immobile. The one explanation I have been using is that of rotational stability- like a top or gyroscope, the universe preserves its center of mass. If the earth were at the center of mass, the rotational stability of the universe would maintain the earth in the center. It is the dynamic power (inertial) of the universe that causes the sun (and other objects) to move aorund the earth, not earth's tiny gravitational field.

As to the 2nd part, as I described earlier in this thread, the planets (earth not included) orbit the sun with typical elliptical orbits in a local system, and the sun and all other objects are carried around in the universe's rotational system (with earth inertially trapped in the center).

2. First, in general relativity or within the framework of Mach's principle, there is no issue. These forms of physics (which today's standard model is based- especially general relativity) specifically state one can pick any point as a reference point,and all other points in the universe, by necessitry of this choice, would in fact be rotating around the chosen point. Once one exceeds the Schwartzchild radus (the radius at which the rotation equals the speed of light), all mass outside this radius must be moving at greater than the speed of light. Scientists often appeal to these "distant rotating cosmic masses".

For what it is worth, when I started investingating htis myself, this was one of my main objections, too! Once I started studying the physics, I came to understand that this is not an issue, except in Newton's cosmology and the more limited special relativity (neither of which which cannot apply to rotating universes by definition).

Also in aether systems, the aether forms the reference frame, and only motion relative to this reference frame is accounted for. Light traveling tangentially say from Pluto would be travelling faster than the speed of light relative to the fixed earth, but not to the aether. On earth we would not see this light. Light travelling from Pluto to earth would travel relative to the aether.

For both aether and relativistic systems the issue is an object overtaking its own light cone, which does not happen in a rotating universe systems.

Please see some of my earlier posts, where I address some of these issues. I would suggest getting Galileo Was Wrong.

Many of these issues are present in the GPS issue that DMac brought up.

[Gaillo]

1. The sun does not orbit the earth in a gravitational sense. The entire universe is viewed as a rotational system. The universe rotates and carries all objects in it in this rotation. The earth foir a variety of possiblke reasons is in a sense trapped in tnhe location it is, immobile...

...It is the dynamic power (inertial) of the universe that causes the sun (and other objects) to moe aorund the earth, not earth's tiny gravitational field.

How are retrograde planets accounted for if all objects are being "carried" by the universe's rotation? This makes absolutely NO sense in the context of your explanation.

[Horn]

If we look at the universe as an aether, then the aether carries the momentum of the universe with it, but within in any small local area, galaxies can form and rotate, planetary systems can be exist, etc.

This post has all the flavor of a creative Creationistas alphabet soup.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HofoK_QQxGc

[Horn]

Officially, space starts at 62 miles - 100 kilometers. But, there's still traces of atmosphere. The space station, at 200 miles, needs a boost in it's orbit periodically due to atmospheric friction slowing it down. Skylab, originally at 240 miles, crashed to Earth in 1979 because of it.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070919113808AAXF6mu

[vacuum]

John, correct me if I'm wrong, but I see three ways we could dis-prove geocentrism:

1) If we were able to observe all matter in the universe, and we saw that in fact we weren't located at the center of mass.

2) If we could detect that we were passing through the ether which was shown to be stationary with respect to the stars.

3) If we repeated the ether experiments like the MM experiment on mars and got the same result as on earth.

[Gaillo]

Let's follow this Geocentrism concept through logically. If the Earth is the center of the Universe, then all other celestial objects are moving around it. Our NEAREST star (Proxima Centauri) is 4.24 light years away. That means that the orbital circumference is 4.24 X 2 X 3.1415927 = 26.64 Light Years. That star MUST travel that entire distance in only 24 HOURS in order to complete its orbit in one day and "rise" at the same time every night. In order for this to happen, the star must travel at a speed of 1.11 Light Years per hour. In otherwords, it is travelling at a speed of 9,724 TIMES THE SPEED OF LIGHT! Keep in mind, this is the NEAREST star to Earth.

I'm going with.... bullshit.

No offense intended, Mark, but in this case I think your religious beliefs are most likely clouding your rational faculties and judgment. Perhaps the whole "immobile" and "center" thing was meant metaphorically (immobile center of MAN'S universe) instead of literally?

[vacuum]

It should be noted that, using the expanding universe interpretation, most scientists believe that there exist entire galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light relative to us.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=575

Not saying I necessarily agree with the expanding universe, just giving an example of galaxies moving faster than c in mainstream science.

As far as the retrograde of planets, all of the gravity laws remain totally unchanged. All you have to do is transform the equations to use earth as the origin. The equations would probably be too large to write, but they would be mathematically equivalent.

I think the real argument comes down to the three ways of disproving this that I posted above.

[JohnQPublic]

Let's follow this Geocentrism concept through logically. If the Earth is the center of the Universe, then all other celestial objects are moving around it. Our NEAREST star (Proxima Centauri) is 4.24 light years away. That means that the orbital circumference is 4.24 X 2 X 3.1415927 = 26.64 Light Years. That star MUST travel that entire distance in only 24 HOURS in order to complete its orbit in one day and "rise" at the same time every night. In order for this to happen, the star must travel at a speed of 1.11 Light Years per hour. In otherwords, it is travelling at a speed of 9,724 TIMES THE SPEED OF LIGHT! Keep in mind, this is the NEAREST star to Earth.

I'm going with.... bullshit.

No offense intended, Mark, but in this case I think your religious beliefs are most likely clouding your rational faculties and judgment. Perhaps the whole "immobile" and "center" thing was meant metaphorically (immobile center of MAN'S universe) instead of literally?

Gaillo- In general relativity and in a Machian framework, having the universe rotate is not only acceptable but standard operating procedure. In these systems the idea is that you pick a reference point and make it the fixed point in space. Then the rest of the universe has no choice but to rotate around that fixed point.

In an aether based system, the objects of the universe only move relative to the aether.

None of this is an issue. Don't restrict yourself to only Special Relativity, which is clearly inadequate to describe a rotating universe. I think you are speaking too quickly. You need to study this some more.

[JohnQPublic]

How are retrograde planets accounted for if all objects are being "carried" by the universe's rotation? This makes absolutely NO sense in the context of your explanation.

Retrograde motions are something we do view from earth. The reason Ptolemy modeled them is because he (and others) saw them in the sky. Ptolemy modeled them directly as a means of predicting motions of the heavenly bodies. The system I described is not the Ptolemaic. The system I described in fact is basically a coordinate shift of the helio centric or solar bary-centric to be more precise, and will have the exact same relations as the those systems (it has to mathematically).

All the objects are carried in the universe's motion, i.e., they all have the universes momentum acting upon them. But, as I said, this does not preclude local motion. So as the solar system (sun and all planets, not earth) travels with the universe, the planets (again, not earth) orbit the sun in a local motion. This will produce the epicycles from earth's perspective. Think of a bi-central mechanical system: universe center = earth, solar system center = sun. Again, it will have to, it is a coordinate transformation. If coordinate transformation do not work, then NASA would have a much more difficult time sending objects on planetary missions.

Go to this orrery that Sirgonzo420 linked in:

http://www.theplanetstoday.com/

Open the control panel (arrow, top right). crank up the speed (top slider, upper top slider is super powerful, lower is less powerful). Go to the menu (mid right). Make earth the center (currently set to "Sol"). Find an example of Mars retrograde motion. Stop it (move speed sliders to center). reverse it (slide speed sliders left of center). Make the sun the center. Rerun it. You will see the exact same thing, but just from a different perspective.

If you look, you will see the sun going around the earth and the planets going around the sun. This is the neo-Tychonian (minus the stars). All the relationships are the same in either system.

[JohnQPublic]

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070919113808AAXF6mu

Ok. Sounds good to me for some purposes at least.

[JohnQPublic]

Let's follow this Geocentrism concept through logically. If the Earth is the center of the Universe, then all other celestial objects are moving around it. Our NEAREST star (Proxima Centauri) is 4.24 light years away. That means that the orbital circumference is 4.24 X 2 X 3.1415927 = 26.64 Light Years. That star MUST travel that entire distance in only 24 HOURS in order to complete its orbit in one day and "rise" at the same time every night. In order for this to happen, the star must travel at a speed of 1.11 Light Years per hour. In otherwords, it is travelling at a speed of 9,724 TIMES THE SPEED OF LIGHT! Keep in mind, this is the NEAREST star to Earth.

I'm going with.... bullshit.

No offense intended, Mark, but in this case I think your religious beliefs are most likely clouding your rational faculties and judgment. Perhaps the whole "immobile" and "center" thing was meant metaphorically (immobile center of MAN'S universe) instead of literally?

Relative to the stationary roundabout [theEarth], the distant stars would have…linear velocities exceeding 3 × 10^8 m/sec, the terrestrial value of the velocity of light. At first sight this appears to be a contradiction…that the velocities of all material bodies must be less than c [the speed of light]. However, the restriction u < c = 3 × 10^8 m/sec is restricted to the theory of Special Relativity. According to the General theory, it is possible to choose local reference frames in which, over a limited volume of space, there is no gravitational field, and relative to such a reference frame the velocity of light is equal to c…. If gravitational fields are present the velocities of either material bodies or of light can assume any numerical value depending on the strength of the gravitational field. If one considers the rotating roundabout as being at rest, the centrifugal gravitational field assumes enormous values at large distances, and it is consistent with the theory of General Relativity for the velocities of distant bodies to exceed 3 × 10^8 m/sec under these conditions.

An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity, William
Geraint Vaughn Rosser, 1964, p. 460


…it is permissible to assume that the Earth is a nonrotating frame of reference. From this point of view, the stars will have a circular
velocity around the Earth that is much greater than the speed of light. A star only ten light-years away has a relative velocity around the Earth of twenty thousand times the speed of light.

Martin Gardner, Relativity Explosion, 1976, p. 68.

[JohnQPublic]

...We can also answer the objection by noting that, although it is to our advantage to use modern physics against itself as we do when we point out that General Relativity permits a body to move faster than the speed of light, the celestial mechanics of geocentrism, in fact, does not claim that the stars move faster than light. Geocentrism says only that the universe rotates around the Earth once per day, and in that rotation it carries the stars with it. Thus, compared to the universe within which they are contained, the stars are not moving at all, save for their minuscule independent movements. Mechanically speaking, the rotation of the universe is an integral facet of the geocentric system so as to act as a counterbalance to the inward pressure of gravity. It just so happens that the centrifugal force created by a 24-hour rotation period prohibits the stars and other material in the universe from collapsing
inward (a problem, incidentally, that Newton and Einstein recognized in their respective universes, which Newton attempted to answer by opting for an
infinite universe, and Einstein by his infamous “cosmological constant,” neither of which provided an adequate solution). An advocate of Relativity can raise no objections against geocentrism’s rotating universe since Relativity sees no difference, or has no way to distinguish between, a rotating Earth among fixed stars or stars that revolve around a fixed Earth. The two are relativistically equivalent...

Robert Sungenis, Galileo Was Wrong

[JohnQPublic]

It should be noted that, using the expanding universe interpretation, most scientists believe that there exist entire galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light relative to us.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=575

Not saying I necessarily agree with the expanding universe, just giving an example of galaxies moving faster than c in mainstream science.

As far as the retrograde of planets, all of the gravity laws remain totally unchanged. All you have to do is transform the equations to use earth as the origin. The equations would probably be too large to write, but they would be mathematically equivalent.

I think the real argument comes down to the three ways of disproving this that I posted above.

vacuum- this is because of their assumption about the nature of redshift. As I pointed out, redshift could occur because we are in a gravitational well (i.e., central or in a low density region of a larger high density space as some researchers are exploring today), tired light theory, etc.

[JohnQPublic]

John, correct me if I'm wrong, but I see three ways we could dis-prove geocentrism:

1) If we were able to observe all matter in the universe, and we saw that in fact we weren't located at the center of mass.

Likely, especially if we know its distribution also. Especially in a non-aether system.



2) If we could detect that we were passing through the ether which was shown to be stationary with respect to the stars.

True, and of course this has been tried (Michelson Morley, and many superior later experiments such as Dayton Miller).



3) If we repeated the ether experiments like the MM experiment on mars and got the same result as on earth.

Possibly, or this could also invalidate the aether hypothesis (at least luminiferous aether).

[Horn]

Catching a 0 gravity wave outta here, catch me coming out of the other side of the Sun later this year.

Picture me hovering directly over your poles...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVSlB5lbITU&amp;feature=endscreen&amp;NR=1

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/03/22/stereo-spots-jupiter-slipping-behind-the-sun/

[JohnQPublic]

Catching a 0 gravity wave outta here, catch me coming out of the other side of the Sun later this year.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=foBUaOKsIZM

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/03/22/stereo-spots-jupiter-slipping-behind-the-sun/

Can you provide some commentary on this, and what it means? It is interesting, but I'm not sure of the cosmological implications you seem to be implying.

[Horn]

Note that stars near the two celestial poles will make little circles around the pole as the Earth spins. The farther you get from the poles, the bigger the circle. At some point, the circle will be big enough so that it just touches your horizon. Stars inside that circle are said to be circumpolar, and they never set! They just seem to circle the pole endlessly. Note that the stars you see as circumpolar depend on your latitude. If you were at the North Pole, all the stars you can see in the sky are circumpolar, but at the equator, no stars are! At the equator, both celestial poles lie on the horizon, and all the stars in the sky rise and set.

http://www.badastronomy.com/pix/precess.gif
One more thing: have you ever watched a top spin, and seen it wobble? The wobble is due to a force called torque, which is like a twisting pull. When torque is applied to a spinning object, the spin axis will precess, or make a little circle as the top spins. Well, the same thing is happening to the Earth! The gravity of the Moon and Sun (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/tides.html) provides a torque on the Earth, causing the axis to wobble. The Earth's axis takes 26,000 years to make a complete circle, and as it moves it points to different parts of the sky. It just so happens that right now it is pointing near Polaris (actually, Polaris is about a degree away from the actual North Celestial Pole). In a few thousand years, the Earth's pole will be pointed at the bright star Vega, which is one of the ten brightest stars in the sky. Imagine how hard it will be to convince people that's just a coincidence when that happens!

Bad Addendum
Bad Reader Andrew Sincinito brought to my attention the lyrics of a song by Gerry Rafferty, called "Right Down the Line":

I know how much I lean on you
Only you can see
The changes that I've been through Have left a mark on me
You've been as constant as a northern star
The brightest light that shines
It's been you
Woman Right down the line

I hate to give him more credit than he might deserve, but those lines could be interpreted as "she is as constant as the north star, and she is the brightest light that shines;" he might not have been talking about Polaris. However, he might have meant that Polaris is the brightest star in the sky. If so, we have another victim of Bad Astronomy. If not, well, the lyrics are still kind of Bad. ;-) Incidentally, Mark Bellis of Canada tells me that Joni Mitchell had an even earlier song with similar lyrics in it. I guess this idea goes back pretty far. Matter of fact, Shakespeare made the same error in "Julius Caesar"! So I guess Joni and Gerry are in good company.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PB6XKPFp3Dw

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/badpole.html

[JohnQPublic]

Does the Earth move around the Sun? (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/10/03/does-the-earth-move-around-the-sun/)

by Sean Carroll (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/author/scarroll/)


...But now comes along Einstein and general relativity (GR). What’s the situation there? It actually cuts both ways. Most importantly, in GR the concept of a global reference frame and the more restrictive concept of an inertial frame simply do not exist. You cannot take your locally-defined axes and stretch them uniquely throughout space, there’s just no way to do it. (In particular, if you tried, you would find that the coordinates defined by traveling along two different paths gave you two different values for the same point in space.) Instead, all we have are coordinate systems of various types. Even in Newtonian absolute space (or for that matter in special relativity, which in this matter is just the same as Newtonian mechanics) we always have the freedom to choose elaborate coordinate systems, but in GR that’s all we have. And if we can choose all sorts of different coordinates, there is nothing to stop us from choosing one with the Earth at the center and the Sun moving around in circles (or ellipses) around it. It would be kind of perverse, but it is no less “natural” than anything else, since there is no notion of a globally inertial coordinate system that is somehow more natural. That is the sense in which, in GR, it is equally true to say that the Sun moves around the Earth as vice-versa...

[JohnQPublic]

Thursday, June 9, 2011

Geocentrism (http://primecrackpot.blogspot.com/2011/06/geocentrism.html)


If, as relativity claims, we can with equal justification choose any reference frame and call that one “at rest,” with the result that no reference frame is privileged and really “at rest,” then why cannot the Christian say that, since God created man, man is therefore special in the universe; and that therefore, man is justified in claiming that Earth’s frame is truly “at rest,” and the rest of the universe is in motion relative to Earth. In other words, the ancient view that the sun revolves around the Earth, indeed that the entire universe revolves around the Earth, is the correct view. If any reference frame we choose can be regarded as “at rest,” why not choose Earth’s frame? Perhaps God truly did create Earth “at rest,” and Earth is the only body in the universe “at rest.”

Most physicists would say that there are certain astronomical observations that can only be explained if the Earth is revolving around the sun. These observations are what led Copernicus to his sun-centered model of the solar system. But if this is true, and certain observations can only be explained in terms of a sun-centered model, does this not violate Einstein’s assertion that any reference frame can with equal justification be regarded as “at rest?” For does not Copernicus show us that Einstein is incorrect? If scientists wish to uphold Einstein, then there must be some way to explain astronomical observations such that Earth can be regarded as “at rest.” And if so, then the Christian, with his belief in God, is perfectly within his right to assert that the universe is centered on the Earth, and no scientist can legitimately refute the Christian.

For the moment, putting aside the theological/scientific dispute to which my previous assertion gives rise, let’s suppose that the Earth truly is the absolute rest frame, and that the universe revolves around the Earth. What might we expect to be the observational and experimental results of such a situation? What new conclusions might we be led to, what new discoveries might be made? In other words, has no one thought to reconsider the view that the universe revolves around the Earth? It was supposedly definitively refuted by Copernicus. But what if that refutation was itself a mistake? Why not go back and look at the implications of an Earth-centered universe, in light of the centuries of scientific knowledge that have accumulated since such a view was abandoned? Are there any scientists willing to put aside their scientific prejudices and cogitate upon the matter? For if relativity is correct, as they assert, then it must be possible to view Earth as the “rest” frame. Why not go one step further, and pretend that it is the one true rest frame, and all other frames cannot validly be regarded as at rest.

The first thing such a geocentric view explains is the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment. One might even say that Michelson-Morley is proof of the geocentric view. One wonders if this has ever been considered.

The immediate, ready response of the relativist is probably, “Earth is rotating about its own axis, and it’s rotating around the sun. Rotation is acceleration, and accelerating frames are not inertial frames. Therefore Earth is not an inertial reference frame. Einstein’s assertion that all reference frames can with equal justification be regarded as at rest only applies to inertial frames. Thus Earth cannot with equal justification be regarded as at rest. Therefore your argument is invalid.”

But this response presupposes the conclusion. It presupposes that the Earth is rotating about the sun. If we claim the Earth is at rest, then the above response of the relativist is invalid at the outset. Earth is only rotating if you assume it is actually in motion. In the geocentric view, we’re saying Earth is not in motion. We deny any motion in the Earth. The sun and the universe are rotating around the Earth, in such a way that to an Earth-bound observer, it appears the Earth is the one moving. But that’s just an illusion. The Earth is at rest. The Earth is the only true inertial frame, and the entire universe is accelerating around the Earth.

Next the relativist will probably accuse me of being a Christian and dragging God into the argument. This alone, from the viewpoint of the relativist, is enough to discredit my little theory. No further investigation is therefore needed.

But I’m not trying to drag God into this. I’m merely trying to go against currently accepted wisdom and see where it leads. Accepted wisdom says the Earth rotates around the sun. I’m saying maybe it’s time to reconsider the reverse. Accepted wisdom says there is no absolute frame of reference. I’m saying maybe it’s time to consider that there is. Forget dragging God into the argument. Maybe there’s a different reason why Earth is the center of the universe. Why should Science refuse to “go there” just because the territory smacks of God? Who is the fanatic here, holding fast to accepted dogma? The religious person, or the scientist? When you’re stuck in a rut, thinking beyond dogma, beyond accepted wisdom, is the only way to advance from the rut. And it seems to me that Science is currently stuck in a rut. Why then do so many scientists turn up their noses at thinking in directions that depart too radically from their accepted notions? Are scientists so attached to the ideas keeping them in a rut, that they’re unwilling to cast a mere exploratory thought along radical paths? Are they just unwilling, or have they been so thoroughly indoctrinated that they’re completely incapable of such thought?
Clarification: I’m not even saying that everything in the universe is revolving around the Earth. I’m not saying Mercury, Venus, et al, must revolve around the Earth. I’m saying that overall, the entire universe revolves around Earth, it’s all centered on Earth. Locally, there may be objects that don’t revolve around Earth. They may revolve around other bodies, which revolve around other bodies, etc. which themselves revolve about the Earth. The whole universe, overall, revolves around the Earth. The Earth is at absolute rest. No rotation, no motion through space—nothing. Our task is then to figure out why this is so, and what conclusions we might draw from the situation. Maybe if certain theories were reworked slightly, they would support geocentrism, and would be the stronger for it
.
If scientists rule out geocentrism as definitely impossible, then scientists must also concede the following: while we cannot by any experiment determine an absolute rest frame, we can determine frames that definitely cannot be at rest. Thus, there must be at least two categories of reference frames: those that could be at absolute rest but cannot be proven by experiment to be at absolute rest, and those that definitely are not at absolute rest. So we cannot prove by experiment that any frame is at absolute rest, but we can prove that some frames are definitely not at absolute rest. Thus if two frames are in relative motion, it is not equally valid to say that either frame is in motion or at rest with respect to the other, since there will be some frames that can be proven to not be at rest. Thus, again, we come across another error in Einstein’s theory.

So relativists must either accept geocentrism as a valid possibility, or reject it and thus deal a blow to relativity.

[Horn]

"When it comes to Earth's rotation, you might think geophysicists have pretty much everything figured out. Not quite. In order to explain some variations in the way our planet spins, Earth's mantle — the layer of hot, softened rock that lies between the crust and core — must conduct electricity, an ability that the mantle as we know it shouldn't have. Now, a new study (academic paper (http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.5068)) finds that iron monoxide, which makes up 9% of the mantle, actually does conduct electricity just like a metal (http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/01/electric-material-in-mantle-coul.html?ref=hp), but only at temperatures and pressures found far beneath the surface."

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/01/electric-material-in-mantle-coul.html?ref=hp (http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/01/21/1824236/electric-earth-could-explain-planets-rotation)

http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.5068

[DMac]

JQP - you mention the Aether quite often. While I am aware of what that word represents can you be more specific on what proof it exists in the first place that you use to base these calculations off of?

Whether I accept the big bang dark matter or evolution is irrelevant to this argument.

Also, and I thank you if you are willing to be so candid; how did you get involved in this argument in the first place? Sungenis has a phd from a non accredited school and primarily studied theology. Yet you are following his beliefs on science. Have you not listened to me - there are no gurus.

I do not seek spiritual advice from the hotdog vendor, even if he says he can make me one with everything.

If anyone was right, it was those against Camillo Borghese, not those against Galileo. Borghese was a serious crook.

[Neuro]

I like the idea that every point in the universe is the center of the universe.
Hmmm, that would make every egocentrist correct...

[JohnQPublic]

JQP - you mention the Aether quite often. While I am aware of what that word represents can you be more specific on what proof it exists in the first place that you use to base these calculations off of?

I am not subscribing to any specific aether theory. Some that are of interest are Planck particle based theories; the epola, which I believe is an extension of the Dirac aether; and Stokes type fluidic aethers. Also, aether is of interest in terms of explanations for gravity (i.e., La Sagean type pushing gravity).



Whether I accept the big bang dark matter or evolution is irrelevant to this argument.

Whether you accept relativity is not irrelevant. If you accept big bang /dark matter, then implicitly you accept general relativity. If you accept claims about how the GPS system works, then you implicitly accept claimed corrections from special and general relativity, unless you accept the corrections, but on another basis. If you want to have a frank conversation, you need to be frank also.


Also, and I thank you if you are willing to be so candid; how did you get involved in this argument in the first place? Sungenis has a phd from a non accredited school and primarily studied theology. Yet you are following his beliefs on science. Have you not listened to me - there are no gurus.

...

I did get involved through Robert Sungenis. At the time he did not have a PhD from any institution. He was pursuing a PhD. from Maryvale, but ultimately they would not accept a thesis on geocentrism, so he changed to another institution. "TPTB" work on many levels, including through educational institutions.

I am not seeking gurus. I have studied this on my own and verified enough of it to convince me.

There are a number of PhD physicists involved in this. Robert Sungenis had the vision to start this, and frankly did a fantastic job researching all the ins and outs of this issue throughout its history. I would strongly suggest you read Galileo Was Wrong. As I said the PDF version is pretty inexpensive.


If anyone was right, it was those against Camillo Borghese, not those against Galileo. Borghese was a serious crook.

I will have to study this. Thanks.

[Santa]

The Ocean of Light - A Falsifiable Thought Experiment (http://www.mountainman.com.au/news97_4.html)


Here is a thought experiment - repeatable by any educated
or uneducated person on the planet ... (1) Go outdoors under the night sky - preferably away
from the city lights - and observe the stars.
(2) Select any one star upon which to focus your attention.
(3) Observe and then determine the nature of this
star_light_energy and you will have to agree that:


(a) It is much like an incredibly high-speed "groundswell" of light,
(b) It would appear to be continuously flowing.

(4) Move the location of your eye_socket and repeat (3).
(5) It would be apparent that this high speed groundswell of
star_light is existent in this changed location also.
(6) By a process of mathematical integration, or a simple
process of imagination, it may be easily determined that
this observation (3) is repeatable at *ALL POINTS* in the
known cosmos, and that what we perceive as a continuous
stream of star light is actually a spherical stream with
the center based on its source - that specific star.
(7) Thus through and at all points in the cosmos there exists
a high speed continuous and groundswell_like flux of star_light
from this one little old star.
(8) Multiple this observation by the existence of a billion billion suns
and the staggering congregations of the distant galaxies
(9) Multiple the resultant again by a factor representative
of the amount of energy we perceive with our eyes (ie: the
frequencies of the 'visible' EMR spectrum) compared
to the energy being spherically transmitted at all
frequencies of the EMR spectrum by each source above.
(10) Rather than the classical vacuous spaces of interplanetary,
interstellar or intergallactic realms, in fact the cosmos
is filled by an ocean of light (EMR) fed by the tributary
groundswells of the stars and their galactic hubs.
(11) This 'field of pure energy' is the substrate of the cosmos
and is easily seen to resemble the topography of an ocean that
continuously breaks upon the shores of our remote terrestrial island.
(12)Whether this substrate described above is the aether
or whether indeed it is the aether that bears this luminous substrate
only time and earnest research will tell.

[JohnQPublic]

Santa- I replied to your post about ether (how it feels, etc.) and something got messed up. I'm not sure what happened. Sorry. JQP

[JohnQPublic]

This summary of standard claims for the GPS was writen by Robert Bennett (PhD Physics), coauthor of Galileo Was Wrong. After the summary he then goes on to evaluate some specific claims related to relativity and geocentrism. I will start with Appendix 7 (Robert Sungenis), which is more direct to this discussion, but will include Robert Bennet's summary so we can discuss where we are starting.

------------------------------------

The Global Positioning System is a satellite based navigation system consisting of a network of 24 orbiting satellites that are eleven thousand nautical miles in space and in six different near circular orbital paths. The satellites are constantly moving, making two complete orbits around the Earth in just under 24 hours at about 3.6 kilometers per second. The satellite orbits are roughly 25,000 kilometers from the Earth’s center, or 20,000 kilometers above the surface, far below the orbits of the geosynchronous or geostationary satellites. The orbital paths of these satellites take them between roughly 60 degrees North and 60 degrees South latitudes.

The satellites contain precise atomic clocks whose rates depend both upon satellite velocity and altitude and are stable to one part in 10^14 over a day’s time, at best accurate to about 10 ns (10^-8 sec). An observer with a Global Positioning System receiver on the ground, in an airplane, or in a satellite, may determine his precise location by obtaining signals from several satellites simultaneously. The Global Positioning System receiver determines its current position and heading by comparing the time signals it receives from the Global Positioning System satellites and triangulating on the known positions of each satellite. The positions of the Global Positioning System satellites are predicted from time delay calculations that set the speed of light to a constant value, c. The U.S. Department of Defense uses radar to map the satellites to reference points on the Earth’s surface; and correction data is sent back to the satellites every few seconds.

If the frame is Earth-centered but does rotate, it is non-inertial and termed ECEF: Earth-Centered, Earth-Fixed. The clock rates are not adjusted for motion relative to each other but all refer to the Earth-Centered, non- rotating Inertial frame, the ECI frame. Ephemerides are expressed in the ECEF coordinate frame, which is Earth-fixed. Global Positioning System stations broadcast the satellite ephemerides (schedule of orbit positions) in an Earth-Centered, Earth-Fixed reference frame rotating once every 24 hours. If used without removing the underlying Earth rotation, GPS would be in error, so the ephemerides are transformed to ECI using theEarth rotation rate. Because of frame rotation, the path of a signal in the ECEF is complex. In the Global Positioning System, synchronization is performed in the ECI frame, which solves the problem of path-dependent inconsistencies. The displacement of a receiver on the surface of the Earth due to the Earth’s rotation in inertial space during the time of flight of the signal must also be taken into account. For example, the greatest distance between satellite and receiver occurswhen the receiver is on the equator and the satellite is on the horizon.

Correction must also be applied by a receiver on a moving platform, such as an aircraft or another satellite, by an observer in the rotating ECEF frame. This is the Sagnac effect, the same principle employed by laser ring gyros in an inertial navigation system.



Global Positioning System Clocks


Cesium atomic clocks operate by counting hyperfine transitions of cesium atoms that occur roughly 10 billion times per second at a very stable frequency provided by nature. The precise number of such transitions was originally calibrated by astronomers and is now adopted by internationa lagreement as the definition of one atomic second. To achieve high location precision, the ticks of the atomic clock must be known to an accuracy of 20-30 nanoseconds. Because the satellites are moving relative to and above ground observers, Relativity must be taken into account.The Global Positioning System is based on the principle of the constancy of


c in a local inertial frame: the Earth-Centered Inertial (ECI) frame.Time dilation of moving clocks is significant forclocks in the satellites as well as clocks at rest on the ground.Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks should fall behind ground clocks by about 7 microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect. General Relativity predicts that satellite clocks will seem to tick faster than the surface clocks by 45microseconds per day. The total relativistic effect is about 38 microseconds per day. This is a huge difference compared to the required accuracy, that is, 38,000 ns as compared to 25 ns, the former being 1,500 times larger.

To compensate for the General Relativistic effect, GPS engineers slow down the satellite clock frequency at pre-launch so that when the satellites are orbiting the clocks will have the same rate as the reference atomic clocks at the Global Positioning System ground stations. A clock whose natural ticking frequency has been pre-corrected on theground for relativity changes in orbit is a “GPS clock.” A Global Positioning System clock can be used to determine local time in the surface frame atany point along the orbit. The satellite clocks are reset in rate before launch to compensate for relativistic effects by changing the international definition of the number of atomic transitions that constitute a one-second interval. With this re-definition, the clocks on board the satellites run at nearly the same rates as ground clocks.Global Positioning System receivers have a built in computer chip that does the necessary relativistic calculations to find the user’s location. Since the ground receivers rotate in ECEF, satellite positionschange with each measurement. So the receiver must perform a different rotation for each measurement made into some common inertial frame. After solving the propagation delay equations, a final rotation mustbe performed into the ECEF to determine the receiver’s position. This complexity – where ground and satellites are both moving – is simpler to describe in an inertial reference frame, ECI, centered at the earth’s center of mass, which center is moving at constant velocity. For the solar system, an International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF) is similarly defined, centered at the solar system barycenter.It can be shown by sample configurations that path-dependent discrepancies in the rotating ECEF frame are inescapable by any practical means, while synchronization in the underlying ECI frame is self consistent.For the Global Positioning System this means that synchronization of the entire system of ground-based and orbiting atomic clocks is performed in the local inertial frame, or ECI coordinate system.

[Horn]

Galileo Was Wrong

Only a sith deals in absolutes.

3420

[vacuum]

I am not subscribing to any specific aether theory. Some that are of interest are Planck particle based theories; the epola, which I believe is an extension of the Dirac aether; and Stokes type fluidic aethers. Also, aether is of interest in terms of explanations for gravity (i.e., La Sagean type pushing gravity).

Very interesting that you mention the epola. I just finished reading the book on it, and it seems very convincing to me.

[JohnQPublic]

3432


To his utter consternation, however, in the 1930s and 40s, Hubble discovered an inordinate amount of evidence through his work with the 100-inch telescope at Mount Wilson, California, that Earth was in the center of the universe. As he examined the light coming from stars, Hubble concluded that the spectrum of light, particularly the shift toward the red end of the spectrum, indicated Earth’s centrality quite clearly. But since Hubble was an avowed Copernican, he dismissed the geocentric evidence and countered with the following obstinate alternative:


…Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth.…This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility...the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs... such a favored position is intolerable…. Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position…must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape. [The Observational Approach to Astronomy- JQP]

Notice Hubble’s highly charged language. Although he admits it cannot be disproved, an Earth centered universe is not only “unwelcome” but “must be avoided at all costs” and, in fact, it is a “horror” that is “intolerable.” As noted earlier, one scientist even calls it a “depressing thought.”[Donald Goldsmith, the Evolving Universe- JQP]. Notice also Hubble revealing to us that “space curvature” was invented (by Einstein) in order to escape the geocentric implications from the evidence in his telescope of Earth’s centrality.

(excerpts from Galileo Was Wrong, pg. 61, footnotes and illustrations not included)

[JohnQPublic]

Dark Energy or Geocentrism?
Modern Science at a Crossroads

3433


The most significant scientific evidence that is challenging Copernican cosmology hails from that gathered by astronomers themselves. In short, they are increasingly confronted with evidence that places Earth in the center of the universe. For example, in a 2008 paper written by three astrophysicists from Oxford, evidence for the centrality of the Earth was the simplest explanation for the practical and mathematical understanding of the universe, far superior to the forced invention of “Dark Energy” to support the Copernican model. ScienceDaily put it in simple terms for the layman:

Dark energy is at the heart of one of the greatest mysteries of modern physics, but it may be nothing more than an illusion, according to physicists at Oxford University. The problem facing astrophysicists is that they have to explain why the universe appears to be expanding at an ever increasing rate. The most popular explanation is that some sort of force is pushing the acceleration of the universe’s expansion. That force is generally attributed to a mysterious dark energy. Although dark energy may seem a bit contrived to some, the Oxford theorists are proposing an even more outrageous alternative. They point out that it’s possible that we simply live in a very special place in the universe – specifically, we’re in a huge void where the density of matter is particularly low. The suggestion flies in the face of the Copernican Principle, which is one of the most useful and widely held tenets in physics. Copernicus was among the first scientists to argue that we’re not in a special place in the universe, and that any theory that suggests that we’re special is most likely wrong. The principle led directly to the replacement of the Earth-centered concept of the solar system with the more elegant sun-centered model. Dark energy may seem like a stretch, but it’s consistent with the venerable Copernican Principle. The proposal that we live in a special place in the universe, on the other hand, is likely to shock many scientists.

...Clifton then shows that the tweaking required to get the Dark Energy model working is wholly unnecessary if one simply rejects the first principle of cosmology, the Copernican principle:

An alternative to admitting the existence of dark energy is to review the postulates that necessitate its introduction. In particular, it has been proposed that the SNe observations could be accounted for without dark energy if our local environment were emptier than the surrounding Universe, i.e., if we were to live in a void. This explanation for the apparent acceleration does not invoke any exotic substances, extra dimensions, or modifications to gravity – but it does require a rejection of the Copernican Principle. We would be required to live near the center of a spherically symmetric under-density, on a scale of the same order of magnitude as the observable Universe. Such a situation would have profound consequences for the interpretation of all cosmological observations, and would ultimately mean that we could not infer the properties of the Universe at large from what we observe locally.

Within the standard inflationary cosmological model the probability of large, deep voids occurring is extremely small. However, it can be argued that the center of a large under density is the most likely place for observers to find themselves. In this case, finding ourselves in the center of a giant void would violate the Copernican principle, that we are not in a special place…

New Scientist wasted no time in laying out the cosmological and historical implications of this study:

It was the evolutionary theory of its age. A revolutionary hypothesis that undermined the cherished notion that we humans are somehow special, driving a deep wedge between science and religion. The philosopher Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for espousing it; Galileo Galilei, the most brilliant scientist of his age, was silenced. But Nicolaus Copernicus’s idea that Earth was just one of many planets orbiting the sun – and so occupied no exceptional position in the cosmos – has endured and become a foundation stone of our understanding of the universe. Could it actually be wrong, though? At first glance, that question might seem heretical, or downright silly….And that idea, some cosmologists point out, has not been tested beyond all doubt – yet.

(excerpts from Galileo Was Wrong, pg. 70-72, footnotes and illustrations not included)

[JohnQPublic]

A truly magnificent work. There exists no better exposition of the history and science of geocentrism. Very highly recommended and a must for all those interested in the issues surrounding geocentrism today. The animations of the CD are excellent. They illustrate the daily and yearly motions of the sun and planets about the earth, the seasons, retrograde motion, and parallax in a uniform way. The authors have done a very admirable job all around.

Gerardus Bouw, Ph.D.
Astronomy
Author of Geocentricity

In their over 700-page book, Galileo Was Wrong, Drs. Robert Sungenis and Robert Bennett make a convincing case for the special and central position of the earth in the cosmos, both physically and spiritually. This is, of course, radically at odds from what everyone is taught from childhood; everyone “knows” the earth revolves around the sun. However, from time to time, like the little girl in Hans Christian Andersen’s tale The Emperor’s New Clothes, accepted “wisdom” is challenged; and what everyone “knows” to be true turns out to be merely a concocted fantasy. Drs. Sungenis and Bennett make a powerful case that the “truths” of heliocentric and acentric cosmologies aiming to describe the “fabric” of spacetime may in fact be constructed out of the same type of “cloth” as the outfit of the Emperor. Admirably presented in a format accessible to a scientific layman, the authors dismantle “proofs” of the earth’s motion such as Foucault’s pendulum, stellar parallax, and stellar aberration. In exhaustive detail, the authors also present the results from modern physics (such as interferometer experiments) and astronomical observations, suggesting that in fact the position of the earth may be where it was held to be prior to the “Copernican revolution”; namely, the unmoving center of the universe. The authors provide quotes from eminent cosmologists admitting that this cannot be refuted by observation but is only rejected on philosophical grounds, and raise the disturbing possibility that part of modern cosmology and physics, including Relativity Theory, has been invented out of “whole cloth” precisely to avoid the philosophical implications of a universe with a motionless earth at the center.

While many of the arguments contained within Galileo Was Wrong have been previously presented by other geocentrists, it is unparalleled in the breadth and detail of the information presented supporting a geocentric cosmology and its accessibility to the lay reader. Galileo Was Wrong therefore stands as a unique reference and starting point for future debate among all who are searchers for the truth and willing to entertain the possibility that perhaps the little girl proclaiming the Emperor’s nakedness was correct.

Unfortunately Galileo Was Wrong is likely to be scorned not only by the mainstream scientific community but also by the mainstream creationist movement. But all who believe that man’s creation was not by “accident” would do well to consider the following questions, posed by the authors. Is the earth an insignificant rock, a mere chance artifact of the Big Bang, one out of many planets in one out of many solar systems, of no special position but hurtling with great speed through the cosmos towards no final destination in particular? Or has the earth been specifically designed by a benevolent Creator as the habitation place for man, the highest creation in the physical universe, and therefore placed in the central position in the universe? For an important corollary to the question of whether man came into being only by accident or via the design of an omnipotent and loving Creator is whether the place of his habitation in the universe likewise came into being only by accident or by design of a Creator, and whether its place in the universe has any importance or special significance. As others strive to restore man to his rightful role as the crown of physical creation as opposed to a mere assortment of molecules arising by chance, Drs. Sungenis and Bennett have made a powerful case for restoring man’s central physical position in the universe.

Vincent J. Schmithorst, Ph.D.
Physics
Imaging Research, Ohio


Galileo Was Wrong is an evocative book. It evoked memories which have lain dormant since my undergraduate days: things like the disturbing conclusions of the Michelson-Morley experiments; things like Leibniz’s critique of Newton’s system as shot through with appeals to occult properties; things like the fact that no one, least of all Newton, can explain what gravity is or refute the materialists’ conclusion that it is intrinsic to matter. In their new book, Sungenis and Bennett take no prisoners. They look all of the anomalies in the current cosmological system in the face without fear and come up with conclusions that will startle the followers of Carl Sagan out of their dogmatic slumbers. Truth to tell, Newton was turned into an idol to serve the political purposes of the Whigs, who used him to bring down the House of Bourbon across the English Channel. His cosmological system was used as a justification of the Enlightenment. Now that the Enlightenment is over, it was inevitable that the system upon which it was based should come in for the powerful critique which Sungenis and Bennett provide. Not inevitable, however, was the brilliant way they provide it.

E. Michael Jones, Ph.D.
Editor: Culture Wars


It takes some measure of discipline to collate and assemble, in cogent form, the relevant scholarship touching on the matter of geocentricity. The task is complicated in no small part by the diversity of viewpoint evident among the adherents to this admittedly dissident approach to astrophysics. Well-intentioned but poorly executed attempts along such lines have tended to discredit the geocentric model, and it is not without reason that the opposition focuses attention on such blatant misfires (if they focus attention on the issue at all). This volume, however, achieves a cumulative effect that is formidable. No one geocentrist, aside from the authors, will agree with every scientific tenet in this work, and many geocentrists might detect the absence of their primary concerns or preferred theoretical alternatives, myself included. How could it be otherwise? If the book were to be fully comprehensive, it could never enter print, its completion being diverted by continual data acquisition. It is right, then, that this effort storms the field in the powerful form it already exhibits, and it is my hope that it will become a living document, growing in value as new updated editions are issued.

I am not a Roman Catholic. Some may find it inexplicable that someone like myself, from the Protestant side of the aisle, would write an endorsement for this project. I believe that in the matter before us, we’d have to credit sectarian tunnelvision for giving rise to such perplexity. My appreciation for the monumental labors of Drs. Sungenis and Bennett does not entail my adopting their views concerning the weight of Patristic evidence, for instance (although the difference between us is one of degree), and my endorsement of their work does not imply my repudiation of sola scriptura, among other distinctively Protestant positions. The critical question involves the value of the specific scholarship being presented. Just as the Chalcedon Foundation, a Protestant Christian educational institution, published the work of Notre Dame University’s Prof. Edward J. Murphy due to the importance of his work, so it is fitting and right to extol this particular compendium for so clearly demonstrating that the emperor’s wardrobe is not merely diaphanous, it’s positively massless (or expressed more plainly, the emperor, modern science, is wearing no clothes).

It is with pleasure that I remand this volume into the hands of the reader, whether he or she is an atheistic scoffer, a Roman Catholic inquirer, a Protestant polemicist, an Evangelical skeptic, or is otherwise motivated to re-open an issue heretofore thought, wrongly, to have been settled nearly four centuries ago. I would recommend approaching this work with as open a mind as you can muster. More importantly, I would urge the Christian reader to come to grips with our built-in, and very human, “lust for credibility,” our desire to have “friendship with the world” and retain “the praise of man,” all of which have sapped our resolve and lead to slipperyslope compromises that continue to lead men into the ditch. This is all the more remarkable, insofar as the present volume exposes the dark, seamy underside of modern science and its Janus-like propensity for speaking out of both sides of its mouth simultaneously. For the critic consulting the volume with the sole intent of attacking it, Drs. Sungenis and Bennett have provided the right thing indeed: a big, fat, juicy target. Therefore, let the debate begin in earnest. With documentation this thorough, the opposition can be quickly called on the carpet for misquotation or taking points out of context. Such interaction with hostile critics can only strengthen future editions of this work. If more Christians would raise the bar like these two authors have done, we would more readily perceive that the Word of God is an anvil that has worn out many hammers ... and will continue to do so.

Martin G. Selbrede
Chief Scientist, UniPixel Displays, Inc.
Vice President, The Chalcedon Foundation


Following the rule of St. Augustine, the Catholic Church teaches that we are to interpret the Sacred Scriptures in their literal and obvious sense unless the interpretation is untenable or necessity requires otherwise. The Church also dogmatically teaches that it is not permissible to depart from the early Church Fathers’ interpretation of Scripture when they are unanimous (Councils of Trent and Vatican I). What does this have to do with cosmology? Everything, because in interpreting the plain meaning of Scripture, all of the Church Fathers believed in geocentrism (that the Earth is a motionless body in the center of the universe). Moreover, this view was endorsed by three popes in authoritative decrees which condemned Copernicanism as “heretical” and “opposed to Scripture.” From Quasars to Gamma-Ray Bursts, from Parallax to Red Shifts, and from Michelson-Morley to Sagnac, Drs. Sungenis and Bennett’s book Galileo Was Wrong meticulously applies the scientific mortar to the theological bricks of geocentrism, producing a compelling structure that brings Catholic teaching and modern science to a crossroads. If the Earth is really the center of the universe, then modern man must face his biggest fear – that there is a Creator who put it there, and man is subject to His rule and authority. This results in two more “frightening” consequences: Copernicanism (which was abandoned by Galileo before he died) is one of the biggest deceptions ever perpetrated upon mankind; and, modern man must retool his entire worldview by giving his primary allegiance, not to science, but to the Church, “the pinnacle and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15).

John Salza, Esquire
Author: Masonry Unmasked

[DMac]

It's funny how putting a phd next to someone's name when they agree with you its ok but if they don't it's just another brain washed person :)

Mark - are you familiar with the exchanges between Gary Hoge/Ken Cole and Sungenis? I think both of them have proven geocentrism scientifically false.

In a nutshell, (Hoge) the center mass + rotation of stars and sun/planets doesn't jive. Sungenis did not address it accurately. (Cole) Newton's laws cannot exist in a geocentric universe.

[JohnQPublic]

It's funny how putting a phd next to someone's name when they agree with you its ok but if they don't it's just another brain washed person :)

Mark - are you familiar with the exchanges between Gary Hoge/Ken Cole and Sungenis? I think both of them have proven geocentrism scientifically false.

In a nutshell, (Hoge) the center mass + rotation of stars and sun/planets doesn't jive. Sungenis did not address it accurately. (Cole) Newton's laws cannot exist in a geocentric universe.

I linked in a discussion (http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?62820-Geocentrism&p=564264&viewfull=1#post564264) where I demonstrated that one of Gary Hoge's arguments was wrong already.

Any comments on the starting point for the GPS discussion a page or two back?

I just wanted to show that a variety of people had taken an interest in this topic, including physicists and scientists.

[DMac]

I linked in a discussion (http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?62820-Geocentrism&p=564264&viewfull=1#post564264) where I demonstrated that one of Gary Hoge's arguments was wrong already.

Any comments on the starting point for the GPS discussion a page or two back?

I just wanted to show that a variety of people had taken an interest in this topic, including physicists and scientists.

I've just read that thread from the other forum. WRT GPS, general relativity can be used to explain away any argument I can make without access to some DoD files (gps was built and owned by DoD).

I will concede that proving geocentrism wrong is a difficult endeavor.

[JohnQPublic]

I've just read that thread from the other forum. WRT GPS, general relativity can be used to explain away any argument I can make without access to some DoD files (gps was built and owned by DoD).

I will concede that proving geocentrism wrong is a difficult endeavor.

Thanks, DMac. This is at least a start. But there is enough known about the GPS in the public domain to discuss it intelligently. And it is claimed that the GPS does use general relativity and a special version of special relativity. And if "secret" knowledge is kept from us, then we can only discuss what we know.

[DMac]

Thanks, DMac. This is at least a start. But there is enough known about the GPS in the public domain to discuss it intelligently. And it is claimed that the GPS does use general relativity and a special version of special relativity. And if "secret" knowledge is kept from us, then we can only discuss what we know.

On GPS specifically:


GPS requires a minimum of 3 satellites to triangulate position (really at least 4+ to achieve proper timing as proper timekeeping is super important to GPS). When it was implemented by the DoD, using 24 satellites for the GPS system, they said they used fixed points of stars to make initial calculations. Similar to the sun orbit/seasons explanation, the rotation of the universe under relativity can explain it how GPS works as well, so without seeing the secret DoD documents (on specifically how each initial satellite was configured - I've never seen them) we cannot accept what they say as fact to argue in favor of Heliocentrism. After all, this is the is the DoD we're talking about.

[JohnQPublic]

Does the Global Positioning System
Prove General Relativity?


The Global Positioning System (GPS), although invaluable in providing us with a very precise navigation system is, nevertheless, understood by science to be a large-scale version of Sagnac’s rotating interferometer, and thus a thorn in the side of Relativity theory. This was proven in 1984 when GPS technician D. W. Allan and a team of international scientists measured the same effect on light as Sagnac did in 1913...

...Allan and his colleagues found that microwave beams sent to an approaching GPS satellite take 50 nanoseconds less time to reach the satellite than beams sent to a receding satellite...

...the GPS requires frequent uploads of “clock corrections” to keep everything in synch. When the clocks are in synch, still, it is an inevitable occurrence that GPS signals directed to an approaching ground station arrive at least 50 nanoseconds prior to signals sent to a receding ground station. Even when making adjustments for the Doppler effect and gravitation redshift, there still remains a margin of error due to the Sagnac effect. If these factors are not taken into account, a GPS could be off by as much as 11 km (6.8 miles) in one day. Relativists, assuming their theory to be correct, explain these differences by claiming they are due to “relativistic” effects (e.g., “time dilation”) upon light moving in a non-inertial frame. This is precisely the explanation that D. W. Allan proposed in 1984. This explanation, of course, is simply begging the question, since one cannot use as proof that which has not first been proven. In any case, here is how one Relativist explains his methodology:

…the simplest approach is to use an approximate solution of the [General Relativity] field equations in which Earth’s mass gives rise to small corrections to the simple Minkowski metric of Special Relativity, and to choose coordinate axes originating at the planet’s center of mass and pointing toward fixed stars. In this Earth-centered inertial reference frame (ECI), one can safely ignore relativistic effects due to Thomas precession or Lense-Thirring drag. The gravitational effects on clock frequency, in this frame, are due to Earth’s mass and its multipole moments. [Neil Ashby, “Relativity and the Global Positioning System,” Physics Today, May 2002, p. 3.]

One wonders, with the assortment of intersecting theories described above, why the author thinks this is “the simplest approach.” Be that as it may, we notice that his proposed solution not only appeals to remedies that are themselves imprecise (e.g., “approximate solution of [GTR] field equations”) or speculative (“Minkowski metric of Special Relativity,” or “Lense-Thirring drag”), but also shows his dependence on an “Earth-centered” inertial frame in order to allow his “relativistic” theories to explain how the GPS functions. The author confirms his objective in another paragraph:

…the leading contribution to the gravitational potential Φ is the simple Newtonian term –GME/r. The picture is Earth-centered, and it neglects the presence of other Solar System bodies such as the Moon and the Sun. That they can be neglected by an observer sufficiently close to Earth is a manifestation of general relativity’s equivalence principle. In the ECI frame, the only detectable effects of distant masses are their residual tidal potentials. We notice here that the goal is to obtain an “Earth-centered” inertial frame, and thus he uses Newtonian formulas rather than Relativistic formulas since the latter are much more complicated. So far, the GPS technician has shown that he is partial to a geocentric map, but allows himself the prerogative of translating Earth-centered mechanics into a Relativistic framework to explain the same effects from a non-centered, non-inertial Earth frame. The reason he must do so is that it is next to impossible to make accurate measurements when the objects one is trying to measure keep moving, as the Earth does around the sun in the heliocentric system. Moreover, without giving his reader any details, the technician also allows himself to justify his use of a geocentric frame by employing the same “detectable effects of distant masses” and their “tidal potentials” from the sphere of stars surrounding Earth as geocentric scientists do. In other words, many geocentrists hold that the forces we experience on Earth (e.g., gravitational tidal effects, centrifugal, Coriolis and Euler forces, etc.) are due to the rotation of billions of stars around the Earth as they distribute theirenormous gravitational effects and angular momentum. In fact, in Ashby’s reference to “general relativity’s equivalence principle,” it is conceded by Relativists that a fixed-Earth around which the stars rotate (e.g., geocentrism) is precisely “equivalent” to a fixed-star system and a rotating Earth (e.g., heliocentrism). Thus, Ashby would have to admit that the “fixed stars” to which he referred in the above opening paragraph would not be fixed in an “Earth-centered inertial” frame since, if Earth is in the inertial position, the stars must be moving against that inertia. The author reinforces our analysis of his methodology in another revealing paragraph:

[I]Computations of satellite orbits, signal paths, and relativistic effects appear to be most convenient in an ECI frame. But navigation must generally be done relative to the Earth’s surface. So GPS navigation messages must allow users to compute the satellite positions in a fixed-Earth, rotating coordinate system, the so-called WGS-84 reference frame.

That is, navigators working on the surface of the Earth would find it difficult to keep track of satellites moving against an inertial Earth because the satellite’s positions would constantly be shifting as the satellite orbited the Earth. Thus, the WGS-84
coordinate system was invented. This system makes it appear as if the satellites are moving precisely the same speed as the Earth’s rotation. In other words, the WGS-84 (World Geodetic System of 1984)1410 is the “coordinate system” which is fixed to the Earth. Thus, one could say that the satellites are moving in a one to-one correspondence with the Earth’s rotation, or, from the geocentric perspective, one can say that the Earth and the satellites are motionless. Ashby then explains the WGS-84 reference frame more specifically:

The navigation messages provide fictitious orbital elements from which a user can calculate the satellite’s position in the rotating WGS-84 frame at the instant of its signal transmission. But this creates some subtle conceptual problems that must be carefully sorted out…For example, the principle of the constancy of c [speed of light] cannot be applied in a rotating reference frame, where the paths of light rays are not straight; they spiral.

In reality, the orbits are “fictitious” because the satellites are not really going the same speed as the Earth’s supposed rotation. Along the way, the author has admitted one of the anomalies of Relativity theory, that is, that the speed of light is not constant in a rotating frame of reference. This is the salient fact that the 1913 Sagnac experiment demonstrated, but the author doesn’t seem bothered by the fact that he has no explanation why the constancy of light does not hold up in such cases, except to say that light has a problem staying at c when it is required to move in curved paths. Interestingly enough, in his famous 1905 paper, Einstein attempted to apply his Special Theory of Relativity to systems in rotation, as he did, for example, when he compared a clock at the North Pole with a clock circling the equator. But he found that his theory couldn’t explain how light moved in rotating systems, so the General Relativity theory was invented in order to answer Sagnac’s results. Since General Relativity incorporates the remaining universe, the Relativist could now appeal to the “distant rotating masses” (i.e., the “fixed” stars which suddenly were not so “fixed”) that produce “counter-rotation effects” upon Earth. This explanation, if one recalls, is the same one that Ashby proposed as an explanation for an “Earth centered inertial” system in “general relativity’s equivalence principle” in which the “detectable effects of distant masses are their residual tidal potentials”

[CONTINUED]

[JohnQPublic]

The author now gets to the heart of the matter regarding the Sagnac effect:

One of the most confusing relativistic effects – the Sagnac effect – appears in rotating reference frames. The Sagnac effect is the basis of ring-laser gyroscopes now commonly used in aircraft navigation. In the GPS, the Sagnac effect can produce discrepancies amounting to hundreds of nanoseconds.

It is only “confusing” to Relativists because they can’t explain Sagnac’s effects without resorting to obtuse tensor calculus and the invoking of “conditions” they have no way of proving true, invariably resorting to circular reasoning. In other words, they have no physical explanation for why one beam in Sagnac’s interferometer traveled slower than the other beam; rather, they only account for Sagnac’s effect (and they must or else their GPS satellites will be off by “hundreds of nanoseconds”) by creating “relativistic” mathematical equations. But mathematical equations explain very little about the causes for a particular phenomenon. Equations only make one side equal to the other, but with integers on either side that do not necessarily represent the physical processes taking place. In regard to the “fixed-earth” concept, the author reminds his readers that:

Observers in the non-rotating ECI inertial frame would not see a Sagnac effect. Instead, they would see that receivers are moving while a signal is propagating. Receivers at rest are moving quite rapidly (465 m/s at the equator) through the ECI frame. Correcting for the Sagnac effect in the Earth-fixed frame is equivalent to correcting for such receiver motion in the ECI frame.

Here the author is admitting that if the system is not rotating, there would be no Sagnac effect, yet it would appear as another effect (i.e., “receiver motion”). He still hasn’t explained why a Sagnac effect exists in a rotating system (except to point out the anomaly of Relativity theory that light doesn’t behave the same when it is not moving in straight lines). What he has failed to consider is that these anomalies are not “relativistic” effects, but physical effects caused by the medium through which light must travel, the very thing that Sagnac demonstrated by his 1913 experiment. Sagnac’s experiment did not prove “time dilation” or “rotational effects” but, through a device showing that when light came up against a medium or a force that impeded its speed and made it arrive at the destination in more time than expected, it demonstrated none other than the presence of absolute motion in a space, a motion that Einstein dismissed as “relativistic.” Answering this by appealing to “time dilation” is merely an attempt to paint the phenomenon by the phenomenon itself, which doesn’t explain anything, except one’s biased perceptions. In another paragraph, Ashby tries to cover over the inadequacies of Relativity to answer the GPS anomalies:

The Sagnac effect is particularly important when GPS signals are used to compare times of primary reference cesium clocks at national standards laboratories far from each other….A Sagnac correction is needed to account for the diurnal motion
of each receiver during signal propagation. In fact, one can use the GPS to observe the Sagnac effect. Of course, if one works entirely in the nonrotating ECI frame, there is no Sagnac effect.

[CONTINUED]

[JohnQPublic]

Two experts in the field of GPS mechanics answer Ashby’s claims by an even more acute interpretation of the Sagnac experiment. Wang and Hatch state that:

The simplest interpretation of the result [of the Sagnac experiment] is that the speed of light remains constant relative to the center of rotation and, thus, not of constant speed relative to the rotating detector. Special Relativity (SRT) claims the Sagnac effect is due to the rotation. Since rotation is not relative, the Sagnac effect can be due to non-isotropic light speed and still be consistent with Special Relativity. The effect of the movement of the receiver during the transit time of a GPS signal is referred to in the GPS system as the oneway Sagnac effect. However, it is not at all evident that the Sagnac effect is due to rotation…the Sagnac effect exists not only in circular motion, but also in translational motion. [Ruyong Wang and Ronald R. Hatch, Conducting a Crucial Experiment of the Constancy of the Speed of Light Using GPS, ION GPS 58th Annual Meeting / CIGTF 21st Guidance Test Symposium, 2002, p. 500.]

The authors leave no escape, since Ashby can no longer hide behind Relativity’s appeal to “rotational” motion as its only handicap. Since translational motion also produces a Sagnac effect, Ashby has no safe havens to which he can retreat. Along these lines, Wang and Hatch add the following:

We have even more convincing data that Ashby’s claim is false. NavCom Technology, Inc. has licensed soft-ware developed by the Jet Propulsion Lab (JPL) which, because of historical reasons, does the entire computation in the ECI frame. Because of some discrepancies between our standard earth-centered earth-fixed solution results and the JPL results, we investigated the input parameters to the solution very carefully. The measured and theoretical ranges computed in the two different frames agreed precisely, indicating that the Sagnac correction had been applied in each frame.

As the discussion of the Sagnac effect indicates, the fundamental question regarding the speed of light is the following: Is the speed of light constant with respect to the observer (receiver) or is it constant with respect to the chosen inertial ECI frame? Clearly the GPS range equation indicates the speed of light is constant with respect to the chosen frame…The JPL equations, used to track signals from interplanetary space probes, verify that the speed of light is with respect to the chosen frame. In the JPL equations, the chosen frame is the solar system barycentric frame….Clearly, the JPL equations treat the speed of light as constant with respect to the frame – not as constant with respect to the receivers.

In other words, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory employs the Earth Centered Inertial frame (ECI) for probes sent out near the Earth (as does NASA and the GPS), yet they claim to use the “solar system barycentric frame” for deep space navigation. But Wang and Hatch tell us: “the Jet Propulsion Lab…because of historical reasons, does the entire computation in the ECI frame.” So, not only does the Jet Propulsion Lab use the ECI frame exclusively, Wang and Hatch tell us that the Lab corrects the calculations in its “solar system barycentric frame” so that they match the ECI frame! In other words, the ECI frame is the standard, and thus, use of the solar system barycentric frame is superfluous. Once the Lab’s computer makes the corrections to the solar system barycentric frame, in reality the deep space navigation is actually using the ECI frame – a fixed Earth. The public wouldn’t have been made privy to this sleight-of-hand manipulation except for the fact that two knowledgeable insiders, Wang and Hatch, have told the real story. In effect, the Earth Centered Inertial frame (e.g., geocentrism) is the only frame that will allow the GPS and various space probes to work properly.

Ashby later writes:

[I]The Sagnac effect also occurs if an atomic clock is moved slowly from one reference station on the ground to another. For a slow clock transport, the effect can be viewed in the ECI frame as arising from a difference between the time dilation of the portable clock and that of a reference clock whose motion is solely due to Earth’s rotation. Observers at rest on the ground, seeing these same asymmetric effects, attribute them instead to gravitomagnetic effects – that is to say, the warping of spacetime due to spacetime terms in the general-relativistic metric tensor. Such terms arise when one transforms the invariant ds2 from a nonrotating reference frame to a rotating frame.

And later:

Generally, however, the transmissions arriveat different times. The navigation messages then let the receiver compute the position of each transmission event in the Earth-fixed WGS-84 frame. Before equations can be solved to find the receiver’s location, the satellite positions must be transformed to a common Earth-centered inertial frame, since light propagates in a straight line only in an inertial frame. [ibid. Ashby]

Although Ashby’s presuppositions make him oblivious to it, here we see the reality of absolute space is such a constituent fabric of the universe that the Sagnac effect even occurs in the inner recesses of atoms. Of course, the Relativist chalks this up to “the warping of spacetime” because he simply has no physical explanation for what is occurring, so he is forced to change space and time by means of tensor mathematics to mask the physical effects. What he misses is that, if the Sagnac effect is produced in something as small as atoms, then something even smaller is colliding with those atoms, and this is the same reason that Michelson and others had always measured a small positive result in the interferometer experiments. The positive result, as we have seen over and over again, was small enough to escape being explained by the translational motion of the Earth, but large enough to indicate that there was indeed an Earth in the midst of a moving universal medium. The Earth remained in the center of the medium the same as a ship anchored at sea in the eye of a hurricane. This is the position which does not have to appeal to “fixed-Earth” frames merely for “convenience,” but because it is, indeed, the state of affairs in the universe. Ashby continues:

[I]The receiver must then keep track of its own motion during this receiving interval and make appropriate corrections. These corrections are again proportional to 1/c2, that is to say, they are also relativistic….Historically, there has been much confusion about properly accounting for relativistic effects….In the special case of two inertial frames in relative uniform motion, these are the familiar Lorentz transformations...

Relativistic coordinate time is deeply embedded in the GPS. Millions of receivers have software that applies relativistic corrections. Orbiting GPS clocks have been modified to more closely realize coordinate time. Ordinary users of the GPS, through they may not need to be aware of it, have thus become dependent on Einstein’s conception of space and time. [ibid. Ashby]

So, once again, we see the convenient “Lorentz transformations,” invented in the late nineteenth century specifically for the purpose of avoiding (borrowing GPS terminology) the “Earth-centered, Earth-fixed” implications of the Michelson-Morley experiment. As we noted earlier, they have already pre-programmed the GPS to account for the 50- nanosecond differential and no one is the wiser.

But it is the author’s last statement that is even more troublesome. In reality, the only reason people have become “dependent on Einstein’s conception of space and time” is that the modern science establishment will entertain no other answers to the Sagnac effect than the tensor calculus and non- Euclidean geometry of General Relativity theory. Even though it is only a theory, it has entrenched itself as the sine qua non of the world of physics, and its relativism has seeped deep into the psyche of man. It purports to have been verified by experiment, but the experiments, as one can easily see by reading Ashby’s description of the GPS, are merely self-serving opportunities to interpret things as “relativistic.” It is uncanny how Relativists have literally stolen experimental facts, which were originally understood and accepted as disproving Relativity, and, by a wave of their mathematical wand, turned them into proofs for the same. In actuality, it is Relativity that avoids the real implications of the Sagnac effect, yet it has the temerity to steal an “Earth-centered, Earth-fixed coordinate system” from geocentrism in order to make its GPS navigable. Life certainly is ironic.

[JohnQPublic]

On GPS specifically:


GPS requires a minimum of 3 satellites to triangulate position (really at least 4+ to achieve proper timing as proper timekeeping is super important to GPS). When it was implemented by the DoD, using 24 satellites for the GPS system, they said they used fixed points of stars to make initial calculations. Similar to the sun orbit/seasons explanation, the rotation of the universe under relativity can explain it how GPS works as well, so without seeing the secret DoD documents (on specifically how each initial satellite was configured - I've never seen them) we cannot accept what they say as fact to argue in favor of Heliocentrism. After all, this is the is the DoD we're talking about.

As the articles I posted indicate, it is claimed that the GPS system uses relativistic calculations.

[Horn]

Collapse in Earth's Upper Atmosphere Stumps Researchers

July 16, 2010

http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim//2010/07/15/thermosphere_610x429.jpg

Something very odd is taking place in the earth's upper atmosphere that has scientists baffled. The "thermosphere," a rarefied layer of gas at the boundary line between the atmosphere and space that starts about 50 miles above the Earth, recently collapsed and now is rebounding again.

According to John Emmert of the Naval Research Lab, this constitutes "the biggest contraction of the thermosphere in at least 43 years." Emmert, lead author of a paper announcing the findings (http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/73-10r/) in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, (http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/highlights/highlights.cgi?action=show&doi=10.1029/2010GL043671&jc=gl) terms this "a Space Age record."

In a note put out by NASA announcing the finding, the researchers said they were stumped to explain the extent of the collapse, which was two to three times greater than low solar activity could explain. They noted that the thermosphere can be expected to cool and contract when solar activity is low, but not like this.

Solar radiation makes first contact with the earth when it enters the thermosphere, which acts as a barrier against extreme ultraviolet photons from the sun. This constant solar pounding can warm up the thermosphere to temperatures as high as 1,727 Celsius when solar activity is high. But of late - in 2008 and 2009, specifically, it's been just the opposite with few solar flares or solar ultraviolet radiation.

Emmert said that one possible explanation is the presence of carbon dioxide, which would act as a coolant as it gets into the thermosphere. But even then, he said, the the numbers don't quite add up.


"Even when we take CO2 into account using our best understanding of how it operates as a coolant, we cannot fully explain the thermosphere's collapse," he said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20010747-501465.html

[JohnQPublic]

Tegmark CMB quadrupole, octopole (2005)

3467


[Standard Claims- JQP]

What are multipoles? Multipole vectors are a mathematical representation of the Cosmic Microwave Background sky in expanded spherical harmonic coordinates yielding evidence for statistical correlation of multipoles with spatial anisotropy (preferred cosmic directions). Note that the origin of the spherical expansion is the Earth. This is the tool chosen to analyze the Cosmic Microwave Background spectrum...

...The multipole vector framework was applied to full-sky maps derived from the first year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) data. The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe appears to show something amiss with the standard model of cosmology, as it takes the sky temperature from 1.5 million kilometers in space...

...In 2005, Magueijo and Land found an alignment in the cosmic microwave background. The largeangle (low-) correlations of the Cosmic Microwave Background exhibit several statistically significant anomalies compared to the standard inflationary cosmology. The quadrupole plane and three of the octopole planes are very closely aligned. Three of these planes are orthogonal to the ecliptic, and the normals to these planes are aligned with the direction of the Cosmic Microwave Background dipole and with the two equinoxes. The remaining octopole plane is orthogonal to the supergalactic plane. All these alignments have confidence levels > 99%. In fact a comparison with 100,000 random skies populated by Monte Carlo methods shows each correlation is unlikely with 99% confidence. The hot/cold spots in each pattern seemed to line up along the same direction, contrary to the random distribution assumption. Magueijo called this alignment “the axis of evil.”...

1. The near vanishing of the two-point angular correlation function at angular separations greater than about 60 degrees, related to the low amplitude of the quadrupole contribution (l = 2 spherical harmonic) in a spherical harmonic expansion of the Cosmic Microwave Background sky. The real significance of this low value compared to the predictions of the Big Bang is now contested by mainstream scientists.
2. The ecliptic line moves between hot spots and cold spots over a third of the sky, avoiding the octupole extrema over the rest.
3. Deviation from the predicted bell-curve distribution. The quadrupole-octopole correlation is statistically excluded from being possible in a Gaussian random isotropic sky.
4. The quadrupole spectrum is almost the same as the dipole spectrum.
5. The quadrupole and octopole are aligned.
6. The octopole is unusually planar - the hot and cold spots of the octopolar anisotropies lie nearly in a plane.
7. The quadrupole-octopole correlation is excluded
rom being a chance occurrence in a Gaussian random statistically isotropic sky with high confidence.
8. Three of the four octopole normals lie near the ecliptic plane.
9. Three of the four planes defined by the quadrupole and octopole are nearly orthogonal to the ecliptic.
10. A chance alignment of the normals with the ecliptic plane is excluded at > 99% copn.
11. The three normals near the ecliptic also lie very near the axis of the dipole.
12. The dipole axis lies close to the equinoxes.
13. Three of the normals align with the equinoxes.
14. Four of the normals are orthogonal to the ecliptic poles.
15. Three of the four planes defined by the quadrupole and octopole are nearly orthogonal to the ecliptic.
16. A north-south ecliptic asymmetry – the three extrema in the north are visibly weaker than those in the south.
17. Planarity of the quadrupole-plus-octopole.
18. The planes defined by the octopole are nearly aligned with the plane of the Doppler-subtracted quadrupole.
19. Three of these planes are orthogonal to the ecliptic plane, with normals aligned with the dipole (or the equinoxes).
20. The fourth octupole plane is perpendicular to the supergalactic plane.
21. The ecliptic threads between a hot and a cold spot of the combined Doppler-subtracted-quadrupole and octopole map.
22. The ecliptic separates the three strong extrema from the three weak extrema of the map.
23. A deficit in large-scale multipole power exists between the north and south ecliptic hemispheres.
24. The l = 4 to 8 multipoles are very unlikely to be correlated (< 1%) with l = 2 and 3.
25. Most low multipoles of the near Galaxy are far from the Cosmic Microwave Background multipoles, removing the Milky Way structure as a reasonable cause of the observed Cosmic Microwave Background correlations.
26. The presence of preferred directions in the multipoles seems to extend beyond the octopole to higher multipoles, with an associated mirror symmetry.

All 26 of these anomalies contradict the standard picture of the universe and have no explanation.


3468


Geocentrism


...The cosmological principle assumes that the universe is the same in all places and directions; otherwise, it would be impossible to solve Einstein’s equations. If this assumption is wrong, the standard Big Bang model of cosmology would be unusable.

The Cosmic Microwave Background octupole and quadrupole components were expected to form no pattern at all, but the results were anything but random. If the multipole vectors of the quadrupole and the octopole are correlated with the ecliptic poles, the axis at 90° to the solar system plane and with the dipole direction, then this suggests that the large wavelengths/low frequencies are missing because we are seeing the influence of the solar system environment, not the global properties of space. And we see these missing features because of our privileged position in the center of space. As might be expected from past history, despite these totally unpredicted and unexplained anomalies, the Cosmic Microwave Background data is regarded as a dramatic confirmation of standard inflationary cosmology! In fact, the axial correlation between multipole harmonics has been dubbed the “Axis of Evil.” The combination of a complete lack of any known systematic error, and long odds against random alignment that has earned the low-alignment anomaly this nickname. Why is the axis called “evil”? Because it represents a return to the forbidden days of five centuries ago, when all science was geocentric/geostatic. It is the plain indication of an inherently inhomogeneous and anisotropic universe.

If its causes are of both deep space and local origin, the explanation might be found in an interaction of local structures with the deep space source(s) of the ether. Conventional physicists assume the dipole comes from the solar system motion through the Cosmic Microwave Background rest frame. Not being of cosmic origin, they subtract the Cosmic Microwave Background dipole moment from computations of all other multipoles. This throws the baby out with the bathwater. The dipole is 1000 times stronger than any other pole; it points to the source of the Cosmic Microwave Background.

The largest signal in the Cosmic Microwave Background anisotropy is the dipole, 3.346 mK in the direction (l = 264, b = 48) in galactic coordinates. This is attributed to the motion of the sun at 370 km/s with respect to the rest frame defined by the Cosmic Microwave Background. The solar motion implies the presence of a kinematically induced Doppler quadrupole. This is an artifact of the antigeocentric premise: if the multipole hot spots indicate the ether source(s) in the cosmos then the multipoles have nothing to do with the kinematics of matter. Doesn’t anyone realize that the universal Cosmic Microwave Background has local axial and planar symmetries only when viewed from Earth? Doesn’t any scientist on this planet realize that it isn’t a planet? When will our stiff-necked scientists bow their heads and acknowledge the elephant in the living room, the emperor with no clothes?



The tiny and tall,
The big and the small,
The Lord God Almighty,
He alone made it all!

(excerpts from Galileo Was Wrong, Chapter 10, footnotes and illustrations not included)

[JohnQPublic]

...Interestingly enough, after gathering the data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) of 2001, which analyzed the distribution of the CMB, Max Tegmark of the University of Pennsylvania, processed a computer image of his findings. Tegmark, even though he is an avowed Big Bang cosmologist, said something that probably even he didn’t realize at the time. In remarking on the giant sphere the probe produced, he noted, “Our entire observable universe is inside this sphere of radius 13.3 billion light-years, with us at the center.” Added to this was the interpretation of his wife, Angélica de Oliveira-Costa, who stated that the cosmic quadrupole and octopole are both very planar and aligned, which according to the CERN correspondent reporting the interview means that the points “happen to fall on a great circle on the sky,” and we are in the center of that great circle...

...Spergel and his colleagues have gone so far as to suggest that the small scale of the starry cosmos may be due to a “hall-of-mirrors” effect. Working alongside mathematician Jeffrey Weeks, New Scientist reports:

…scientists announced tantalizing hints that the universe is actually relatively small, with a hall-of-mirrors illusion tricking us into thinking that space stretches on forever….Weeks and his colleagues, a team of astrophysicists in France, say the WMAP results suggest that the universe is not only small, but that space wraps back on itself in a bizarre way (Nature, vol. 425, p. 593)….

Effectively, the universe would be like a hall of mirrors, with the wraparound effect producing multiple images of everything inside. [Spergel adds]: “If we could prove that the universe was finite and small, that would be Earth-shattering. It would really change our view of the universe”.

...It is little wonder that Janna Levin, commenting on the WMAP data in the same interview, stated:

I suspect every last one of us would be flabbergasted if the universe was so small…I tried on the idea that we were really and truly seeing the finite extent of space and I was filled with dread. But I’m enjoying it too.

Perhaps, as we noted earlier, Ms. Levin felt the same “dread” that Edwin Hubble and Stephen Hawking experienced when they realized their data were showing that the Earth was in the center of a small universe. Perhaps the equivocation between “dread” and “joy” is why Ms. Levin also wrote a paper seeking to downplay the inevitable geocentric interpretations of the WMAP data, but still finds herself having to admit the next best thing:

Copernicus realized that we are not at the center of the Universe. A universe made finite by topological identifications introduces a new Copernican consideration: while we may not be at the geometric centre of the Universe, some galaxy could be. A finite universe also picks out a preferred frame: the frame in which the universe is smallest. Although we are not likely to be at the centre of the Universe, we must live in the preferred frame (if we are at rest with respect to the cosmological expansion).

In a recent publication, the team of Dominik Schwarz, Glenn Starkman, et al., discovered that:

The large-angle correlations of the cosmic microwave background exhibit several statistically significant anomalies compared to the standard inflationary cosmology ….the quadrupole-octopole correlation is excluded from being a chance occurrence in a gaussian random statistically isotropic sky at >99.87%…. The correlation of the normals with the ecliptic poles suggest an unknown source or sink of CMB radiation or an unrecognized systematic. If it is a physical sources or sink in the inner solar system it would cause an annual modulation in the time-ordered data….Physical correlation of the CMB with the equinoxes is difficult to imagine, since the WMAP satellite has no knowledge of the inclination of the Earth’s spin axis.

...In a recent interview, speaking for the team, Glenn Starkman of Case Western University stated: “All this is mysterious. And the strange thing is, the more you delve into it, the more mysteries you find.” This is a polite way of saying that he is shocked that the CMB is geocentrically orientated, since that is the last thing he expected to find by working from a Big Bang model. Nevertheless, in an attempt to put a damper on the geocentric possibilities, Starkman adds: “None of us believe that the universe knows about the solar system, or that the solar system knows about the universe.” We see how the team’s presuppositions determine how they will proceed to interpret the data. As always, the geocentric possibilities are summarily dismissed since such notions are, as we found earlier, “unthinkable” for the modern science community. As one physicist said [Craig Hogan- JQP]: “The precise directional coincidences with solar system alignments are certainly thought-provoking. It may look like asmoking gun…but I’m going with the fluke hypothesis for now.”

(excerpts from Galileo Was Wrong, Chapter 2, footnotes and illustrations not included)

[Horn]

At the north and south poles of your universe, does your underwear form into a wedgy?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2HQnFyliP1o/Tf3s4gHs1gI/AAAAAAAABJY/w0l2MlUeask/s1600/cmNERD_ARTICLE_narrowweb__300x398%252C0.jpg

[JohnQPublic]

At the north and south poles of your universe, does your underwear form into a wedgy?



I guess if you can't argue the facts, ridicule is all that is left.

[Horn]

ridicule is all that is left.

Fact is your Universe gets wedged up at the poles.

Form of a Barking Pumpkin.

There is no such thing.

[JohnQPublic]

Fact is your Universe gets wedged up at the poles.

Form of a Barking Pumpkin.

There is no such thing.

Not according to a lot of cosmologists.

Before jumping to conclusions based on undefined physics, start with the observations. Their simplest explanations are that we are in the center. Presumed toroidal shapes do not account for these observations.

What physics are you proposing? Newtonian, relativistic? If you claim a toroidal universe, this sounds general relativistic. Nothing else could really deal with it.

[Horn]

Not according to a lot of cosmologists.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12x_vUd1nYo

[JohnQPublic]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12x_vUd1nYo

What you had for breakfast is of little consequence; though some have proposed an egg shaped universe. Not sure if it is green or not!

[Horn]

What you had for breakfast is of little consequence; though some have proposed an egg shaped universe. Not sure if it is green or not!

Imagine, if it were, you're floating "more or less" 50 miles over exact center of the North Pole & had only one eye looking straight up.

Would your eye rotate?

[JohnQPublic]

Imagine, if it were, you're floating "more or less" 50 miles over exact center of the North Pole & had only one eye looking straight up.

Would your eye rotate?

I really haven't thought about that question. In a Machian (or general relativistic) universe, my eye would do the same whether the earth is stationary in a rotating universe as it would if the earth were rotating in a stationary universe. It is still a matter of relative rotation and the corresponding inertial force (the pendulum is dragged at the North pole). In an aether system, it depends on a lot on the interaction between little me, the bigger earth, and the huge aether system, and the specific material make-up of the aether; though it should be compatible with Machian, general relativistic or Newtonian physics (as our observations cannot yet distinguish between these yet).

I understand what you are trying to get at (the pole of rotation is a more neutral line- wdotxR=v, R is small at the pole). But if we see the aether acting like a solid at large scales (and higher velocities- i.e., further from the earth), the entire universe rotates as a somewhat solid body (but allowing "smaller" objects such as planets, stars, and galaxies to have some local independent motion). This is what I am trying to get at regarding the material composition of the aether.

What would your eye do there?

[Golden]

Food for hyper thought...

Chronocentrism and Hypertime
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL81E8364D0310E18E&feature=plpp

On Hyper Symmetry

www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW6W8amn3IE
www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW6W8amn3IE


"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure about anything." Richard Feynman Quantum Physicist

Hypertime (1 of 4): Background and Basics

www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTyf1LXWjHI
www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTyf1LXWjHI
http://www.youtube.com/user/astrotometry

[JohnQPublic]

Darwin, Newton and Einstein: At the End of Their Rope (http://www.catholicintl.com/images/stories/Darwin_Newton_Einstein_At_the_End_of_Their_Rope2.p df)

A worthwhile article by Robert Sungenis, orignally published in E. Michael Jones Culture Wars magazine.

[vacuum]

Galileo's Mistake for $1.30, not sure how long it will last:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1611451566/ref=oh_details_o00_s00_i00

http://slickdeals.net/f/5237028-Galileo-s-Mistake-A-New-Look-at-the-Epic-Confrontation-between-Galileo-and-the-Church-1-30-FSSS

[iOWNme]

Galileo's Mistake for $1.30, not sure how long it will last:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1611451566/ref=oh_details_o00_s00_i00

http://slickdeals.net/f/5237028-Galileo-s-Mistake-A-New-Look-at-the-Epic-Confrontation-between-Galileo-and-the-Church-1-30-FSSS


Nice! I paid $3.99 in shipping though....And there is an Amazon main hub about 6 miles away from me......LOL

[alex_ro]

Hi, folks.

I really can’t understand why JohnQPublic went into explaining things (with several pages of quotes which probably nobody read), while he could simply point out that all the things mentioned as evidence against geocentrism are actually evidence against mainstream theories.


For example:
- the Foucalt pendulum CANNOT indicate Earth’s rotation (unless one claims change of that rotation during eclipses; now that would be funny)
- GPS satellites are not evidence against geocentrism (as DMac claimed), they are actually evidence that general relativity (GR) is wrong. They are also evidence in favor of ether.


Now “vacuum” made some comments about the universe that really caught my eye; he claimed we know for sure Universe is very large. No, we don’t.

The whole billions of light years universe is built on two things (and only 2 things): the stellar parallax and the constancy of c.

There is strong evidence that the former is wrong: the negative parallaxes LARGER than the positive ones.

The constant speed of light is under attack even within mainstream (Magueijo, Moffat, etc.). Special relativity is thus modified not only by these fellows, but by others too – thus proposing the doubly special relativity.

As for GR, both NASA and its European equivalent, ESA, are preparing experiments in space to extensively test GR “and ALTERNATIVE theories of gravitation”.



I also severely question vacuum’s statement regarding “life everywhere”.

But I agree with his other comments on the universe, especially “Big bang is false”.


As for how can a universe of billions of light years in size (if the formal distances are correct, and as I said, they are not) fit into a 6000 years timeframe, that’s easy to show. And a mainstreamer cannot attack on any ground, since it’s largely common with what they believe.

[Horn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXTD6QvkoKo

The mesopause is the temperature minimum at the boundary between the mesosphere and the thermosphere atmospheric regions. Due to the lack of solar heating and very strong radiative cooling from carbon dioxide, the mesopause is the coldest place on Earth with temperatures as low as -100°C (-146°F or 173 K).The altitude of the mesopause for many years was assumed to be at around 85 km, but observations to higher altitudes and modeling studies in the last 10 years have shown that in fact the mesopause consists of two minima - one at about 85 km and a stronger minimum at about 100 km.

An interesting feature is that the summer mesopause is cooler than the winter. This is sometimes referred to as the mesopause anomaly. It is due to a summer-to-winter circulation giving rise to upwelling at the summer pole and downwelling at the winter. Air rising will expand and cool resulting in a cold summer mesopause and conversely downwelling air results in compression and associated increase in temperature at the winter mesopause. In the mesosphere the summer-to-winter circulation is due to gravity wave dissipation, which deposits momentum against the mean east-west flow, resulting in a small north-south circulation.


In recent years the mesopause has also been the focus for studies on global climate change associated with increases in CO2. Unlike the troposphere, where greenhouse gases result in the atmosphere heating up, increased CO2 in the mesosphere acts to cool the atmosphere due to increased radiative emission by CO2. This results in a measurable effect - the mesopause should become cooler with increased CO2. Observations do show a decrease of temperature of the mesopause, though the magnitude of this decrease varies and is subject to further study. Modeling studies of this phenomenon have also been carried out

[JohnQPublic]

Hi, folks.

I really can’t understand why JohnQPublic went into explaining things (with several pages of quotes which probably nobody read), while he could simply point out that all the things mentioned as evidence against geocentrism are actually evidence against mainstream theories.


For example:
- the Foucalt pendulum CANNOT indicate Earth’s rotation (unless one claims change of that rotation during eclipses; now that would be funny)
- GPS satellites are not evidence against geocentrism (as DMac claimed), they are actually evidence that general relativity (GR) is wrong. They are also evidence in favor of ether.


Now “vacuum” made some comments about the universe that really caught my eye; he claimed we know for sure Universe is very large. No, we don’t.

The whole billions of light years universe is built on two things (and only 2 things): the stellar parallax and the constancy of c.

There is strong evidence that the former is wrong: the negative parallaxes LARGER than the positive ones.

The constant speed of light is under attack even within mainstream (Magueijo, Moffat, etc.). Special relativity is thus modified not only by these fellows, but by others too – thus proposing the doubly special relativity.

As for GR, both NASA and its European equivalent, ESA, are preparing experiments in space to extensively test GR “and ALTERNATIVE theories of gravitation”.



I also severely question vacuum’s statement regarding “life everywhere”.

But I agree with his other comments on the universe, especially “Big bang is false”.


As for how can a universe of billions of light years in size (if the formal distances are correct, and as I said, they are not) fit into a 6000 years timeframe, that’s easy to show. And a mainstreamer cannot attack on any ground, since it’s largely common with what they believe.

Thanks alex_ro, and welcome!

Our members typically do not accept statements without proof or arguments to support them. I did cover some of the issues you summarized. Einstein and Mach both agreed in the early 20th century that the Foucalt Pendulum cannot distinguish between rotation of the earth vs. rotation of the universe. I tried to get Horn to discuss WHY this is so, but he has secret knowledge which he does not share with us mere mortals. :rolleyes:

[JohnQPublic]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXTD6QvkoKo

The mesopause is the temperature minimum at the boundary between the mesosphere and the thermosphere atmospheric regions. Due to the lack of solar heating and very strong radiative cooling from carbon dioxide, the mesopause is the coldest place on Earth with temperatures as low as -100°C (-146°F or 173 K).The altitude of the mesopause for many years was assumed to be at around 85 km, but observations to higher altitudes and modeling studies in the last 10 years have shown that in fact the mesopause consists of two minima - one at about 85 km and a stronger minimum at about 100 km.

An interesting feature is that the summer mesopause is cooler than the winter. This is sometimes referred to as the mesopause anomaly. It is due to a summer-to-winter circulation giving rise to upwelling at the summer pole and downwelling at the winter. Air rising will expand and cool resulting in a cold summer mesopause and conversely downwelling air results in compression and associated increase in temperature at the winter mesopause. In the mesosphere the summer-to-winter circulation is due to gravity wave dissipation, which deposits momentum against the mean east-west flow, resulting in a small north-south circulation.

In recent years the mesopause has also been the focus for studies on global climate change associated with increases in CO2. Unlike the troposphere, where greenhouse gases result in the atmosphere heating up, increased CO2 in the mesosphere acts to cool the atmosphere due to increased radiative emission by CO2. This results in a measurable effect - the mesopause should become cooler with increased CO2. Observations do show a decrease of temperature of the mesopause, though the magnitude of this decrease varies and is subject to further study. Modeling studies of this phenomenon have also been carried out

Are you proposing this as the boundary between "earth" and "space"? Maybe the edge of the mesopause? Obviously there are inertial forces acting in this region (due to the relative rotation between space and the solid body of the earth).

[Horn]

Are you proposing this as the boundary between "earth" and "space"? Maybe the edge of the mesopause? Obviously there are inertial forces acting in this region (due to the relative rotation between space and the solid body of the earth).

And Earth water vapor "Ether" wins the shear battle with the an entire universe of plasma/dark matter,

following the random directions given by Earth's rotational forces.

http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/space-dust-sombrero-galaxy.jpg

http://www.eso.org/public/archives/images/screen/eso0812c.jpg

[alex_ro]

Our members typically do not accept statements without proof or arguments to support them.

What they don't understand is that, even to this day, the copernican principle was never proved (just assumed). The same for the cosmological principle ("working assumption").

So in my view, it's for them to demonstrate their assumptions.




And Earth water vapor "Ether" wins the shear battle with the an entire universe of plasma/dark matter,

So now dark matter is plasma? I suppose you don't know that in electric cosmological models (plasmic) there is no dark matter.




following the random directions given by Earth's rotational forces.

"random directions given by Earth's rotational forces"? Really? Interesting.

[Horn]

So now dark matter is plasma? I suppose you don't know that in electric cosmological models (plasmic) there is no dark matter.

You can call it whatever you wanna call it, thing is its there right in front of your blinded eyes.

And if an entire universe of it is spinning about Earth you'd be ground into a pulp.

Cosmic debris would find you positively attractive.

[JohnQPublic]

What they don't understand is that, even to this day, the copernican principle was never proved (just assumed). The same for the cosmological principle ("working assumption").

So in my view, it's for them to demonstrate their assumptions...

This is true, but I think most would rather just not think about it! For a group of people like we have assembled here, this should be a huge discrepancy which helps to unmask the true state of leadership, government, the establishment, etc. We have accepted as true some principles, and even elevated them to religious status. Max Tegmark would rather postulate infinite universes, than consider the possibility that the Copernican Principal may be false- even though most our physical evidence suggests we are central. This would indicate two possibilities:

1. We are central (or very near it)
2. Everywhere appears central

This indicates that science, in the name of its philosophical views, chooses consciously to exclude 1/2 the possible answers in terms of the centrality question. Also, no measurement to date has established our translation or rotation.

[JohnQPublic]

...

And if an entire universe of it is spinning about Earth you'd be ground into a pulp.
Cosmic debris would find you positively attractive.

I think you are assuming that the earth would be acting as a gravitational attraction for the universe? That is not being suggested.

[Horn]

I think you are assuming that the earth would be acting as a gravitational attraction for the universe? That is not being suggested.

Try rubbing a balloon on your head.

The reason its not questioned in Science is because its an absurdity of biblical proportions...

[Santa]

This would indicate two possibilities:

1. We are central (or very near it)
2. Everywhere appears central



I choose No.2, unless the Earth is the point of origin of ALL consciousness, which would suggest the Earth is our creator God. That is, from a purely material physical, planetary point of reference.

This reminds me of the idea which was recently floated here, "Consciousness is the ground of all being."

Intuitively, I like the idea that everywhere appears central, in which every point of conscious awareness is indeed the center. It creates an interesting and simple conceptual geometry. A perfect circle right down to and including every conceivable point of reference.

[JohnQPublic]

I choose No.2, unless the Earth is the point of origin of ALL consciousness, which would suggest the Earth is our creator God. That is, from a purely material physical, planetary point of reference.

This reminds me of the idea which was recently floated here, "Consciousness is the ground of all being."

Intuitively, I like the idea that everywhere appears central, in which every point of conscious awareness is indeed the center. It creates an interesting and simple conceptual geometry. A perfect circle right down to and including every conceivable point of reference.

Santa:

At least you realize that it is a preference, and not proven or otherwise established scientifically. I would argue that God made the earth especially to house His greatest creation -man.

[Horn]

Look! even Santa spins along with everything else under the Sun,


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0lNe3BtzLM

[Neuro]

I wonder if there are any atheist phycisists that has researched the subject who subscribe to the geocentric theory? That would sort of rule out a theological bias. My apologies if it had already been mentioned in the thread, as I have only had a cursory reading of it...

[Santa]

Look! even Santa spins along with everything else under the Sun, Empirically, the universe spins around me.... when I get drunk. Works every time. It's hard to deny such concrete evidence. :)

[Neuro]

Empirically, the universe spins around me.... when I get drunk. Works every time. It's hard to deny such concrete evidence. :)
LOL I remember when Santa was the center of my Universe too!

[alex_ro]

2. Everywhere appears central

Actually, there is strong evidence against homogeneity. Especially CMB low multipoles, but if you really think about the rest of the evidence for a privileged position of the Earth, they can't be used within the cosmological principle (equivalence of places) either.




Also, no measurement to date has established our translation or rotation.

Also tilt. Nor there can be such evidence, within GR.

I would correct your term "translation", since it usually means motion in a straight line (use "revolution" or "orbital" instead).




The reason its not questioned in Science is because its an absurdity of biblical proportions...

Actually, all the cosmologists know that geocentrism is apparently true. Only that they avoid that, due to their metaphysical assumptions.

How many such quotes are you prepared to read?

Anyway, in another forum, I showed that big bang is wrong, that geocentrism is apparently true, and also how distances of billions of ly (if the formal numbers are correct, and there is strong indication that they are not) are explainable in a thousands of years timeframe. It's not Humphreys or Hartnett, etc., or likely any other explanation you heard before, so you should be interested.

However:
- I am not sure I can provide such a link here (to another forum)
- I will not provide the link until you openly express your commitment to actually read tens of usual pages (or several forum pages)




I wonder if there are any atheist phycisists that has researched the subject who subscribe to the geocentric theory?

Of course not. Regardless of what evidence says, they will keep their heads in the sand and pretend a different reality.

Isn't their atheism a metaphysical CHOICE? How exactly would you expect them to accept evidence for the Bible?




That would sort of rule out a theological bias.

Actually, with the except of quantized redshift (Hartnett), none of the evidence for geocentrism was discovered by a believer. Not to my knowledge, anyway. I expect John to correct me if I'm wrong.

[Neuro]

Of course not. Regardless of what evidence says, they will keep their heads in the sand and pretend a different reality.

Isn't their atheism a metaphysical CHOICE? How exactly would you expect them to accept evidence for the Bible?





Actually, with the except of quantized redshift (Hartnett), none of the evidence for geocentrism was discovered by a believer. Not to my knowledge, anyway. I expect John to correct me if I'm wrong.
I don't think it is inherent in Atheism to reject any scientific theory, on the basis that it is adhered to by a religion. I think atheists only reject the theory of god(s)...

[JohnQPublic]

Newtonian–Machian analysis of the
neo-Tychonian model of planetary
motions
Luka Popov
Department of Physics, University of Zagreb, Bijeniˇcka cesta 32, Zagreb, Croatia
E-mail: lpopov@phy.hr
Received 5 December 2012, in final form 6 December 2012
Published 31 January 2013
Online at stacks.iop.org/EJP/34/383

Abstract
The calculation of the trajectories in the Sun–Earth–Mars system is performed
using two different models, both in the framework of Newtonian mechanics.
The first model is the well-known Copernican system, which assumes that the
Sun is at rest and that all the planets orbit around it. The second is a less wellknown
model, developed by Tycho Brahe (1546–1601), according to which the
Earth stands still, the Sun orbits around the Earth, and the other planets orbit
around the Sun. The term ‘neo-Tychonian system’ refers to the assumption that
orbits of distant masses around the Earth are synchronized with the Sun’s orbit.
It is the aim of this paper to show the kinematical and dynamical equivalence
of these systems, under the assumption of Mach’s principle...


...5. Conclusion

The analysis of planetary motions has been performed in the Newtonian framework with the
assumption of Mach’s principle. The kinematical equivalence of the Copernican (heliocentric)
and the neo-Tychonian (geocentric) systems is shown to be a consequence of the presence of
pseudo-potential (4.4) in the geocentric system, which, according to Mach, must be regarded
as the real potential originating from the fact of the simultaneous acceleration of the Universe.
This analysis can be performed on any other celestial body observed from the Earth. Since the
Sun and Mars are chosen arbitrarily, and there is nothing special about Mars, one can expect
to obtain the same general conclusion.

There is another interesting remark that follows from this analysis. If one could put the
whole Universe in accelerated motion around the Earth, the pseudo-potential corresponding
to pseudo-force (4.2) will immediately be generated. That same pseudo-potential then causes
the Universe to stay in that very state of motion, without any need for exterior forces acting
upon it.

[Horn]

Empirically, the universe spins around me.... when I get drunk. Works every time. It's hard to deny such concrete evidence. :)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooM-RGUTe2E

[Neuro]

Newtonian–Machian analysis of the
neo-Tychonian model of planetary
motions
Luka Popov
Department of Physics, University of Zagreb, Bijeniˇcka cesta 32, Zagreb, Croatia
E-mail: lpopov@phy.hr
Received 5 December 2012, in final form 6 December 2012
Published 31 January 2013
Online at stacks.iop.org/EJP/34/383

Abstract
The calculation of the trajectories in the Sun–Earth–Mars system is performed
using two different models, both in the framework of Newtonian mechanics.
The first model is the well-known Copernican system, which assumes that the
Sun is at rest and that all the planets orbit around it. The second is a less wellknown
model, developed by Tycho Brahe (1546–1601), according to which the
Earth stands still, the Sun orbits around the Earth, and the other planets orbit
around the Sun. The term ‘neo-Tychonian system’ refers to the assumption that
orbits of distant masses around the Earth are synchronized with the Sun’s orbit.
It is the aim of this paper to show the kinematical and dynamical equivalence
of these systems, under the assumption of Mach’s principle...


...5. Conclusion

The analysis of planetary motions has been performed in the Newtonian framework with the
assumption of Mach’s principle. The kinematical equivalence of the Copernican (heliocentric)
and the neo-Tychonian (geocentric) systems is shown to be a consequence of the presence of
pseudo-potential (4.4) in the geocentric system, which, according to Mach, must be regarded
as the real potential originating from the fact of the simultaneous acceleration of the Universe.
This analysis can be performed on any other celestial body observed from the Earth. Since the
Sun and Mars are chosen arbitrarily, and there is nothing special about Mars, one can expect
to obtain the same general conclusion.

There is another interesting remark that follows from this analysis. If one could put the
whole Universe in accelerated motion around the Earth, the pseudo-potential corresponding
to pseudo-force (4.2) will immediately be generated. That same pseudo-potential then causes
the Universe to stay in that very state of motion, without any need for exterior forces acting
upon it.
I guess one could do the same type of analysis, with any planet of the solar system separately, being the center and the sun spinning around it at the rate of the turning around of its axis, and the other planets rotating around the sun... No?

[Horn]

I guess one could do the same type of analysis, with any planet of the solar system separately, being the center and the sun spinning around it at the rate of the turning around of its axis, and the other planets rotating around the sun... No?

You've really got to work on your Bible study.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIaHP49Iym0

[Neuro]

You've really got to work on your Bible study.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIaHP49Iym0
When I turn my eyes, the outer parts of the universe moves billions light years in a fraction of a second, if I could see those damn quasars that is, but I imagine they would if I could...

[Horn]

You & Ponce need to sit down and have peripheral eyeball conversations more often, Neuro. :)

Warning: Satanic Beatles contained herein,


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ej3dj4x64k

[Neuro]

You & Ponce need to sit down and have peripheral eyeball conversations more often, Neuro. :)

Possibly... Who or what is Ponce?

[Horn]

Possibly... Who or what is Ponce?

No doubt, his feats were complimented by and thanked for only by the discoveries of Copernicus.

http://www.biography.com/people/juan-ponce-de-le%C3%B3n-9444105

[Neuro]

No doubt, his feats were complimented by and thanked for only by the discoveries of Copernicus.

http://www.biography.com/people/juan-ponce-de-le%C3%B3n-9444105
Amazing guy, he discovered Puerto Rico and Florida, was wounded by an arrow, and died in Cuba, resurrected he invented squeeze balls in California. Nowadays he is spending his days between the dollar store, the veterans hospital, and figuring out ways to keep the state and bears away from his patented land in Oregon!

[JohnQPublic]

Planck shows almost perfect cosmos – plus axis of evil (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23301-planck-shows-almost-perfect-cosmos--plus-axis-of-evil.html)
"The universe is almost perfect, 80 million years older than we thought, and maybe a little bit evil..."

"...Cosmologists can't pack up and go home just yet though, as Planck's map has also confirmed the presence of a mysterious alignment of the universe. The "axis of evil" (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19425994.000-axis-of-evil-a-cause-for-cosmic-concern.html) was identified by Planck's predecessor, NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/)..."

[JohnQPublic]

4759

ODD ALIGNMENTS hide within the multipoles of the cosmic microwave background.
In this combination of the quadrupole and octopole, a plane bisects the sphere between
the largest warm and cool lobes. The ecliptic — the plane of Earth’s orbit projected onto
the celestial sphere — is aligned parallel to the plane between the lobes. In addition, the
Sun’s direction of motion through the universe is only 10° from lying in the same plane.
Astronomy: Roen Kelly; multipole map: Dragan Huterer



Ecliptic oddities (http://www-personal.umich.edu%2F%7Ehuterer%2FPRESS%2FCMB_Hute rer.pdf&ei=W6JyUczDCuj3iwKXiYD4DQ&usg=AFQjCNEOg_ucNN1nEe84kEm2qFdagJ6VRg&sig2=ayNVQRgskmB5oOovYpl_gA&bvm=bv.45512109,d.cGE)

Armed with multipole vectors, and joined by Dominik J.Schwarz of the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), we have discovered unexpected patterns in the CMB. Not only are the quadrupole and octopole planar, but their planes are nearly perpendicular to the ecliptic. Moreover, we found that the ecliptic plane lies precisely between the warmest and coolest lobes of the combined quadrupole plus octopole map.

The likelihood of these alignments happening by chance is less than 0.1 percent.
Finally, the quadrupole and octopole planes are also perpendicular with the CMB dipole, which points to the direction of motion of the solar system. Why CMB patterns are oriented to the solar system is not at all understood at this time...

[Neuro]

4759

ODD ALIGNMENTS hide within the multipoles of the cosmic microwave background.
In this combination of the quadrupole and octopole, a plane bisects the sphere between
the largest warm and cool lobes. The ecliptic — the plane of Earth’s orbit projected onto
the celestial sphere — is aligned parallel to the plane between the lobes. In addition, the
Sun’s direction of motion through the universe is only 10° from lying in the same plane.
Astronomy: Roen Kelly; multipole map: Dragan Huterer



Ecliptic oddities (http://www-personal.umich.edu%2F%7Ehuterer%2FPRESS%2FCMB_Hute rer.pdf&ei=W6JyUczDCuj3iwKXiYD4DQ&usg=AFQjCNEOg_ucNN1nEe84kEm2qFdagJ6VRg&sig2=ayNVQRgskmB5oOovYpl_gA&bvm=bv.45512109,d.cGE)

Armed with multipole vectors, and joined by Dominik J.Schwarz of the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), we have discovered unexpected patterns in the CMB. Not only are the quadrupole and octopole planar, but their planes are nearly perpendicular to the ecliptic. Moreover, we found that the ecliptic plane lies precisely between the warmest and coolest lobes of the combined quadrupole plus octopole map.

The likelihood of these alignments happening by chance is less than 0.1 percent.
Finally, the quadrupole and octopole planes are also perpendicular with the CMB dipole, which points to the direction of motion of the solar system. Why CMB patterns are oriented to the solar system is not at all understood at this time...
Maybe it has something to do with the suns magnetospheres influence on cosmic radiation? What the telescopes and measuring equipment sees is not real, the magnetic north and south pole of the sun alters the image, negative would tend to attract positive charged particles and repell negative particles. It is a well known phenomena that when the suns magnetosphere is strong, we get less cosmic radiation, so measuring the background radiation in the presence of a star in the vicinity may not even be meaningful, due to its image altering effect...

[JohnQPublic]

Maybe it has something to do with the suns magnetospheres influence on cosmic radiation? What the telescopes and measuring equipment sees is not real, the magnetic north and south pole of the sun alters the image, negative would tend to attract positive charged particles and repell negative particles. It is a well known phenomena that when the suns magnetosphere is strong, we get less cosmic radiation, so measuring the background radiation in the presence of a star in the vicinity may not even be meaningful, due to its image altering effect...

A lot of scientists have spent a lot of time trying to figure out an explanation. So far, they have not come up with an acceptable explanation, and they have pretty much ruled out anything in the solar system.

[Neuro]

A lot of scientists have spent a lot of time trying to figure out an explanation. So far, they have not come up with an acceptable explanation, and they have pretty much ruled out anything in the solar system.
Ok have you got a link for the assertion that the magnetism of the sun was ruled out as the source of the finding?

Btw wouldn't that if true sort of rule out a geocentric university?

[JohnQPublic]

Croatia appears to be an advanced nation.

26 Apr 2013
The dynamical description of the geocentric Universe (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.7290v1.pdf)
Luka Popov
University of Zagreb, Department of Physics, Bijeniˇcka cesta 32, Zagreb, Croatia
E-mail:lpopov@phy.hr

Abstract.
Using Mach’s principle, we will show that the observed diurnal and annual motion of the Earth can just as well be accounted as the diurnal rotation and annual revolution of the Universe
around the fixed and centered Earth. T his can be performed by postulating the existence of vector and scalar potentials cause d by the simultaneous motion of the masses in the Universe, including the distant stars.

...

4. Conclusion
We have presented the mathematical formalism which can justify Mach’s statement that both geocentric and Copernican modes of view are
“equally actual” and “equally correct” [3]. This is performed by introducing two potentials, (1) vector potential that accounts for the diurnal rotations
and (2) scalar potential that accounts for the annual revolutions of the celestial bodies around the fixed Earth. These m otions can be seen

as real and self-sustained. If one could put the whole Universe in accelerated motion around the Earth, the potentials (3.1) and (3.5) would
immediately be generated and would keep the Universe in that very same state of motion ad infinitum

.
Acknowledgments
This work is supported by the Croatian Government under contract number 119-0982930-1016.

[StreetsOfGold]

Heliocentricism and evolution are bedfellows

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhqpoJLtZzk

There is no question about it, the earth does NOT MOVE!

[Horn]

There is no question about it, the earth does NOT MOVE!

and when a quasar explodes on the other side of alpha centari,

the Earth is ripped to shreds or shifted in distance from the Sun, by the Gravity displacement.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkBak1aETYE

[Neuro]

Heliocentricism and evolution are bedfellows

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhqpoJLtZzk

There is no question about it, the earth does NOT MOVE!
And universe is half a light day thick, according to second part of the video, you posted... What do you figure happens at the edge? The Voyager probes should be there by now, did they just slam into the wall?

[Horn]

Google Doodle celebrates French physicist Léon Foucault’s 194th birthday with pendulum tribute

Foucault pendulum is a simple device introduced in 1851 to confirm that the earth rotated

The interactive doodle is based on the Foucault pendulum - a radical device he created to demonstrate the effect of the earth’s rotation - and allows users to manipulate the swinging bob according to where on earth they happen to be.
The Foucault pendulum is a simple device introduced in 1851 to confirm, in as basic a way as possible, the long-assumed theory that the earth rotated.
Foucault’s original pendulum was first exhibited in the Meridian of the Paris Observatory, and consisted of a 28kg brass-coated lead bob with a 67-metre long wire from the dome of the Pantheon. The pendulum made a full circle once every 32.7 hours, swinging clockwise at 11 degrees per hour.
Foucault was born the son of a publisher in Paris on September 18, 1819 and originally studied medicine, but was forced to give it up after developing a fear of blood.
His career as a physicist began shortly after, assisting and collaborating with Alfred Donne and Hippolyte Fizeau.
In 1850 he conducted a ground-breaking experiment that was viewed as “driving the last nail in the coffin” of Newton’s corpuscle theory of light when it proved light travels more slowly through water than through air.
In 1851 Foucault caused a sensation with his famous pendulum experiment, and the following year he used and named (but did not invent) the gyroscope – a device for measuring and maintaining orientation.
In 1855 Foucault discovered that the force required for the rotation of a copper disc becomes greater when it is made to rotate with its rim between the poles of a magnet, the disc at the same time becoming heated by the eddy current or “Foucault currents” induced in the metal.
Two years later he invented the Foucault polarizer, and in 1858 devised a method of testing the mirror reflecting telescope to determine its shape – the so-called Foucault knife-edge test which is still used in amateur telescopes.
Foucault died of multiple sclerosis on February 11, 1868 at the age of 48 after being made a member of many of the top scientific societies in Europe.
He was buried in the Cimetière de Montmartre, with his name among those of seventy-two French scientists, engineers, and mathematicians engraved on the Eiffel Tower. The asteroid 5668 Foucault is also named after him.


http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/google-doodle-celebrates-french-physicist-lon-foucaults-194th-birthday-with-pendulum-tribute-8822360.html

[Neuro]

Hmmm 32.7 hours it takes to make a full circle. I wonder why that is?

[Neuro]

Hmmm 32.7 hours it takes to make a full circle. I wonder why that is?
I figured it out, it depends on the latitude of where it is located, iow at the equator it won't rotate at all, at 30 degrees lat. it will rotate in 48 hours, in Paris latitude 32.7 hours, at the North or South Pole 24 hours...

[Horn]

Introducing the new Geocentrist/Chaos Bones iphone schema.

5372

[JohnQPublic]

Google Doodle celebrates French physicist Léon Foucault’s 194th birthday with pendulum tribute

Foucault pendulum is a simple device introduced in 1851 to confirm that the earth rotated

...l (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/google-doodle-celebrates-french-physicist-lon-foucaults-194th-birthday-with-pendulum-tribute-8822360.html)

The Foucalt pendulum only confirms a relative rotation between earth and the rest of the universe. It cannot distinguish between an earth rotating in stationary space nor space rotating around a stationary earth.

[Horn]

The Foucalt pendulum only confirms a relative rotation between earth and the rest of the universe.

If the rotation is relative the Sun would rise in the West, while the Earth spun towards the East.

And the vacuum of space start at the elevation of your ears.

[Neuro]

The Foucalt pendulum only confirms a relative rotation between earth and the rest of the universe. It cannot distinguish between an earth rotating in stationary space nor space rotating around a stationary earth.
If earth was at the gravitational center of the universe, there would be no pull from the universe to get the pendulum movement to rotate. So the universe could only be geocentric at the vicinity of the equator of earth, but that would be really strange... If earth isn't at the gravitational center of the universe you can't argue that all of universe rotates around earth. But maybe that is where satan steps in...

[JohnQPublic]

If earth was at the gravitational center of the universe, there would be no pull from the universe to get the pendulum movement to rotate. So the universe could only be geocentric at the vicinity of the equator of earth, but that would be really strange... If earth isn't at the gravitational center of the universe you can't argue that all of universe rotates around earth. But maybe that is where satan steps in...

? Not according to Mach.

[JohnQPublic]

big announcement coming Monday

[Horn]

big announcement coming Monday

you're pregnant?

[Shami-Amourae]

you're pregnant?

Most of us give birth to brown children almost 1-3x a day.

[Neuro]

? Not according to Mach.
Huh? You should argue why it isn't so, instead of referring to some kind of entity that I assume is an authority on Geocentrism...

[JohnQPublic]

Source to be revealed Monday:

"There is a crisis in cosmology..."
Michio Kaku

"It's an exciting time in cosmology, because everything has changed..."
Lawrence Krauss

"Life is extremely rare, ..., we are in fact the only life in our entire universe and I actually think we are very significant..."
Max Tegmark

[Horn]

Source to be revealed Monday:

"There is a crisis in cosmology..."
Michio Kaku

"It's an exciting time in cosmology, because everything has changed..."
Lawrence Krauss

"Life is extremely rare, ..., we are in fact the only life in our entire universe and I actually think we are very significant..."
Max Tegmark

I'm hoping for a natural childbirth, but it looks so big it could be cesarean.

links?

[JohnQPublic]

It is materializing...

http://theprinciplemovie.com

[Horn]

It is materializing...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaTO8_KNcuo

[JohnQPublic]

Trailer to be released tomorrow


http://youtu.be/p8cBvMCucTg

[JohnQPublic]

Exclusive GSUS preview

http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?74549-The-Principle-GSUS-Preview&p=678614&viewfull=1#post678614

[Cebu_4_2]

Says spring 2014... Did I sleep in again?

[Horn]

In late Rome it became necessary to dumb down Universities in order to maintain control of populace and free thought.

A more Geosynchronous orbit about Rome itself has been maintained since, by the Vatican.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9ZVCnD9t18

[JohnQPublic]

In late Rome it became necessary to dumb down Universities in order to maintain control of populace and free thought.

A more Geosynchronous orbit about Rome itself has been maintained since, by the Vatican.


Frame dependent forces. In Newtonian mechanics they are called "fictitious forces". All very elementary to understanding cosmology. It has nothing to do with Rome, but everything to do with inertia.

[Horn]

but everything to do with inertia.

Sure, I've been seeing the increase in sentiment since 9-11

[Ponce]

The same way that the US is imposing our way of life in this world is the same way that we look for thing that resemble us... look for what is not and you will find what is.

V

[Neuro]

Wow a trailer

[Horn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL-dUZJydcw

[Hatha Sunahara]

I would bet that the switch from thinking that the earth was flat to it being round was stressful for humanity. I haven't heard of any new major discoveries, so I would bet that this switch in thinking about whatever is gratuitous, so it won't make much difference in anyone's life.

I would like a switch in thinking away from authoritarianism to something more friendly to freedom and human dignity. If science can produce that, I'm all for it.


Hatha

[JohnQPublic]

I haven't heard of any new major discoveries, ...


Hatha

Bingo. The movie exposes them. A lot of scientists realized we were making this movie and decided to get on the right side of history. In their circles they are talking about the new discoveries. Cosmology is in a crisis, but they put forward a unified face, but it is breaking down.

[JohnQPublic]

Wow a trailer

This is going to go viral.

[Neuro]

Bingo. The movie exposes them. A lot of scientists realized we were making this movie and decided to get on the right side of history. In their circles they are talking about the new discoveries. Cosmology is in a crisis, but they put forward a unified face, but it is breaking down.
Who are 'we'?

[Cebu_4_2]

Linky?

[JohnQPublic]

Linky?

Lnky to whaty? The trailer is linked. The controversy is in the movie (coming spring 2014).

If you want some background, see this thread: http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?62820-Geocentrism

[Twisted Titan]

Anything that gives Michio Crapoo top billing is ALWAYS suspect.

He is liberal Globalist bootlicker.



Did you notice the propraganda in the trailer

Anytime they mention that god made a mistake what are the images that you see ?

Churches and Jesus statue.

What in the subliminal message : it is the christian god that is in error.

[JohnQPublic]

Anything that gives Michio Crapoo top billing is ALWAYS suspect.

He is liberal Globalist bootlicker.



Did you notice the propraganda in the trailer

Anytime they mention that god made a mistake what are the images that you see ?

Churches and Jesus statue.

What in the subliminal message : it is the christian god that is in error.

Michio is ultimately on the other side in the movie, but he is very popular and very entertaining, so he does play well in the trailer. This is real Hollywood, but believe me, the Christian view gets a fair shake in this movie. Even the geocentrists sit at the same table as the establishment big bang relativists. No establishment control in this film. Believe me, there is going to be a firestorm around this movie. Movie trailers are designed to rile people to get them to go to the movie. Obviously it worked with you. http://gold-silver.us/forum/images/smilies/cool.png

Did you catch the theme "Are you significant"? YES you are, no matter what Carl Sagan or Lawrence Krauss says. George Ellis is also in the movie, and he has a definite Christian perspective (though he is not formally a geocentrist).

[JohnQPublic]

Let me add, John Hartnett ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hartnett_%28physicist%29 ) has a lot to say also, and he is a staunch Christian and creationist. So the movie represents a broad Christian view around these issues.

Did you catch the quotes I posted yesterday? Max Tegmark is an establishment scientist, and read what he said. The first two quotes represent the reaction to what is happening in cosmology (largely behind the scenes). This is very significant. I believe the big bang model is dead, even in establishment circles. Inflation has become untenable (due to the signal pointing back to the earth from the farthest reaches of the universe), and without inflation, the big bang would have been dead 20 years ago. Establishment scientists are beginning to publicly jump ship (such as Dagan Hutterer). I believe knowledge this movie was filmed has accelerated the pace.

"There is a crisis in cosmology..."
Michio Kaku

"It's an exciting time in cosmology, because everything has changed..."
Lawrence Krauss

"Life is extremely rare, ..., we are in fact the only life in our entire universe and I actually think we are very significant..."
Max Tegmark

[Horn]

Michio is ultimately on the other side in the movie,

When a complete trivialization is needed, all sides will be required to participate in it.

[Jewboo]

A lot of scientists realized we were making this movie and decided to get on the right side of history.



:rolleyes:




Who are 'we'?