So, how is that change thing going for you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Horn
Attachment 3406
Printable View
So, how is that change thing going for you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Horn
Attachment 3406
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.
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
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Horn
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnQPublic
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Horn
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.
I feel like I've been here before, has the 0 gravity center mass of the universe changed its position again?Quote:
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.
Common center would move lightyears in an instant.
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.
Great background info on the experiments previously done JQP. This type of info is very important. Do you have any more experimental examples?
A number of points related to this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Horn
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.