http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12x_vUd1nYoQuote:
Originally Posted by JohnQPublic
Printable View
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12x_vUd1nYoQuote:
Originally Posted by JohnQPublic
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by Horn
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnQPublic
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Horn
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?
Food for hyper thought...
Chronocentrism and Hypertime
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...E&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
Darwin, Newton and Einstein: At the End of Their Rope
A worthwhile article by Robert Sungenis, orignally published in E. Michael Jones Culture Wars magazine.
Galileo's Mistake for $1.30, not sure how long it will last:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/161...ls_o00_s00_i00
http://slickdeals.net/f/5237028-Gali...urch-1-30-FSSS
Quote:
Originally Posted by vacuum
Nice! I paid $3.99 in shipping though....And there is an Amazon main hub about 6 miles away from me......LOL
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.
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