Quote:
Originally Posted by Horn
What is your view of cosmology? Big bang? Steady state, infinite? Aether? Newtonian? Relativistic (general, special, Lorentzian)? Machian?
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horn
What is your view of cosmology? Big bang? Steady state, infinite? Aether? Newtonian? Relativistic (general, special, Lorentzian)? Machian?
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
Know "for sure":Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnQPublic
- 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
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.
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).
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)
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)
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)
...During the years of 1725-1728 he [Bradley] 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.”
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)
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
4. You're an enigma.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnQPublic
That is not a dumb question, and it leads to an important point. It is not exactly clear that where space starts spinning.Quote:
Originally Posted by hvacak47
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.).
I'll take that as a compliment! :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Horn
enigma [ɪˈnɪgmə]n a person, thing, or situation that is mysterious, puzzling, or ambiguous
Event horizons do not occur just due to the number of words placed in a single post.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnQPublic
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Horn
Sorry, orbit with no rotation has caused Space dust build up in my one ear over the millennium.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnQPublic
What was said?
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)
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)
Attachment 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.
...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)
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.
As a Catholic, I do not get into astrology. Astronomy is ok!Quote:
Originally Posted by sirgonzo420
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by vacuum
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~huter...MB_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?
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.Quote:
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.
And a good catholic I presume you to be!Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnQPublic
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!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Horn
This seems so obvious to me, why do you not agree?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Horn
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMac
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnQPublic
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- 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by DMac
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).
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?