Geocentrism

[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]

Attachment 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]

Attachment 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]

Attachment 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]

Attachment 3394

...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)

[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