Geocentrism

[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. [ibid.]

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:

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. [ibid. Ashpby]

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:

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



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 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, 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_1...47-501465.html

[JohnQPublic]

Tegmark CMB quadrupole, octopole (2005)

Attachment 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.

Attachment 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?

[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.