Geocentrism

[JohnQPublic]

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.

Thanks alex_ro, and welcome!

Our members typically do not accept statements without proof or arguments to support them. I did cover some of the issues you summarized. Einstein and Mach both agreed in the early 20th century that the Foucalt Pendulum cannot distinguish between rotation of the earth vs. rotation of the universe. I tried to get Horn to discuss WHY this is so, but he has secret knowledge which he does not share with us mere mortals.

[JohnQPublic]

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

Are you proposing this as the boundary between "earth" and "space"? Maybe the edge of the mesopause? Obviously there are inertial forces acting in this region (due to the relative rotation between space and the solid body of the earth).

[Horn]

Are you proposing this as the boundary between "earth" and "space"? Maybe the edge of the mesopause? Obviously there are inertial forces acting in this region (due to the relative rotation between space and the solid body of the earth).

And Earth water vapor "Ether" wins the shear battle with the an entire universe of plasma/dark matter,

following the random directions given by Earth's rotational forces.

[alex_ro]

Our members typically do not accept statements without proof or arguments to support them.

What they don't understand is that, even to this day, the copernican principle was never proved (just assumed). The same for the cosmological principle ("working assumption").

So in my view, it's for them to demonstrate their assumptions.

And Earth water vapor "Ether" wins the shear battle with the an entire universe of plasma/dark matter,

So now dark matter is plasma? I suppose you don't know that in electric cosmological models (plasmic) there is no dark matter.

following the random directions given by Earth's rotational forces.

"random directions given by Earth's rotational forces"? Really? Interesting.

[Horn]

So now dark matter is plasma? I suppose you don't know that in electric cosmological models (plasmic) there is no dark matter.

You can call it whatever you wanna call it, thing is its there right in front of your blinded eyes.

And if an entire universe of it is spinning about Earth you'd be ground into a pulp.

Cosmic debris would find you positively attractive.

[JohnQPublic]

What they don't understand is that, even to this day, the copernican principle was never proved (just assumed). The same for the cosmological principle ("working assumption").

So in my view, it's for them to demonstrate their assumptions...

This is true, but I think most would rather just not think about it! For a group of people like we have assembled here, this should be a huge discrepancy which helps to unmask the true state of leadership, government, the establishment, etc. We have accepted as true some principles, and even elevated them to religious status. Max Tegmark would rather postulate infinite universes, than consider the possibility that the Copernican Principal may be false- even though most our physical evidence suggests we are central. This would indicate two possibilities:

1. We are central (or very near it)
2. Everywhere appears central

This indicates that science, in the name of its philosophical views, chooses consciously to exclude 1/2 the possible answers in terms of the centrality question. Also, no measurement to date has established our translation or rotation.

[JohnQPublic]

...

And if an entire universe of it is spinning about Earth you'd be ground into a pulp.
Cosmic debris would find you positively attractive.

I think you are assuming that the earth would be acting as a gravitational attraction for the universe? That is not being suggested.

[Horn]

I think you are assuming that the earth would be acting as a gravitational attraction for the universe? That is not being suggested.

Try rubbing a balloon on your head.

The reason its not questioned in Science is because its an absurdity of biblical proportions...

[Santa]

This would indicate two possibilities:

1. We are central (or very near it)
2. Everywhere appears central

I choose No.2, unless the Earth is the point of origin of ALL consciousness, which would suggest the Earth is our creator God. That is, from a purely material physical, planetary point of reference.

This reminds me of the idea which was recently floated here, "Consciousness is the ground of all being."

Intuitively, I like the idea that everywhere appears central, in which every point of conscious awareness is indeed the center. It creates an interesting and simple conceptual geometry. A perfect circle right down to and including every conceivable point of reference.

[JohnQPublic]

I choose No.2, unless the Earth is the point of origin of ALL consciousness, which would suggest the Earth is our creator God. That is, from a purely material physical, planetary point of reference.

This reminds me of the idea which was recently floated here, "Consciousness is the ground of all being."

Intuitively, I like the idea that everywhere appears central, in which every point of conscious awareness is indeed the center. It creates an interesting and simple conceptual geometry. A perfect circle right down to and including every conceivable point of reference.

Santa:

At least you realize that it is a preference, and not proven or otherwise established scientifically. I would argue that God made the earth especially to house His greatest creation -man.