Einstein rings, a spectacular prediction of relativity, taken from Hubble (Image credit Hubble/NASA)
You may remember a little while back
I wrote about a conference of
modern Geocentrism (
Galileo was Wrong).
Geocentrism is the belief that Earth is the centre of the Solar system, nay the entire Universe and everything revolves around it.
Todd Wood attended the conference, and you can read the about his growing sense of incredulity in his posts (
part 1,
part 2,
part 3,
part 4,
part 5).
It turns out that these folks are
relativity deniers.
Image of the crescent Earth and Moon on October 3, 2007, taken by the HiRISE instrument of the NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter.
Which is pretty strange, the usual tack is to argue for Geocentrism based of relativistic frame equivalence. Arguing against
relativity is pretty hard, as it is one of the best confirmed theories of physics we have. From
gravitational lensing (see images above) to
frame dragging, relativity has passed increasingly stringent tests with flying colours.
These geocentricists apparently need relativity disconfirmed so the the
Michelson-Morely experiment proves the Earth at rest.
Now there is a lot of problems with this (not the least because they need a non-moving ether to explain the M-M experiment, then a moving ether to explain
Foucault's Pendulum) and other geocentrist positions. Some of the problems can be demonstrated with intensive mathematics, some with not so much maths (like the claim that GPS doesn't use relativistic corrections,
which is untrue.)
Earth as seen from Mars taken by the Spirit rovers' panoramic camera in 2004.
However, in the spirit of my
first post on this conference, where I tried to get people to do observations themselves that disproved first the Ptolemaic then the
Tychonian systems, I want to get people to do something much simpler, related to observational astronomy.
Also in the spirit of Einstein, who tried to imagine what the word would look like if you were travelling on a photon, I want you to imagine your are standing on Mars.
The evening sky on Mars on April 29, 2005 as simulated by Stellarium (the location isn't at the same latitude and longitude as opportunity, so the view is slightly different from the rover).
What would you see from the surface of Mars that would be different in a Tychonian system (the system favoured by our modern geocentricists) versus a heliocentric system system?
As the Tychonican system is an inverted Copernican system, things like the phases of the Earth would be identical (see this
JAVAscript model, advance the time to October 3, 2007 to match the image of crescent Earth and Moon above, and flip between the Tychonian and Heliocentric models to see what I mean).
Earth imaged by the panoramic camera of Opportunity an hour after Sunset on April 29, 2005 (Image Credit NASA/JPL).
There is a big difference that would be immediately apparent. Whether in the Tychonian or Heliocentric systems, from the point of view from Mars, Earth would appear to be a morning or evening star that appeared to revolve around the Sun.
However, the geocentricists are using a geostationary model, where the 24 hour day is produced by the Sun rotating about the Earth. So in a period of 24 hours, an observer on Mars (armed with an occultation disk) would see Earth rise from the sun, then fall back, then reappear on the other side of the sun and repeat the process again.
During the period that the Mars rovers took images of the Earth, at
maximum elongation Earth was 42-47 degrees from the Sun as seen from Mars. For the Earth to move from maximum elongation to inferior or superior conjunction (at least, as it would appear from Mars, because in the Tychonian system Earth can't have conjunctions) takes 6 hours (in a 24 hour day there will be four 6 hour segments as the Earth goes out, comes back, goes out and comes back again from the solar disk).
So the Earth will appear to move 42 degrees (taking the lowest figure) in 6 hours, or 7 degrees per hour against the background stars (approximately, it's slightly more complicated than this, but rough figures are all we need). That's
14 Lunar diameters per hour! Earth is fairly hooting along compared to the background stars. In one minute Earth would move 1/4 of a Lunar diameter which is quite noticeable.
Now look at the image above. It is a composite of 3 x 15 second images taken with the panoramic camera, you can see the image of Earth is slightly elongated. However, remember that Mars rotates, and any 15 second exposure will cause slight star trailing due to its rotation. The trail we see of Earth is nothing like what we would expect if it was moving to a 24 hour rhythm, as it hares along the sky (roughly 1/5th of a Lunar diameter). Still, for confirmation we have to check Earth's movement against that of the background stars.
Fortunately, in
the original image there is a background star just above Earth (it's best seen in the TIF file). It has the same degree of elongation that the Earth does. This falsifies the Tychonian system, thus the solar system is heliocentric.
So "Eppur si muove" because it um, doesn't move (with respect to the background stars as seen from Mars).
Image credit; Topper, D. Galileo, Sunspots, and the Motions of the Earth: Redux Isis, Vol. 90, No. 4 (Dec., 1999), pp. 757-767
Illustration of the annual variation in the paths sunspots take across the sun, and the heliocentric projection which explains it.
The account of sunspot movement that Galileo provides in the Third Day of the Dialogue is easily explained with reference to Figure 1. Let continuous line MN represent the plane of the ecliptic, while EFG, FGH, GHE, and HEF represent projected paths for the sunspots at tri- monthly intervals A, B, C, and D-that is, in one annual circuit along the ecliptic. Viewed at position A, therefore, the sunspots appear to ascend in a straight line from E toward G. At B they seem to describe an upward curve from F through G toward H, whereas at C they appear to descend along a rectilinear path from G toward E. Finally, at D they seem to follow a downward curve from H through E toward F.
Given these general observations, Galileo was able to deduce the basic solar model illustrated in Figure 2, where DABC-the plane of the ecliptic-cuts the solar globe at great circle KFLH. NS, meanwhile, is the axis about which the sun makes a complete spin roughly once a month. So EFGH is the solar equator, along which the direction of motion is counterclockwise from E toward G. The apparent path the sunspots follow at any point in the year is accordingly determined by how the sun's equator would look from any point on the ecliptic. From A, for instance, it would be seen straight on, as represented by A in Figure 1, whereas from B it would appear as it does in B in Figure 1, and so on. Hence the root cause of these appearances is the tilt of the solar axis with respect to the ecliptic
Drake, Galileo Studies, pp. 180, 198 n 17 as quoted in Topper
Einstein rings, a spectacular prediction of relativity, taken from Hubble (Image credit Hubble/NASA)
You may remember a little while back I wrote about a conference of modern Geocentrism (Galileo was Wrong). Geocentrism is the belief that Earth is the centre of the Solar system, nay the entire Universe and everything revolves around it.
Todd Wood attended the conference, and you can read the about his growing sense of incredulity in his posts (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5).
It turns out that these folks are relativity deniers.
Image of the crescent Earth and Moon on October 3, 2007, taken by the HiRISE instrument of the NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter.
Which is pretty strange, the usual tack is to argue for Geocentrism based of relativistic frame equivalence. Arguing against relativity is pretty hard, as it is one of the best confirmed theories of physics we have. From gravitational lensing (see images above) to frame dragging, relativity has passed increasingly stringent tests with flying colours.
These geocentricists apparently need relativity disconfirmed so the the Michelson-Morely experiment proves the Earth at rest.
Now there is a lot of problems with this (not the least because they need a non-moving ether to explain the M-M experiment, then a moving ether to explain Foucault's Pendulum) and other geocentrist positions. Some of the problems can be demonstrated with intensive mathematics, some with not so much maths (like the claim that GPS doesn't use relativistic corrections, which is untrue.)
Earth as seen from Mars taken by the Spirit rovers' panoramic camera in 2004.
However, in the spirit of my first post on this conference, where I tried to get people to do observations themselves that disproved first the Ptolemaic then the Tychonian systems, I want to get people to do something much simpler, related to observational astronomy.
Also in the spirit of Einstein, who tried to imagine what the word would look like if you were travelling on a photon, I want you to imagine your are standing on Mars.
The evening sky on Mars on April 29, 2005 as simulated by Stellarium (the location isn't at the same latitude and longitude as opportunity, so the view is slightly different from the rover).
What would you see from the surface of Mars that would be different in a Tychonian system (the system favoured by our modern geocentricists) versus a heliocentric system system?
As the Tychonican system is an inverted Copernican system, things like the phases of the Earth would be identical (see this JAVAscript model, advance the time to October 3, 2007 to match the image of crescent Earth and Moon above, and flip between the Tychonian and Heliocentric models to see what I mean).
Earth imaged by the panoramic camera of Opportunity an hour after Sunset on April 29, 2005 (Image Credit NASA/JPL).
There is a big difference that would be immediately apparent. Whether in the Tychonian or Heliocentric systems, from the point of view from Mars, Earth would appear to be a morning or evening star that appeared to revolve around the Sun.
However, the geocentricists are using a geostationary model, where the 24 hour day is produced by the Sun rotating about the Earth. So in a period of 24 hours, an observer on Mars (armed with an occultation disk) would see Earth rise from the sun, then fall back, then reappear on the other side of the sun and repeat the process again.
During the period that the Mars rovers took images of the Earth, at maximum elongation Earth was 42-47 degrees from the Sun as seen from Mars. For the Earth to move from maximum elongation to inferior or superior conjunction (at least, as it would appear from Mars, because in the Tychonian system Earth can't have conjunctions) takes 6 hours (in a 24 hour day there will be four 6 hour segments as the Earth goes out, comes back, goes out and comes back again from the solar disk).
So the Earth will appear to move 42 degrees (taking the lowest figure) in 6 hours, or 7 degrees per hour against the background stars (approximately, it's slightly more complicated than this, but rough figures are all we need). That's 14 Lunar diameters per hour! Earth is fairly hooting along compared to the background stars. In one minute Earth would move 1/4 of a Lunar diameter which is quite noticeable.
Now look at the image above. It is a composite of 3 x 15 second images taken with the panoramic camera, you can see the image of Earth is slightly elongated. However, remember that Mars rotates, and any 15 second exposure will cause slight star trailing due to its rotation. The trail we see of Earth is nothing like what we would expect if it was moving to a 24 hour rhythm, as it hares along the sky (roughly 1/5th of a Lunar diameter). Still, for confirmation we have to check Earth's movement against that of the background stars.
Fortunately, in the original image there is a background star just above Earth (it's best seen in the TIF file). It has the same degree of elongation that the Earth does. This falsifies the Tychonian system, thus the solar system is heliocentric.
So "Eppur si muove" because it um, doesn't move (with respect to the background stars as seen from Mars).
Image credit; Topper, D. Galileo, Sunspots, and the Motions of the Earth: Redux Isis, Vol. 90, No. 4 (Dec., 1999), pp. 757-767
Illustration of the annual variation in the paths sunspots take across the sun, and the heliocentric projection which explains it.
242 Comments
Matt G · 15 November 2010
How on Earth did we manage to get spacecraft to Mars if we subscribe to a faulty (heliocentric) model of the solar system?
Eamon Knight · 15 November 2010
Any chance Todd Wood (who seems an honest and intelligent fellow) will realize that the entire bunch -- geocentrists, YECs, IDists together -- are all a bunch of sorry crackpots and come over to the side of rationality?
DavidK · 15 November 2010
eric · 15 November 2010
Ian, the analysis of what Spirit sees from Mars is interesting, but I don't think any geocentrist is going to be convinced by photographs (=can be faked) from a government (=part of the conspiracy) mars rover (=really sitting in a bunker in Hollywood).
This is interesting science for us, but to 'muove' them, we need to find a different lever.
Ichthyic · 15 November 2010
Ian, the analysis of what Spirit sees from Mars is interesting, but I don’t think any geocentrist is going to be convinced by photographs (=can be faked) from a government (=part of the conspiracy) mars rover (=really sitting in a bunker in Hollywood).
one, those people have never actually been the target of science outreach because:
two, they are entirely immutable to reason, as if the very analysis you just posted doesn't exactly suggest that.
OwnedByTwoCats · 15 November 2010
If the earth were stationary and fixed, what centripedal acceleration would be needed on Mars to rotate around earth in 24 hours? Even at closest approach, 55 million km, perfect circle so distance = 2 * pi * r, or 330 E 6 km for a speed of 3.8 km/sec, a = v^2/r, v = 2 * pi * r / P.
Or simplifying, a = (2 * pi)^2 R / P^2, or 290 m/sec^2. Thirty (earth) Gs, straight away from earth.
bigjohn756 · 15 November 2010
People, what we really need to explain is; how does God keep earth at the center? But, you can't use any numbers or diagrams because God didn't need any.
Just Bob · 15 November 2010
What do you think, Robert Byers, FL, Henry and Steve P.? Are these geocentrists kooks or what? You realize, of course, that they are geocentrists because they take the bible literally.
So do they take it TOO literally? Or are they right? If they're wrong, do you ever challenge them online or elsewhere?
YetAnotherKevin · 15 November 2010
I agree that the geostationary model is bunk of the highest order, but I don't think your description of what a geostationist would expect to see from Mars matches the predictions of their model. In a given 24-hour period, an observer at any point on earth would (does) observe approximately the same angular distance between the sun and Mars. For this to be true, in addition to the Sun orbiting earth every 24 hours, Mars (under the bunk model) must orbit the sun very nearly every 24 hours. Given this, the angular distance between the sun and Earth would be basically constant as observed from Mars.
@OwnedByTwoCats: Imagine the G-forces experienced by the Cassini lander!
John Harshman · 15 November 2010
I don't think you have the neo-Tychonian system correctly characterized. As I understand it, everything rotates about the earth in 24 hours, this motion being added on to the annual earth-orbit-sized ellipse that everything, including the sun, makes, as well as the conventional orbits of those objects. I'm not quite sure what the resulting sum looks like, but it should produce the same observations as the standard view from any location, even Mars. The angle between earth, sun, and Mars should not change in a 6-hour period except infinitesimally, and earth should not change position much against the "fixed" stars, since they're all making the same 24-hour angular displacement as Mars is.
Or am I missing something?
Jim Harrison · 16 November 2010
You've got to deny relativity if you're going to maintain a geocentric cosmology. The fixed stars apparently rotate around the Earth every day so that if they are really moving, at Ptolemy thought, their orbit can't be more than a light day in circumference, if we assume that Einstein was right about the cosmic speed limit. That makes for a mighty small universe, indeed one that doesn't quite have enough room for the orbit of Neptune.
TomS · 16 November 2010
As far as the stars moving faster than the speed of light: Yes, they can simply deny relativity, but they can also make the claim that it is space itself which is moving faster than the speed of light, and the stars are moving at sub-light speeds within space. (Cosmologists can accept that the universe expands faster than the speed of light.) (BTW, a circle with a radius of about 4 billion kilometers has a circumference of one light-day. That's about the distance to Neptune.)
What seems to be an added complication for the geocentrists is the daily rotation of large objects. When the heavenly bodies make their revolution about the earth, they must also make a rotation in order to keep the same side facing the earth. Consider an object which has a radius greater than 1 light-day/2 x pi, and at a greater distance than 1 light-day/2 x pi. (Ignore the small heliocentric (real) motions.) It must be embedded in space which is moving faster than light, but the surface of the object is also moving faster than light within that space.
There are no solid objects which are that big, but there are objects like nebulas and stellar clusters - the Pleiades, for example, are clearly gravitationally bound, share common movement, and we see the same relative orientation of its members. So, geocentrically, the Pleiades are rotating daily with relative velocities much greater than the speed of light.
I suppose that a geocentrist could make the claim that there is a distortion of space in the neighborhood of such a rotating object, which gives a local rotation of space.
fusilier · 16 November 2010
Matt G · 16 November 2010
I saw a quote from Conservapedia printed in an issue of Science a month or two ago. They defined Einstein's Theory of Relativity as a liberal pseudoscience designed to encourage moral relativism and discourage people from reading the Bible.
Anubis bloodsin · 16 November 2010
This is not mathematics, physics, or rational.
What it is could be described as a perfect example of how religion specifically a sub set,(rapidly becoming a full set), of the xian religion, allows the inherent brain rotting mythology to dominate the cognitive functions.
So desperate to preserve and boast about the delusion they will lie about, misrepresent and twist reality to shoe horn it into their delusional framework.
The delusion has made their cognition issues insane, there is no lesser diagnosis.
I would not trust them with a rubber knife, but that is me!
TomS · 16 November 2010
I'd point out that nowhere does the Bible say anything about the fixity of species (or of "kinds"), or "separate descent" (that is, denial of common descent). And for some 2000 years the reading of Genesis raised such issues for no one. Between 500 BC and AD 1500, nobody even thought of fixity of species, despite plenty of Bible-reading. But lots of people thought that the Bible said that the earth was fixed.
ppb · 16 November 2010
If you're a geocentrist, Relativity is the least of your problems. You have to throw out Newton's entire theory of gravitation. One body does not rotate around another body's center. Two bodies rotate around a common point, and that point is going to be closest to the more massive body. It's impossible to have a fixed earth with the sun, planets, and stars rotating around it in a Newtonian universe.
eric · 16 November 2010
Ed Hensley · 16 November 2010
I am not a physicist, but I have a simple experiment that would confirm or disprove whether or not the earth does not rotate.
Fly an airplane (rocket, space shuttle, etc) in one direction around the equator using a specific amount of thrust for a specific distance (point A to point B) on the Earth's surface. Fly the same vehicle in the opposite direction (point B to point A) for the same distance over the Earth's surface with the same amount of thrust. If the Earth does not rotate, then the the amount of time for each flight should be the same (accounting for wind, of course). If the Earth does rotate, then the flight going against the rotation of the Earth should take less time than the flight going with the rotation of the Earth.
Is my experiment valid? Is it too simple? Seems to me like an easy way to test this and be done with it.
Helena Constantine · 16 November 2010
I remember Todd. His blog was linked here a year or two ago and I noticed an entry in which he off-handedly said he accepted the account of the flood and the tower of Babel. I sent him an email outlining the evidence and explanatory theory linguists have developed to explain the last 10,000 years of language development and asked how to criticize it in detail, or at least explain how, if modern English came into being at babel, where were its speakers until the 14th century, and how they all managed to supplant the native Middle English speakers in England. Or if that was a case of Micro Evolution, how about the Old English Speakers--how were they supplanted by Middle English Speakers? And so on back to Proto-Germanic and P-I. I never got an answer.
OwnedByTwoCats · 16 November 2010
Newton's genius was that he unified the terrestrial and celestial spheres. The same laws of motion that are observed here apply out there.
Geocentrism says that Newton was wrong. Despite the simplicity and elegance of his laws of motion, despite the theory's verified predictions all kinds of behavior of macroscopic objects here on earth, and verified predictions of the motions of planets other than Mercury. That's all wrong, and the bible is right.
You can't move them from that tenet, that their interpretation of the bible is right, and anything that contradicts that is wrong.
eric · 16 November 2010
TomS · 16 November 2010
eric · 16 November 2010
Eamon Knight · 16 November 2010
John Vanko · 16 November 2010
Mike Elzinga · 16 November 2010
Mike Elzinga · 16 November 2010
Researchers at NIST Boulder, CO have built some optical clocks that have such high precision that they can measure gravitational redshifts over distances of only 33 cm.
There is a report in this November 2010 issue of Physics Today of an article in Science 329, 1630 (2010).
Just Bob · 16 November 2010
eric · 16 November 2010
DavidK · 16 November 2010
It's been a while since I've taught astronomy, but here's a nice overview regarding the perspective on the heavens and the historical frame of reference used by peoples from ancient times up to Brahe, and of course our geocentric friends of today, whether or not they're aware of their pedigree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_spheres
harold · 16 November 2010
eric -
I suspect you may not have read all the way down to the bottom. I think this paragraph is crazy enough for any judge. Copied and pasted directly from the Conservapedia article on Relativity.
"Political aspects of relativity
Some liberal politicians have extrapolated the theory of relativity to metaphorically justify their own political agendas. For example, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama helped publish an article by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe to apply the relativistic concept of "curvature of space" to promote a broad legal right to abortion.[45] As of June 2008, over 170 law review articles have cited this liberal application of the theory of relativity to legal arguments.[46] Applications of the theory of relativity to change morality have also been common.[47] Moreover, there is an unmistakable effort to censor or ostracize criticism of relativity.[48]
Physicist Robert Dicke of Princeton University was a prominent critic[49] of general relativity, and Dicke's alternative "has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."[50] Despite being one of the most accomplished physicists in the 20th century, Dicke was repeatedly passed over for a Nobel Prize, and in at least one case Dicke was insulted by the award being granted to others for contributions more properly credited to Dicke.
There has been little recognition by the Nobel Prize committee of either theory of relativity, and particularly scant recognition of the Theory of General Relativity.
Government Support for Relativistic research
The Theory of Relativity enjoys a disproportionate share of federal funding of physics research today.[51] In at least one case that research has been unsuccessful. The $365 million dollar LIGO project has failed to detect the gravity waves predicted by relativity.[52]"
raven · 16 November 2010
eric · 16 November 2010
harold · 16 November 2010
yum install Jesus · 16 November 2010
IF THE EARTH REVOLVES AROUND THE SUN LIKE MACROEVOLUTIONISTS SAY THEN WE WOULD FLY OFF THE EARTH. SINCE WE DON'T FLY OFF THE EARTH OR EVEN HAVE TO BRACE OURSELVES SO WE DON'T FALL BECAUSE OF THE EARTH'S MOTION THE EARTH IS OBVIOUSLY NOT MOVING. MACROEVOLUTIONISTS HAVE BEEN PROVEN WRONG!
Just Bob · 16 November 2010
"IF THE EARTH REVOLVES ..."
See what I mean? Here's a candidate.
SLC · 16 November 2010
DS · 16 November 2010
W. H. Heydt · 16 November 2010
Paul Burnett · 16 November 2010
SWT · 16 November 2010
Frank J · 17 November 2010
Just my usual bare minimum feeding:
Yo yum, "Arumentum ad CAPSLOCK" is so '90s.
If someone claims that the Earth is flat I say "go debate a round-Earth geocentrist." If they claim geocentrism I say "go debate a heliocentric YEC". If they concede heliocentrism but claim a young earth I say "go debate an OEC." If they concede an old Earth but deny common descent, I say "go debate evolution deniers who concede common descent." If they are in the last group I ask them to debate one of the others.
They never do. Which tells me that at best they are not confident in the alternate "theory" they they pretend to have.
Frank J · 17 November 2010
TomS · 17 November 2010
David Fickett-Wilbar · 17 November 2010
DavidK · 17 November 2010
David Utidjian · 17 November 2010
Paul Burnett · 17 November 2010
W. H. Heydt · 17 November 2010
W. H. Heydt · 17 November 2010
Mike Elzinga · 18 November 2010
Mike Elzinga · 18 November 2010
Typo:
That 0.333 should have been 0.344.
Cubist · 18 November 2010
Frank J · 18 November 2010
Paul Burnett · 18 November 2010
Paul Burnett · 18 November 2010
Dave Lovell · 18 November 2010
Henry J · 18 November 2010
But how does the cost savings of launching from the equator compare to the cost of transporting the vehicle and launch equipment to the equator from the U.S.?
TomS · 18 November 2010
Just Bob · 18 November 2010
The best analogy for conceptualizing deep time I've ever seen is the "Cosmic Calendar" segment from one of Sagan's COSMOS episodes. He uses a yearly calendar as an easy to grasp analogy. The tiny illuminated spot in the last few seconds of December 31--all of human history--is most striking.
Mike Elzinga · 18 November 2010
eric · 18 November 2010
Off topic - did anyone catch the Hitchens vs Dembski debate this morning? I didn't, but evidently it was web cast so maybe someone did. Here's a link to the page; the organizers say the recording will be available Monday.
W. H. Heydt · 18 November 2010
W. H. Heydt · 18 November 2010
W. H. Heydt · 18 November 2010
Science Avenger · 18 November 2010
Shebardigan · 18 November 2010
Science Avenger · 18 November 2010
Let's try that again readibly:
Sun - basketball on home plate
Mercury - halfway to the pitchers mound (sightly maller than a pinhead)
Venus - pitchers mound (as wide as a penicl lead)
Earth - almost to first base (as wide as a penicl lead)
Mars - second base (sightly larger than a pinhead)
Jupiter - at the longest center field fence (about the size of a spinning quarter)
Science Avenger · 18 November 2010
Mike Elzinga · 18 November 2010
Shebardigan · 18 November 2010
Paul Burnett · 18 November 2010
Dave Lovell · 18 November 2010
TomS · 18 November 2010
Let me make it clear that I am not arguing for geocentrism, just pointing out what one geocentrist has to say about this:
Galileo Was Wrong by Robert Sungenis
Click on Q and A
Look for Question 109: Questions Geocentrism Cannot Answer
"2) Why geosynchronous satellites do not just fall down?"
"R. Sungenis: Because according to modern science, a rotating universe around a fixed Earth produces the same centrifugal forces on stationary GPS that a moving GPS creates as it revolves around the Earth. You’ll find a more elaborate explanation in Chapters 1, 4, 10, 12 and Appendix 7 of Galileo Was Wrong"
"Galileo Was Wrong" is Sungenis' book on geocentrism.
Henry J · 18 November 2010
For the L1 point to stay above the same point on Earth's surface, wouldn't Earth have to keep the same side toward the sun all the time, instead of not rotating at all (i.e., one rotation per revolution)?
Dave Lovell · 18 November 2010
Cubist · 18 November 2010
Mike Elzinga · 18 November 2010
Mike Elzinga · 18 November 2010
There are a couple of confusions in that Wikipedia note on Lagrange points.
The note mentions that L1 would exist in a non-rotating system. It is true that if the two objects, such as the Earth and Moon, were “nailed” down in position, then there would be a point in between them in which the net force on a small body would be zero.
But if the two larger bodies were not rotating, they would be accelerating toward each other under their mutual gravitational attraction. There would still be a point between them where a small body would experience zero net force. But eventually the small body would be crushed between the colliding larger bodies.
So in outer space, in order for two bodies such as Earth and Moon to remain at a fixed distance from each other, they have to be orbiting each other.
Just Bob · 18 November 2010
Deklane · 18 November 2010
Henry J · 18 November 2010
I notice that Florida has a considerable advantage in this regard over France, the south end of which has more or less the same latitude as Maine.
Just from looking at a globe, I'd estimate that Florida has about 9/10 the rotational speed as the equator, and France around 3/4. (That's assuming that it's proportional to distance from the axis. Is that right?)
Henry J
W. H. Heydt · 18 November 2010
Henry J · 18 November 2010
Pattern? Pattern? What, we're supposed to look for patterns? :)
Seriously though, yeah - going by that, ocean (or at least something uninhabited) to the east may be more important than minor differences in rotational speed of the launch site.
JGB · 19 November 2010
Similar to the gravitational argument, we now observe plenty of other solar systems with the star always in the "middle". This would make ours quite unique in that sense. Just as importantly in all of those cases the planet produces a modest amount of observable wobble in the star, i.e. the star moves anyway. How would the Earth be completely stationary in the face of gravity? Equally intriguing how would you make it a stable system as any change in the mass distribution of the solar system would produce a net force that seems to me would produce more and more wobble in the system and amplify out of control, because of the large torque exerted by the sun.
TomS · 19 November 2010
I have access to "Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right" by Sungenis, and the references that he gave do not seem to have anything about a geosynchronous satellite. Perhaps the closest is in Chapter 9, where he quotes at length Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, "Gravitation", pages 547-549 on the Foucault pendulum and Hans Thirring "Ueber the Wirkung rotierender ferner Massen in der Einsteinschen Gravitationstheorie" (Physikalische Zeitschrift 19, 33, 1918). Sungenis comments: "Einstein has confirmed that a universe in rotation around the earth would produce the same centrifugal and Coriolis forces attributed to a rotating Earth in a fixed universe." (page 362 of "GWW:TCWR")
TomS · 19 November 2010
I think that you bring up an interesting point. How stable is a geocentric universe, how do the inevitable perturbations affect the structure in the long run? I was going to say "small perturbations", but the changes due to the sun and the giant planets are not "small". Does a geocentric universe demand extremely "fine tuned" motions of the stars?
eric · 19 November 2010
John Harshman · 19 November 2010
Question for those who have waded through the literature. How can a geocentrist use Einstein as a justification? Einstein didn't show that a geocentric universe is possible under general relativity. He showed, if anything, that you can use any reference frame, including a geocentric one. Appeal to relativity to support geocentrism is using the absence of a preferred reference frame to support a preferred reference frame. How do the geocentrists deal with that contradiction, if indeed they do?
TomS · 19 November 2010
My little bit of knowledge about geocentrism tells me that there is a variety of opinions.
Some people say that Einstein says that geocentrism is as compatible with evolution as is heliocentrism; and these geocentrists say that there is no scientific demonstration of geocentrism, but that both are scientifically acceptable. They then say that the decision is made by the faith: the Bible says that the earth is fixed.
Others say that there is scientific evidence for the fixity of the earth at the center of the universe.
FL · 19 November 2010
Frank J · 19 November 2010
TomS · 19 November 2010
Bobsie · 19 November 2010
Dale Husband · 19 November 2010
TomS · 19 November 2010
To all appearances, the Bible has more to say about the fixity of the earth than about the fixity of species. For at least 2000 years (from 500 BC to AD 1500), the widespread belief was that the Scriptures taught that the sun went around the earth, and nobody said anything about evolution.
Mike Elzinga · 19 November 2010
Henry J · 19 November 2010
Wouldn't a simpler solution for them be to simply acknowledge that an omni-whatever God could handle ten digit numbers? Even if His followers have trouble with such?
Just Bob · 19 November 2010
Josephus the elder · 19 November 2010
Reading Todd Wood's blog really made me reflect on the huge DOWNSIDE of 'free speech'. Some people will just hang onto ANYTHING they're taught as a child.
Scott F · 19 November 2010
Does anyone here know enough to comment on frame dragging? From a layman's perspective, frame dragging would seem to be yet another confirmation of a rotating Earth, independent of any particular frame of reference.
henry · 20 November 2010
This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.
Frank J · 20 November 2010
TomS · 20 November 2010
I wonder whether there are any geocentrists who are reading this.
Frank J · 20 November 2010
C Matherly · 20 November 2010
Stephen Elliott · 20 November 2010
Does anyone know how geocentrists account for the seasons or Earth's magnetic field?
faith4flipper · 20 November 2010
I completely agree. As is stated from this particular article, which we shall not include its citation, since its too *expletive* for Science: "Some creationists believe that the scientific assault on the Bible did not begin with biological evolution, but with the acceptance of the heliocentric (or more properly, geokinetic) theory centuries ago. These people believe that the Bible clearly states that the Earth does not move, and hence the only acceptable Biblical cosmology is a geocentric one. Modern geocentrists use both Biblical and scientific arguments for their case. We examine these arguments, and find them poorly founded. The Scriptural passages quoted do not address cosmology. Some geocentrists draw distinctions that do not exist in the original autographs or even in translations. In short, the Bible is neither geocentric nor heliocentric. While geocentrists present some interesting scientific results, their scientific arguments are often based upon improper understanding of theories and data. Much of their case is based upon a misunderstanding of general relativity and the rejection of that theory. While geocentrists are well intended, their presence among recent creationists produces an easy object of ridicule by our critics."
faith4flipper · 20 November 2010
Its key to Science that we recognize alternative Scientific theories. For example, the flying spaghetti monster to man transitional fossil finds such as we found in our laboratories here - http://thepeerreviewedjournalbible.blogspot.com/2010/11/more-scientific-evidence-is-upturned.html
TomS · 20 November 2010
As is usual, a Biblical literalist will state with all confidence that the Bible says whatever he wants it to say. There is no way that to dispute an issue which is stated on one's own authority, is there? It happens to be that the Bible does say that the earth is fixed, and it does say that the sun moves, and plenty of people in the 2000 years before AD 1500 quoted the Bible to that effect. When that was questioned, churchmen from Luther to the Pope agreed in their displeasure. There is far more Biblical support for the fixity of the earth than there is for the fixity of species - to the extent that nobody imagined that the Bible said anything about fixity of species before 1500. I challenge anyone to find anyone before 1500 who either said (1) that the Bible was compatible with the motion of the earth around the sun, or (2) that the Bible was not compatible with descent with modification.
By the way, I'm suspicious enough of the creationist command of science that I wouldn't be surprised to find their "scientific" analysis of geocentrism to be flawed. The geocentrists may prove to be the equals of the creationists in their science. It would prove amusing to see the ("geokinetic") creationists being bested at their game.
faith4flipper · 20 November 2010
Oh lovely yes TomS. I read this once in the book of Hezekiah..I believe it was in chapter 13..verse 24. Great point.
faith4flipper · 20 November 2010
Or was it Hezekiah chapter 24, verse 13?
faith4flipper · 20 November 2010
Wait..wasn't the Pope whom opposed Galileo the cause for all Creation Science today?
faith4flipper · 20 November 2010
wait no no..I found it. It was in the book of Josiah!
faith4flipper · 20 November 2010
And Nephi and Alma state it is the case too.
faith4flipper · 20 November 2010
At least everyone at Pandas Thumb is taking this into context with what most prominent Creation Scientists whom are Christians believe.
faith4flipper · 20 November 2010
Dr. Huzwallah Lo-Dabar a PHD in Evolutionary Biology from the holy institute of Flying Spaghetti Monster Science in Kansas makes this point as well, "No Creation Science has ever been devoid of Geocentrism. For example, the passage in Hezekiah 24:13 states "The universe operates from a Geocentric atmosphere." This led many prominent Scientists from the Pope forward to believe that the sun revolved around the Earth."
faith4flipper · 20 November 2010
Continuing from the peer reviewed journal IFSMSIKJ volume 24 page 13 "This was up until the days of Darwin...when Science took a turn for the better. Applying Eugenics to Biology has led to very beneficial science which most to all Scientists find very valuable today. It is important to only consider Science which is valuable to extending evolution..especially in the studies of Flying Spaghetti Monster to Man Evolution."
Paul Burnett · 20 November 2010
henry · 20 November 2010
This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.
Stanton · 20 November 2010
This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.
Stanton · 20 November 2010
I mean, really, is it too much to ask that henry be permanently consigned to the Bathroom Wall? All of his posts now are all off-topic whining about how President Obama is an evil black man who's ruining the US by not being Republican (or white, for that matter).
Scott F · 20 November 2010
This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.
Stanton · 20 November 2010
This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.
henry · 21 November 2010
This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.
Dale Husband · 21 November 2010
This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.
Ian Musgrave · 21 November 2010
TomS · 21 November 2010
I haven't done a study on geocentrism, but it seems to me that the most effective argument against it is that it requires "terrestrial exceptionalism". Everything in the universe is revolving around the axis of the earth - everything except the earth. But we now know that the earth is not so very much unlike everything else. The earth is made from the same chemical elements as Mars and the Moon. "Rovers" made in earth laboratories work on Mars and the Moon just as they were designed. We send rockets made from terrestrial materials through interplanetary space and they move just like the planets. Meteors fall from space and they are rocks. Yet for some reason or other, the earth is an exception to geocentric rotation. Where is this boundary of discontinuity between the fixed earth and the rotating universe? Why isn't the earth dragged along with the rotating space (or aether, or whatever), just like Mars and the Moon are? What forces keep the earth fixed at the center when everything else is changing? Why can't we detect the boundary between earth and space?
I'd like to hear any criticisms of this point. Particularly from geocentrists, but also from the rest of you.
John Harshman · 21 November 2010
TomS · 21 November 2010
I've heard the geocentric argument that the center of mass of the whole universe is in the earth, so the sun is actually revolving around the center of mass of the universe. To answer this requires some mathematics - and everybody hates mathematics.
Do you think that it's possible that the geocentrists could try the same thing as an "explanation" of how the earth really is different from those bodies which do move? It is scary to think that they could pull that off, so let's hope not.
And yes, part of my inspiration for this argument was drawn from Galileo.
I can remember being puzzled by relevance of mountains on the Moon to heliocentrism, when I first read of the controversy. Much later did I realize that people of that era didn't grow up thinking of the planets as being other earths. The planets, for them, were made of totally different substance with totally different rules.
Mike Elzinga · 21 November 2010
TomS · 21 November 2010
I quite agree with what you have to say. And thank you for some more suggestions.
What I am searching for is an argument which involves no mathematics and as little science as possible. I am trusting that the general public knows that there have been rovers landing on the Moon and Mars which show that those bodies are very much like the earth, and that machinery made on earth works on those bodies. Why can the forces that make the Moon and Mars revolve around the earth (and rotate on their own axes, too) not have a similar effect on the earth? And where is the boundary line between extraterrestrial, rotating space objects and the earth which is fixed forever? We're sending rockets through that "boundary" all the time and nobody has ever noticed it. And, by the way, we're getting meteorites from space, as well as cosmic rays and a whole lot of radiation, none of which show signs of being affected by crossing the boundary.
It seems to be that geocentrism requires major changes across that boundary, such as the two different gravitations that you mention: terrestrial-type gravitation and celestial-type gravitation. Why do rockets work smoothly in the transition from one regime to the other? Why haven't astronauts noticed something happening?
I'm trying to think of what possible rejoinder there could be to this sort of difficulty before I start trying to push it, so I'd really appreciate if someone can think of something.
henry · 22 November 2010
Dale Husband · 22 November 2010
henry · 24 November 2010
This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.
DS · 24 November 2010
Henry,
Who do you think is more likely to be a geocentrist, Palin or Obama? If you want to discuss either one of them on this thread, that is the only legitimate topic. Before you answer remember, Palin can see the moon from her backyard.
Stephen Elliott · 25 November 2010
TomS · 25 November 2010
I believe that in classical geocentrism, for example the description given by Ptolemy, the seasons are accounted for. The sun has an annual motion through the Zodiac which takes it both north and south of the celestial equator. Likewise with Tycho's system. So it is fair to say that the seaaons are "easy" to account for in 21st-century geocentrism. I'd say that any purely geometric description of the arrangement of the Solar System is easy to transform between Ptolemy, Tycho, or Copernicus, and whether one ascribes the daily rotation to the earth or to the cosmos.
henry · 27 November 2010
This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.
Stanton · 27 November 2010
This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.
henry · 28 November 2010
This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.
TomS · 28 November 2010
Stanton · 28 November 2010
This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.
Stanton · 28 November 2010
DS · 28 November 2010
This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.
AMDG · 30 November 2010
Just noticed that PT is covering the 11/6 GeoCatConf - This comment relates to the original posting: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/09/geo-xcentriciti.html#more
Let’s start with Ethan at Starts with a Bang , http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/09/geocentrism_was_galileo_wrong.php
who deals ‘with the technical details’ ……. but very poorly.
The extended discussion of observational refutations of the Ptolemaic model is wasted on the modern geocentricist, who has adopted the Tychonian model for GC…. for the last 4 centuries!.
Ethan had best do some research before exposing topical ignorance in public.
Btw: Ian does little better by using the Venusian phases to mock the false Ptolemaic strawman , then notes later that the Tycho model is now used in GC! What sense is there in beating the dead horse of Ptolemy…. Vicarious pleasure in knowing that a GC model two millennia old was discredited 400 years ago? Is error imputed to modern GC models by inheritance from Ptolemy? Perhaps we should then critique modern physics models for the caloric and phlogiston flops….
Ethan tries to use graphic GC animations to refute GC, but only makes his case worse. Cruithne is shown hanging in the sky for a year! In all GC models the universe rotates daily… These are the ‘technical details’? Ethan need only look to the sky to see what GC predicts.
He doesn’t respond at all to these issues or others raised in posts #32,33,48,55,56,58,61,63,64,67,70,74,77.
Ian states in prior posts that Tycho’s model “is an obvious kludge. The orbits of Mars and the Sun intersected for criminies sake!”
Well, all the moon orbits intersect their respective planetary orbits in the HC model, fer criminy’s sake. The sine and cosine graphs both cross the abscissa…. When will they cross at the same place? Never.
“In terms of Occam's razor, Tycho's helio-geocentric system fails, introducing unwarranted assumptions…….. two centres of rotation”.
The subjectivity of Occam’s razor was explicitly rejected in defining the scientific method…. assuming we still believe in objective scientific methods. Occam’s razor is used as a heuristic to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models, where it has been shown to fail. In the scientific method, parsimony is an epistemological, metaphysical or heuristic preference, not an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result. Science has shown repeatedly that future data often supports more complex theories than existing data and history shows that the simplest explanations often yield to complexities as new data become available.
Tycho’s model has not 2, but several hierarchical rotation centers: Earth is primary, Sun is secondary, planets tertiary. Except for Earth, this same ordering of rotation is present in the HC model.
“… stellar aberration, which can be only explained by a rotating, orbiting Earth.”
Only? In 1971 Jones showed that a light beam aberrates when passing through a rotating glass disc (and the ambient aether).
http://iopscience.iop.org/0022-3689/4/1/018
Ian Musgrave · 1 December 2010
TomS · 1 December 2010
Ian Musgrave · 1 December 2010
Ian Musgrave · 1 December 2010
AMDG · 1 December 2010
from page 1:
TomS : .Possibly changes in the rotation of the earth (or, from the geocentric point of view, the rotation of the heavens) due to things that happen on earth (seasonal changes, earthquakes, or even tides) would be problematic for geocentrism (why should something that happens on earth today affect the motion of stars that are lightyears away, immediately?),
[AMDG]Micro-changes of the Earth’s rotation is inferred from VLBI measurements by MS science. Any East-West proper motion of the reference stars is interpreted as a delta in Earth’s motion, NOT AS a random change in the stellar motions. As you see, this is a matter of cosmic model choice….
The GC model explains the motions of the stars as intrinsic, so there is no question of the earth’s motion changes being propagated to the VLBI stars. Clear?
… our inclusion with hollow or flat earthers is just a strawman distraction.
Yes the neo-Tychonian model transfers the frame origin from Sun to Earth, establishing observational equivalence between HC and GC worldviews.
eric : If we were to discover tomorrow that the universe was geocentric, we’d still use heliocentric models to launch space probes. Why? Because the heliocentric math is easier.
[AMDG]
1.GC models are used by JPL and NASA for probe tracking and navigation…. Earth is where the antennae are located, not on the Sun!
2.HC models may be used to simplify the equations, but that doesn’t imply the HC model is reality… 0 = 0 is a simple equation…. It lacks useful content.
3.Computations are automated now; HC had a benefit for hand calculations.
midwifetoad : “modern” geocentrists seem unmoved by the argument that all points in the universe appear to themselves to be the center.
[AMDG]
1.There’s no evidence that other points so appear.
2.S. Hawking admitted that modesty is the reason we don’t claim the universe to be geocentric ….. how would an atheist explain this?
3.Galileo Was Wrong lists several observations of geocentricity: Tiff’s quantum red shifts, etc.
Olorin :So perhaps the position of the Roman Catholic Church on heliocentrism really is the same as for evolution: Allowed, but not encouraged.
[AMDG]The position of the RC teaching authority– the Magisterium – for both theories is : Forbidden – contrary to Revelation.
The position of the modernists now dominating the RC Church is: Agnosis – in response to liberal science challenges.
FL : Simply put, the Bible does NOT teach geocentrism,
[AMDG]~ 60 verses state the Sun/Moon rises/sets; 3 say the earth is fixed.
The number that say the Earth moves: Zero(0)
heddle :. The big bang is not, as you say, at the center of the universe–there is no such place.
[AMDG]The BB expanded from nowhere – because there was nonesuch.
An expansion with no center….. agnosticism on the path to nihilism.
MememicBottleneck :. I went to a catholic school 40+ years ago, and the Nuns didn’t have a problem (as far as I could tell) teaching old earth and evolution back then.
[AMDG]That’s post Vat II…. Too bad you weren’t older, before the Arians took over.
Terenzio the Troll :you can come up with a convincing explanation for an external force driving the Foucault Pendulum itself, or you come to terms with the fact that the ground is moving underneath the pendulum.
[AMDG]The aether flow found by Michelson-Gale in 1925 provides the torque to rotate the FP plane.
Come to terms with this: How does the FP know the ground is moving beneath it? ( Aether is a no-no, says Big Al E. )
W. H. Heydt : Please provide an objective means of decide which passages are to be taken literally and which are not. A means that can be applied by anyone…believer or not.
[AMDG]All passages are to be taken literally at first, in context. …. Litera primo. Some verses have more than just the literal sense. In doubt: consult the Magisterium
Ian Musgrave · 2 December 2010
TomS · 2 December 2010
TomS · 2 December 2010
On the question of accounting for the motion of sunspots.
I'm having a problem with this. As far as I understand what you are saying, it seems to me that the observations of sunspots are just a matter of the geometry of the system, and an observation of a sunspot is dependent upon the relative position of the sun and the earth, and the changes over time in the observations of sunspots are changes to the relative positions of the Earth and the Sun. The Sun, according to geocentrism, has a daily motion around the Earth due to its participation in the daily rotation of the whole universe, as well as an annual motion through the Zodiac. The daily "motion" does not change the position of either body North or South of the other's equator, but ISTM that the annual "motion" does give the earth a different angle to a sunspot. (And remember that geocentrists have to assign an additional daily rotation to any heavenly body in virtue of its daily revolution around the Earth.)
How have I misunderstood what you are saying?
Ian Musgrave · 3 December 2010
AMDG · 3 December 2010
Ian Musgrave:“Stellar parallax gets all the glory” …
[AMDG] Parallax is the apparent shift in position of 2 objects relative to a third fixed object.
The fixed object must be assumed, so parallax is logically incapable of determining absolute rest. Mainstream science assumes the Sun and stars are fixed….. and then proves the Earth is moving! How could it be otherwise? Classical circular reasoning.
If the Earth were assumed to be fixed, then the Sun would be proven to move!
Re Foucault’s Pendulum: How does the FP know that the Earth is rotating beneath it? In Newton’s theory there is no mechanism to cause FP rotation. Remember Einstein rejected aether.
The Michelson-Gale exp. showed the existence of an aetherosphere rotating westward once a day. This aether flow is sufficient to explain the FP torque at any latitude.
Ian Musgrave: To eliminate the Tychonian system, we need to observe sunspots.
…I note that you ignored the annual variations in sunspots’ motions.
[AMDG] Along with Tom S, we were puzzled what your claim was, exactly… that the sunspot variation is the ONLY observational difference between the Copernican and neo-Tychonian models??
Some research shows you seem to refer to the annual see-saw motion of the ecliptic in the range of +/- 23.5 deg North-South of the equator. In the MS HC model the ecliptic motion is apparent; in GC the motion is real, caused by the annual N-S motion of a natural cosmic aether cycle. Both models agree that this solar motion effects the change of seasons, and also that the Sun’s N-S motion (whether real or phenomenal) travels 47 deg. In 182.5 days… ~ ¼ degree/day or .01 deg./hr. In BOTH models it requires long and precise observations to see the same detectable change. So there is no observable difference in the 2 world-systems, with or w/o sunspots.
Ian Musgrave: In a geocentric system, with the Sun orbiting the earth once a day, this variation would show up on a daily basis, but what you observe can only be seen in a heliocentric system.
[AMDG] Given the above analysis, can you explain what this means?
Ian Musgrave:A Sun rotating around a fixed Earth in a day, as in the Tychonian system, would not show this (sunspots would be seen to visibly move up and down during the course of a day).
[AMDG] This is not the Tychonian system; we have no idea what it does represent…
Invoking Occam’s razor to eliminate GC (as Galileo did) is a subjective metaphysical rule, shown before not to apply to testing. Using the sci. method and Popper’s logic requires that GC be objectively disproven by exposing a contradiction – internal or external.
No observations of the Tychonian model have done so. Only for the HC/Galilean/Copernican system.
Ian Musgrave · 4 December 2010
Mike Elzinga · 4 December 2010
Hold up a plate and look at it edgewise straight on.
Tilt the plate up slightly and look at the curvature of the edge. Then tip it down and compare this with the up tilted curvature.
Put some marks on the edge of the plate and rotate the plate in each of the above cases.
AMDG · 4 December 2010
Page 2:
Flint : We decide which verses to take literally and which to take metaphorically based on our preferred understanding of something. Those we choose to take literally become Absolute Truth. Those who disagree do the schism thing, and form their own sect or denomination.
[AMDG] RCs take all verses literally unless context requires otherwise. Disputed verses are resolved by the magisterial teaching authority.
Self-interpretation has led to schisms, with more than 20,000 conflicting sects, yet all claiming to possess the Truth.
Keelyn : . I have to wonder what prompted the Church to be so wrong for so long and why it didn’t notice (or refused to notice?).
[AMDG] Wrong? About what?
Wayne Francis : if the Earth was the centre of the universe and everything revolved around it then that would imply that gravity works completely differently then we think it does …..
The fact is every spot in the universe is a subjective centre so why treat our subjective centre as any more important then any other?
[AMDG] Yes, gravity is caused by aether flows , not the illogical AAAD.
…..Earth is more important because experiments show it is at rest.
Dave Luckett : Knocking away geocentrism, that prop of separate creation, was tantamount to attacking the idea of separate creation itself. So thought the Church authorities when they examined Galilleo. What I find most interesting about this is that they were dead right.
[AMDG] Rejection of geocentrism led to evolution and all the ills of modernism. HC was the foot in the door, and Bellarmine and Urban knew it.
Les Lane : The most fashionable apologists determine which Bible verses are to be taken literally.
[AMDG] In the Church the Magisterium is the most fashionable.
Dale Husband : by what frame of reference do we affirm the truths of the Genesis creation myths?
[AMDG] We affirm the truths of the Genesis creation verses based on the faithful and true testimony of Him who … resurrexit, sicut Ipse dixit.
AMDG · 5 December 2010
Page 3
Ghrom : 1. Some geocentric models (the ones that are used by modern geocentrists) are observationally indistinguishable from the heliocentric models.
2. This posting tries to disprove all geocentric models with the help of observations.
3. FAIL.
[AMDG] Even the sunspots fail.
Ghrom : And given the infinity of the Universe, one can also arbitrarily choose the “center”, so the location question becomes rather irrelevant.
[AMDG] When was the infinite universe measured?
Wayne Francis : The bible does make very clear statements that are most definitely false.
[AMDG] According to what epistemology?
Wayne Francis : With in the context of GR and SR explain why all objects revolve around the Earth.
[AMDG] GR and SR are inconsistent (self-contradicting) theories. An inconsistent theory can prove any thing is true… or false.
W. H. Heydt : Unless you can propose some means of determining which are literal and which are not, a means that can be independently verified to be correct, …..
[AMDG] Who or what is the independent verifier?
Chris Lawson : the geocentric model completely fails to account for stellar parallax.
[AMDG] The circular reasoning of parallax was exposed in a prior post.
Chris Lawson : the Bible contains scores of verses that imply geocentrism and Flat Earthism …
[AMDG] Imply a flat Earth? As when ‘corners’ don’t mean ‘directions’ and ‘ends’ don’t mean ‘limits’?
Terenzio the Troll : ….. you have to explain Coriolis force first of all....
if you throw a stone far enough, your explanation should keep into account how the hell the whole universe is deviating the stone from its path even before said universe happens to know you threw the stone, in the first place.
[AMDG] 1. Coriolis force : The aetherosphere motion measured by Michelson-Gale in 1925
2. How the hell do mainstreamers explain the deviating stone? With AAAD?
TomS : That is small potatoes compared with Neptune making a daily orbit of the earth at greater than the speed of light (not to mention what the stars must be doing), which the geocentrists obviously don’t flinch at. That obviously requires some special force.
[AMDG] The speed of light is c…. what is the speed of aether?
Terenzio the Troll : ….. in a geocentrical model, …. all the universe down to its very verge must know immediately that the phenomenon has taken place. This is immediate action at a distance: the hallmark of miracles.
Throwing in a special force in a model and not saying where it came from is a capital sin for a physicist,
…while ignoring the limitation of the speed of light is merely good science fiction.
[AMDG] 1- VLBI data reflects the actual motifon of the reference stars, not the imputed motion of the Earth. Not a miracle… just a result of ignoring the GC model.
2- Where does the wind come from; where does it start and end? How can atheists sin?
3- The speed of light is c…. what is the speed of aether?
Ian Musgrave : One problem with relativistic solutions, is there is no privileged reference frame, geocentric is the same as heliocentric, Cytherian centric,……
[AMDG] A real MS dilemma: Relativity allows geocentrism, but ideologues can’t.
TomS : ….., I wouldn’t be surprised that they are split into many different beliefs, or that they don’t go into the details of special and/or general relativity, or that they aren’t much concerned with having a coherent position.
[AMDG] - We can’t be split into many beliefs…. there aren’t many of us! MS believers are Legion.
- The only relevant detail of relativity is its fatal inconsistency.
- We follow wherever natural testing and logic take us.
TomS · 5 December 2010
TomS · 6 December 2010
AMDG · 6 December 2010
heddle : …..the biblical writers, living when they did, held to fatally-flawed primitive cosmologies. The point, again, is that they were not inspired to write their cosmologies into scripture as scientific fact.
[AMDG] salvific vs. science… literal vs. illiterate…. All false reductionism.
The only valid classification is truth vs. lies; the latter verses are null.
Chris Lawson : If your point is that the Old Testament was not intended to be a textbook, then you need to be telling that to the literalists out there, not the pro-science community.
Pointing out the geocentrism in the Bible is a good argument against literalism.
[AMDG] 1- The Bible is limited…. to the truth.
2- The Church ruled geocentrism to be literal 4 centuries ago.
TomS : Re Galileo, Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina
[AMDG] None of the Fathers rejected geocentrism, or accepted heliocentrism…. for whatever reason.
FL : Just a small reminder: Phenomenological language = / = geocentrism
It’s also = / = metaphor/parable/allegory
[AMDG] A big reminder : RC exegesis is litera primo
stevaroni : “It’s a 3000 year old book that sometimes has to be evaluated in light of modern knowledge” scale.
Clearly, the Bible is either literally true or it isn’t.
[AMDG] 1. How does ‘modern knowledge’ trump revelation, the natural over the supernatural?
2- ‘literally true’ = means what it says, in context.
DavidK : There’s so many signs to interpret and you can find so many of them in the Bible and other so-called holy scriptures.
[AMDG] … the reason why we need an authoritative interpreter.
heddle : … well, nobody is a literalist, given that nobody takes every verse literally.
[AMDG] RC exegetes take every verse literally, at first reading.
W. H. Heydt : if one insists that any unsupported Biblical passage must be true, what means is to be used to distinguish it from one that may be “interpreted”?
[AMDG] RC Magisterium
Mike Elzinga : Simply changing reference frames by shifting one’s position or velocity; or doing some kind of conformal mapping and flipping “zero” with “infinity” (i.e., “turning the world inside out”, so to speak) is not going to do it.
….. it is not sufficient to simply add “new forces” to explain the effects in the transformed system.
[AMDG] 1- Only empirical evidence will do it…. and has done it.
2- but it is sufficient when MS explains Newtonian deviants with dark matter and energy, which cannot be observed – by definition.
DavidK : - Any number of epicycles could be used to satisfactorily explain planetary motion, but there was no physical basis for them.
- Ironically, the arguments from Biblical inerrancy still garner support, even today.
[AMDG] 1. What is the physical basis (mechanism) explaining gravitational or EM AAAD?
2- Not ironically…. Predictably.
eddie : The bible can be literal about a worldwide flood without there having been such an event.
[AMDG] Making of the Bible a book of lies.
John Kwok : . There were a few Popes who indulged in fathering children out of wedlock if my recollection of Papal history from that time is correct:
[AMDG] Making the Church divine in its foundation but human in its implementation.
DS : So then, the way that we can tell which parts of the bible are metaphors and which parts are literally true is to simply say that anything that turns out not to be factually correct was simply a metaphor.
[AMDG] Another option – join the Church.
harold : Rube Goldberg attempts to concoct some type of geocentric system that fits with the evidence fail, at a minimum, on the grounds of parsimony.
The posting and subsequent comments (which included substantial fair treatment of “possible” geocentric models) reviewed the various extremely well-known reasons why geocentricism is not a scientifically good model, and why heliocentricism is the obviously best model for the solar system.
“Proof” is for mathematics. It is highly elusive in in the empirical and observational sciences.
[AMDG] 1-Parsimony is not part of the scientific method.
2- Well-known reasons, but not satistfactory by analysis with scientific logic(Popper) or the sci. meth.(Bacon) .
3- Natural science is inductive, so absolute proof is impossible.
harold : exactly which parts of the Bible contradict the theory of evolution - exact passages please - and why should they be interpreted literally?
[AMDG] Genesis 2:1-3.
All passages are taken literally at first…. There’s no conflict with reason to justify a change.
JASONMITCHELL : 1- Biblical literalists / Creationists/ claim that the Biblical creation story is literally true …. Just as in Gliileo’s day Heliocentricsm was heresy FOR THE VERY SAME REASONS
2- ….many theologans/ religions/ religious traditions do NOT demand a literal interpretation of Genesis
3- All sorts of “observations/statements within the Bible can be independently falsified. The Earth is round, it moves, it is not the center of the solar system/galaxy/ universe, Pi does not = 3.0, bats are not birds
4- if it is ok to teach in science class that the EARTH orbits the SUN why is it NOT ok to teach Evolution?
5- … geocentrists … try to twist/warp scientific observations/facts/ reality so that they “fit” within thier interpretation of the Bible
[AMDG] 1-Yes…. isn’t consistency frustrating?
2- The verses about ‘false prophets’…. Are they literal?
If yes: then your quote is proven true.
If no: then whatever the Bible says can be overridden by subjective personal interpretation.
3- All these claims confirm the bad fruit of subjective personal interpretation
4- Both are false – neither should be taught.
5- Modernists try to claim that empirical evidence has only one natural cause. This is only true when cause and effect are equivalent. So, what is the list of scientific observations/facts/ reality that have necessary and sufficient causes? Include the proofs of equivalency.
jaycubed : The bible states that the earth is fixed & immovable and is shaped so as to have four corners (a quadrangle).
…“…in the four corners of the earth.” Revelation 20:8;
“…standing at the four corners of the earth,” Revelation 7:1
[AMDG] Pick a book that is not obviously symbolic.
TomS · 6 December 2010
Mike Elzinga · 6 December 2010
eric · 6 December 2010
Ian Musgrave · 6 December 2010
TomS · 7 December 2010
I'm just a beginner to the issue of geocentrism, but if I had to mention one thing which seems problematic with geocentrism it would be "Terrestrial Exceptionalism".
Part of the original concept of geocentrism was the idea that the heavenly bodies were different from sub-lunar stuff. Beneath the Moon things were made of the four elements, and things went by different rules. But now we know that the same elements make up everything material in the universe, and the same laws of physics and chemistry apply everywhere. The rovers which are on the surface of Mars not only show that Mars is made of rock, but also that the rovers behave like they do on Earth. Interplanetary rockets originating on Earth behave just like those things native to interplanetary space.
Yet, according to geocentrism, the Earth is somehow different. How is that possible?
According to geocentrism, everything in the universe is participating in a daily revolution around the Earth. Everything, that is, with the exception of the Earth.
The second thing that I would mention is "Universal Wobbling". From time to time there is a small change in the rotation. The length of the day changes, and the axis of revolution changes. This is an effect that is observed simultaneously throughout the universe (from a geocentric point of view) or else it is a change which takes place on Earth (from a conventional point of view, a change in the daily rotation of the Earth). According to geocentrism, this is an effect which happens at vast distances, and has an effect which is greater, the greater the distance from Earth.
The third is the "Universal Rotation". Not only does everything participate in a daily revolution around the Earth, there is also a tendency to a daily rotation around an axis (parallel to the axis of the Earth) superimposed on any individual rotation peculiar to the object. Because the Pleiades, for example, present the same orientation of the individual stars to an earthly observer as the group daily revolves around the Earth, this means that the group as a whole has to make a daily rotation. (Much as the Moon must rotate to keep the same face toward the Earth as the Moon revolves around the Earth.) In the case of large objects, this means that there is a very fast revolution - and a very fast rotation would put great stresses on an object, tending to tear it apart. (By the way, the Universal Wobble also affects the Universal Rotation in the same way; the Universal Rotation can result in motions within the object, within its own local space, greater than the speed of light - this being in addition to any faster-than-light travel needed for daily revolution around the Earth; and the Universal Rotation also has problems with gyroscopic effects on the "proper rotation" of the object - how Uranus maintains its nearly 90 degree axis of its own rotation while it is being slued around the Earth.)
This enumeration of three problems (no more than the singling out of the first of these as a favorite) does not mean that there are no other problems that I see with geocentrism.
And I should repeat that I am just a beginner, so I expect that I am making some blunders, and I appreciate corrections.
AMDG · 7 December 2010
Page 5
FL : I can tell you three standard hermeneutical rules across the board…..
[AMDG] Agree with all three. .
Dale Husband : The Genesis myths are clearly metaphors.
[AMDG] What are the terms of the metaphors?
FL : …. ground-observer-based wording like “sunrise” “sunset”, is NOT geocentrism.
[AMDG] Why is God’s view limited to ‘ground observer’ ?
Dale Husband : … that event in Joshua is physically impossible because the stopping of the rotation of Earth would have sent people and animals flying in the air for a moment,
[AMDG] But Scripture says the Sun and Moon stopped, not the Earth.
….. The Bible depicts a universe that is run arbitrarily according to the whims of a psychotic egomaniac.
[AMDG] An understandable attitude… If one insists on interpreting the opposite of what the verses say..
Dale Husband : You can’t judge the Bible by reference to the Bible!
[AMDG] The Bible makes no reference to sources or knowledge outside of itself… as would be expected of a book written by the ultimate authority.
Rolf Aalberg : …we need to know how to identify a myth, we need to learn to appreciate and judge the Bible for what it is. The Christian churches have lost the key.
[AMDG] …. Save one.
Dale Husband : …your have never read the first two chapters of Genesis and noted how they totally contradict each other? For example, which came first, animals or the first man?
[AMDG] Have you never seen the difference between a chapter of details and one that summarizes ?
Dale Husband : Nothing man makes should be considered absolute truth or even a representation of God himself.
[AMDG] How does absolute truth differ from truth?
Stanton : if the Bible is “silent on the matter of -centrism,” then how come all Christian geocentrists present a literal reading of the Bible as their primary evidence for their stance?
[AMDG] ‘Literal first’ is always the primary exegesis.
John Stockwell : The Foucault pendulum and stellar abberation observations, as well as observations of Coriolis effects in the Earth’s atmosphere further will not phase them, because of a one-liner from a conversation between Mach and Einstein, wherein Einstein asserted that if the universe were orbiting the earth, the intertial effects would be the same as if the earth rotates..
It’s all wonderfully ad hoc.
[AMDG] 1. Einstein and Barbour & Bertotti and Lense & Thirring and …… .
2- GC = ad hoc ; HC = hocus-pocus
eric · 7 December 2010
TomS · 8 December 2010
About relativity deniers and the speed of light.
One needn't accept the theory of relativity to note that the speed of light is really, really fast. Something spinning that fast (I'm speaking of the rotation, not the revolution), what keeps it from flying apart? There are effects of high speeds which are experimentally well established. And what is there which makes everything in the universe (except the Earth, of course) spin that way? Why do interplanetary rockets participate in these motions?
Ian Musgrave · 8 December 2010
TomS · 8 December 2010
I must disagree with you. The Sun does not ordinarily cross the equator on a given day. (The exceptions being on the two equinoxes.)
If the Sun is in the southern hemisphere as seen in Athens, it is in the southern hemisphere as seen in Adelaide, or as seen in the Galapagos Islands.
An almanac will give the latitude of the Sun today, and it will specify south latitude, and the almanac will not qualify that with either (1) the time of day (except for a very small change as it moves toward its most southern latitude on the December solstice) (2) observation point on Earth.
AMDG · 8 December 2010
Page 6
W. H. Heydt : Even tree rings are sufficient to rule out a 6K year old Earth.
Using the Bible as self-referential support for the Bible is a circular argument: a logical fallacy.
What you need is evidence outside the Bible to support (or disprove) it.
[AMDG]1 -The oldest living tree is a bristle cone pine in CA …. 5000 yrs old, dated by dendrochronology.
So according to science and Scripture, the Earth is at least that old and there’s no upper limit, since Scripture never states the time of Creation.
2- This is the only possibility in a deductive system
3-All credible historical evidence supports Biblical testimony; none disprove it.
Dale Husband : At the time those claims were made, our ancestors did not have the means to test the claims. But as soon as that was finally done, many of those claims were debunked.
[AMDG] Were any such debunkings published – that is, made public?
Gingerbaker : …..it [GC] was the official doctrine of the Church for 1200 years,
….
the ‘real’ meaning of the passages instructing a geocentric world view, would be heresy according to Church Canon.
[AMDG] and still is – the Magisterial rulings have never been set aside.
Ron Okimoto : What do you get your PhD in to become a bonafide geocentric scientist?
[AMDG] Faith and reason
Page 7,8
Stanton : Modern-day geocentrists ignore the fact that, if the Earth was indeed the center of the Universe, no one would be able to observe heavenly bodies during the day.
[AMDG] One fears to ask what this claim possibly means…
TomS : …..Neptune, at a distance of about 30 astronomical units, would average slightly above the speed of light?... We have telemetry data from Voyager 2 ….. one wonders how it achieved that superluminal circular velocity,
I thought that it might amuse some of you.
1- Light speed is c +/- the aether speed. What’s the aether speed around Neptune or Voyager 2?
2- Or confuse.
jaycubed : …It depends on which Bible you’re looking at.
[AMDG] Any canonical text will do: Douay-Rheims, Vulgate , Septuagint.
Carl Hilton Jones : one of the things that we know is that the universe has no center.
But all this will be lost on a “geocentrist” because such a person is not actually making claims about the physical world that can be tested in detail.
[AMDG] 1- What is the evidence of universal accentricity?
2- This commenter is making such claims…at
http://alfachallenge.blogspot.com/
MrrKAT : In special case astronomy amateurs can observe light-delay of variable eclipsing binary stars due to earth rotating around sun.
http://www.student.oulu.fi/~ktikkan[…]/helioc.html
This exludes also Tychonian model out.
From the Web link: …if heliocentric hypothesis is right then minima times should be heaving back and forth approx. at 5.3 amplitude according to sine wave when someone observes RZ Cas minima on the Earth. On the other hand if geocentric hypothese is right and heliocentric hypothesis is wrong then minima times should not be waving on such yearly period at all. Only "small" random variation.
[AMDG] Not so fast... The neo-Tychonian model has the stars as satellites of the Sun, so the Sun’s annual motion around the Earth , oscillates from a perigee of 147.5 million km near Jan 4 to apogee at 152.6 million km near July 4th. All the stars inherit this radial motion from their primary, the Sun. This generic motion - plus whatever specific individual elliptic motion they may have around the Sun, produces an annual change in all stellar distances….. and therefore an annual change in the transit time from star to Earth…. as observed in the astronomical observations.
For example, the annual difference in travel time for Sun light to Earth is 17 seconds, the difference between solar apogee and perigee.
Doesn’t anyone here understand the neo-Tychonian Earth-based model?? It’s not that hard –just look at the sky.
TomS · 8 December 2010
AMDG · 9 December 2010
Post 2
Ian : Einstein rings, a spectacular prediction of relativity....
[AMDG] or of aether diffraction?
Ian : Todd Wood attended the conference, and you can read the about his growing sense of incredulity in his posts (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5).
[AMDG] and you can read the responses to Todd at :
http://galileowaswrong.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2010-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&updated-max=2011-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=4
Ian : Arguing against relativity is pretty hard, as it is one of the best confirmed theories of physics we have.
[AMDG] Relativity can show anything is true – or false. Popper’s analysis of scientific logic shows that inconsistent theories (those having contradictions) are worthless.
A link to the havoc caused in arithmetic by introducing a finitesimal error :
http://mythpages.blogspot.com/search/label/B.%20Googol%20Axiom
Ian : From gravitational lensing to frame dragging, relativity has passed increasingly stringent tests with flying colours.
[AMDG] As relativity is rife with contradictions, we would expect it to prove anything we want… and also disprove anything.
Ian : These geocentricists apparently need relativity disconfirmed so the the Michelson-Morely experiment proves the Earth at rest.
[AMDG] Not the M&MX , but the Sagnac results find the Earth at rest.
Link: http://alfachallenge.blogspot.com/
Ian : Now there is a lot of problems with this (not the least because they need a non-moving ether to explain the M-M experiment,
[AMDG] M&MX found that the aether and Earth are approximately at rest at ground level ….. if you ignore the daily and annual variations of ~ 5 km/s by terming them as ‘null’.
See the work of Dayton Miller and Maurice Allais(RiP).
Ian: …then a moving ether to explain Foucault’s Pendulum) and other geocentrist positions.
[AMDG] Michelson & Gale found an aetherosphere rotating every 24 hours. It is this aether flow that causes the torque on the FP.
Ian :
GPS doesn’t use relativistic corrections, which is untrue.
[AMDG] GPS uses only one frame, ECI, which rotates with the Earth. Relativity does not apply when there is only one frame of reference, according to the relativity guru at Mathpages.com in the Sagnac section.
But Bridgman and Asby says it does…..
Relativity contradictions exposed! When does relativity apply and when does it not?
Ian : During the period that the Mars rovers took images of the Earth, at maximum elongation Earth was 42-47 degrees from the Sun as seen from Mars. For the Earth to move from maximum elongation to inferior or superior conjunction …… takes 6 hours (in a 24 hour day there will be four 6 hour segments as the Earth goes out, comes back, goes out and comes back again from the solar disk).
[AMDG] A claim that Earth will move 42 degrees in 6 hours as seen from Mars .. because the Sun orbits Earth in 24 hours..
BUT …. Mars would also orbit the Earth in about 24 hours if it orbits the Sun… WHICH IT DOES! Is this strawman deliberate?
Ian : So the Earth will appear to move 42 degrees (taking the lowest figure) in 6 hours, or 7 degrees per hour against the background stars ….. That’s 14 Lunar diameters per hour! Earth is fairly hooting along compared to the background stars. In one minute Earth would move 1/4 of a Lunar diameter which is quite noticeable.
[AMDG] Disproof details: In 6 hours in Tycho’s GC model the Sun will move 90 degs, THE STARS a tad further – 90.25 degs, and Mars also 90 degs (as a satellite of the Sun). Except for the Stars, there will no change in relative position of S-E seen from Mars …. except for the additional motion of Mars wrt the Sun, both orbital and spin. The Mars day is 1.0246 longer than Earth, so the Mars observer rotates 87.8 degrees, creating a 2.2 deg change in the Sun-Earth angle after 6 hrs. The change in S-M angle in this time is ~ 0.13 deg at 1.523 AU . The distance from M to E at max elongation is roughly .75 AU, so the M-E angle change is about double this,,, say 0.3 deg.
Sumup: The total angle change in 6 hrs is ~ 2.5 degs…NOT 42 DEGS AS ALLEGED.!
Ian : Now look at the image above. It is a composite of 3 x 15 second images taken with the panoramic camera, ……The trail we see of Earth is nothing like what we would expect if it was moving to a 24 hour rhythm, as it hares(?) along the sky (roughly 1/5th of a Lunar diameter).
[AMDG] 2.5 deg/6 hrs is about 0.005 deg in 45 sec or 1/200 deg. The lunar diameter is 0.5 deg; this is 100 times SMALLER.
Ian : Still, for confirmation we have to check Earth’s movement against that of the background stars.Fortunately, in the original image there is a background star just above Earth …. It has the same degree of elongation that the Earth does.
[AMDG] We did say the background stars rotate 90.25 deg in 6 hrs In the Tychonian model!
Ian : This falsifies the Tychonian system , thus the solar system is heliocentric.
[AMDG] Rather, this falsifies the Tychonian system falsification; thus the world model can be either Tychonian or Copernican, based on just these observations… But not when based on Sagnac’s result…
These specific attempts to discredit the Tychonian model are all a waste of time that could be avoided – with a little effort at understanding. The change of rotation origin from Sun to Earth is a conformal transformation, a Moebius mapping which preserves angles….
Don’t they teach this in mainstream math?
Ian : Illustration of the annual variation in the paths sunspots take across the sun, and the heliocentric projection which explains it.
Given these general observations, Galileo was able to deduce the basic solar model illustrated in Figure 2,
……The apparent path the sunspots follow at any point in the year is accordingly determined by how the Sun’s equator would look from any point on the ecliptic.
….. the root cause of these appearances is the tilt of the solar axis with respect to the ecliptic
[AMDG] Galileo’s observations:
1- From sunrise to sunset, the sun has the same face toward Earth.
2- The solar axis can’t change its tilting angle as seen from Earth – else the sunspots would move up and down(N-S).
In Tycho’s model the Sun, while revolving annually around the Earth, keeps its axis fixed as if rigidly connected to the Earth’s axis. The Earth’s pole points to the Polaris, the North star. The Sun and planets also keep their poles pointed at some star that serves as their North star during the year, as the ecliptic plane tilts back and forth 23.5 degrees N-S of the equator, driven by the seasonal change in aether winds.
The sunspots in the Tychonian model move as shown in Fig 1 and 2….
In Tycho’s model the plane ABCD is the Earth’s equator and plane EFGH can be either the ecliptic or the Sun’s equator, which rotates at the same angle as its polar axis, ~ ¼ degree/day or .01 deg./hr. N/S. This small excursion is not visually detectable until it accumulates over days.
Galileo’s arguments refer to the Ptolemaic model, not Tycho’s. A fixed axis in the ecliptic plane resolves the objection to the GC modern model of Tycho. This feature of the model is considered implausible by MS physics, but we find AAAD of Newtonian gravity without an intervening medium to be more than implausible – it’s logically and rationally impossible.
The geocentric astronomer Scheiner specialized in observing sunspots accurately. His data and analysis in Rosa Ursina(1630) accounted for the sunspot paths seen.
Mike Elzinga · 9 December 2010
Really bizarre.
Ian Musgrave · 10 December 2010
Ian Musgrave · 10 December 2010
TomS · 10 December 2010
TomS · 10 December 2010
I didn't notice any response to my comments. (I realize that there are lots of people that you are dealing with, and may not have the time available to respond to everyone.) We did have a brief exchange on #2, for which I thank you.
1. Terrestrial Exceptionalism.
Even though the Earth seems to be made of the same sort of stuff as the rest of the universe, it seems to be affected in different ways by the aether. The "rest of the universe" includes also interplanetsry rockets sent from the Earth. It doesn't include meteorites once they land on the Earth.
2. Universal Rotation.
Everything in the universe (except the Earth) has an intrinsic daily rotation on an internal axis parallel to the Earth's axis, in addition to revolving around the Earth. These rotations can produce very large speeds of rotation, which would, it seems, put considerable strain on the cohesion of these objects. I mentioned the Pleiades, which has a radius of several light-years, yet is rotating once a day, which means parts of the Pleiades are moving, relative to other parts, at something like 1000 times the speed of light. What keeps the Pleiades together under such stresses? One needn't appeal to theories of relativity to note that those are very fast motions.
3. Universal Wobbling.
From time to time, there are changes observed in the length of the day. Conventional geologists and astronomers say that it is due to a change in the rotation of the Earth. Geocentrists, presumably, call it a change in the motion of everything else in the universe. It seems to be a very startling change that instantaneously affects the motion of everything else in the universe. Suddenly, the Andromeda Galaxy changes its speed of revolution around the Earth, and at the same time, so does the Alpha Centauri system. A full description of the changes is quite complicated - not only the speed of revolution, but also the axis of revolution. But, in general, the changes increase with increased distance from the Earth, which brings up further complications: (a) is the Earth the source of this change? (b) how does an effect increase with increased distance (which also, BTW, it has an increased effect when the number of objects affected increases) (c) and don't forget the changes to the Universal Rotation, too.
AMDG · 10 December 2010
2-Page 1
Matt G : How on Earth did we manage to get spacecraft to Mars if we subscribe to a faulty (heliocentric) model of the solar system?
[AMDG] Both Tycho and HC models will work, since they are equivalent in determining distances and motion.
Ichthyic : one, those people have never actually been the target of science outreach because: two, they are entirely immutable to reason,
[AMDG] Immutable to reason? We plead guilty, fishy one, of never changing our reliance on reasoning…
OwnedByTwoCats : If the earth were stationary and fixed, what centripedal acceleration would be needed on Mars to rotate around earth in 24 hours?
[AMDG] What centripetal acceleration would be needed for a tornado vortex to lift a house off its foundation?
YetAnotherKevin : ….. I don’t think your description of what a geostationist would expect to see from Mars matches the predictions of their model. In a given 24-hour period, an observer at any point on earth would (does) observe approximately the same angular distance between the sun and Mars. For this to be true, in addition to the Sun orbiting earth every 24 hours, Mars …..must orbit the sun very nearly every 24 hours. Given this, the angular distance between the sun and Earth would be basically constant as observed from Mars.
[AMDG] What’s this ….a clear thinking PT who understands Tycho…. We retract our lament!
YAK - Don’t stop analyzing HC claims…. Or GC, either.
John Harshman| : I don’t think you have the neo-Tychonian system correctly characterized. As I understand it, everything rotates about the earth in 24 hours, this motion being added on to the annual earth-orbit-sized ellipse that everything, including the sun, makes, as well as the conventional orbits of those objects. … it should produce the same observations as the standard view from any location, even Mars. The angle between earth, sun, and Mars should not change in a 6-hour period except infinitesimally, and earth should not change position much against the “fixed” stars, since they’re all making the same 24-hour angular displacement as Mars is.
Or am I missing something?
[AMDG] Absolutely not – You’re just thinking deeply and independently. Congrats. JH.
You know - maybe there is hope for this PT crowd .... d(:^)
Jim Harrison : You’ve got to deny relativity if you’re going to maintain a geocentric cosmology.
The fixed stars apparently rotate around the Earth every day so that if they are really moving, at Ptolemy thought, their orbit can’t be more than a light day in circumference, if we assume that Einstein was right about the cosmic speed limit. That makes for a mighty small universe, indeed one that doesn’t quite have enough room for the orbit of Neptune.
[AMDG] 1- OK , we confess …. we deny relativity… because it’s logically inconsistent.
2- Einstein was right about c being the max SofL , but he denied aether exists(in SR, that is, not in GR). C is the max SofL in aether, but what’s the max speed of aether itself?
Only measurements accepted– as usual.
TomS …..they can also make the claim that it is space itself which is moving faster than the speed of light, and the stars are moving at sub-light speeds within space.
(Cosmologists can accept that the universe expands faster than the speed of light.)
What seems to be an added complication for the geocentrists is the daily rotation of large objects.
…… It must be embedded in space which is moving faster than light, but the surface of the object is also moving faster than light within that space.
I suppose that a geocentrist could make the claim that there is a distortion of space in the neighborhood of such a rotating object, which gives a local rotation of space.
[AMDG] 1 – Let’s replace ‘space’ with ‘aether’, to bypass further confusion.
2 – Ah yes , BB cosmology, the MS pillar of logic and reasoning.
• The expansion began from nothing (ex nihilo?) !
• Space expands out into nothing!
• There’s a point of expansion, but no center!
• Stars and galaxies condensed inside the expansion surface, while it was moving at superluminal speeds!
3 - A rotating aethersphere – such as Mic-Gale found around Earth– can be a model for the spin of cosmic objects.
4 – It could be a distortion of aether density , but the BCT is an actual rotation of aether.
TomS : … nowhere does the Bible say anything about the fixity of species (or of “kinds……..
Between 500 BC and AD 1500, nobody even thought of fixity of species, despite plenty of Bible-reading.
[AMDG] 1 -species?? Pls define ‘species’ so as to apply to all biota and be acceptable to the majority of MS biologists.
2 – Their Bible reading indicated that creation of new forms ended on the Seventh Day. And no experiments now show otherwise.
ppb : If you’re a geocentrist, Relativity is the least of your problems. You have to throw out Newton’s entire theory of gravitation.
….It’s impossible to have a fixed earth with the sun, planets, and stars rotating around it in a Newtonian universe.
[AMDG] 1 -And replace it with aether a mechanism that explains AAAD
2 - We don’t live in a (completely) Newtonian universe…. It must be in the multiverse..
Ed Hensley … I have a simple experiment that would confirm or disprove whether or not the earth does not rotate…. . Fly an airplane (rocket, space shuttle, etc) in one direction around the equator using a specific amount of thrust for a specific distance, etc …Is my experiment valid? Is it too simple?
[AMDG] too simplistic. The Sagnac experiment shows what you want.
OwnedByTwoCats : Newton’s genius was that he unified the terrestrial and celestial spheres. The same laws of motion that are observed here apply out there.
Geocentrism says that Newton was wrong. Despite the simplicity and elegance of his laws of motion, despite the theory’s verified predictions all kinds of behavior of macroscopic objects here on earth, and verified predictions of the motions of planets other than Mercury. That’s all wrong, and the bible is right.
[AMDG] 1 - Apparently not. There’s the anomalies of the Pioneers’ acceleration and the spiral galaxies’ rotation and the acceleration BB expansion rate….
2 - Well, gravity is illogical, but most macro measurements obey Newton’s laws. So it’s not all wrong, but you’re on the right track.
eric : A much better way to tell if you are in a rotating frame of reference is to build a Focault pendulum. :)
There was an old sci-fi novel where the protagonists had to figure out they were on a rotating ring (with inclined floor) on the surface of the earth, and not on a rotating space station.
[AMDG] 1 -The FP only tells us something is rotating…. not what. Mach’s principle and the work of Barbour& Bertotti and Lense&Thirring.
2 - We have our own version of science fiction today for entertainment – the MS theories of relativity, BB, and HC.
TomS : How do they account for the fact that the rockets that explore the planets continue to follow the same laws of motion?
[AMDG] Aether effects are small modifications to classical physics - like GR’s effects,. Practically, Newton is still useful where aether is weak or slow, but theoretically/conceptually Newton fails detailed micro experiments.
Eamon Knight : ...it gets weird to imagine how spacecraft can navigate around a solar system that doesn’t work anything like the way Newton (plus Einsteinian tweaks) says it does.
[AMDG] The tweaks are GC and aether
John Vanko : But it is possible by sending two synchronized atomic clocks on opposite trips around the Earth. It has been done. The difference between the clocks when reunited agrees to good precision with the expected difference based upon a rotating Earth. ….. See the Hafele-Keating experiment in Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele[…]g_experiment
The background of stars in the night sky, and the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, both provide a reference frame for concluding that the Earth rotates.
The CMB also allows us to measure the proper motion of the Earth.
As Ian’s article points out, if observations from Mars show that the Earth rotates around the solar system center of mass close to the Sun, then no rational person can argue for an Earth-centered Universe.
[AMDG] 1- Reality check: This just confirms the GPS and Mic-Gale results – the westbound aether flow around the static Earth has a 24 hour period. Also, H&K have all the credibility of the Eddington 1919 eclipse observations…. under cloudy skies.
2 - . The starry background and CMB dipole prove nothing about rotation…. Mach’s principle of relative rotation.
3 – MS Relativity says the CMB dipole can be Earth moving toward Virgo at 400 km/s… or Virgo moving toward us.
JV disagrees – it’s only the former. AMDG disagrees – it’s only the latter.
Isn’t it wonderful how science has advanced?
4 – The analysis in Ian’s article has been falsified… where does that leave a rational person?
Mike Elzinga : The rotation of the Earth is used to add additional kinetic energy to the launch of vehicles into orbit. Launching in the easterly direction uses less fuel.
[AMDG] Why then aren’t the launches from the equator instead of mid-latitudes?
The increase of eastbound winds with altitude in the temperate zone has nothing to do with this? The jet stream?
Mike Elzinga : Researchers at NIST Boulder, CO have built some optical clocks that have such high precision that they can measure gravitational redshifts over distances of only 33 cm.
[AMDG] Aethereal redshifts , properly phrased.
TomS · 10 December 2010
Ian Musgrave · 10 December 2010
Ian Musgrave · 10 December 2010
Ian Musgrave · 11 December 2010
TomS · 11 December 2010
AMDG · 11 December 2010
2 – Page 2
David Utidjian : “Launching in the easterly direction uses less fuel” Yep. It is also why it is advantageous to have a launch site as close to the equator as possible. Quito, Ecuador comes to mind. If one launches from the from the pole (north or south) one loses :waves hands: about 1,000 miles per hour compared to launching from the equator..
[AMDG] That’s the urban legend….. but where’s the hard evidence? Has NASA done a controlled test comparing fuel consumption for polar vs. equatorial launches? Or for East vs. West bound launches at the same latitude?
Paul Burnett : … why a geostationary “orbit” is only possible in the equatorial plane?
[AMDG] The geostationary “orbit” must be a null zone in the aether flow…. Below this distance the net aether wind rotates east; above the geostat distance, it rotates west.
TomS : The rotation of the universe around the earth is asymmetric….
[AMDG] Please clarify the meaning of asymmetric … with respect to what?
2 – Page 3
Mike Elzinga : …..if the periods of the stars, the Sun and it’s satellites are all the same 24 hours, that means that their “gravitational” force increases as the first power of distance from the center of rotation, i.e., it would be a Hooke’s Law force.
…. The gravitational attraction due to the Earth’s mass would have to be enormous in order to hold all those other orbiting systems in orbit around the Earth.
….., there could be no geosynchronous orbits around the Earth if it were not rotating.
[AMDG] 1 – In order of increasing distances , the relevant GC periods are:
LEO sats, ~ 1 ½ hrs East; GPS, ~ 12 hrs East, Geostat , infinite hrs ; Moon , ~ 24.83 hrs West ; Sun, 24.0 hrs West; stars, ~ 23.94 hrs West.
The singularity at the GeoStat Distance means there are two separate aether vortex types.
Within the GSD the vortex is an inverse square force. Beyond the GSD there are 3 periods very close in value but not equal.
All the stars and galaxies have the same period, so their force law is linear. But the Moon and Sun seem to have their own separate vortex.
2 – The ALFA model uses aether rings/vortices to account for the observed periods…. There’s no attraction… perhaps a Lesage pushing gravity will explain the observed periods and the inverse R force needed for galactic spiral rotation.
See: http://alfachallenge.blogspot.com/
3 – A null aether flow - like that at the Earth’s surface – accounts for objects at rest at the GSD.
Dave Lovell : Henry J said: For the L1 point to stay above the same point on Earth’s surface, wouldn’t Earth have to keep the same side toward the sun all the time, instead of not rotating at all (i.e., one rotation per revolution)?
Indeed it would, though of course they would say the Sun would have to stop rotating around the Earth.
[AMDG] The Earth – Sun L1 would rotate with the Sun – every 24 hrs. The Earth-Moon L1 would rotate with the Moon – every lunar day.
Who are they and why would they say the Sun would stop?
Mike Elzinga : Unless the Earth rotated on its axis with the same period as the Moon’s orbit (and in the same direction), the satellite would not appear stationary with respect to a point on the Earth’ surface. Also, the plane of the Moon’s orbit is not in the Earth’s equatorial plane; so even if the Earth rotated with the same period as the Moon, the satellite would still not remain directly above a point on the Earth’s surface.
[AMDG] L1 is on the line connecting the Earth and Moon. The Earth-Moon L1 would rotate with the Moon – every lunar day.
W. H. Heydt : From the east coast of Florida…lots of ocean. Likewise, from French Guiana…lots of ocean. One commercial space launch startup has been using a ship, launching from south of Hawaii…again, nothing to hit near by. Vandenburg is used for polar orbit launches..lots of ocean to the south. See a pattern here?
[AMDG] Israel’s three-stage Shavit launches westward over the Mediterranean — counter to Earth’s rotation — to avoid flying over enemy countries in the region. Satellites typically are launched eastward, which takes advantage of the high-altitude eastbound winds.
The pattern is: Priority is to avoid overland launches … more important than boost from the prevailing eastward winds.
JGB : ….How would the Earth be completely stationary in the face of gravity?
Equally intriguing how would you make it a stable system as any change in the mass distribution of the solar system would produce a net force that seems to me would produce more and more wobble in the system and amplify out of control, because of the large torque exerted by the sun.
[AMDG] 1 – By having no aether motion within the Earth.
2 - Aether flow controls the cosmic motions…. not the Newtonian mass distribution.
The Sun exerts no torque.
TomS : I have access to “Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right” by Sungenis, and the references that he gave do not seem to have anything about a geosynchronous satellite.
[AMDG] P 406. Aether motion around the Earth can be deduced from satellite motion, since aethereal rotational motion around an object sustains orbital motion. The translational speed of a satellite is zero at the geostationary distance of 22,000 miles above the Earth. It increases steadily to 18,000 mph at low earth orbit of 70 miles, then decreases sharply at lower altitudes with atmospheric absorption of the aether flow, so that at tropospheric altitudes it will either be moving with or causing the jet stream of up to 200 mph.
See P. 126 for a taste of NASA’s support for taxpayers’ inquiries.
John Harshman : How can a geocentrist use Einstein as a justification?
Appeal to relativity to support geocentrism is using the absence of a preferred reference frame to support a preferred reference frame. How do the geocentrists deal with that contradiction, if indeed they do?
[AMDG] 1 - Logically he can’t. E.G. – In 1905 the SR Big Al said no to aether and c is constant. The GR Einstein ten years later said yes to aether and c is variable. It’s too late now to ask him which one he meant.
2 - This one doesn’t. Relativity is an inconsistent which implies rational irrelevance.
mrg · 11 December 2010
Rob · 11 December 2010
Geostationary orbits are a subset of geosynchronous orbits with zero inclination. Geosynchronous orbits have a period of 1 day.
mrg · 11 December 2010
"The singularity at the GeoStat Distance means there are two separate aether vortex types. Within the GSD the vortex is an inverse square force. Beyond the GSD there are 3 periods very close in value but not equal."
But you haven't factored in the TIME CUBE.
Scott F · 11 December 2010
Ian Musgrave · 12 December 2010
TomS · 12 December 2010
stevaroni · 12 December 2010
AMDG · 12 December 2010
2 – Page 4
TomS : geocentrists say that there is no scientific demonstration of geocentrism, Others say that there is scientific evidence for the fixity of the earth at the center of the universe.
[AMDG] We are the others – see Sagnac effect and ALFA challenge – prior citation.
FL : They’re not kooks, they’re just unable to rationally sustain their geocentric beliefs
…from the Scriptures, like Todd Wood pointed out.
Geocentrism’s not going anywhere.
[AMDG] 1 - http://alfachallenge.blogspot.com/
2 - http://galileowaswrong.blogspot.com/2010/12/geocatcon-responses.html
3 - Of course not -- it doesn’t move!
Bobsie : And obviously, creationism is unable to sustain its belief from any rational interpretation of scripture.
[AMDG] Obviously, creationism needs also the Magisterial interpretation of scripture to sustain its belief.
Dale Husband : Once it became impossible to ignore the facts, the scruptures in question were reinterpreted in a non-literal fashion.
Any student of Christian history and theology would understand that.
[AMDG] 1 - …. impossible to ignore what facts? Do facts = experimental results?
2 - The beginning of the end of realism is what’s understood
TomS : To all appearances, the Bible has more to say about the fixity of the earth than about the fixity of species.
[AMDG] On the Seventh Day God rested from all He had created.
When did He start creating again….. according to Revelation?
Josephus the elder : Reading Todd Wood’s blog really made me reflect on the huge DOWNSIDE of ‘free speech’.
[AMDG] http://galileowaswrong.blogspot.com/2010/12/geocatcon-responses.html
TomS : I wonder whether there are any geocentrists who are reading this.
[AMDG] Maybe for comic relief? (:^) .
Stephen Elliott : Does anyone know how geocentrists account for the seasons or Earth’s magnetic field?
[AMDG] Seasons: Rotation of the ecliptic plane by a N-S aether wind/flow.
Mag field: first, note that the rotating Earth’s dynamo cannot explain the magnetism.
Proposed GC theory is based on the aether wind that forms the 2 Van Allen radiation belts. The charges moving in the radiation belts, replenished by the solar wind, produce the terrestrial magnetic field. The cause is external to the Earth, not internal, nor due to non-existent rotation.
faith4flipper : “Some creationists believe that the scientific assault on the Bible did not begin with biological evolution, but with the acceptance of the heliocentric (or more properly, geokinetic) theory centuries ago. …….. Rest at :
http://www.reformation.edu/scripture-science-stott/geo/pages/11-geocentrism-creation-faulkner.htm
[AMDG] see http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/fresp/index.html
TomS : As is usual, a Biblical literalist will state with all confidence that the Bible says whatever he wants it to say.
…… It would prove amusing to see the (“geokinetic”) creationists being bested at their game.
[AMDG] 1 - RC have the Magisterium for confidence in what the Bible says.
2 – Many creationists profess to have literal beliefs, but reject geocentrism as “too much conflict with science”.
faith4flipper : Applying Eugenics to Biology has led to very beneficial science which most to all Scientists find very valuable today.
[AMDG] Certainly was valuable to Hitler.
DS · 12 December 2010
Just another example of someone who is willing to deny any reality whatsoever in order to maintain their belief in an outdated mythology. Why not just perform a brain amputation? More is the pity.
mrg · 12 December 2010
Ian Musgrave · 13 December 2010
TomS · 13 December 2010
AMDG · 13 December 2010
2 – Page 5
TomS : the most effective argument against it [GC] is that it requires “terrestrial exceptionalism”. Everything in the universe is revolving around the axis of the earth - everything except the earth.
[AMDG] That shouldn’t bother an objective scientist. Refuting GC requires exposing a contradiction in its logic or testing, not an appeal to inconvenience or ideology.
TomS : The earth is made from the same chemical elements as Mars and the Moon. “Rovers” made in earth laboratories work on Mars and the Moon just as they were designed. We send rockets made from terrestrial materials through interplanetary space and they move just like the planets. Meteors fall from space and they are rocks.
[AMDG] Not germane to the GC/HC debate.
TomS : Yet for some reason or other, the earth is an exception to geocentric rotation.
Where is this boundary of discontinuity between the fixed earth and the rotating universe?
[AMDG] One boundary is the aether flow reversal at the GSD. Another is the surface of the Earth.
TomS : Why isn’t the earth dragged along with the rotating space (or aether, or whatever), just like Mars and the Moon are?
[AMDG] The aether within the Earth is motionless (or may be balanced by counterflows)
TomS : What forces keep the earth fixed at the center when everything else is changing?
[AMDG] If there are no forces on the Earth, its lack of motion needs no justification.
John Harshman : In many other cases across the solar system, the lesser body revolves around the greater. So why should the sun revolve around the earth?
[AMDG] The Sun is caught is a ring of aether flow, like a log floating downstream.
TomS …… everybody hates mathematics.
Do you think that it’s possible that the geocentrists could try the same thing as an “explanation” of how the earth really is different from those bodies which do move?
[AMDG] 1 – Is that why relativists put up a smokescreen of complex mathemagic ?
See http://mythpages.blogspot.com/
2 - The ALFA Challenge is mathematical simplicity – pure algebra.
Mike Elzinga : As to the “center of mass of the universe” being located at the center of Earth, the issue of the behavior of the gravitational attraction comes up.
So now we have two different types of “gravity” which apparently do not have anything to do with mass or a gravitational constant that can be measured with a Cavendish balance (as just about any undergraduate can do here on planet Earth).
If gravitational attraction does not depend on mass in any consistent way, then bodies of different mass would fall at different accelerations.
[AMDG] 1 - CM is a Newtonian argument….. superceded by aether kinematics.
[AMDG] 2 – The gravitational constant G has been acting like a variable constant in recent experimentation.
Aether gravity is quite different from Newton’s gravity … it explains effects with a cause, pushes rather than pulls, and does not directly depend on mass.
[AMDG] 3 -Not if inertia is proportional to volume or mass, as would be true for aether motion.
TomS : Why do rockets work smoothly in the transition from one regime to the other? Why haven’t astronauts noticed something happening?
[AMDG] What do you expect to happen when passing through a zone of stationary aether?
That’s the same as here on the ground.
Stephen Elliott : I don’t see how seasons would be “Easy” to account for. The only way I can imagine having them in a geocentric solar system would involve the Sun bobbing N-S-N over a year. From having Cancer as its orbitting centre during the north’s summer solstice to Capricorn for the south’s. What could cause that and remain undetected?
[AMDG] Parable of the King and the flapping leaves.
The king was puzzled by the flapping of leaves on the trees. Were the trees doing this, or was it something else causing the flapping that could not be seen – perhaps an unseen wind? He called in the royal jester, Albert Singlestone, who said that there was no wind because there was nothing to move or be moved. The king then blew on the leaves, causing them to flap, and all the court laughed at the jester, saying - What a clown!.
The king noticed the fallen leaves swirling in circles around the trees; he thought that the wind must be doing that, too. Al the jester said that the wind – something we couldn’t see - couldn’t possibly have the strength to move all the leaves……
As the sky darkened, a tornado roared through the kingdom, sweeping away some houses and the jester too, and the people all smiled and said – What a fool!
……… The annual radial motion of the Sun and stars from perigee to apogee and back is evidence of the N-S aether cycle.
Stanton : Well, I’m stating that the modern geocentrists’ interpretations are bigoted because they say that “The Earth is at the Center of the Universe” not because they’ve magically found evidence contradicting Galileo (and Copernicus), while proving the Bible correct.
[AMDG] It’s not magic, but application of the scientific method that led to the evidence at:
http://alfachallenge.blogspot.com/
Ian Musgrave : Do the words “historical context” mean anything to you. You did notice that I was walking people through both the historical geocentric models, and showing them how to refute them both with simple observational data. It’s an exercise in citizen science.
[AMDG] Apologies – your intent was misread
Ian Musgrave : The issue is the motive power for orbital motion.
[AMDG] The dynamic aether model is similar to a log floating downstream in a river. The water flow is natural, as is the aether orbital rings. The cosmic objects float without friction or drag in the natural aether circulation, so the Sun and Moon etc. have the same speed and period as the aether current they float in.
Ian Musgrave : Tycho tried to replace a system of centric nested circular orbits with a single centre of motion with one with multiple centres of motion and mish-mashed non-concentric orbits.
[AMDG] In your description the HC orbits are circular and contrary to observation. In Tycho the orbits are elliptic – as in reality.
The thinly disguised argument of complexity – Occam’s razor – is shopworn. Simplicity is not a sci. method criterion. The Copernican and Tychonian model cannot be distinguished by observation. The same physical system is modeled from 2 different view points within the system…… relativity, remember?
Ian Musgrave : An of course in a Newtonian/Einsteinian world, crossing orbits is a disaster (hint, gravity).
[AMDG] The Earth-Moon orbits cross in HC .. so tell us – since it is of such concern, when will the Earth and Moon collide? (hint…. never)
Ian Musgrave : AMDG said: In 1971 Jones showed that a light beam aberrates when passing through a rotating glass disc (and the ambient aether).
There is a complete absence of rotating glass disks in space, just as there is a complete absence of aether.
[AMDG] Let’s make this ASAP: When a boat heads straight across a river it will be carried downstream before reaching the opposite bank. This motion is transverse deflection by the moving medium/aether. It doesn’t depend on what kind of medium is present, but only on the river/aether speed compared to the boat’s/photon’s speed.
The rotating glass disc drags the aether into a similar rotation….. the rotating aether directly affects the light beam, not the glass(indirect).
Aberration of starlight is caused by the natural (not forced by dragging) rotation of the stellar aether
The denial of aether’s existence is rejected on metaphysical grounds: How can there be a wave with nothing waving?
Some of the support for existence of aether comes from the following experiments:
Foucault pendulum 1851
Sagnac rotor 1913
Stellar aberration Bradley 1727
Fresnel drag 1818-30
Airy failure 1871
Depalma- spinning ball drop 1977
Depalma - Gyro Drop 1977
Quantum red shifts Tifft 1984
Mirabel and Rodriguez superluminality 1994
Aspden Effect 1995
Marinov Plasma Tube 1996
Casimir Effect 1997
Roth Magnetic Memory 1997
Lijun Wang Super-luminality 2000
Gravitomagnetic London Moment 2006
Dayton Miller aether drift 1921
Joos c anistropy 1930
Pound-Rebka c anistropy 1959
Jaseja & Champeny Spinning Mossbauer disc 1963
Silvertooth c anisotropy 1986
DeWitte coax cable anistoropy 1991
Galaev aether properties 2002
Pioneer 10,11 anomaly dual aether 1972 – 2004
Faraday Rotor Generator 1831
Michelson-Morley c anistropy 1887
Shapiro Venus radar anistropy 1969
CMB dipole beam 1996
Global Positioning System vortex 1993
Atmospheric circulation aether pattern
Ian Musgrave : The absence of aether has been demonstrated time and time again with limits on anisotropy of better than 10-13 …
[AMDG] All the laser experiments with vacuum interferometers that trumpet the isotropy of c are irrelevant.
Reg Cahill at Flinders Un. and others have pointed out that Fresnel drag speed depends on the factor (1 -1/n^2) …. implying zero for all vacuum measurements, since n ==1 .
Yanks call this ‘throwing the baby out with the bathwater’. Hey, the speed of sound is isotropic in a vacuum, too – zero!
The scam continues….
Ian Musgrave : Heck, we’ve even bounced lasers off the Moon and found nothing (well to limits of 10-18 in the anisotropy of c).
[AMDG] Outdated data, mate. Check out Gezari
http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3934
and Cahill
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2010/PP-21-08.PDF
Why not amble over to see Reg and discuss aether/quantum foam and the latest uncensored discoveries?
Ian Musgrave : Again, to explain the Michelson-Morely experiment you need complete ether dragging, which is incompatible with Stellar aberration.
[AMDG] The M&MX needs no aether drag, just an Earth and aether both close to being at rest (within the test limits of the M&M interferometer).
See how simple…. Why do all the Occam’s Razor acolytes skip this logical interpretation of the M&MX ‘null’ results, as Michelson did?
This conclusion of a motionless Earth and aether is consistent with the Sagnac results and, of course, the ALFA model/challenge.
Ian Musgrave : Remember, in stellar aberration the position of a star when viewed with a telescope swings each side of a central position by about 20.5 seconds of arc every six months. With your Tychonian model, that is just not possible.
[AMDG] Not just possible, but probable.
The annual radial motion of all ecliptic plane objects through the aether can account for the annual aberration. The model has been quantified but not yet published for reference.
Ian Musgrave : …., can you tell me how to differentiate between a Tychonian system centred on Earth, and a Tychonian system centred on Mars?
[AMDG] Tycho’s model is only Earth centered. ….
If your question concerns the appearances of a system which transposes the Sun and Mars in an HC model, the answer is - the appearances are equivalent to both a true Tycho model and the HC model, since the mapping is conformal.
We do not claim that Tycho’s model proves geocentrism – which seems to your issue here.
The Sagnac test does the proving
…. http://alfachallenge.blogspot.com/
Ian Musgrave : ……. A Sun rotating around a fixed Earth in a day, as in the Tychonian system, would not show this (sunspots would be seen to visibly move up and down).
[AMDG] This was Galileo’s argument against the Ptolemaic system. Geocentrists have rejected that system for 4 centuries. About time to put that strawman to rest, we would think.
Tycho system’s ecliptic plane – not just the Sun - moves N-S-N about ¼ degree/day -
This is NOT SUFFICIENT TO BE VISIBLE during the course of a day.
Please concentrate here: The HC model explains the variation of seasons by the apparent N-S motion of the ecliptic plane AS IF A RIGID BODY, INCLUDING THE SPIN AXES OF THE OBJECTS IN THE PLANE, caused by the change in orbit position of the Earth, which is tilted at 23.5 degrees to the ecliptic.
Since the mapping of HC to Tycho system is conformal and preserves angles, the same perspective must be seen from the Earth as with the HC reference frame.
So…Tychonians see the seasonal variation of the sunspots as the N-S motion of the ecliptic plane (actual, since the Earth is static) AS IF A RIGID BODY, INCLUDING THE SPIN AXES OF THE OBJECTS IN THE PLANE, caused by the annual N-S flow of aether. bounded by +/- 23.5 degrees of the equator. The 24 hour E-W aether flow can account for the daily motions in the solar system.
mrg · 13 December 2010
"Hump? What hump?"
Ichthyic · 13 December 2010
ooh, look, a teal deer!
http://www.deviantart.com/download/62735168/TEAL_DEER_by_kunika.jpg
mrg · 13 December 2010
Mike Elzinga · 13 December 2010
AMDG is just making up crap. He has no idea of what any of it means.
This must be what it looks like inside the bowels of the DI, AiG, and the ICR on a typical “work” day.
You can’t even get this kind diuretic flow of crap out of a bunch of pot heads sitting in an airtight room full of pot smoke.
Ichthyic · 13 December 2010
You can’t even get this kind diuretic flow of crap out of a bunch of pot heads sitting in an airtight room full of pot smoke.
agreed. It wouldn't make it past the first paragraph before being entirely redirected to talk about something entirely diferent, usually relating to munchies, or more pot, or simply unconsciousness.
mrg · 13 December 2010
eric · 13 December 2010
AMDG, go launch some satellites for cheaper or build some communication networks that operate FTL. Show us how your theory can be used to do something better than the theory you consider wrong. Otherwise, its full of crap. At best, if it predicts exactly the same things standard physics predicts, it is worthless from the perspective of being an overly complicated way of doing calculations we can do much more simply.
But if you claim it makes different predictions, use those differences to build a better mousetrap. Otherwise your posts are merely a tale full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
mrg · 13 December 2010
And how about the ever-popular "quantum flux":
http://www.theonion.com/articles/scifi-writer-attributes-everything-mysterious-to-q,2781/
Minovsky Particles aren't really appropriate here, I find out -- by definition they have well-defined properties and the plot has to adhere to them consistently. Pym Particles, in contrast, are just particles of Phlebotinum, and they can do anything required.
Mike Elzinga · 13 December 2010
TomS · 14 December 2010
AMDG · 14 December 2010
2 -Page 6
Ian Musgrave : Actually, a fairly obvious test of a Tychonian system would be to measure the transverse Doppler shift* of the planets and background stars .
[AMDG] c is independent of source speed implies no predicted transverse Doppler shift…..sorry, this is reality. .
See Sagnac result…...
http://www.wbabin.net/historical/sagnac3.pdf.
http://www.wbabin.net/historical/sagnac4.pdf.
Ian Musgrave :AMDG said: 1.GC models are used by JPL and NASA for probe tracking and navigation…. Earth is where the antennae are located, not on the Sun!.
Actually, that’s not true, they use geocentric models for objects in earth orbit, such as GPS satellites, but they use heliocentric systems for space probes, especially those that use gravitational slingshots (actually they use the solar system Barycenter, but this is within the surface of the Sun). .
[AMDG] Actually, it is true - antennae are located on Earth, not on the Sun. The sci method requires verification by observation. Is the solar barycenter verified to be where it is computed to be? How? .
Who or what has verified that data from the barycenter, after mapping into GC , is different from GC? (Else why bother with the meaningless transformation.) .
If the GC works for near-Earth orbits, why doesn’t it work for deep space probes? Where is the boundary between near and far orbits? Where is the explanation justifying the change in reference system? .
What differences will be seen if space probes use GC instead of SBC? Where are these differences published? .
Ian Musgrave :Then, of course, there is the fact we launch rockets near the equator because of the Earths faster rotation at the equator gives the spacecraft a boost. .
[AMDG] Satellites typically are launched eastward in mid-latitudes to take advantage of the high-altitude eastbound winds. .
If the equator is the best location, why are almost no satellite launch pads in the tropics, but in the 30 to 60 degrees of latitude belt? .
Ian Musgrave : AMDG said - The aether flow found by Michelson-Gale in 1925 provides the torque to rotate the FP plane. .
Ian Musgrave : Actually, no. The Michelson Gale experiment was consistent with either a stationary aether or special relativity, but was inconsistent with the results of the Michelson-Morely experiment. .
[AMDG] This is the MS interpretation. Actually, to refute our interpretation of Mic-Gale results as confirming an aetherosphere rotating around the earth every day, you and MS will have to show that our aether version leads to a contradiction. Else there are two (or more) causes for the Mic-Gale result. .
Mic-Gale shows that either the Earth rotates in aether, or the aether rotates around the Earth … Mach’s principle. .
SR does not apply to rotation, only to inertial frames. The claim of SR consistency is itself inconsistent. Mic-Gale is consistent with the M&MX interpretation of a static Earth and static surface aether. .
Ian Musgrave : Special relativity is consistent with with the results of both experiments. .
[AMDG] Special relativity is IN-consistent with both experiments, since SR requires inertial frames, which the MS Earth is not. .
Ian Musgrave : Increasingly sophisticated experiments have shown no aether (really, we have done some experiments since 1925) down to one part in 10-18 of the speed of light. .
[AMDG] Thirty(30) experiments supporting aether have been given in a prior posting. Light isotropy tests that use vacuum interferometry or Two Way Light Speed tests are irrelevant; their protocol excludes the possibility of finding anisotropy. .
Ian Musgrave : Whereas increasingly stringent tests of relativity have confirmed relativity. .
[AMDG] SR is not consistent with MMX because without aether there can be no motion of light waves. .
SR is not consistent with Mic- Gale because SR cannot be applied to non-inertial frames. .
SR is an inconsistent logical system – such systems can prove anything is T or F.
Applying the ALFA model to Mic-Gale results indicates the measured v is the speed of the aether with respect to the Earth.
TomS : But it is possible that a geocentrist would deny that it is a change in the earth that is the cause of the changes. One could argue that it is the change in the rotation of the universe triggers an earthquake. But I think that we don’t have to consider the causes of the changes in rotation to see the problems.
[AMDG] Yes we do – the VLBI changes are not conclusively due to the Earth’s motion but can be the intrinsic/proper motion of the stars.
Understanding these claims of causality for VLBI changes requires examining what time is and how we measure it.
Astronomical time – based on periodic celestial motion – was the scientific standard chronometer – until replaced about 50 years ago by atomic time, using nuclear EM vibrations in atomic clocks. This was based on the need for higher precision timing in technology.
But this flouted the very words of Scripture for time-keeping and had several inherent technical problems. Atomic clocks are subject to drift at variable rates and to jump ahead or backwards sporadically. Neither effect is predictable. The term ‘master atomic clock’ is a misnomer; a group of clocks are used and the actual time is decided by vote – by seeing what time most agree on! Atomic clocks are subject to environmental changes on Earth, not all of which are known or can be compensated for.
Cosmic time is free of local influences and is truly universal, being accessible anywhere on Earth.
Once atomic time was the standard, astronomical events, like the completion of a year, had to be adjusted to agree with the new standard. This led to the occasional artificial addition of a ‘leap sec’ each year, so that the cosmic clocks would agree with the earthly clocks (instead of vice versa!). The leap seconds were cited as proof that the Earth is slowing down… instead of the just as valid conclusion that EM atomic frequencies were increasing.
The gap in atomic and cosmic timing was made visible by the discovery by Ranada and Tiemblo that the Pioneer anomalous acceleration was actually caused by a difference in the two time bases. Atomic time was use in communication with the Pioneer probes while the trajectory was plotted using a Newtonian/gravitational model.
The modern use of VLBI has the same fundamental problem. The motions detected by VLBI are attributed to the Earth which is assumed to be rotating. In GC systems any motion must be external- that is, in the heavens.
VLBI details:
uses a radio quasar as source …. Longer wavelength than optical means poor resolution ….unknown distances to ref quasars - see Halton Arp’s refutation of the deep-space quasar contention ….. multiple array antennas have individual atomic clocks which introduces independent random errors.
Radio astronomy VLBI uses a single quasar source as reference source for a multiple array antenna system!
So the projected motions of Earth are based on the motion of one(1) star!
( geodetic VLBI applications use multiple sources. )
MS VLBI uses HC and SR models to correct for the Earth’s orbital speed of 30 km/s. This actually introduces errors such as receiver aberration, Lorentz length contractions and dilation of the atomic clock time. Also corrections are made for the elliptic ‘orbit’ of the Earth, the gravity field of the Moon, long term polar motion, precession and nutation.
The GC model makes no such ‘corrections’.
To synchronize remote stations, the Earth is often considered to be temporarily at rest, for a fixed time. Imagine that - the Earth at rest!
Sometimes the change is permanent by using the ECI (Earth Centered Inertial ) reference system .
To eliminate gravity effects on the signal, the SSBC (Solar System BaryCentric) frame is used. But there’s a small problem here – no one has tested that this is true, or that the SSBC is properly located. …. as the scientific method requires. (The MS sci. method- what’s that? )
The VLBI receiving antennae on the earth’s surface are definitely moving in the SSBC frame, so complex transformations must be used to convert GC ground station data into the preferred frame of the SSBC(preferred frame?? – doesn’t that violate relativity dogma? …. Be quiet and read your Einstein.)
Proper stellar motion is the apparent(?) motion of a star relative to its neighbors. But … this local neighborhood is without depth perception … defined as stars within a certain angle of the target while they may be trillions of miles away in reality!
The definition makes a patchwork of the sky where some areas are considered not moving and others as moving, even though they may contain a few common stars! The logical conflict is – as usual – ignored.
More problems - The rotation models published by standard agencies - like the IERS and the GFSC – are different!
After all these corrections, there’s no surprise that the quasar source appears to move .
Interpretation is that all the stars move like the target star….. and tht because the Earth changed its rotation!
What a tangled web we weave,
When our speculations are what we believe….
TomS : By the way, remember that there are two changes involved. One is in the speed of rotation (that is, the length of the day), the other is in the axis of rotation (that is, the poles of the earth move). From a geocentric point of view, we have these two effects taking place simultaneously throughout the universe.
[AMDG] No - the changes take place in the reference star
TomS :Why should the motion of the Andromeda Galaxy be affected simultaneously with the motion of Alpha Centauri as well as with the motion of the Pleiades?
[AMDG] To make this claim all three locations must have been observed with VLBI at the same tifme….
Citation, please.
TomS: (And add artificial interplanetary rockets to the list of different kinds of things that are simultaneously affected.)
[AMDG] Please, a reference for this claim that artificial interplanetary rockets are simultaneously affected by earthquakes ?
TomS: Secondly, the effect is greater the greater the distance from the center of the earth (as far as the shift in the axis of rotation),
[AMDG] Reference for this claim that the effect is greater the greater the distance from the center of the earth (as far as the shift in the axis of rotation)?
TomS: and the effect is greater the greater the distance from the axis of the earth (as far as the change in the speed of motion).
[AMDG] Reference for this claim that the effect is greater the greater the distance from the axis of the earth (as far as the shift in the speed of rotation)?
TomS: Why should Andromeda show a greater effect than does Alpha Centauri, and why should the Pleiades show an intermediate quantity of change?
[AMDG] Reference for this claim that Andromeda shows a greater effect than does Alpha Centauri, and the Pleiades show an intermediate quantity of change?
TomS :….why is the earth-centered distance so significant in the magnitude of the effect? This universe-altering force greatly affects object X, then diminishes in effect as we get closer to the Earth, which is not affected at all, and then increases as we go past the earth toward object Y.)
[AMDG] Reference for this claim that the earth-centered distance is very significant in the magnitude of the effect?
Ian Musgrave : TomS said: The daily “motion” does not change the position of either body North or South of the other’s equator.…. [snip]
Yes, yes it does, because the Sun is a sphere. …..Remember that in the Tychonian system, day-night is due to the orbit of the Sun around the Earth in 24 hours, and the orbit of the Sun around the Earth is inclined with respect to Earth’s equator. In the course of a day, the Sun goes from being above (or below, depending on where you are) the plane of Earths’ equator, to crossing the plane of the equator, to below the plane of the equator.
[AMDG] In Tycho’s model the Earth moves north ¼ degree/day for 47 degrees in ½ year. Then south the same. This is due to the whole ecliptic having this motion.
Now, explain how the claim that, in the course of a day, the Sun goes from being above or below the plane of Earths’ equator, is not a false representation of the Tychonian model…
Ian Musgrave :…..Now in the heliocentric system, day-night is due to a 24 hour (okay, 23.93447232 hour) rotation of the Earth, the position of the Sun with regard to the plane of Earth’s equator doesn’t change on a 24 hour basis ….
[AMDG] Yes it does… ¼ deg/day! Because the Earth completes 1/365 of its yearly revolution in the HC model. How can one get Tycho’s model right when even the Copernican HC model isn’t understood?
Ian Musgrave :It does change over the year long orbit of the Earth around the Sun,
[AMDG] It doesn’t change each day, but it does in a year….. ?? 365 * 0 = 47 degrees??
Ian Musgrave :so we should see an annual motion of the path of the sunspots, rather than sunspots nodding up and down. Which is exactly what we do see ….Thus we refute Tychonianism.
[AMDG] …. By using a strawman that misrepresents the Tycho model. Please give a reference by a geocentrist that says the Tycho model produces sunspot observations that cross the equator every day… Thanks.
Mike Elzinga : Hold up a plate and look at it edgewise straight on. Tilt the plate up slightly and look at the curvature of the edge. Then tip it down and compare this with the up tilted curvature. Put some marks on the edge of the plate and rotate the plate in each of the above cases.
[AMDG] Put some toothpicks through a paper plate to model the ecliptic and the axial orientation of objects in that plane. Observe that the toothpick angles change when the plate tilts, just as the objects in the ecliptic rotate when the plane is tilted N-S.
TomS : …. as far as the daily path of the sun in a fixed-earth system, I don’t think that the Sun passes across the equator.
[AMDG] We know it doesn’t. But at least someone else is thinking this out….
TomS :I cannot believe that the Tycho system would deny these observations by saying that the Sun must daily cross to the other side of the equator.
[AMDG] We deny this red herring fallacy of solar daily crossings of the equator. The issue raised by Galileo was settled 400 years ago by Tycho who replaced Ptolemy’s system with his own superior model. …. Some today apparently prefer to cling to archaic arguments and ignore the change of GC model.
TomS :The Sun (and this is true in an extreme degree for Uranus) has an axis of rotation which is not parallel to the axis of the Earth.
[AMDG] Makes no difference … wherever the axis is, it will rotate +/- 23.5 defgrees when the ecliptic does.
TomS :But in order for the Sun to circle the Earth once a day, the axis of rotation of the Sun must itself rotate, maintaining the same orientation relative to the Earth, rather than remaining fixed in absolute space.
[AMDG] Congrats, freethinker…. It’s ¼ deg/day, 47 deg /6 months.
TomS :I don’t know whether I’ve made myself clear.
[AMDG] Yes. The question is – is anyone else paying attention?
TomS : Galileo was pointing out that the geocentric interpretation of phenomena introduces unnecessary complications. Of course, a true geocentrist isn’t going to be fazed by complications.
[AMDG] But not contradictions.
BTW: Galileo was addressing the Ptolemaic model, not the Tychonian. Ptolemy’s model is not conformal to the HC system, so we expect conflicts in measurements between the two – like the phase of Venus.
THE MODEL OF PTOLEMY WAS DISCARDED 4 CENTURIES AGO… WHEN WILL THAT SINK IN?
TomS : Anyone today who wants to say that the Bible really does not say that Sun is in motion around a fixed Earth has to explain why so many honest and intelligent readers were mistaken for so long.
[AMDG] Or why the Holy Office charged Galileo of heresy for teaching what is contrary to Scripture, the motion of the Earth .
TomS : How can anyone, by relying on the Bible, accept the motion of the Earth but reject the variability of species? AMDG, it seems, does not have this problem.
[AMDG] Scripture says that the Earth’s forms were finished in 6 days, punctuated by the seventh day of rest.
Biology experiments show that micro-evolution occurs, but not macro-evolution, assuming we all agree on what the definition of ‘species’ is .
DS · 14 December 2010
"[AMDG] Scripture says that the Earth’s forms were finished in 6 days, punctuated by the seventh day of rest.
Biology experiments show that micro-evolution occurs, but not macro-evolution, assuming we all agree on what the definition of ‘species’ is . "
Shirley you jest.
mrg · 14 December 2010
IanM: the humor of this thread is wearing thin ...
Ichthyic · 14 December 2010
....and entire herds of teal deer are being slaughtered!
can't this idiot get its own website to post its inane thesis project on?
Ian Musgrave · 14 December 2010
Ian Musgrave · 14 December 2010
Mike Elzinga · 14 December 2010
Ian Musgrave · 14 December 2010
mrg · 14 December 2010
The ISRO launch center at Sriharikota is only 13 degrees north of the Equator. And as noted, Sea Launch floats its Odyssey platform to the Equator for Zenit launches ... since they're based in Long Beach, taking a trip to the equator is likely for some reason other than to get more sun.
But alas this comment will fall on uncomprehending ears, connected to a person who is simply itching for an opportunity to fire off another list of nonsensical assertions.
mrg · 14 December 2010
PS: A number of US science satellites, most significantly the pioneering UHURU X-ray astronomy satellite, were launched from an old oil platform off the coast of Kenya to take advantage of the equatorial boost.
TomS · 15 December 2010
TomS · 15 December 2010
DS · 15 December 2010
Dave Lovell · 15 December 2010
Rob · 15 December 2010
Why do storms rotate counterclockwise in the Northern Hemisphere and clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere?
Could it be the Earth's rotation?
Yes.
Scott F · 15 December 2010
Despite the troll, learning about the various means by which we can tell the Earth is rotating/moving is pretty cool. There are a couple that I wasn't aware of.
Thanks. :-)
AMDG · 15 December 2010
2 page 6+
TomS : one thing which seems problematic with geocentrism it would be “Terrestrial Exceptionalism”.
[AMDG] This is a metaphysical or ideological objection…. outside the scope of the scientific method.
Reality is what lab tests show it is, not what is acceptable to our individual mind-sets.
TomS : ….now we know that the same elements make up everything material in the universe, and the same laws of physics and chemistry apply everywhere.
[AMDG] Really, Tom? How did we gain such universal knowledge using only the Scientific Method?
Extrapolation and speculation beyond the SM observational range are extra-scientific, aka science fiction.
TomS : Interplanetary rockets originating on Earth behave just like those things native to interplanetary space.
[AMDG] Which cosmic objects have self-propulsion systems, like the interplanetary rocket?
TomS : Yet, according to geocentrism, the Earth is somehow different. How is that possible?
[AMDG]
1- It is not a contradiction, so it is logically possible.
2- Aether motion moves the cosmic objects, except the Earth, which has no aether motion within it.
3- Terrestrial vortices – like river eddies and atmospheric cyclones – have their center at rest wrt to the rest of the vortex….. the Earth is an example of this basic observation on a universal scale.
TomS : According to geocentrism, everything in the universe is participating in a daily revolution around the Earth. Everything, that is, with the exception of the Earth.
[AMDG] Specifically, the Tycho model has two satellites of the Earth… the Sun and Moon. Except for the stars, all the cosmic objects have a different ‘daily’ period.
TomS : …. “Universal Wobbling”. From time to time there is a small change in the rotation. The length of the day changes, and the axis of revolution changes. This is an effect that is observed simultaneously throughout the universe (from a geocentric point of view) or else it is a change which takes place on Earth (from a conventional point of view, a change in the daily rotation of the Earth).
[AMDG] Just think of what you’re claiming, that this effect is observed simultaneously throughout the universe! We look at EVERY CELESTIAL LIGHT SOURCE… AT THE SAME TIME …. AND SEE THE SAME CHANGE! The report supporting this must be enormous…
TomS : According to geocentrism, this is an effect which happens at vast distances, and has an effect which is greater, the greater the distance from Earth.
[AMDG] What geocentrist or group made this claim, and where published?
More myths and fables, rumors and faulty research?
TomS : …. “Universal Rotation”. ….In the case of large objects, this means that there is a very fast revolution - and a very fast rotation would put great stresses on an object, tending to tear it apart.
[AMDG] We propose that cosmic objects [float/are dragged/are convected] by their local aether rotation. Spiral galaxies, for example, adopt the shape that their aether vortex determines.
TomS : …Universal Rotation can result in motions within the object, within its own local space, greater than the speed of light - this being in addition to any faster-than-light travel needed for daily revolution around the Earth;
[AMDG] That aether can travel faster than light has not been disproved.
TomS : … Universal Rotation also has problems with gyroscopic effects on the “proper rotation” of the object - how Uranus maintains its nearly 90 degree axis of its own rotation while it is being slued around the Earth.)
[AMDG] There’s no problem…. In fact the natural aether circular motion – the aetherosphere around Uranus - explains the stability of the planetary axes…
TomS : This enumeration of three problems …. does not mean that there are no other problems that I see with geocentrism.
[AMDG] The problem with your 3 problems with GC is that your view of GC is incomplete or badly formed .
TomS : Something spinning that fast (I’m speaking of the rotation, not the revolution), what keeps it from flying apart?
[AMDG] Are you speaking of structures, or individual cosmic objects? What cosmic object have you computed to rotate so fast you deem it will fly apart?
TomS : And what is there which makes everything in the universe (except the Earth, of course) spin that way? Why do interplanetary rockets participate in these motions?
[AMDG] Answer to both: aether motion.
Ian Musgrave : the appearance of the paths of the Sunspots is what we expect from a system with a rotating earth that takes a year to orbit the Sun, not a fixed Earth with the Sun orbiting it in 24 hours.
[AMDG] Represent the Tychonian system correctly and prepare to change your expectations.
TomS : The Sun does not ordinarily cross the equator on a given day. (The exceptions being on the two equinoxes.)
[AMDG] In both HC and Tycho models. Congrats on the call-out.
TomS : OK, so there is this aether which is pervasive, everywhere in the universe (except on Earth),
[AMDG] It’s in the Earth, but not moving…
TomS : rotating around the Earth once a day, not subject to the speed limit of relativity, carrying around objects in space (which have their own small motion in the aether).
[AMDG] Yes… The ALFA model has 2 components : The photon speed through the aether ( c) and the speed of aether in the lab frame…
TomS : Because objects keep the same orientation toward the Earth throughout the day (more or less), they must also be rotating on their own axis (this axis being always parallel to the axis of the Earth, and the axis of the motion of the aether) once a day.
[AMDG] Well, a better way to see this is to say that each object has its own natural period of rotation as seen from Earth, due to 2 aether effects - daily revolution/orbiting and local rotation.
TomS : … the Pleiades cluster is big enough that the elements of the cluster must be moving, relative to the local aether, faster than the speed of light to maintain that constant appearance from Earth. That is some speed for a rotating object. How does something spin at that speed and not fly apart?
[AMDG] Technically….The centrifugal force (per Newton) of a propeller involves the dragging of aether by the prop into expanding concentric circles – the matter is carried into these larger circles (if the solid’s EM molecular forces are insufficent to resist…. Matter motion is the cause of the aether motion. Reference is the Sagnac exp.
In space we have natural aether motion, not forced by matter, like river flow on Earth. In this different case the aether moves in a circle and the matter is dragged with it. The aether is the cause of rotation, not the object. So the aether circles are fixed concentric, not expanding, so the matter is not dragged radially outward.
Good question.
TomS : … the Sun. It must be rotating in its local aether, once a day. Nowhere near the speed of light, but fast enough to have a measurable Doppler effect on the approaching and receding limbs of the Sun.
[AMDG] The Doppler shift of the Sun’s limbs has been measured … but not precise enough to distinguish between HC rotation and aether rotation.
TomS : Everything in the universe (except for the Earth, of course) is making this daily rotation over and above its own proper rotation. Whatever could be doing this?
[AMDG] The primary rotation is the solar vortex rotation of 24 hrs. Satellites of the Sun rotate in the Sun’s secondary vortex and the moons rotate in their planet’s tertiary vortex.
The universe as observed seems to be a hierarchy of aether rings/vortices centered on Earth.
Mike Elzinga · 15 December 2010
Sheesh; this guy writes like a fortune teller on pot.
And I thought ”What the Bleep Do We Know?” was off the wall.
The writers of that missed out on someone even wackier who apparently is still stuck at using Descartes and his vortices to explain Ptolemy.
stevaroni · 15 December 2010
Henry J · 15 December 2010
TomS · 16 December 2010
Dave Lovell · 16 December 2010
TomS · 17 December 2010
TomS · 17 December 2010
For all of its faults, geocentrism is in much better shape than creationism.
It is better supported by the Bible, and by traditional readers of the Bible. Practically nobody thought to deny the fixity of the Earth before (just to pick an early modern date) AD 1500. But you will find much less support in the Bible or traditional (before 1500) religion (I would dare to say none)for the fixity of species.
Moreover, the geocentrists do feel the need to give some sort of account for natural phenomena. They do have a description of what is going on with the planets. They do have an explanatory factor, the aether. Quite unlike the creationists, who are famous for not having a description of what happened or an explanation for the variety of life.
Their only problem is that they can't get the public interested in their subject. Even though a substantial fraction of the American public don't know that the Earth goes around the Sun once a year and the the Sun does not go around the Earth once a day, they don't seem to get excited enough about it to attract preachers and politicians, the way that they do get excited about being physically related to the rest of the world of life.
That's why I am interested in encouraging attention to geocentrism.
It is an embarrassment to creationism.
TomS · 19 December 2010
Pity that we're not getting anything more in defense of geocentrism. It's looking like this is the end of the thread.
I should also mention this contrast with creationism: There are so few people working on geocentrism, and yet they have managed to show at least a theory of geocentrism. Despite our being told about all of those scientists and other smart people who are creationists, they haven't accomplished so much.
Congratulations to the geocentrists.
Keep up the good work of embarrassing the creationists.
Dave Lovell · 19 December 2010
TomS · 19 December 2010
Zerothly, "not impossible"? OK. I'd note that at least it's better than "some unknown agents did something or other".
Firstly, ISTM that we're talking about a qualitatively different change to the Earth (which seems to include the oceans and atmosphere). Once you get off the Earth, for example in artificial satellites, the effect of the aether is on the motion of the object around the Earth (and maybe on its rotation). Inside the Earth, the effect is to cause earthquakes and such. (I'm not sure what happens at the very center of all this.)
Secondly, this is a complex phenomenon, considered geocentrically. It is especially mysterious if the source of the change is not in the Earth. Remember that the changes to the rotation are not only in the length of the day, but also to the axis of rotation (the poles shift). The speed of revolution of an object is proportional to its distance from the center of the Earth times the cosine of its latitude. So the effect on Polaris is quite a bit less.
BTW, the most precise positions of distant objects were determined with the Hipparcos satellite.
Scott F · 19 December 2010
TomS · 19 December 2010
I'm not prepared to make much of a defense of the explanatory power of the ways of the aether.
I do rather like your comparison between the "micro"evolution/"macro"evolution barrier and the distinction between the ways of aether on Earth and everywhere else.
Perhaps I should mention that I am a newcomer to the world of geocentrism, just beginning to find out what's up (so to speak).
Ian Musgrave · 21 December 2010