- Adam Joseph
- [excerpt from :
and from http://www.freelists.org/post/geocentrism/more-to-reflect-on-2,
I am sure he intended no plagiarism. In the following, GEO and AC refer to debaters Geocentric and A-Centric. I presume first debater is GEO, but do not add it.]
Attempts to provide scientific proof that Earth rotates &-or orbits
Some basic physics
What is the Sagnac effect? It is the result of an experiment that showed the earth to be in some type of movement against another substance. The “movement” is termed “rotation” and the substance is some aether-type medium that scientists had discarded when Einstein developed his Relativity in 1905. (Thus, we can see why Einstein would have ignored Sagnac’s results). But although Einstein neglected its results, other scientists did not, including the author of the article in Physics Today (May 2002). How does the author account for the Sagnac effect? By using the same Relativistic “transformations” that he told us he wasn’t going to use in a previous paragraph! This is what he writes:
The Sagnac effect also occurs if an atomic clock is moved slowly from one reference station on the ground to another...Observers at rest on the ground, seeing these same asymmetric effects, attribute them instead to gravitomagnetic effects – that is to say, the warping of space-time due to spacetime terms in the general-relativistic metric tensor... (Ibid., p. 44).
Clear as mud, right? This is the kind of ‘begging the question’ mumbo-jumbo you see often in theoretical physics of the Relativity variety. What he just said, in case you missed it is, although Relativity cannot account for the Sagnac effect, we are still going to attribute the discrepancies in GPS calculations to Relativistic effects, namely, the warping of “spacetime due to spacetime terms in the general-relativistic metric tensor.” You see, he is locked into a system that doesn’t give him the answers he needs, but since he doesn’t want to admit that they could all be answered by assuming a stationary earth and a revolving aether-type medium, then he will continue to push Relativity as the answer; and all his readers will bob their heads up and down and confirm his gospel, as they have done since 1905.
The author more or less admits the effects of these unanswered questions when in one of his final paragraphs he writes: “Historically, there has been much confusion about properly accounting for relativistic effects. And it is almost impossible to discover how different manufacturers go about it!”
Ah, yes, and now we can see why there is so much confusion, because no one knows what the heck they are doing! They know their Relativity equations are just fudge factors to explain the things they simply cannot understand under the scenario of a moving earth. Yet they have the audacity to borrow non-moving or “Earth-fixed” equations in order to give the appearance that an Earth in Relativity works! Now you wonder why I’m on the warpath with Geocentricity?
One more thing before I leave this topic. The difference between the Geocentric and Heliocentric concept is important, for one of the major flaws in modern heliocentric theory is the failure to account for the effect of the stars on all the motions we see. Modern science has virtually dismissed the effect of forces from the stars, and instead has based its solar cosmology almost entirely on the so-called “centrifugal effects” created by the planets in motion. But this is inevitable, since once you posit that the stars are “fixed” (as modern cosmology does) then the only thing you have left to determine why solar and terrestrial objects move in the rotational paths they do is by the supposed centrifugal effect. And thus, all of the modern heliocentric physics seeking to understand rotational motion is based on a fictitious force, which is not very comforting for anyone wishing to have solid answers for why things work the way they do.
Proof lacking for rotation & orbiting
- Assume that the Earth does not rotate about its own axis. (This is the assertion to be disproved.) Since the Earth does not rotate about its own axis, and since we see the heavenly bodies traversing the sky each night, we therefore conclude that the heavenly bodies rotate about the earth.
Since we see the heavenly bodies in roughly the same positions from night to night (e.g. at 10 PM Jupiter is at about the same place as it was last night at 10 PM.) we therefore conclude that the heavenly bodies rotate about the Earth with a period of roughly twenty-four hours. (Here – in order to keep the math simple – we assume a circular orbit for the heavenly bodies and a period of exactly twenty-four hours.) Since any given heavenly body traverses a circle about the Earth in twenty-four hours, and since the circumference of that circle is 2*pi*r (r being the distance from Earth to the body) the velocity of the body will be (2*pi*r)/(24 hours). It can be shown (You’ll trust me on the math, I hope. I’ll submit it if you insist.) that any body orbiting the Earth at a distance of more than 4.125x10^12 metres (a couple AU less than the distance between here & Neptune) must be travelling at more than 3.0x10^8 metres per second.
Since Neptune & the further bodies can be shown to be traveling at more than 3.0x10^8 metres per second, and since 3.0x10^8 metres per second is the speed of light in a vacuum, and since no material body may travel at or above the speed of light in a vacuum we are faced with an absurdity. And we can therefore conclude that our initial assertion is false.
Since we have shown it to be false that the Earth does not rotate about its own axis, we can infer that it does.
Much to my horror I have discovered that I have left a clarifying point out of my proof; i.e. my proof – at least the way I’ve worded it – applies only to those heavenly bodies in the Zodiac. Those would be the sun, the planets, with the exception of Pluto, and the fixed stars in the Zodiac. The same argument could be applied to the other stars in the sky, but the math would be different, so I won’t include them here.
- What you postulate as proof of a rotating and revolving earth does not prove it at all. First, you assume a few things as proven which have not in fact been proven. One is your assumption that the speed of light (I assume in a vacuum) is constant, either here or anywhere else in the universe.
Second, you assume that the planets (and in your second letter, the stars) themselves travel at or beyond the conventional speed of light in order to complete their journey. Let me explain both of these issues by starting with a little history of physics.
In 1887, Michelson and Morley did an experiment to detect any difference in the speed of light between north-south travel and east-west travel. A difference in speed was expected because they assumed that the Earth was orbiting the Sun in a stationary aether. From our perspective on Earth, the aether would blow past us like a wind in an east-west direction. Michelson and Morley reasoned that we should notice changes in the speed of light in east-west travel, but fixed speed in north-south travel. The experiment failed to measure any difference in speed, no matter when and where they tried it. Scientists were baffled.
Rather than admitting the possibility that the earth was stationary with respect to the aether, scientists dispensed with aether and claimed that the speed of light was constant. In fact, the speed of light was claimed to be the only constant in the universe, whereas mass, length, distance, time, and anything else became relative. This became know as the Relativity theory. But all the Michelson-Morley experiment showed was that aether wind was either too small to measure or was non-existent. Michelson and Morley, however, demonstrated nothing about the constancy of the speed of light through space.
Added to this is the experiment performed by Georges Sagnac. A writer for Physics Today writes:
“One of the most confusing relativistic effects – the Sagnac effect – appears in rotating reference frames. (See Physics Today, October 1981, page 20) … Observers in the non-rotating ECI inertial frame would not see a Sagnac effect. Instead, they would see that receivers are moving while a signal is propagating ... Correcting for the Sagnac effect in the Earth-fixed frame is equivalent to correcting for such receiver motion in the ECI frame...”
Yes, the author is right. It is “confusing.” Unfortunately for him, the reason it is “confusing” is that Relativity has never explained the Sagnac effect, found by Georges Sagnac in 1913, nor its follow-up experimental verification performed by Michelson-Gale-Pearson in 1925. In fact, according to Dean Turner in The Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers, he writes:
I pause to note that one may scan Einstein’s writings in vain to find mention of the Sagnac or Michelson-Gale experiments. The same can be said of general physics textbooks and of the 1971 McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology... Such an oversight in these distinguished encyclopedias constitutes a stinging indictment of professional scientific reporting. (p. 44).
Why were they not mentioned in Einstein’s writings? Simple. Because they give experimental evidence for the falsity of Relativity theory. Einstein not only did this with Sagnac and Michelson-Gale, he also did it with Joos, Ives, Miller, Kennedy-Thorndike, and many other scientists who questioned or rejected his theory based on the results of their verified experiments.
What is the Sagnac effect? It is the result of an experiment that showed the earth to be in some type of movement against another substance. The “movement” is termed “rotation” and the substance is some aether-type medium that scientists had discarded when Einstein developed his Relativity in 1905. (Thus, we can see why Einstein would have ignored Sagnac’s results). But although Einstein neglected its results, other scientists did not, including the author of the article in Physics Today (May 2002).
The Michelson-Gale experiment of 1925 [A. A. Michelson and H. Gale, “The effect of the Earth’s Rotation on the Velocity of Light,” The Astrophysical Journal, Vol LXI, No. 3, April 1925, pp. 137-145] measured a difference in the speed of light at two different latitudes. He concluded that the aether-wind speed changed with latitude due to the rotation of the Earth in a stationary aether. (This is because the radius of rotation decreases with increasing latitude). This experiment disproves the constancy of the speed of light assumption and provides adequate evidence for the existence of the aether, just as Georges Sagnac found. Dalton Miller did even more comprehensive studies to confirm these results. There is quite a collection of letters between Einstein and Miller in which the former is trying to persuade the latter not to put credit in the results.
Heliocentrists might be tempted to say that Michelson-Gale provides “proof” of the rotation of the Earth, but that would be presumptuous. The only thing Michelson-Gale provided for us is that either the Earth is moving with respect to an aether, or the aether is moving against a stationary Earth.
Not only did Sagnac and Michelson-Gale show the possibility of aether, but an experiment performed by Carl Anderson in 1932 showed another anomaly to Relativity theory. Relativity theory postulated that space was a vacuum – nothing existed between the heavenly bodies. But Carl Anderson showed that a 1.02 million electron volt charge distributed anywhere in space produced a free positron and electron. When the 1.02 Mev was reapplied, the positron and electron disappeared. Einstein’s explanation of this phenomenon was that matter was created and then annihilated. (This may have been where today’s scientists postulate that the universe began from the singularity [“nothingness”] of the Big Bang). Rather than reason that space was filled with positron-electron pairs, in order to save his Relativity theory, Einstein maintained that matter was created and destroyed.
So how could the planets and stars revolve around the Earth each day if the Earth is fixed in space? One of the more cogent explanations is that the planets, sun and stars themselves are not moving; rather, they are all embedded in a medium that itself rotates once every 24 hours. This medium would contain the so-called aether or even the Anderson positron-electron pairs, and as some rightly hold, particles in the Planck dimensions. In fact, Hans Thirring, famous for the Lense-Thirring effect, found that for a rotating shell of matter, the interior field of the shell is similar to the field in a rotating system of coordinates, leading to gravitational forces similar to the centrifugal and Coriolis effects in the Heliocentric system.
The constitution of the rotating medium would be that coincident with the Planck dimensions found in black holes. Modern science is familiar with such mediums. For example, in The Very Early Universe (Gibbons, et al, 1983) astrophysicist Markov defines the particle he calls the “maximon,” which possesses the 10 to the 94th grams per cubic centimeter associated with Planck dimensions.
Also noteworthy in this respect is the work of Dr. Robert Moon, Chicago University physicist, who in his article “Space Must Be Quantized,” shows that the prevailing theory that space is a vacuum is not supported by the evidence. The reason? Because space has an impedance of at least 376 ohms, something not predicted or accounted for in conventional science, but coincident with the spatial mediums of Geocentric understanding. Princeton’s John Wheeler is credited with being the first to describe what is now called “spacetime foam.” This is Wheeler’s theory that space is occupied by ultra-dense particles. Stephen Hawking has postulated something similar. Both Wheeler’s and Hawking’s “foam” reasons that the particles are at Planck dimensions. Thus, this is not something confined only to Geocentric scientists. In an article by J. P. Vigier, “De Broglie Waves on Dirac Aether” in 1980, he writes: “Since Dirac’s pioneer work it has been known that Einstein’s relativity theory (and Michelson’s experiment) are perfectly compatible with an underlying relativistic stochastic [read aether] model.”
In fact, the 3 degree Kelvin radiation discovered by Pensias and Wilson is not the remnants of the Big Bang at all, but is more likely the subatomic vibration inherent in this Dirac aether or Wheeler-Hawking “foam.”
Moreover, Vigier’s work, along with colleague Petroni, published “Causal Superluminal Interpretation of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox” in Physical Review Letters in 1981. He reports the existence of faster-than-light interactions between an atomic beam of calcium and krypton ion laser, and shows that these are best explained by the stochastic model of space (i.e., aether) rather than the vacuum of conventional physics. There are many other scientists and experiments that could be mentioned to support these findings. Just recently (2001), Princeton scientists showed that a pulse of laser light traveled through cesium vapor at 310 times the distance it traveled in a vacuum.
To rotate this spherical body within 24 hours, we can suppose that there is a massive shell at the outer limits providing sufficient gravity to pull the Sun and the stars in their orbits. The aether, like water in a spinning bucket, would rotate along with the universe. Hence, to those inside the shell, there would be no way to measure the rotation; the entire frame of reference would be pulled around by the rotating shell. This concept is not a novelty. It is known in conventional physics as “frame pulling” or “frame dragging,” and was discovered by Einstein, Lense and Thirring, and remains an area of active research. A rotating inertial frame of reference would abide by Kepler’s laws of planetary motion, as well as explain the rotating Foucault pendulum, centrifugal and Coriolis forces.
In fact, a rotating universe would explain something that conventional science cannot explain. It is known by scientists that, in order to account for the so-called expanding universe theory, sufficient matter is needed. But scientists have found only 1% of the matter needed. To compensate for this, Einstein (again to save Relativity theory) created his “Cosmological Constant” – a fudge factor to allow the universe to keep expanding. Today scientists account for the missing matter by referring to it as Dark Matter, but they haven’t found it yet. I guess it must really be “dark.” :) The concept of a rotating universe deals quite nicely with this issue. The less mass the better. And the mass that is present does not collapse in on itself because the centrifugal force (which is a real force in a Geocentric model) causes the heavenly bodies to move outward in just the right balance to compensate for the pull of gravity inward. Hence the mass of the universe (the “1%” conventional science has found) and the spin of the universe (24 hour cycle) is enough to achieve equilibrium.
As for faster-than-light action, the rotating universe would have stars traveling in excess of the speed of light, since with respect to the rotating aether, the stars are not moving and there is no difficulty of exceeding the local speed of light.
Moreover, in 1955, the astronomer Van de Hulst writes: “In 1930, astronomers discovered with some shock that as the light of stars passes through certain regions of interstellar space it is dimmed and scattered in various directions... If there was indeed an interstellar haze which dimmed the light of distant stars or made them altogether invisible, then many of their calculations of star distances were wrong. Further studies proved that the fear was justified. Starlight passing through the crowded regions of our galaxy loses roughly half its energy by absorption and scattering in every two thousand light years of travel. As a result, even with our most powerful telescopes, we cannot see the center of our galaxy...Beyond about six thousand light years from our observing station most or our studies of the galaxy are literally lost in the fog.” In 1981, the astronomer Baugher wrote: “Much of the galaxy is...hidden from our view, making the study of its structure quite difficult.” There are many other statements like these from astronomers. I think it is also noteworthy to point out that conventional physics and astronomy also have problems with the speed of light. For example, Hubble’s Constant was formulated (H = 100 km/s/mega-parsec) based on the proportionality of the red-shift to the distance of the star. The problem, of course, came in when telescopes were able to see beyond 50 giga-parsecs, which would require the galaxies to be receding at many times the speed of light. Then when telescopes were able to see to 500 gigaparsecs, this means that the galaxies would have to be receding at hundreds of times the speed of light. Thus, something is obviously wrong with the whole concept. This evidence certainly doesn’t lend itself to making the conventional wisdom of Heliocentrism sacrosanct by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, things work much better in the Geocentric model.
- End of
- Status of Adam Joseph
- Berj Manoushagian
- All motion is relative.
Any insistence on absolute motion is evidence that the nature of motion has not been understood.
The fact is that we do not even know what the word 'motion' means except in relative terms.
Why are we looking for absolutes in a universe that is nothing but relative in its nature?
In the future please be kind to your readers when posting such a long and technical post to remove unnecessary line returns and add appropriate spaces between paragraphs.
You cannot expect your post to be read when you are torturing your readers.
[The excerpt looked less nice on FB, with too many line breaks.]
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "All motion is relative."
"Any insistence on absolute motion is evidence that the nature of motion has not been understood."
"The fact is that we do not even know what the word 'motion' means except in relative terms."
In terms that are indeed relative, but refer to absolutes like place and time.
"Why are we looking for absolutes in a universe that is nothing but relative in its nature?"
That is a very vast assessment of the universe. In fact, unless you state "relative to the true absolute God" even false.
"In the future please be kind to your readers when posting such a long and technical post to remove unnecessary line returns and add appropriate spaces between paragraphs. ... You cannot expect your post to be read when you are torturing your readers."
Adam Joseph, in order to edit, you can first click edit, of course, then click caps+return at same time (since "return" only gives "end of edit" instead).
Meanwhile, I will copy onto a notepad, and think that Berj could have done so too.
- Berj Manoushagian
- [first gives three quotes with sources like AUTHORITY on philosophy.]
- Quote I
- - "Our primitive notion may have been that to know absolutely where we are, and in what direction we are going, are essential elements of our knowledge as conscious beings.
But this notion, though undoubtedly held by many wise men in ancient times, has been gradually dispelled from the minds of students of physics.
There are no landmarks in space; one portion of space is exactly like every other portion, so that we cannot tell where we are. We are, as it were, on an unruffled sea, without stars, compass, soundings, wind, or tide, and we cannot tell in what direction we are going. We have no log which we can cast out to take a dead reckoning by; we may compute our rate of motion with respect to the neighbouring bodies, but we do not know how these bodies may be moving in space."
- James Clerk Maxwell; (1831-1879); Matter and Motion; 1877/1920; p81
- Quote II
- "… relative to the earth the stars are in motion. We therefore need to know first of all what is meant by ‘real motion’… it turns out that we cannot quite say what is meant by it… the question whether the earth is really moving but not the stars or the other way around does not make any sense…"
- Hans Hahn; (1879-1934); Empiricism, Logic and Mathematics; 1933/1980; p48
[Also cited in his own highly Pyrrhonistic web cite.]
- Quote III
- "… the problem of motion remains unsolved.
The reason is that we do not know what motion is. We have no concept of motion. We have nothing clearly in mind when we use the word. We simply do not know what we are talking about.
Perhaps motion, and science along with it, is just nonsense."
- Gordon Clark; (1902-1985);
The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God; 1966; p19
- Berj Manoushagian
- [in his own words again]
If you try to philosophize about science without knowing anything about the philosophy of science, you are going to fail.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- The problem is that the philosophy of science is wrong, and you have JUST right now shown how James Clerk Maxwell, Hans Hahn and Gordon Clark bungle it, due to a false philosophy, which is largely due to Heliocentrism or rather Acentrism.
The quotes are not completely useless.
If we accept Geocentrism, which makes sense since it is a prima facie view of the universe, as long as this is not positively disproven, there is indeed a landmark, and we are standing on it (in my case in front of the computer, sitting).
- Berj Manoushagian
- Hans-Georg, when you insist on 'centrism' you make yourself less and less relevant.
To be able to tell where the center of a three-dimensional object is, we need to know the shape of that object.
No one knows the shape of the universe. We do not even know if 'shape' has any meaning when applied to the universe.
You have dismissed philosophy as useless, but you have not given a reason in support of your view. You need to study philosophy of science, because that is what you are trying to tackle, but you do not realize it.
[I have not dismissed "philosophy" as useless, but "the philosophy of science". One philosophy among many, and not the best one.]
GC can be used as a working model, but when you insist that it is the only correct view and that HC is somehow false, you have shown that you do not understand the nature of motion.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- First off, I don't care about your ideas about how to be relevant. Next, some argumental points:
"To be able to tell where the center of a three-dimensional object is, we need to know the shape of that object."
With Geocentrism, Universe needs to be a globe, whether flattened or drawn out towards poles of heaven. At least it must look that way in the rotation, whether a still would make it a globe or not.
The actual point of "Geocentrism" is not "knowing where the centre of the universe is", but simply to take what looks like being still as still, what looks like moving as moving.
"No one knows the shape of the universe. We do not even know if 'shape' has any meaning when applied to the universe."
That is what you conclude as an atheistic Acentric.
"GC can be used as a working model, but when you insist that it is the only correct view and that HC is somehow false, you have shown that you do not understand the nature of motion."
Or that I consider your understanding as a false one, which I refuse to share however well I should ever understand it.
You promote a site which says this, right?
// 1- The Triumvirate of human wisdom has been found wanting:
a- There is no truth in Mathematics
b- There is no truth in Science
c- There is no truth in Logic //
False on all three counts and Kantian heresy (or errors or apostasy or whatever the canonical qualification), and probably also directly condemned as heresy in Vatican Council of 1869 / 1870.
- Berj Manoushagian
- "With Geocentrism, Universe needs to be a globe, "
This says it all Hans-Georg.
Your cosmology is based on wishful thinking.
You do nothing but dismiss valid criticism, because you have nothing in support of your fantasy.
"condemned as heresy in Vatican Council of 1869 / 1870."
That is your source of certainty???
Are you kidding me??
You need to get a basic philosophy book and start at the beginning.
You are wasting your time and efforts on a useless topic.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Berj Manoushagian "You do nothing but dismiss valid criticism, because you have nothing in support of your fantasy."
Except of course the universal testimony of human senses, with very few exceptions that were sent into space.
You have done nothing to show your criticism in any way "valid".
"That is your source of certainty???"
I am a Catholic. Not a Pagan. Not a Jew. Not a Heretic.
"You need to get a basic philosophy book and start at the beginning."
If you mean Kant or Descartes, I consider their philosophy deeply flawed, especially Kant.
If you mean schoolbooks, they owe way too much to Kant and Descartes, and not nearly enough to St Thomas Aquinas.
"You are wasting your time and efforts on a useless topic."
I have not asked YOUR advise on how to spend my life.