[geocentrism] Re: Earth and science
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "geocentrism list" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 13:50:59 +1000
Response to Paul Question
I am curious as to exactly when scientists found out that space is a vacuum ,
below but
for a nice concise explanation of the MM experiment,
eg like this
At this point, Michelson had a very clever idea for detecting the aether wind.
As he explained to his children (according to his daughter), it was based on
the following puzzle:
Suppose we have a river of width w (say, 100 feet), and two swimmers who both
swim at the same speed v feet per second (say, 5 feet per second). The river is
flowing at a steady rate, say 3 feet per second. The swimmers race in the
following way: they both start at the same point on one bank. One swims
directly across the river to the closest point on the opposite bank, then turns
around and swims back. The other stays on one side of the river, swimming
upstream a distance (measured along the bank) exactly equal to the width of the
river, then swims back to the start. Who wins?
see for full detail
http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/109N/lectures/michelson.html
Paul I am surprised that a person with your capabilities would allow
preconcieved beliefs to interfere with your thought processes such that you
fail to see the circular reasoning involved in the question and answer sequence
below.
Because Paul Walorski, unconditionally believed that the earth orbited the sun,
he presumed that as the MM experiment was inconclusive, and that there was
therefore no aether.
Would it not be just as reasonable to assume that there was no conclusive
result because the world was stationary and not orbiting the sun? ie no 30k/s
flow was detectable.
Simply put they said, because the result did not confirn the earth orbited the
sun, then there was no aether. To consider the alternative was impossible to
them, hence a null result is declared against the case for an aether rather
than a possible case for a geocentric universe. Can't you see how attitude
effects discernment?
Later experiments by Miller did establish an anistropy of light , which was
confusing as it also did not relate to the required 30k/s earth velocity but it
did show perhaps, that something flowed past the earth, that had a 24 hour
cycle. ..
( I say "perhaps" because figures are fudged [made to fit what is believed to
be obvious] to conform with expectations. By this I mean, that directions and
times were used that conformed with their expected, [believed] motions of the
earth. This is not true research, if other probablities are EXCLUDED.)
This is a common error to impiricism, that results in statements such as, "if
the tides are synchronised with the moon, then the moons gravity must be the
cause of the tides" Its the simplistic, but not necessarily accurate or
truthful presumption, given the cosmic extent of this particular demonstration.
An honest view would be to say the tides appear to be associated with the
position of the moon relative to the earth, and it may be possible that these
are caused by the pull of the moons gravity.
Here again, (if you can momentarily dispense with the insistence on the
heliocentric position), because of the failure to detect a solar orbit, and
given such failure opens up a possibility of a non rotating planet, then how
can there be a positive aether flow with a 24 hour cycle? if the world is not
rotating.
Once again, the "aether science" had postulated the aether as being a static
medium through which everything moved.. thus failing to conceive of the
possibility that this aether itself might rotate around earth central, such
being consistent with geocentrism, and the refined Miller results. [ you have
already been presented on this list with the link to the Adelaide University
page which used modern interferometry to "confirm" Millers results.]
In my case, the aether is not an invention of necessity for me to explain
geocentrism. I long saw it as a necessity to explain "action at a distance"
exactly as required by Michael Faraday, when I was, like Faraday, a firm
heliocentrist. But Faraday towards the end was at the point of questioning a
moving earth when his earth conduction experiment failed to duplicate his
spinning disk dynamo. .
I'm sorry but none of the modern standard theories designed to negate the need
of a medium for the wave theory of propagation in a vacuum satisfy, and are
just as vacuous as their explanations, (varied as they are) to explain the
reason for gravity.
I bring this up to show that religion has nothing to do with my position, but
science alone, a science that is open to any possibility, denying nothing,
positive in humility not negative in arrogance. If someone asks me to look at
his perpetual motion machine, I will look for any weakness that makes it
impossible, whilst at the same time hoping and praying that it will work. That
is an entirely different way to the common approach of "its not even worth
looking at because I know it is impossible."
Come to think about it, thats the exact same way people manage to miss out on
knowing God, and His religion.
I am firmly convinced today, that it was when the aether became a threat to
heliocentrism, and Einstein's universe, that it had to go, and as it remains a
threat to the copernican theory of the universe, throwing God and the Bible
back into the discussion, it will never be accepted by that segment of the
scientific community.
phil
Question
I am curious as to exactly when scientists found out that space is a vacuum and
not made up of ether? What year was this and who is credited with the
discovery?
Asked by: Nancy Thorgaard
Answer
In 1887, Albert Michelson and Edward Morley conducted an experiment that
refuted the concept of and ether wind. They compared the speed of light in one
direction with its speed at right angles to that direction. If light were in
fact transmitted via an ever present ether, the motion of the Earth through it
would result in an ether wind which would affect light's speed into and across
its path.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 3:03 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Earth and science
Philip M
From philip madsen Thu Aug 30 22:40:27 2007
Paul, in this medium, it is difficult to explain motion, especially relative
planetary motions.. However we can simplify the principles involve to explain
the error in your assumed figures below, which cause you to conclude,
" Should the GS position be the truth, the chances of a successful
rendezvous, if the mission is based on HC data, are zilch, zippo, nil."
Your major error is to neglect to include the aether, which you must admit,
even if hypothetical, is as valid a consideration as any other hypothetical
position taken in science, especially as is those applicable to special
relativity, or any nuclear physics proposition.
If we interpose a real physical medium called the aether, then we may explain
your problem quite simply in the following way.
Consider a swiftly flowing river, in the middle of which is a boat floating
swiftly past. It would seem an impossibility for our rowboat on the shore to
ever be able to reach it.
However, if we time it correctly and put our boat into the relatively slower
water near the shore and row towards the centre of the river, we will be
quickly taken up into the swiftly flowing stream, and in no time at all be able
to row up along side, and board the ship..
Now in case you missed the connection, it is the aether being left out of the
equation which is the cause of all the confusion. For both sides actually.
Philip.
Your analogy is interesting but I'm left wondering in which direction you
would have the rowboat moving relative to the aether at the various stages of
the rendezvous proceedure.
I have a bigger problem however with the aether itself. Firstly, its
existance. My understanding is pretty much covered by the following gleaned
from http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae489.cfm
Question
I am curious as to exactly when scientists found out that space is a vacuum
and not made up of ether? What year was this and who is credited with the
discovery?
Asked by: Nancy Thorgaard
Answer
In 1887, Albert Michelson and Edward Morley conducted an experiment that
refuted the concept of and ether wind. They compared the speed of light in one
direction with its speed at right angles to that direction. If light were in
fact transmitted via an ever present ether, the motion of the Earth through it
would result in an ether wind which would affect light's speed into and across
its path.
The Michelson-Morley experiment detected no difference in the speed of light,
regardless of direction vs. the hypothesized ether wind. Although several
attempts were made to explain away the experiment's results, the eventual
conclusion was that the proposed ether wind must, therefore, not exist.
(Emphasis added).
Answered by:
Question
I am curious as to exactly when scientists found out that space is a vacuum
and not made up of ether? What year was this and who is credited with the
discovery?
Asked by: Nancy Thorgaard
Answer
In 1887, Albert Michelson and Edward Morley conducted an experiment that
refuted the concept of and ether wind. They compared the speed of light in one
direction with its speed at right angles to that direction. If light were in
fact transmitted via an ever present ether, the motion of the Earth through it
would result in an ether wind which would affect light's speed into and across
its path.
The Michelson-Morley experiment detected no difference in the speed of light,
regardless of direction vs. the hypothesized ether wind. Although several
attempts were made to explain away the experiment's results, the eventual
conclusion was that the proposed ether wind must, therefore, not exist.
(Emphasis added).
Answered by: Paul Walorski, B.A., Part-time Physics/Astronomy Instructo.,
Part-time Physics/Astronomy Instructor.
Originally, the idea of measuring the speed of Earth through the ether came
from Maxwell. During correspondence with others, the task fell upon Michelson.
Michelson had made the most accurate measurement of the speed of light to date.
But then Michelson proceeded to invent a new instrument with accuracy far
exceeding that which had been attained to that date, and that instrument is now
universally called the Michelson interferometer. In trying to measure the speed
of the Earth through the supposed 'ether', you could depend upon one component
of that velocity being known - the velocity of the Earth around the sun, about
30 km/s. Using a wavelength of about 600 nm, there should be a shift of about
0.04 fringes as the spectrometer was rotated 360°. Though small, this was well
within Michelson's capability. Michelson, and everyone else, was surprised that
there was no shift. Michelson's terse description of the experiment: 'The
interpretation of these results is that there is no displacement of the
interference bands. ... The result of the hypothesis of a stationary ether is
thus shown to be incorrect.'
Lord Rayleigh wrote to Michelson, urging him to repeat the experiment with
greater accuracy to test these hypotheses. Michelson, with the collaboration of
E. W. Morley, constructed a new interferometer with multiple mirrors and a path
length about 10 times longer. This device should have given a fringe shift of
about 0.4, but they observed less than 0.005 fringe. Although repeated over the
next 40 years with ever greater precision and the same negative result, this
1887 experiment is pointed to as one of the experimental foundations of
relativity, and earned Michelson the Nobel Prize in 1907.
Answered by: Jason Heidecker, Physics Undergrad, Occidental College, Los
Angeles
Second, this aether must travel at different velocities depending on several
factors -
o the proximity to Earth;
o the particular planet;
o the point in the orbit at which it is currently situated ie retrograde,
forward or transitional;
o and whether the planet is at opposition or conjunction (width of the
"flower petals").
In addition to this it has to be synchronous with the Sun and almost
synchronous with the stars -- all in all a pretty complex phenomenon! How does
this happen? More importantly -- why?
You must be able to see why I prefer the simpler model with "attached"
coherent theory.
Paul D
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. Get it
now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.13.1/982 - Release Date: 31/08/2007
5:21 PM
Other related posts:
