[geocentrism] Re: Earth and science
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 09:32:56 +1000
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. Michelson concluded the same thing.
For the same reason, same presumption of truth.
I mean, if you can show that an aether is needed for such propogation -- and
thus far you cannot -- you might have a point.
Thats a double speak standard Paul. No explanation has been satisfactorily
demonstrated that wave motion does not need a medium.. Quite the contrary.
There are two beliefs.. niether provable, but a medium is the most logical on
the evidence of explaining wave motion. That there is no other logical
explanation is evidenced by your own,
Isn't it more appropriate to simply seek another answer to the question of how
and why EMR propogates?
Why look for complication, where the simple answer well tried is already
available.. And I might ask, more " appropriate" for whom and for what? Do we
then only take on research that is appropriate?
Oh of course I forgot.. It is not "appropriate" for modern science to allow
random supernatural properties into the equation because random is not
quantifiable. .. That does not make them untrue though does it.
I'm confident that if a real possibility had been 'swept under the rug' by the
principal investigators, there were scores of capable contemporaries who were
not only ready but also willing to jump up and down while proclaiming this
subterfuge, in fact pretty much like you and your fellow believers are doing
today. Indeed it is my impression that the theory of the aether and its
presumed properties was not suddenly and violently, or even convincingly,
snuffed out. It died slowly as do all discredited ideas.
This appears as an emotive rather than a rational rsponse. . I never said
anything had been swept under the rug. .. Yet you accuse us of doing so. How
can you say with any confidence that the aether has been discredited? Quite a
few of your capable contemporaries would beg to differ.
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. Philip I'm afraid that your customary eloquence has deserted you
here. I really don't know what it is that you are saying.
Paul, I was almost certain when I wrote/read it myself, that you would not know
what I was saying.. Its a matter of discernment, a mechanism I mention
elsewhere. But if you follow and express the punctuation, it should be clear
enough, given the context. But then you exclude Millers and others evidence.
Later experiments by Miller did establish an anistropy of light ...In your
emotive attack you ignored this. which has been shown elsewhere, that this
anistropy has ben absolutely verified on modern equipment. If not an aether ,
then what ? Something more appropriate perhaps?
Adelaide University page which used modern interferometry to "confirm" Millers
results.] Would you give me the reference to these results again -- I don't
recall what that might be and I certainly have not committed them to memory.
Would it not have been more appropriate and reasonable for you to have asked
for this in the beginning, before making all the irrational comments above. I
will have a search, my files are almost as difficult as the internet to
search..
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 think that Clarke's First Law may be invoked here.
Arthur C. Clarke formulated the following three "laws" of prediction:
1.. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is
possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is
impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2.. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a
little way past them into the impossible.
3.. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
I do not see how the third law applies here. In any case, I never had much
respect for the science fiction efforts of Clark. He was certainly no Asimov.
Yet I also have great difficulty with ,
a.. Isaac Asimov wrote a corollary to Clarke's First Law, stating
"When, however, the lay public rallies round an idea that is denounced by
distinguished but elderly scientists and supports that idea with great fervor
and emotion -- the distinguished but elderly scientists are then, after all,
probably right."
but deep thought reveals much.. take the current popularity on man made hot
house.
The following I wrote , remembering an earlier remark of yours, regarding an
article I posted. You said, "as soon as I saw the words 'free energy' I lost
interest in the article"
That is an entirely different way to the common approach of "its not even worth
looking at because I know it is impossible." Carried to the second degree, this
attitude would immobilise you --Perhaps, but better to be immobilised in
humility than to be arrogant in pride, rewards are not the driving motivation
you would have to check everything you say against everything that you've ever
said and then you'd have to check that you know what every word you used means
and then you'd have to check that what every word you used to chech every word
that you used still meant what you thought it meant ... There comes a time when
you have to show a little trust. That aside, my impression is that you seem to
be more concerned with the laws of science than most here. But that is the
essence of humility, which you have just indicated as being of no worth. You
ask for trust.. Trust must be entirely placed in God, and even here with
reservation as to where when and who is God. But to trust in man, especially
the men of science, is like trusting in every horse in a race to win..
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. I'm not aware that a demonstrated aether is the threat
you suggest either then or now. Explanation? Paul D
Paul you do miss a lot. Probably subconscious rejection. Jack does that
whenever the word Catholic appears.
But I said before, that at the turn of the century when PhD included philosophy
of religion as a science, the aether was an acceptable , even necessary
phenomena. A study of the history of revolution, and the
anti-clerical/religious of the same era, the movement of the so called free
thinkers, (a communist ideal) resulted in a divide in science, to exclude the
supernatural. Have no doubt, the early rationalists in science had a deep
hatred of anything religious. The aether smells of the "spirit" . some even
postulated it was the realm of God and the spirits, be they angels or devils or
just ghosts.
That smell still sticks with the rationalists. You see it as a threat to your
own comfort zone. So much so that today you insist I must seek another
explanation to explain wave motion properties of Radio waves, which is
virtually impossible, because it would be a contradiction in terms as well as
reality.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2007 5:13 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Earth and science
Philip M
From philip madsen Sat Sep 1 03:56:27 2007
During this same period, you would also observe the Earth rotate on its axis
approximately 29.53 times (29.53 Earth solar days). Paul.
Yes Paul, and if you were on the space shuttle, you would see the earth
rotate on its axis once every 100 minutes or so... but is it true?
Philip
Pretty much what I've been trying to convince people of here for some time.
If you can't believe your eyes that the Earth rotates 29.53 times in one luna
sola day and you can't believe your eyes that the Earth rotates once in the 100
minutes or so single orbit of the space shuttle, why are you so adamant that
you can believe your eyes that the Sun goes round the Earth? In my world, if
you have conflicts you don't have a solution and you need to keep looking.
Of course if the heliocentric position is correct then you don't have a
conflict.
From philip madsen Sat Sep 1 03:50:59 2007
I first started to make just a point or two but realised it needed more than
that so I'll pull it all in and insert comments.
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
I've read this description several times and it hasn't sunk in yet I'm afraid.
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. Michelson concluded the same thing.
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? But Philip what you are saying is that rather than accept
that there is no aether, for which you can show no evidence, you are prepared
to overturn 300 or 400 years of practical astronomy, Newtonian physics, and
cosmological theory? All of which presents a coherent, accurate, useful model?
Isn't it more appropriate to simply seek another answer to the question of how
and why EMR propogates? I mean, if you can show that an aether is needed for
such propogation -- and thus far you cannot -- you might have a point. If you
can show that a lack of understanding of what gravity is -- as against simply
being able to more or less accurately predict its behaviour -- somehow makes
the Copernican/Keplerian/Newtonian model untenable, you might have a point but
of course again you can't. Paradigms are overturned or significantly altered
when some fatal anomaly is demonstrated. They are not overturned because
someone states that his pet theory would be facilitated by such radical surgery.
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.) I'm
confident that if a real possibility had been 'swept under the rug' by the
principal investigators, there were scores of capable contemporaries who were
not only ready but also willing to jump up and down while proclaiming this
subterfuge, in fact pretty much like you and your fellow believers are doing
today. Indeed it is my impression that the theory of the aether and its
presumed properties was not suddenly and violently, or even convincingly,
snuffed out. It died slowly as do all discredited ideas.
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.
How about An honest view would be to say that current thinking is that tides
are associated with the position of the moon relative to the earth, and that
the mechanism is the pull of the moon's gravity. 'Current thinking' is not
arogantly assertive, but students need something less vacillatory.
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. Philip I'm afraid that your customary eloquence has deserted you
here. I really don't know what it is that you are saying.
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.] Would you
give me the reference to these results again -- I don't recall what that might
be and I certainly have not committed them to memory.
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 think that Clarke's First Law may be invoked here.
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." Carried to the second degree, this
attitude would immobilise you -- you would have to check everything you say
against everything that you've ever said and then you'd have to check that you
know what every word you used means and then you'd have to check that what
every word you used to chech every word that you used still meant what you
thought it meant ... There comes a time when you have to show a little trust.
That aside, my impression is that you seem to be more concerned with the laws
of science than most here.
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. I'm not aware that a demonstrated aether is the threat
you suggest either then or now. Explanation?
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:
