[geocentrism] Re: Fruitless arguments
- From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 16:06:27 +1000
We don't all think the earth isn't the centre of the universe just
because Copernicus said so. That's the point. It's not authority, it's
all repeatable experiments and confirmable logic. Science. Not faith.
Regards,
Mike.
Quite true. But all these confirming experiments are done within the
paramaters of the first concept. Quite naturally they will fit and be
repeatable. Prior to copernicus all the calculations also confirmed the
earlier view and were repeatable. (locally)
If you read my little story/example to Alan on the subject of absolute
immobility as being a real concept, you should see that the alien right from
the start had absolute faith that the larger stone was immobile and that the
other one including himself (when he landed on it) was in orbit around the
other stone. Of course every experiment he did within his paramaters of
belief would prove him right.
But as the author (creator?) of this test I can say with absolute certainty
that he is wrong. He would have to jump the mental barrier of his
perceptions, and say what if....and consider alternative possibility....
So then he might say "Orbital motion is acceleration. And go about detecting
it. et al. What is my point?
In this debate there are two faiths and within two different sets of
parameters, using the same laws of motion in Newtonian physics, both of
which can be demonstrated to have merit. I dispense with special relativity
simply because it is a mathmatical concept which proposes
certain physical properties to exist according to his theory of relativity,
when such physical properties may also exist under a different reality,
there being a real aether for example. These equations according to my
opinion are fed with what I would call "probability factors".
These worry me, because whereas we were previously able to safely talk of
doppler shift in terms of an aether, by arbitarily for no reason other than
it not being detected by Michelson, they dismissed the aether, it became
necessary to throw in a new probability and name it the relativistic
doppler. etc. They appear, even if it is not the intention, to keep seeking
a proof of their previous belief, by making more numerous and complicated
theories and calculations whenever their observations go against them.
At this stage from the purely scientific angle I am neutral. I want a real
experiment that can safely show one way or the other. Alans aberration so
far doesn't work for me.But ....has anyone thought of this or has
relativistic doppler made it irrelevant?
For the sake of this experiment I am assuming the heliocentrical earth
orbiting the sun. Take a star that has a known stable light spectrum and is
equally visible from two positions 180 degrees apart on the earth orbit. As
far as I can know, perhaps the speed is not sufficient, but would a red
shift on the away movement of the earth be detectable against a blue shift
on the up side 180 degrees 6 months later?
Just an idea. I look forward to someone saying light doppler does not work
with a moving observer.???
Philip.
Other related posts:
