Hi Philip, I merely had a "hunch" when I wrote this, and I simply don't have the time to investigate it presently, therefore, you can rule it out of the discussion and consider it wrong. Please replace it with my latest evidence concerning the isotropic nature of the cosmos.
Steven.
Steven I would like to hear from you or a link to it , on how the Van
Allen belt relates to geocentrism please.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Steven Jones <mailto:steven@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*To:* geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Monday, October 22, 2007 10:36 PM
*Subject:* [geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts?
_/*Dear Dr. Trampedach,*/_
Firstly, please allow me to stress how much it's appreciated to
have you on-board presently, and I hope you will continue to be so
when my Father comes back from India, who is very scientifically
inclined. Thanks for the questions pertaining to my evidences, and
please excuse me for putting it into the wrong thread. I fear my
literary command is weak of late, and I shall resort to less rambling.
Before I attempt to answer your questions, I would like to have a
little disclaimer please. Essentially, I am not a scientist,
although I think perhaps logically and am a computer programmer,
I'm also a classical guitarist and orchestral composer with many
feelings. Science does not fascinate me much, and I'm much more
willing to have faith than require proof. God has given me some
fantastic experiences in my life which science cannot prove, but
these experiences are known from deep within me as being more
certain than even the most established scientific experiment ever
devised. To me also, music is a great revelation, and a means of
expression that could not exist without design, having little or
no meaning in evolution, which fails to provide answers on every
level.
/"Music is a higher revelation than all of science and philosophy"
- Ludwig Van Beethoven
/
Death is an enemy of God and the believer, but it is an essential
means of continuing survival in evolution.
Next, for those of you who failed to see my list of five reasons
because I put it in the wrong thread, I shall include them below:
1. Michelson-Morley experiment failure
2. How pendulum's behave down mine-shafts
3. The van Allan radiation belts
4. No centre buldge on the Earth, as would be created in the early
rapidly spinning molten Earth "theory". The centre bulge of
Jupiter is clearly seen.
5. It predicts time and again successful spacecraft launches,
sorry, but NASA (disclaimer: I don't like them) even say
themselves that they use Earth as the centre of the reference frame.
If it's acceptable, I would like to substitute number three please
because I have not the time presently to establish for myself if
there is anything in this. My replacement is as follows:
3. The universe appears to be isotropic. Even the cosmic microwave
background radiation is also isotropic in regards to the earth,
thus not homogeneous, so no big-bang. Gamma-rays, quasars, red
shifts, BL Lacs, X-ray clusters, and galaxies all form concentric
shells around the Earth, suggesting that the Earth lies at the
exact kinematic center of them all.
Heliocentrists try and "explain-away" this fundamental even
distribution of the night sky by claiming vast distances, but then
we arise with a new problem, as yet unsuccessfully solved in this
model, the infamous "Olber's Paradox".
Regarding your question relating to the pendulums in mine-shafts,
I must say that I am not an expert in this field, but it is well
worth exploring. Martin Selbrede who is also on this forum may
have much more to say about it than I, being very technically
inclined and a musician too, wow! However, as far as I'm aware,
there exists classical models of gravity unique for geocentrism
which predicts the change of behavior in the Foucault pendulum
when lowered into a mine shaft, while heliocentrism with Newtonian
mechanics does not. At first, that might seem preposterous to
question Newton's "law" of gravity, but in reality it was only
based upon a guess with the inverse-square law. My Father also has
a model of gravity different to Newtonian which predicts exactly
the same effects up until a point (somewhere in space above the
Earth), he is the best one to do the explaining upon this. In the
mean time, if your interested in Dad's model of gravity, he has
written at least one page pertaining to it here:
http://www.geocentricperspective.com/page83.htm
Since I have already mentioned Martin Selbrede, I would like to
quote a tiny fragment pertaining to this subject from his
excellent rebuttal of Dr. Michael Martin Nieto's biased paper
entitled "Testing Ideas on Geostationary Satellites". This paper
came about because Dr. Gary North hired Nieto, theoretical
physicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, to analyze alleged
fatal flaws and defects in geocentric cosmology from the
standpoint of an astrophysicist. If you would like to read
Selbrede's rebuttal, it's available for download from:
http://www.geocentricity.com/geocentricity/nieto.html
/LeSagean gravitational theory is an important component in the
dynamical thinking of most geocentrists, excepting those who
prefer basing their position on general relativity. The theory has
predictive power, for the equations of attenuation make it clear
that the shape and orientation of an object determine the
magnitude of force on it. In the LeSagean theory, a barbell held
horizontally is heavier than one held vertically, and a feather
will drop faster in a vacuum than a small ball of lead ‹
predictions that directly oppose the dynamics of Newton, Galileo,
and Einstein. Until the last decade, the predictions of LeSage
would have been laughed off the stage, until instruments sensitive
enough to detect such anomalies were pressed into service. When
these anomalies were discovered, modern science rushed in to
herald the discovery of some fifth fundamental force, termed
(erroneously) supergravity by some excited researchers. But they
had been beaten to the theoretical punch by more than two
centuries by the gravitational theory championed by the geocentrists.
The peculiar behavior of pendulums just before and after an
eclipse, and within deep mine shafts, has likewise been troubling
to the standard gravitational theories, Einstein's included. Saxl
and Allen's pendulum measurements during the solar eclipse March
7, 1970 were startling, and subsequent measurements by Kuusela
(Finland: July 22, 1990 and Mexico: July 11, 1991) still reflected
anomalous, though less severe, deviations. (Cf. Physical Review
D3, 823 and General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 24, No. 5,
1992, pg. 543-550). Mineshaft measurements of the gravitational
constant evaded conventional analysis (Cf. Holding & Tuck, "A New
Mine Determination of the Newtonian Gravitational Constant,"
Nature, Vol. 307, Feb. 1984, pgs. 714-716). These anomalies were
predicted by the LeSagean theory, not by Newton, not by Einstein.
/All very fascinating stuff.
Moving on to the Michelson-Morley expriment of 1887, it was
designed to detect the motion of the Earth through the ether. But
no motion was detected. The obvious conclusion is that the Earth
was not moving, but they did not even consider that! At the time
heliocentrism was on shaky ground until Einstein saved the day by
"doing-away" with the ether completely, however the ether has
sound principles behind it and is essential even today for fields
of science such as radio theory.
I wrote 1887 because both Michelson and Morley went on to do
different experiments after their first publication in 1887, being
determined to prove the rotation of the Earth. From wikipedia:
/Other versions of the experiment were carried out with increasing
sophistication, but with no success. Kennedy and Illingworth both
modified the mirrors to include a half-wave “step,” eliminating
the possibility of some sort of standing wave pattern within the
apparatus. Illingworth could detect changes on the order of
1/300th of a fringe, Kennedy up to 1/1500th. Miller later built a
non-magnetic device to eliminate magnetostriction, while Michelson
built one of non-expanding invar to eliminate any remaining
thermal effects. Others from around the world increased accuracy,
eliminated possible side effects, or both.
/Sorry to add another evidence to my list of 5, but Airy's
experiment should be considered too. This is probably better than
the NASA entry. From an article written by my Dad:
/An experiment with a water-filled telescope was performed by the
then Astronomer Royal, George Airy (after whom the Airy disc of
diffraction theory is named), in 1871, which can be considered to
be a variation of an earlier investigation by François Arago,
performed with a moving slab of glass in 1810.
Arago showed that either light itself or the luminiferous aether
is dragged along by a moving piece of glass. Fresnel explained the
effect by assuming it was the light-carrying medium (this is
called Fresnel drag). George Stokes explained it via compression
of the aether, but the important point is whether we can tell
which one is doing the moving - the light source or the
transparent material. When Arago investigated this effect with
starlight, he concluded that the World (with respect to which the
glass plate was stationary in this instance) was at rest and that
it was the stars that were moving.
The experiment subsequently performed by Airy was first proposed
by Ruggiero Boscovich for testing James Bradley's heliocentric
aberration idea of 1728. This, in turn, was thought up to explain
the elliptical motion of the star Gamma Draconis, as observed by
James Bradley and Samuel Molyneux, over a fairly long time period
commencing in 1725.
What was the result of Airy's experiment? Exactly the opposite
outcome to that predicted in the rotating-World scenario. (Note
that the experiment is usually referred to as "Airy's failure" for
this reason.)
Just like Arago before him, George Airy proved that the World was
stationary and the stars are moving. It does not matter whether
there exists a luminiferous aether or not, because the dragging of
starlight, as demonstrated initially by Arago, is real,
irrespective of how we try to explain it. Both Arago and Airy
showed that it is the stars, and not the World, which move
(although Airy did not actually go so far as to admit this). In
addition, we can say that Michelson-Morley, Trouton-Noble and
many, many others have consistently demonstrated no motion of the
World.
Airy's experiment thus does not confirm the World to be just a
piece of rock that hurtles through infinite space in who knows how
many contorted motions, as Mikolaj Kopernik (aka "Copernicus"),
Johannes Kepler, Carl Sagan, et al., so zealously maintained.
/Thank you for your time reading this.
/*Best wishes,
Steven Jones.*/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.5/1084 - Release Date:
21/10/2007 3:09 PM
