[geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts?
- From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 03:02:03 +0200
A clarification from me. Steven, I will include your point about
"Deviation from Newtonian gravity in mine-shaft experiments."
as part of your contribution. Please tell, me if that heading
covers your point adequately.
Regards,
Regner Trampedach
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Quoting Steven Jones <steven@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Me in red.
>
>
>
> Regner Trampedach wrote:
>
> Steven Jones,
>
> You thank me for my "...time reading this." - yet I haven't.
>
>
> So you haven't read what I have said but you are
> able to reply with supposed problems in my email, uhmm.
>
>
> At great expense of my time I did extracted the following
> - your new pt. 3
> - your clarification of pt. 1 (No Earth motion detected)
> - that you have no idea of pt. 2 so I'll strike that unless you give
> me a summary of what the problem is.
>
>
> Clarification can be found in "A New
> Mine Determination of the Newtonian
> Gravitational Constant," Nature, Vol. 307, Feb. 1984, pgs. 714-716)
>
>
>
> And then you have added a lot of rambling, despite your assurances of the
> opposite, and evidence which isn't needed for this part of the discussion.
> Why is it so hard to perform a structured discussion here.
>
>
> I see the discussion is going ok, my response was
> respectful and actually quite complete, considering the fact that if
> "proofs" were obvious none of us would be here would we?
>
>
>
> Steven.
>
>
>
>
> Regner Trampedach
>
>
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> -
>
>
> Quoting Steven Jones <steven@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 Franįois 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
