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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >