[geocentrism] Re: The Sun/ Comment & question
- From: geocentric@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:10:42 +0100
Philip wrote:
> I have never seen any demonstration of the existance of physical
> lines of force for gravity. For this reason I am open to the idea
> that it is not gravity of pull, but push of aetheric pressure.
As I said before (and you misunderstood) you can call it what you like.
There isn't an assumption that there is a "line of force", any more
than there is an assumption that billiard balls have momentum vectors
sticking out of them just because that's how we add them up. The effect
of the force is real, whatever causes it. It is of great interest what
actually causes this force, string theory is an attempt to unify it with
the other forces. But that will still leave the question of where does
the one unifying force come from.
If you have an aetheric pressure theory that is coherent and makes all
the confirmable predictions that conventional theory makes then it would
be interesting to see it. If it makes yet more predictions that
conventional theory doesn't make then it would be very insteresting indeed.
> We know that the speed of light is constant in a constant medium.
>
> I have seen an many official texts it being stated that the speed is
> always 186,300 mps with out a mention of "in a perfect vacuum."
The speed of light is always c, no matter what the medium. When going
through a material the light is absorbed and re-emitted by the atoms in
the material. This makes it appear to go slower, but it actually goes
at c between each absorbtion/emition.
> Doppler theory in sound or light are completely compatible with there
> being an aether. No need for any complicated alternatives.
But the aether is not compatible with a constant c in any frame of
reference. For many years scientists believed in the aether
(for good reason) and were unable to detect it despite many ingeneous
experiments designed to find it. For these two reasons scientists no
longer believe it exists. Another classic example of science not being
dogmatic but being based on evidence. Why do you believe it exists?
>> 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.
>
> 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)
This is just not how science is done. Scientists do not set up
experiments to prove the theories right. They try to falsify the theory
(it must be falsifiable to be considered a scientific theory). The more
they fail to falsify it the more confidence they have in the theory.
Regards,
Mike.
Other related posts:
