[geocentrism] more to reflect on 2.
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 08:56:39 +1000
a second question answered, which as always with me raises other questions.. This extraction from the full text below, supports what I believe, "So how could the planets and stars revolve around the Earth each day if the Earth is fixed in space? One of the more cogent explanations is that the planets, sun and stars themselves are not moving; rather, they are all embedded in a medium that itself rotates once every 24 hours. This medium would contain the so-called aether or even the Anderson positron-electron pairs, and as some rightly hold, particles in the Planck dimensions. In fact, Hans Thirring, famous for the Lense-Thirring effect, found that for a rotating shell of matter, the interior field of the shell is similar to the field in a rotating system of coordinates, leading to gravitational forces similar to the centrifugal and Coriolis effects in the Heliocentric system. " but this raises a question, "of Dr. Robert Moon, Chicago University physicist, who in his article "Space Must Be Quantized," shows that the prevailing theory that space is a vacuum is not supported by the evidence. The reason? Because space has an impedance of at least 376 ohms, something not predicted or accounted for in conventional science" My question is how is this 376 ohms measured? and from this how can this measurement be distinguished for space, from the impedance of the interface of the instrument? radio antennaes present to the coax feeder an impedance which is called the radiation resistance, but I always assumed it to be a characteristic of the interface between the antenna element and space. Can any one expand on this? And thanks Robert S for this revealing statement, "To rotate this spherical body within 24 hours, we can suppose that there is a massive shell at the outer limits providing sufficient gravity to pull the Sun and the stars in their orbits. The aether, like water in a spinning bucket, would rotate along with the universe. Hence, to those inside the shell, there would be no way to measure the rotation; the entire frame of reference would be pulled around by the rotating shell. " A well put analogy. the full question and answer Rotating Earth Reductio Ad Absurdum follows . Philip. The Geocentrism Challenge: Postings http://www.catholicintl.com Following is an exchange between one who believes Earth to be in motion [rotating & orbiting] & one who believes Earth to be entirely immobile. AC - Letters designate the person who believes Earth to be moving in an a-centric universe. GEO - Letters designate the person who believes Earth to be immobile, which is synonymous with "Geocentricity" Posting #4 - Rotating Earth Reductio Ad Absurdum AC Greetings Sir: I hope this finds you and yours in good health. Appended to this message is a proof that the Earth rotates about its own axis. Forgive me if the language of the proof is a bit stilted, but I want to be rigorous. The proof shall be of the form Reductio Ad Absurdum. Assume that the Earth does not rotate about its own axis. (This is the assertion to be disproved.) Since the Earth does not rotate about its own axis, and since we see the heavenly bodies traversing the sky each night, we therefore conclude that the heavenly bodies rotate about the earth. Since we see the heavenly bodies in roughly the same positions from night to night (e.g. at 10 PM Jupiter is at about the same place as it was last night at 10PM.) we therefore conclude that the heavenly bodies rotate about the Earth with a period of roughly twenty-four hours. (Here - in order to keep the math simple - we assume a circular orbit for the heavenly bodies and a period of exactly twenty-four hours.) Since any given heavenly body traverses a circle about the Earth in twenty-four hours, and since the circumference of that circle is 2*pi*r (r being the distance from Earth to the body) the velocity of the body will be (2*pi*r)/(24hours). It can be shown (You'll trust me on the math, I hope. I'll submit it if you insist.) that any body orbiting the Earth at a distance of more than 4.125x10^12 metres (a couple AU less than the distance between here & Neptune) must be travelling at more than 3.0x10^8 metres per second. Since Neptune & the further bodies can be shown to be travelling at more than 3.0x10^8 metres per second, and since 3.0x10^8 metres per second is the speed of light in a vacuum, and since no material body may travel at or above the speed of light in a vacuum we are faced with an absurdity. And we can therefore conclude that our initial assertion is false. Since we have shown it to be false that the Earth does not rotate about its own axis, we can infer that it does. Much to my horror I have discovered that I have left a clarifying point out of my proof; i.e. my proof - at least the way I've worded it - applies only to those heavenly bodies in the Zodiac. Those would be the sun, the planets, with the exception of Pluto, and the fixed stars in the Zodiac. The same argument could be applied to the other stars in the sky, but the math would be different, so I won't include them here. Thanks again. Thank you for your time. Francois Van Steertegem ==================== GEO Dear Francois, Thank you for your fine challenge. But I'm afraid that what you postulate as proof of a rotating and revolving earth does not prove it at all. First, you assume a few things as proven which have not in fact been proven. One is your assumption that the speed of light (I assume in a vacuum) is constant, either here or anywhere else in the universe. Second, you assume that the planets (and in your second letter, the stars) themselves travel at or beyond the conventional speed of light in order to complete their journey. Let me explain both of these issues by starting with a little history of physics. In 1887, Michelson and Morley did an experiment to detect any difference in the speed of light between north-south travel and east-west travel. A difference in speed was expected because they assumed that the Earth was orbiting the Sun in a stationary aether. From our perspective on Earth, the aether would blow past us like a wind in an east-west direction. Michelson and Morley reasoned that we should notice changes in the speed of light in east-west travel, but fixed speed in north-south travel. The experiment failed to measure any difference in speed, no matter when and where they tried it. Scientists were baffled. Rather than admitting the possibility that the earth was stationary with respect to the aether, scientists dispensed with aether and claimed that the speed of light was constant. In fact, the speed of light was claimed to be the only constant in the universe, whereas mass, length, distance, time, and anything else became relative. This became know as the Relativity theory. But all the Michelson-Morley experiment showed was that aether wind was either too small to measure or was non-existent. Michelson and Morley, however, demonstrated nothing about the constancy of the speed of light through space. Added to this is the experiment performed by Georges Sagnac. As I remarked in another answer to the CAI Challenge, a writer for Physics Today writes: "One of the most confusing relativistic effects - the Sagnac effect - appears in rotating reference frames. (See Physics Today, October 1981, page 20) . Observers in the nonrotating ECI inertial frame would not see a Sagnac effect. Instead, they would see that receivers are moving while a signal is propagating ... Correcting for the Sagnac effect in the Earth-fixed frame is equivalent to correcting for such receiver motion in the ECI frame..." Yes, the author is right. It is "confusing." Unfortunately for him, the reason it is "confusing" is that Relativity has never explained the Sagnac effect, found by Georges Sagnac in 1913, nor its follow-up experimental verification performed by Michelson-Gale-Pearson in 1925. In fact, according to Dean Turner in The Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers, he writes: "I pause to note that one may scan Einstein's writings in vain to find mention of the Sagnac or Michelson-Gale experiments. The same can be said of general physics textbooks and of the 1971 McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology... Such an oversight in these distinguished encyclopedias constitutes a stinging indictment of professional scientific reporting" (p. 44). Why were they not mentioned in Einstein's writings? Simple. Because they give experimental evidence for the falsity of Relativity theory. Einstein not only did this with Sagnac and Michelson-Gale, he also did it with Joos, Ives, Miller, Kennedy-Thorndike, and many other scientists who questioned or rejected his theory based on the results of their verified experiments. What is the Sagnac effect? It is the result of an experiment that showed the earth to be in some type of movement against another substance. The "movement" is termed "rotation" and the substance is some aether-type medium that scientists had discarded when Einstein developed his Relativity in 1905. (Thus, we can see why Einstein would have ignored Sagnac's results). But although Einstein neglected its results, other scientists did not, including the author of the article in Physics Today (May 2002). The Michelson-Gale experiment of 1925 [A.A. Michelson and H. Gale, "The effect of the Earth's Rotation on the Velocity of Light," The Astrophysical Journal, Vol LXI, No. 3, April 1925, pp. 137-145] measured a difference in the speed of light at two different latitudes. He concluded that the aether-wind speed changed with latitude due to the rotation of the Earth in a stationary aether. (This is because the radius of rotation decreases with increasing latitude). This experiment disproves the constancy of the speed of light assumption and provides adequate evidence for the existence of the aether, just as Georges Sagnac found. Dalton Miller did even more comprehensive studies to confirm these results. There is quite a collection of letters between Einstein and Miller in which the former is trying to persuade the latter not to put credit in the results. Heliocentrists might be tempted to say that Michelson-Gale provides "proof" of the rotation of the Earth, but that would be presumptuous. The only thing Michelson-Gale provided for us is that either the Earth is moving with respect to an aether, or the aether is moving against a stationary Earth. Not only did Sagnac and Michelson-Gale show the possibility of aether, but an experiment performed by Carl Anderson in 1932 showed another anomaly to Relativity theory. Relativity theory postulated that space was a vacuum - nothing existed between the heavenly bodies. But Carl Anderson showed that a 1.02 million electron volt charge distributed anywhere in space produced a free positron and electron. When the 1.02 Mev was reapplied, the positron and electron disappeared. Einstein's explanation of this phenomenon was that matter was created and then annihilated. (This may have been where today's scientists postulate that the universe began from the singularity ["nothingness"] of the Big Bang). Rather than reason that space was filled with positron-electron pairs, in order to save his Relativity theory, Einstein maintained that matter was created and destroyed. So how could the planets and stars revolve around the Earth each day if the Earth is fixed in space? One of the more cogent explanations is that the planets, sun and stars themselves are not moving; rather, they are all embedded in a medium that itself rotates once every 24 hours. This medium would contain the so-called aether or even the Anderson positron-electron pairs, and as some rightly hold, particles in the Planck dimensions. In fact, Hans Thirring, famous for the Lense-Thirring effect, found that for a rotating shell of matter, the interior field of the shell is similar to the field in a rotating system of coordinates, leading to gravitational forces similar to the centrifugal and Coriolis effects in the Heliocentric system. The constitution of the rotating medium would be that coincident with the Planck dimensions found in black holes. Modern science is familiar with such mediums. For example, in The Very Early Universe (Gibbons, et al, 1983) astrophysicist Markov defines the particle he calls the "maximon," which possesses the 10 to the 94th grams per cubic centimeter associated with Planck dimensions. Also noteworthy in this respect is the work of Dr. Robert Moon, Chicago University physicist, who in his article "Space Must Be Quantized," shows that the prevailing theory that space is a vacuum is not supported by the evidence. The reason? Because space has an impedance of at least 376 ohms, something not predicted or accounted for in conventional science, but coincident with the spatial mediums of Geocentric understanding. Princeton's John Wheeler is credited with being the first to describe what is now called "spacetime foam." This is Wheeler's theory that space is occupied by ultradense particles. Stephen Hawking has postulated something similar. Both Wheeler's and Hawking's "foam" reasons that the particles are at Planck dimensions. Thus, this is not something confined only to Geocentric scientists. In an article by J. P. Vigier, "De Broglie Waves on Dirac Aether" in 1980, he writes: "Since Dirac's pioneer work it has been known that Einstein's relativity theory (and Michelson's experiment) are perfectly compatible with an underlying relativistic stochastic [read aether] model." In fact, the 3 degree Kelvin radiation discovered by Pensias and Wilson is not the remnants of the Big Bang at all, but is more likely the subatomic vibration inherent in this Dirac aether or Wheeler-Hawking "foam." Moreover, Vigier's work, along with colleague Petroni, published "Causal Superluminal Interpretation of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox" in Physical Review Letters in 1981. He reports the existence of faster-than-light interactions between an atomic beam of calcium and krypton ion laser, and shows that these are best explained by the stochastic model of space (i.e., aether) rather than the vacuum of conventional physics. There are many other scientists and experiments that could be mentioned to support these findings. Just recently (2001), Princeton scientists showed that a pulse of laser light traveled through cesium vapor at 310 times the distance it traveled in a vacuum. To rotate this spherical body within 24 hours, we can suppose that there is a massive shell at the outer limits providing sufficient gravity to pull the Sun and the stars in their orbits. The aether, like water in a spinning bucket, would rotate along with the universe. Hence, to those inside the shell, there would be no way to measure the rotation; the entire frame of reference would be pulled around by the rotating shell. This concept is not a novelty. It is known in conventional physics as "frame pulling" or "frame dragging," and was discovered by Einstein, Lense and Thirring, and remains an area of active research. A rotating inertial frame of reference would abide by Kepler's laws of planetary motion, as well as explain the rotating Foucault pendulum, centrifugal and Coriolis forces. In fact, a rotating universe would explain something that conventional science cannot explain. It is known by scientists that, in order to account for the so-called expanding universe theory, sufficient matter is needed. But scientists have found only 1% of the matter needed. To compensate for this, Einstein (again to save Relativity theory) created his "Cosmological Constant" - a fudge factor to allow the universe to keep expanding. Today scientists account for the missing matter by referring to it as Dark Matter, but they haven't found it yet. I guess it must really be "dark." :) The concept of a rotating universe deals quite nicely with this issue. The less mass the better. And the mass that is present does not collapse in on itself because the centrifugal force (which is a real force in a Geocentric model) causes the heavenly bodies to move outward in just the right balance to compensate for the pull of gravity inward. Hence the mass of the universe (the "1%" conventional science has found) and the spin of the universe (24 hour cycle) is enough to achieve equilibrium. As for faster-than-light action, the rotating universe would have stars traveling in excess of the speed of light, since with respect to the rotating aether, the stars are not moving and there is no difficulty of exceeding the local speed of light. Moreover, in 1955, the astronomer Van de Hulst writes: "In 1930, astronomers discovered with some shock that as the light of stars passes through certain regions of interstellar space it is dimmed and scattered in various directions... If there was indeed an interstellar haze which dimmed the light of distant stars or made them altogether invisible, then many of their calculations of star distances were wrong. Further studies proved that the fear was justified. Starlight passing through the crowded regions of our galaxy loses roughly half its energy by absorption and scattering in every two thousand light years of travel. As a result, even with our most powerful telescopes, we cannot see the center of our galaxy...Beyond about six thousand light years from our observing station most or our studies of the galaxy are literally lost in the fog." In 1981, the astronomer Baugher wrote: "Much of the galaxy is...hidden from our view, making the study of its structure quite difficult." There are many other statements like these from astronomers. I think it is also noteworthy to point out that conventional physics and astronomy also have problems with the speed of light. For example, Hubble's Constant was formulated (H = 100 km/s/megaparsec) based on the proportionality of the redshift to the distance of the star. The problem, of course, came in when telescopes were able to see beyond 50 gigaparsecs, which would require the galaxies to be receding at many times the speed of light. Then when telescopes were able to see to 500 gigaparsecs, this means that the galaxies would have to be receding at hundreds of times the speed of light. Thus, something is obviously wrong with the whole concept. This evidence certainly doesn't lend itself to making the conventional wisdom of Heliocentrism sacrosanct by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, things work much better in the Geocentric model. Thank you for your question. Robert Sungenis Catholic Apologetics International May 14, 2002
- [geocentrism] Re: more to reflect on 2.
- From: Martin Selbrede
- [geocentrism] Re: more to reflect on 2.
- [geocentrism] More to reflect upon.
- From: philip madsen
- [geocentrism] More to reflect upon.