[geocentrism] more to reflect on 2.

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 




Other related posts: