[geocentrism] Re: Challenge
- From: Alan Griffin <ajg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 23:50:00 +0100
On 30 Jul, Dr. Neville Jones <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I remain firmly convinced that a geostatic cosmos is not dynamically
> equivalent to a heliocentric one and, therefore, I support the absolute
> nature of space and time, as advocated by Newton, rather than the
> relative nature believed since Einstein.
You may support it, but you have no evidence, whereas there is
abundant evidence that Einstein was correct. Every single amazing
prediction he made, all of which totally fly in the face of "common sense"
has been proved to be correct, and can be checked quantitatively. This is
a pretty impressive record, and better than a statement such as "I support
Newton"! give us a reason.
>
> In respect of this, the answer to Jack's first question below is that
> Einstein based Special Relativity (SR) on the constant velocity of light
> (in vacuo) and the principle of relativity. For his General Relativity
> (GR), Einstein threw out the requirement for a constant velocity of
> light. Although this discrepancy was clear to Einstein, he did not
> address it, or even appear to be in the least bit bothered by it.
> Indeed, after ten years of mathematical tensor analysis, to arrive at
> GR, Einstein then tossed in the "Cosmological Constant," in order to
> make his work "fit" the ruling paradigm. Such reasoning and attitude is
> commonplace, but Einstein, in particular, does seem to have sown the
> seeds of enormous confusion.
> The ridiculous concept of "space-time," for
> instance, was dreamt up by a mathematician called Minkowski and siezed
> upon by Einstein as being "brilliant."
YOU may call it ridiculous, but again, it fits the known facts.
What reason do you have for calling it ridiculous?
> Experiments such as Michelson-Morley, and many others, demonstrate that
> the World does not move,
No sorry. you are wrong there. Michelson & Morley set out to
measure the speed of the earth "through the aether". What they proved was
that there is no aether. It doesn't exist. They found it difficult to
accept that light waves could travel through nothing, which is why the
"aether" was invented. It doesn't prove that the earth is not moving.
I don't believe there are ANY experiments which demonstrate that the earth
does not move.
> but were "saved" from this obvious conclusion
> by the work of Einstein.
No, wrong again. Einstein merely used the results of their
experiment to postulate that the speed of light was a constant, no matter
what the speed of the observer.
> As for experiments that "prove" SR, they do no such thing, but are based
> upon circular reasoning in the extreme. Nevertheless, geocentrists who
> advocate an annual rotation of the starry heavens about the World, can
> save their position, too, by recourse to GR. So, I suppose the score is
> still level.
No. Not at all level. I have never heard such a preposterous
theory. Before I e-mailed you I never imagined that anyone in this day and
age could possibly believe such a theory, which flies in the face of all
science. The forces involved would be unimagineable, and nobody who
supports GC even hints as to their origin. It is totally unscientific.
alan Griffin
Other related posts:
