[geocentrism] Re: Earth and science
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 19:13:02 +0000 (GMT)
Philip M
From philip madsen Sat Sep 1 03:56:27 2007
During this same period, you would also observe the Earth rotate on its axis
approximately 29.53 times (29.53 Earth solar days). Paul.
Yes Paul, and if you were on the space shuttle, you would see the earth rotate
on its axis once every 100 minutes or so... but is it true?
Philip
Pretty much what I've been trying to convince people of here for some time. If
you can't believe your eyes that the Earth rotates 29.53 times in one luna sola
day and you can't believe your eyes that the Earth rotates once in the 100
minutes or so single orbit of the space shuttle, why are you so adamant that
you can believe your eyes that the Sun goes round the Earth? In my world, if
you have conflicts you don't have a solution and you need to keep looking.
Of course if the heliocentric position is correct then you don't have a
conflict.
From philip madsen Sat Sep 1 03:50:59 2007
I first started to make just a point or two but realised it needed more than
that so I'll pull it all in and insert comments.
Response to Paul Question
I am curious as to exactly when scientists found out that space is a vacuum ,
below but
for a nice concise explanation of the MM experiment,
eg like this
At this point, Michelson had a very clever idea for detecting the aether wind.
As he explained to his children (according to his daughter), it was based on
the following puzzle:
Suppose we have a river of width w (say, 100 feet), and two swimmers who both
swim at the same speed v feet per second (say, 5 feet per second). The river is
flowing at a steady rate, say 3 feet per second. The swimmers race in the
following way: they both start at the same point on one bank. One swims
directly across the river to the closest point on the opposite bank, then turns
around and swims back. The other stays on one side of the river, swimming
upstream a distance (measured along the bank) exactly equal to the width of the
river, then swims back to the start. Who wins?
see for full detail
http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/109N/lectures/michelson.html
I've read this description several times and it hasn't sunk in yet I'm afraid.
Paul I am surprised that a person with your capabilities would allow
preconcieved beliefs to interfere with your thought processes such that you
fail to see the circular reasoning involved in the question and answer sequence
below.
Because Paul Walorski, unconditionally believed that the earth orbited the sun,
he presumed that as the MM experiment was inconclusive, and that there was
therefore no aether. Michelson concluded the same thing.
Would it not be just as reasonable to assume that there was no conclusive
result because the world was stationary and not orbiting the sun? ie no 30k/s
flow was detectable.
Simply put they said, because the result did not confirn the earth orbited the
sun, then there was no aether. To consider the alternative was impossible to
them, hence a null result is declared against the case for an aether rather
than a possible case for a geocentric universe. Can't you see how attitude
effects discernment? But Philip what you are saying is that rather than accept
that there is no aether, for which you can show no evidence, you are prepared
to overturn 300 or 400 years of practical astronomy, Newtonian physics, and
cosmological theory? All of which presents a coherent, accurate, useful model?
Isn't it more appropriate to simply seek another answer to the question of how
and why EMR propogates? I mean, if you can show that an aether is needed for
such propogation -- and thus far you cannot -- you might have a point. If you
can show that a lack of understanding of what gravity is -- as against simply
being able to more or less accurately
predict its behaviour -- somehow makes the Copernican/Keplerian/Newtonian
model untenable, you might have a point but of course again you can't.
Paradigms are overturned or significantly altered when some fatal anomaly is
demonstrated. They are not overturned because someone states that his pet
theory would be facilitated by such radical surgery.
Later experiments by Miller did establish an anistropy of light , which was
confusing as it also did not relate to the required 30k/s earth velocity but it
did show perhaps, that something flowed past the earth, that had a 24 hour
cycle. ..
( I say "perhaps" because figures are fudged [made to fit what is believed to
be obvious] to conform with expectations. By this I mean, that directions and
times were used that conformed with their expected, [believed] motions of the
earth. This is not true research, if other probablities are EXCLUDED.) I'm
confident that if a real possibility had been 'swept under the rug' by the
principal investigators, there were scores of capable contemporaries who were
not only ready but also willing to jump up and down while proclaiming this
subterfuge, in fact pretty much like you and your fellow believers are doing
today. Indeed it is my impression that the theory of the aether and its
presumed properties was not suddenly and violently, or even convincingly,
snuffed out. It died slowly as do all discredited ideas.
This is a common error to impiricism, that results in statements such as, "if
the tides are synchronised with the moon, then the moons gravity must be the
cause of the tides" Its the simplistic, but not necessarily accurate or
truthful presumption, given the cosmic extent of this particular demonstration.
An honest view would be to say the tides appear to be associated with the
position of the moon relative to the earth, and it may be possible that these
are caused by the pull of the moons gravity.
How about An honest view would be to say that current thinking is that tides
are associated with the position of the moon relative to the earth, and that
the mechanism is the pull of the moon's gravity. 'Current thinking' is not
arogantly assertive, but students need something less vacillatory.
Here again, (if you can momentarily dispense with the insistence on the
heliocentric position), because of the failure to detect a solar orbit, and
given such failure opens up a possibility of a non rotating planet, then how
can there be a positive aether flow with a 24 hour cycle? if the world is not
rotating. Philip I'm afraid that your customary eloquence has deserted you
here. I really don't know what it is that you are saying.
Once again, the "aether science" had postulated the aether as being a static
medium through which everything moved.. thus failing to conceive of the
possibility that this aether itself might rotate around earth central, such
being consistent with geocentrism, and the refined Miller results. [ you have
already been presented on this list with the link to the Adelaide University
page which used modern interferometry to "confirm" Millers results.] Would you
give me the reference to these results again -- I don't recall what that might
be and I certainly have not committed them to memory.
In my case, the aether is not an invention of necessity for me to explain
geocentrism. I long saw it as a necessity to explain "action at a distance"
exactly as required by Michael Faraday, when I was, like Faraday, a firm
heliocentrist. But Faraday towards the end was at the point of questioning a
moving earth when his earth conduction experiment failed to duplicate his
spinning disk dynamo. . I think that Clarke's First Law may be invoked here.
I'm sorry but none of the modern standard theories designed to negate the need
of a medium for the wave theory of propagation in a vacuum satisfy, and are
just as vacuous as their explanations, (varied as they are) to explain the
reason for gravity.
I bring this up to show that religion has nothing to do with my position, but
science alone, a science that is open to any possibility, denying nothing,
positive in humility not negative in arrogance. If someone asks me to look at
his perpetual motion machine, I will look for any weakness that makes it
impossible, whilst at the same time hoping and praying that it will work. That
is an entirely different way to the common approach of "its not even worth
looking at because I know it is impossible." Carried to the second degree, this
attitude would immobilise you -- you would have to check everything you say
against everything that you've ever said and then you'd have to check that you
know what every word you used means and then you'd have to check that what
every word you used to chech every word that you used still meant what you
thought it meant ... There comes a time when you have to show a little trust.
That aside, my impression is that you seem to
be more concerned with the laws of science than most here.
Come to think about it, thats the exact same way people manage to miss out on
knowing God, and His religion.
I am firmly convinced today, that it was when the aether became a threat to
heliocentrism, and Einstein's universe, that it had to go, and as it remains a
threat to the copernican theory of the universe, throwing God and the Bible
back into the discussion, it will never be accepted by that segment of the
scientific community. I'm not aware that a demonstrated aether is the threat
you suggest either then or now. Explanation?
Paul D
____________________________________________________________________________________
Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage.
http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html
Other related posts:
