[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? 
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 
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 
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 
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.

Other related posts: