A clarification from me. Steven, I will include your point about
   "Deviation from Newtonian gravity in mine-shaft experiments."
as part of your contribution. Please tell, me if that heading
covers your point adequately.

    Regards,

       Regner Trampedach
  

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Quoting Steven Jones <steven@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

  

  


Me in red.



Regner Trampedach wrote:

  Steven Jones,

  You thank me for my "...time reading this." - yet I haven't.
  

So you haven't read what I have said but you are
able to reply with supposed problems in my email, uhmm.


  At great expense of my time I did extracted the following
- your new pt. 3
- your clarification of pt. 1 (No Earth motion detected)
- that you have no idea of pt. 2 so I'll strike that unless you give
  me a summary of what the problem is.
  

Clarification can be found in "A New
Mine Determination of the Newtonian
Gravitational Constant," Nature, Vol. 307, Feb. 1984, pgs. 714-716)



  And then you have added a lot of rambling, despite your assurances of the
opposite, and evidence which isn't needed for this part of the discussion.
Why is it so hard to perform a structured discussion here.
  

I see the discussion is going ok, my response was
respectful and actually quite complete, considering the fact that if
"proofs" were obvious none of us would be here would we?



Steven.



  
      Regner Trampedach



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-


Quoting Steven Jones <steven@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

  
  
    

  
  


Dear Dr. Trampedach,



Firstly, please allow me to stress how much it's appreciated to have
you on-board presently, and I hope you will continue to be so when my
Father comes back from India, who is very scientifically inclined.
Thanks for the questions pertaining to my evidences, and please excuse
me for putting it into the wrong thread. I fear my literary command
is weak of late, and I shall resort to less rambling.



Before I attempt to answer your questions, I would like to have a
little disclaimer please. Essentially, I am not a scientist, although I
think perhaps logically and am a computer programmer, I'm also a
classical guitarist and orchestral composer with many feelings. Science
does not fascinate me much, and I'm much more willing to have faith
than require proof. God has given me some fantastic experiences in my
life which science cannot prove, but these experiences are known from
deep within me as being more certain than even the most established
scientific experiment ever devised. To me also, music is a great
revelation, and a means of _expression_ that could not exist without
design, having little or no meaning in evolution, which fails to
provide answers on every level.



"Music is a higher revelation than all of science and philosophy" -
Ludwig Van Beethoven



Death is an enemy of God and the believer, but it is an essential means
of continuing survival in evolution.



Next, for those of you who failed to see my list of five reasons
because I put it in the wrong thread, I shall include them below:



1. Michelson-Morley experiment failure

2. How pendulum's behave down mine-shafts

3. The van Allan radiation belts

4. No centre buldge on the Earth, as would be created in the early
rapidly spinning molten Earth "theory". The centre bulge of Jupiter is
clearly seen.

5. It predicts time and again successful spacecraft launches, sorry,
but NASA (disclaimer: I don't like them) even say themselves that they
use Earth as the centre of the reference frame.



If it's acceptable, I would like to substitute number three please
because I have not the time presently to establish for myself if there
is anything in this. My replacement is as follows:



3. The universe appears to be isotropic. Even the cosmic
microwave background radiation is also isotropic in regards to the
earth, thus not homogeneous, so no big-bang. Gamma-rays, quasars, red
shifts, BL Lacs, X-ray clusters, and galaxies all form concentric
shells around the Earth, suggesting that the Earth lies at the exact
kinematic center of them all.



Heliocentrists try and "explain-away" this fundamental even
distribution of the night sky by claiming vast distances, but then we
arise with a new problem, as yet unsuccessfully solved in this model,
the infamous "Olber's Paradox".



Regarding your question relating to the pendulums in mine-shafts, I
must say that I am not an expert in this field, but it is well worth
exploring. Martin Selbrede who is also on this forum may have much more
to say about it than I, being very technically inclined and a musician
too, wow! However, as far as I'm aware, there exists classical models
of gravity unique for geocentrism which predicts the change of behavior
in the Foucault pendulum when lowered into a mine shaft, while
heliocentrism with Newtonian mechanics does not. At first, that might
seem preposterous to question Newton's "law" of gravity, but in reality
it was only based upon a guess with the inverse-square law. My Father
also has a model of gravity different to Newtonian which predicts
exactly the same effects up until a point (somewhere in space above the
Earth), he is the best one to do the explaining upon this. In the mean
time, if your interested in Dad's model of gravity, he has written at
least one page pertaining to it here:
http://www.geocentricperspective.com/page83.htm



Since I have already mentioned Martin Selbrede, I would like to quote a
tiny fragment pertaining to this subject from his excellent rebuttal of
Dr. Michael Martin Nieto's biased paper entitled "Testing Ideas on
Geostationary Satellites". This paper came about because Dr. Gary North
hired Nieto, theoretical physicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory,
to analyze alleged fatal flaws and defects in geocentric cosmology from
the standpoint of an astrophysicist. If you would like to read
Selbrede's rebuttal, it's available for download from:
http://www.geocentricity.com/geocentricity/nieto.html



LeSagean gravitational theory is an important component in the
dynamical thinking of most geocentrists, excepting those who prefer
basing their position on general relativity. The theory has predictive
power, for the equations of attenuation make it clear that the shape
and orientation of an object determine the magnitude of force on it. In
the LeSagean theory, a barbell held horizontally is heavier than one
held vertically, and a feather will drop faster in a vacuum than a
small ball of lead &#8249; predictions that directly oppose the dynamics of
Newton, Galileo, and Einstein. Until the last decade, the predictions
of LeSage would have been laughed off the stage, until instruments
sensitive enough to detect such anomalies were pressed into service.
When these anomalies were discovered, modern science rushed in to
herald the discovery of some fifth fundamental force, termed
(erroneously) supergravity by some excited researchers. But they had
been beaten to the theoretical punch by more than two centuries by the
gravitational theory championed by the geocentrists. 



The peculiar behavior of pendulums just before and after an eclipse,
and within deep mine shafts, has likewise been troubling to the
standard gravitational theories, Einstein's included. Saxl and Allen's
pendulum measurements during the solar eclipse March 7, 1970 were
startling, and subsequent measurements by Kuusela (Finland: July 22,
1990 and Mexico: July 11, 1991) still reflected anomalous, though less
severe, deviations. (Cf. Physical Review D3, 823 and General Relativity
and Gravitation, Vol. 24, No. 5, 1992, pg. 543-550). Mineshaft
measurements of the gravitational constant evaded conventional analysis
(Cf. Holding & Tuck, "A New Mine Determination of the Newtonian
Gravitational Constant," Nature, Vol. 307, Feb. 1984, pgs. 714-716).
These anomalies were predicted by the LeSagean theory, not by Newton,
not by Einstein.



All very fascinating stuff.



Moving on to the Michelson-Morley expriment of 1887, it was designed to
detect the motion of the Earth through the ether. But no motion was
detected. The obvious conclusion is that the Earth was not moving, but
they did not even consider that! At the time heliocentrism was on shaky
ground until Einstein saved the day by "doing-away" with the ether
completely, however the ether has sound principles behind it and is
essential even today for fields of science such as radio theory.



I wrote 1887 because both Michelson and Morley went on to do different
experiments after their first publication in 1887, being determined to
prove the rotation of the Earth. From wikipedia:



Other versions of the experiment were carried out with increasing
sophistication, but with no success. Kennedy and Illingworth both
modified the mirrors to include a half-wave &#8220;step,&#8221; eliminating
the
possibility of some sort of standing wave pattern within the apparatus.
Illingworth could detect changes on the order of 1/300th of a fringe,
Kennedy up to 1/1500th. Miller later built a non-magnetic device to
eliminate magnetostriction, while Michelson built one of non-expanding
invar to eliminate any remaining thermal effects. Others from around
the world increased accuracy, eliminated possible side effects, or both.



Sorry to add another evidence to my list of 5, but Airy's
experiment should be considered too. This is probably better than the
NASA entry. From an article written by my Dad:



An experiment with a water-filled telescope was performed by the
then Astronomer Royal, George Airy (after whom the Airy disc of
diffraction theory is named), in 1871, which can be considered to be a
variation of an earlier investigation by Franįois Arago, performed with
a moving slab of glass in 1810.



Arago showed that either light itself or the luminiferous aether is
dragged along by a moving piece of glass. Fresnel explained the effect
by assuming it was the light-carrying medium (this is called Fresnel
drag). George Stokes explained it via compression of the aether, but
the important point is whether we can tell which one is doing the
moving - the light source or the transparent material. When Arago
investigated this effect with starlight, he concluded that the World
(with respect to which the glass plate was stationary in this instance)
was at rest and that it was the stars that were moving.



The experiment subsequently performed by Airy was first proposed by
Ruggiero Boscovich for testing James Bradley's heliocentric aberration
idea of 1728. This, in turn, was thought up to explain the elliptical
motion of the star Gamma Draconis, as observed by James Bradley and
Samuel Molyneux, over a fairly long time period commencing in 1725.



What was the result of Airy's experiment? Exactly the opposite outcome
to that predicted in the rotating-World scenario. (Note that the
experiment is usually referred to as "Airy's failure" for this reason.)



Just like Arago before him, George Airy proved that the World was
stationary and the stars are moving. It does not matter whether there
exists a luminiferous aether or not, because the dragging of starlight,
as demonstrated initially by Arago, is real, irrespective of how we try
to explain it. Both Arago and Airy showed that it is the stars, and not
the World, which move (although Airy did not actually go so far as to
admit this). In addition, we can say that Michelson-Morley,
Trouton-Noble and many, many others have consistently demonstrated no
motion of the World.



Airy's experiment thus does not confirm the World to be just a piece of
rock that hurtles through infinite space in who knows how many
contorted motions, as Mikolaj Kopernik (aka "Copernicus"), Johannes
Kepler, Carl Sagan, et al., so zealously maintained.



Thank you for your time reading this.




Best wishes,



Steven Jones.