[geocentrism] Re: Point a) - the ether
- From: Sungenis@xxxxxxx
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 14:46:12 EDT
Regner,
Below is the reply from Dr. Bennett to your query about Cahill and the
parallax diagram. On the latter issue, Dr. Bennett suggests that I show you the
testimony from our book Galileo Was Wrong regarding the Neo-Tychonic model,
which,
if you remember from my post from yesterday, I did, indeed, already send to
you, at least from one section of GWW. I might add that, your ignorance of that
model to explain geocentric parallax is about as surprising as your
ignorance, pointed out by Martin Selbrede, of General Relativity to allow a
fixed earth
in a rotating universe, courtesy of Barbour & Bertotti, Lense & Thirring,
William Rosser, Hermann Bondi, et al, all of whose views and explanations are
included in GWW. If I may reiterate,you would have already had access to these
arguments (in addition to the sordid history between Miller, Shankland and
Einstein regarding the temperature effects of the interferometer experiments)
if
you had accepted the original offer to have a free copy of Galileo Was Wrong
sent to you over a year ago. The offer still stands, by the way.
Robert Sungenis
Dear Robert S.
I did cite a limited part of Reg Cahill’s Process Physics work in GWW; what
is described in your mail seems to be based on discussions on Nigel’s forum,
not on my GWW piece.
In GWW I said that Reg. provided a major contribution via his rigorous
analysis of the effect of n – index of refraction – on the measurement of c in
interferometers. RC proved that using vacuum and solid state media was useless
in
detecting luminal anisotropy. Being an absolutist(aether) rather than a
geocentrist, he could hardly accurately represent my/our belief with his
Process
Physics model. References to his Process Physics articles are for the
refractive analysis they contain - only. My apologies that wasn’t clear in the
prior
dialogue.
Let’s not assume that geocentricity is a well-developed and detailed mature
theory, or that we all subscribe to Process Physics ….reading a few forum
dialogues would quickly disabuse anyone of that rash assumption of unanimity.
I
myself prefer the term geostatist, which emphasizes my core belief, the
semantics of centrism being ambiguous.
The same lack of universal agreement is true of mainstream physics, which is
only united in its dogmatic opposition to a static earth. Almost all MS
physicists claim to be relativists, but relativity allows any choice of rest
frame,
including Earth??! Some relativists claim the Sun must be the rest frame -
to compute Bradley aberration, others like NASA say the Solar Barycenter is it,
yet others the CMB. Some use the laboratory frame, without realizing that it
IS the GC frame. (Accepting these logical contradictions in relativity is
part of the modern thinking in physics, I suppose.) .
Re Lorentz contraction:
My GWW section explicitly shows that no experiment has independently
confirmed Lorentz- Fitzgerald contraction; it remains an ad-hoc assumption,
unproven
since introduced a century ago. Most physicists know that geocentrism is based
on the Galilean group.
Re:
If you don't include Cahill's postulate then you won't have a cancellation of
aether effects in vacuum Michelson-Morley interferometers - no throwing away
of babies with bathwater. And as Philip also points out in _his post of
28/04/2008_
(//www.freelists.org/archives/geocentrism/04-2008/msg00140.html) ,
the logic is a bit strained. And two aethers - how does the light figure out
which aether to move in???
With no matter to detect and respond to the aether flow in the optical path,
the vacuum MM exp will in fact be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. RC
’s Lorentz contraction postulate is irrelevant – a red herring.
Phillip has chosen not to post my 4/28/08 response to his 4/28/08 forum postl
– so see attached.
There is an electromagnetic aether(EM) and a gravito-inertial(GI) aether.
Is it a mystery which one would propagate light – an electromagnetic wave?
From another email re the parallax diagrams for HC & GC:
The bottom plot, however, is NOT equivalent to a geocentric Solar
system, where the stars would be fixed (actually have constant
velocities) with respect to the Earth, and there would be no parallax.
There is nothing secret or Earth-rattling about that bottom plot.
Regner
There’s nothing secret about the plot; it’s been published.
There’s nothing Earth-rattling, because the Earth cannot be moved.
Psalm 92 ……. For he hath established the world which shall not be moved.
Please advise Regner to read the GWW section on the Neo-Tychonian model, in
which the stars orbit the Sun as secondary satellites of the Earth. Or he can
refer to the video clips on the CD. He is still using the discarded Ptolemaic
model.
In GC the stellar motion around the Sun, which is orbiting the Earth, is
equivalent to the HC diagram. After all, it’s just a coordinate transformation
from the Sun’s center to the Earth’s center which preserves angles. The stars
are centered on the Sun in the HC diagram; they must remain so in the GC
diagram. The Sun is the center of all the stars, as in HC, but the Earth is
the
center of the universe.
So there’s no problem with the diagram except the misunderstanding re the
application of the NT GC model. After correcting this oversight, it will be
good to have his support.
Btw: How the stars can be both fixed and moving with constant velocity wrt
the Earth must be another relativity exception to logic…
He is risen indeed – Alleluia!
Robert B.
From: Sungenis@xxxxxxx [mailto:Sungenis@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 10:25 AM
To: robert.bennett@xxxxxxx
Subject: From Trampedach to you, I believe
Robert B.
Astrophysicist Roger Trampedach, of the Geocentrism forum (that you vacated)
came back with this analysis of Cahill's ether. He addressed it to me, but,
after reading it, I believe he meant you.
If you care to respond, I'll forward it back to the list.
Robert S.
Robert Sungenis,
Let's attack this problem one issue at a time. I promise to return to the
other issues later. And let's start with R. Cahill's theory. Have you ever read
any of Cahill's papers? If you have, you would know that his theory is based on
the postulate that there is a Lorentz contraction - not based on the relative
speed between object and observer as in special relativity - but based on the
absolute speed of an object with respect to the aether. With all the
ridiculing of the Lorentz contraction in this forum, I'm rather surprised that
you
would accept such an explanation. The big problem with this postulate is, of
course, that it has never been observed and that it is pretty hard to come up
with a theoretical explanation for it. Let me contrast the two cases:
Cahill:
* a physical squeezing of any moving object.
* If we were on the bridge of the USS Enterprise, traveling at 99% of c
(speed of light in vacuum) we would get physically very flat (14% of our normal
extent)
- when we turned around to face away from the flight-direction, we would get
flat sideways - it would take of energy to do this, and deposit a lot of
energy in our bodies - and I believe it would scramble us quite a bit. Looking
at
each other at a 90° to the flight-direction, we would appear flat to each other.
* Laws of physics would be quite different there!
* Since it involves physical squeezing of objects, how can this effect depend
on the velocity with respect to the aether only - and not depend at all on
the material of the object? It would take quite different amounts of energy to
squeeze air and steel. And what is supposed to happen to the constituent atoms?
* How come we have never observed such a squeezing of moving matter. Again,
the energies involved would be rather high. And I shudder to think how a
super-sonic fighter-jet would handle, when you get different results from the
laser-gyroscope depending on which direction you are flying!
* The theory is constructed to explain away the null results of modern M-M
style experiments that find no movement with respect to an aether to
one part in 400,000 billion.
Special Relativity:
* The contraction only appears when there is a relative velocity between
object and observer. It is a kind of "perspective effect".
* If we were on the bridge of the USS Enterprise, traveling at 99% of c
(speed of light in vacuum) we would not get flat. We would only seem flat to
observers back on Earth (traveling at 99% of c, with respect to us).
* Everything would behave perfectly normal and we would be able to dribble a
ball in exactly the same way as back on Earth, and the replicators would work
as usual...
* The contraction is only a perspective effect, so it can easily (and does)
result in the same contraction for any material - no problems with atomic
physics here.
* The theory is a results of two simple postulates (confirmed by
observations!):
a) The laws of physics are the same in all inertial systems.
b) The speed of light in vacuum has the same value in all inertial systems.
If you don't include Cahill's postulate then you won't have a cancellation of
aether effects in vacuum Michelson-Morley interferometers - no throwing away
of babies with bathwater. And as Philip also points out in _his post of
28/04/2008_
(//www.freelists.org/archives/geocentrism/04-2008/msg00140.html) ,
the logic is a bit strained. And two aethers - how does the light figure out
which aether to move in???
I have interspersed a few other comments below and inserted divisions between
each persons
contributions - our mailing programs obviously handles replies differently.
- R. Trampedach
**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
Other related posts:
