Stationary Earth

Strangelove wrote:

Well, his model is wrong. Shifting reference frames cannot possibly alter any kinematics......PERIOD.

Tell him to prove it. Post a video of the model or something. Assertion is not good enough.

He's starting to lose face and its just gonna get worse if he keeps this up.

Post the quote from the Chicago university physics textbook that says bare observations cannot tell the 2 systems apart. Ask him if the book is wrong.

Ask him if an Earth that rotates one revolution every 24 hours with respect to fixed stars is equivalent to a starry universe that rotates one revolution every 24 hours with respect to a fixed Earth regarding what will be viewed by an observer stood on Earth?

If not, why not?

Will do. He says the kinematics are the same, and the observable stars are the same; but Earth's view of other planets is variable between Tycho and Helio.

I'll have him elaborate and post his model, and I'll quote the above. :-)

Amazing... All blanket denial of kinematics is utterly disolving. LOLzers.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:He says the kinematics are the same, and the observable stars are the same; but Earth's view of other planets is variable between Tycho and Helio.

That....doesnt.....make....SENSE!!

DUH!

If the kinematics are the same then they are the same!

He's starting to look like a tool now. Notice the others will never help you out even though they KNOW he cannot be right.

Comment on the expanding universe theory:

"Thus the theory might be valid provided the universe were packed with matter to the very threshold of perception. Nevertheless, the ever-expanding model of the first kind seems rather dubious. It cannot be ruled out by the observations, but it suggests a forced interpretation of the data. The disturbing features are all introduced by the recession factors, by the assumption that red-shifts are velocity-shifts. The departure from a linear law of red-shifts, the departure from uniform distribution, the curvature necessary to restore homogeneity, the excess material demanded by the curvature, each of these is merely the recession factor in another form….if the recession factor is dropped, if red-shifts are not primarily velocity-shifts, the picture is simple and plausible. There is no evidence of expansion and no restriction of the timescale, no trace of spatial curvature, and no limitation of spatial dimensions. Moreover, there is no problem of inter-nebular material" [today’s “Dark Matter”].

- Edwin Hubble, The Observational Approach to Cosmology, p. 63.

Newton on the aether:

"May not planets and comets, and all gross bodies, perform their motions more freely, and with less resistance in this aethereal medium than in any fluid, which fills all space adequately without leaving any pores, and by consequence is much denser than quick-silver and gold? And may not its resistance be so small, as to be inconsiderable? For instance; if this aether (for so I will call it) should be supposed 700,000 times more elastick than our air, and above 700,000 times more rare; its resistance would be above 600,000,000 times less than that of water. And so small a resistance would scarce make any sensible alteration in the motions of the planets in ten thousand years."

- Isaac Newton, Opticks, Fourth edition, 1730, Question 22.

Comment on kinematics:

"Now imagine that…the whole mechanism is picked up…and put down again with the sun fixed at the central position formerly held by the Earth…All of the geometric spatial relations of the Earth, sun and Mars…are preserved…and since only the fixed point of the mechanism has been changed, all the relative motions must be identical…the Tychonic system is transformed to the Copernican system simply by holding the sun fixed instead of the Earth. The relative motion of the planets are the same in both systems, and the harmonies are therefore preserved."

- Thomas S. Kuhn, The Copernican Revolution, 1959, pp. 204-205.

If I copy content from here, will it be traceable back to here? Does it matter to you?

Strangelove wrote:"...we can take either the Earth or the Sun, or any other point for that matter, as the center of the solar system. This is certainly so for the purely kinematical problem of describing the planetary motions......if we wish to consider the Earth to be at rest, it will be necessary to give an annual epicyclic motion to every object in the distant universe, as well as to the planets of the solar system. We cannot dismiss such a procedure simply on grounds of inconvenience or absurdity."

- Sir Fred Hoyle, "Nicolaus Copernicus", pp. 82-83.

Wait... Is Hoyle saying Tycho-Geo demands epicyclical movement in the distant universe?

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:If I copy content from here, will it be traceable back to here? Does it matter to you?

Not really, but I'd prefer it if you put things in your own words.

Strangelove wrote:

Not really, but I'd prefer it if you put things in your own words.

I've attempted to do that thus far. It's a weird new experience being coached. I was also wondering if the Wilderness site leaves a footprint for Admins there if I directly copied expert quotes.

Trying to be ethical and accountable. :-)

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:Wait... Is Hoyle saying Tycho-Geo demands epicyclical movement in the distant universe?

The term "epicyclic motion" I think is simply referring to a primary and secondary cyclic motion. With regard to the distant stars, their primary cyclic motion is using the sun as their reference frame [i.e. they are centered on/aligned with the suns plane of rotation] and their secondary cyclic motion is the one around the Earth which is necessarily produced if they are aligned with the suns movement. Same with the planets. Everything in the universe [except the Earth h'obviously] has a motion around the sun but also (because the sun orbits the Earth) around the Earth too.

If we look at the definition:

ep·i·cy·cle
n.
1.
In Ptolemaic cosmology, a small circle, the center of which moves on the circumference of a larger circle at whose center is the earth and the circumference of which describes the orbit of one of the planets around the earth.

OK now regarding the distant stars we have a larger circle (the stars), the centre of which (the sun) moves on the circumference of a smaller circle (the suns orbit around the Earth) whose center is the earth and the circumference of which describes the orbit of the stars around the earth.

It just means a cycle within a cycle basically.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:I've attempted to do that thus far. It's a weird new experience being coached. I was also wondering if the Wilderness site leaves a footprint for Admins there if I directly copied expert quotes.

Trying to be ethical and accountable. :-)

Oh copy the expert quotes to your hearts content man. Thats what they are there for.

G'night.

Revealed: The occult obsessions of Britain's greatest scientist Sir Isaac Newton




By Damien Gayle


Last updated at 3:10 PM on 16th February 2012





Broad interests: Sir Isaac Newton, whose studies included theology and the occult as well as physics, maths and astronomy

He laid the foundations of classical physics and is considered to be one of the greatest scientists of all time.

But Sir Isaac Newton was also deeply interested in the occult and applied a scientific approach to the study of scripture and Jewish mysticism.

Now Israel's national library, which contains a vast trove of Newton's esoteric writings, has digitised his occult collection and posted it online.

Among the yellowed texts is Newton's famous prediction of the apocalypse in 2060.

The quintessential scientist, Newton revolutionised the approach to physics, maths and astronomy in the 17th and 18th century.

He laid the foundations for most of classical mechanics, including the the principal of universal gravitation and the three laws of motion which bear his name.

However, the curator of Israel's national library's humanities collection said Newton was also a devout Christian who believed that scripture provided a 'code' to the natural world.

'Today, we tend to make a distinction between science and faith, but to Newton it was all part of the same world,' said Milka Levy-Rubin.

'He believed that careful study of holy texts was a type of science, that if analysed correctly could predict what was to come.'

To further his understanding, Newton learned Hebrew and delved into the study of esoteric Jewish philosophy, the mysticism of Kabbala and the Talmud.

For instance, he based his calculation on the end of days on information gleaned from the Book of Daniel, which projected the apocalypse 1,260 years later.

Newton figured that this count began from the crowning of Charlemagne as Roman emperor in the year 800.

He also believed that the geometry of Solomon's temple encoded ancient wisdom about proportions in nature and man's place in Creation.



Enlarge
Enlarge

Esoteric: The notes, held by Israel's national library, include Newton's notes on theology and myth



A depiction of the Coronation of Charlemagne as Roman Emperor on display in the Vatican: Newton used this event as the starting point for his calculations for the end of the world

The papers cover topics such as interpretations of the Bible, theology, the history of ancient cultures, the Tabernacle and the geometry of Solomon's Temple.

The collection also contains maps that Newton sketched to assist him in his calculations and his attempts to reveal the secret knowledge he believed was encrypted within.

He attempted to project what the end of days would look like, and the role Jews would play when it happened.

Newton's objective curiosity in Judaism and the Holy Land contrasted with the anti-Jewish sentiment expressed by many leading Christian scholars of the era, Levy-Rubin said.

'He took a great interest in the Jews, and we found no negative expressions toward Jews in his writing,' said Levy-Rubin. 'He said the Jews would ultimately return to their land.'





More...

• Darwin was right! Study claims life on Earth DID begin on land and not in the sea
  

But the university rejected his nonscientific papers, so the family auctioned them off at Sotheby's in London in 1936.

As chance would have it, London's other main auction house - Christie's - was selling a collection of Impressionist art the same day that attracted far more attention.

Only two serious bidders arrived for the Newton collection that day. The first was renowned British economist John Maynard Keynes, who bought Newton's alchemy manuscripts.

The second was Abraham Shalom Yahuda - a Jewish Oriental Studies scholar - who got Newton's theological writings.

Mr Yahuda's collection was bequeathed to the National Library of Israel in 1969, some years after his death.



Enlarge
Enlarge

They were originally owned by Oxford University, but were rejected by the institution and sold at auction



Treasure trove: The papers address a wide swathe of subjects including the geometry of Solomon's Temple

The library exhibited the papers for the first time in 2007, and now they are available for everyone to see - free of charge - on the internet.

The collection contains hundreds of pages of Newton's flowing handwriting on fraying parchment in 18th-century English.

Two versions in modern typeface are also available for easier reading.

A 'diplomatic' one includes changes and corrections Newton made in the original manuscript, and a 'clean' version incorporates the corrections.

All of the papers are linked to the Newton Project, which is hosted by the University of Sussex and includes other collections of Newton's writings.

The Israeli library says the manuscripts help illuminate Newton's science and well as his persona.

'As far as Newton was concerned, his approach was that history was as much a science as physics. His world view was that his "lab" for understanding history was the holy books,' said Levy-Rubin.

'His faith was no less important to him than his science.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2101960/Revealed-esoteric-interests-Britains-greatest-scientist-Sir-Isaac-Newtons-occult-theological-writings-posted-online.html#ixzz1n3uW5Gj5

ALWAYS ABOUT SOLOMON'S TEMPLE.

THE CRAZIES LOVE IT.

Hey, Doc...

Check out the thread. I'm now a self-worshipping arrogant sumpthing or other.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:Hey, Doc...

Check out the thread. I'm now a self-worshipping arrogant sumpthing or other.

Ok so the novelist oscar thinks he's worked out the mass of the sun?

SO WHAT?

It doesnt matter how big the sun is because Newtons orbital mechanics doesnt take into account the TRILLIONS of stars in our universe. If they dont think the stars have influence on our system, then ask them if the solar system revolves around the galactic centre...!!......if it does.....then WHY does it?!

Strangelove wrote:

Ok so the novelist oscar thinks he's worked out the mass of the sun?

SO WHAT?

It doesnt matter how big the sun is because Newtons orbital mechanics doesnt take into account the TRILLIONS of stars in our universe. If they dont think the stars have influence on our system, then ask them if the solar system revolves around the galactic centre...!!......if it does.....then WHY does it?!

OscarKipling is an agnostic and can only post in a few sections. He's cordial and intelligent; but has no idea what a paragraph is. :-D

I'm handling family business and taking brief stabs on my iPhone.

More on shrinking instruments:

"The explanation which had the most appeal in accounting for the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment was one that was literally dreamed up for the purpose. It is the so-called Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction. In 1893 Fitzgerald suggested that all objects contracted in the direction of their motion through the ether. He reasoned that if ordinary objects flattened out upon impact with other objects – a rubber ball hitting a wall or a ripe tomato dropped on the floor, for example – then why would it not be possible for objects that move through the ether to have the force of the ether push them in, or contract them? This would adequately explain the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. The arm of the interferometer moving against the ether would be shortened so that, even though the light wave travelling in that particular arm might be slowed down by the ether wind, this would be compensated for by having its path shortened.....

~

Objections to the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction hypothesis were rampant, as was to be expected, not only because there was no evidence to prove that such an effect took place, but particularly because Fitzgerald could not explain why objects would contract due to motion through the ether. The contraction hypothesis was originally advanced only as a possible explanation for Michelson and Morley’s results, providing such an effect existed. Then, too, the theory said that all materials travelling with the same velocity with respect to the ether would contract the same fractional amount. Since iron is much heavier and stronger than wood, for example, one would expect a greater contraction for wood than for iron, but this, too, went unanswered."

- James A. Coleman, Professor of Physics and Chairman of the Department of Physics at the American International College, Spring-field, Massachusetts, "Relativity for the Layman".

Objection to Sagnac experiment proving the aether exists:

"The Sagnac effect is perfectly explainable without lumiferous aether, as a matter of fact,the measurements would make no sense if there was one. It is caused by physical rotation, not aether. You change the travel times of the beams, in a calculable way when you rotate the device, it would not and does not match any effect of aether."

Next question:

WHY does the travel time of the beam change when you rotate the table?

The light SOURCE has also moved relative to the mirror, so its the SAME distance the light beam has to travel. No aether [relativity] theory says that the light beam will travel at the same speed relative to the source, so why doesnt it?

If there is no aether [in relativity theory], then the travel times of the beams WOULD NOT CHANGE because the light beam should be travelling away from the source at the same speed RELATIVE to the source, whether the source is moving or not.

Whether the table is turning or not, the fringe pattern should stay the same. The change in the travel times of the beams is DIRECT PROOF that the travel time of the beam is dependant on something other than the turn of the table, which is of course, the MEDIUM in which the light beam is travelling....the AETHER.

If this guy thinks the Sagnac Experiment is so easily explainable then why do you search Einsteins papers in vain for even a mention of it? Or the Mich-Gale experiment! Not a word. LOLZ!

I'm still out of state, but I'm checking both BF and here to be prepared to resume the topic when I return home.

Notice that GitRDunn said I posted too many quotes. LOL. Just wait 'til I REALLY start posting quotes.

I get what he means about the observations of the other planets from earth. He's referring to views from various places on a non-rotating earth. I think he built his model with incorrect base data, but I don't know how to determine that. Is there a YouTube of a correct Tychonic model? Otherwise, I'm not sure how to get GitR over the hump. Surely the Biblical Astronomer has addressed this and has a pdf archive.

Keep posting all the ammo possible. I'll be compiling it to the best of my ability. On my return, I'll start posting all the YouTubes starting with the 4 experiments.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote: Is there a YouTube of a correct Tychonic model? Otherwise, I'm not sure how to get GitR over the hump. Surely the Biblical Astronomer has addressed this and has a pdf archive.

Whats wrong with the online orrery here:

http://www.gunn.co.nz/astrotour/

??

Strangelove wrote:

Whats wrong with the online orrery here:

http://www.gunn.co.nz/astrotour/

??

Nothing, IMHO.

He's insisting his own modeling shows identical kinematics, but that views of other planets from, say, New Zealand or Chile or Scandinavia are different than we actually observe. He says Mars is visible longer than it would be in a Tychonic system.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:Nothing, IMHO.

He's insisting his own modeling shows identical kinematics, but that views of other planets from, say, New Zealand or Chile or Scandinavia are different than we actually observe. He says Mars is visible longer than it would be in a Tychonic system.

Well if he admits that the kinematics are identical for the two systems, then any discrepencies his model produces with respect to reality is true of BOTH models!

If his model doesnt line up with reality, then his model is wrong. Nuff said.

The models are identical. There is no difference to what you would see in New Zealand of the planets. It's the same. It would be the same if you made the system Mars-centric, or Halley's comet-centric.

Abstract

The Sagnac effect is analysed in both Galilean and Special relativity within a space-time geometrical model previously developed by Langevin and Post. The effect arises because of the different velocities of different light signals relative to the interferometer. The appropriate relativistic relative velocity transformation formulas obtained differ from the velocity transformation formulas of conventional Special relativity, the latter actually predicting that the Sagnac effect vanishes. The Michelson-Morley experiment is analysed using the same model and a nonvanishing fringe shift, albeit below the sensitivity of all such experiments performed to date, is predicted. The Sagnac effect for neutrinos of the CERN CNGS beam is also discussed. The Sagnac effect indicates that the ECI (Earth Centered Inertial) frame is a preferred one in which light signals have a speed close to c, in the vicinity of the Earth, as predicted by General relativity.

~

The final conclusions are that the ECI frame constitutes a physically-preferred reference system for light signals or neutrinos in the vicinity of the Earth and that the Sagnac effect is not correctly described by the velocity transformation formulas of conventional special relativity. There is clearly an important mismatch between what is known and applied by the engineers of the GPS system, and the content of the scientific literature and text books on Special relativity theory, that needs to be rectified.

LINK: http://www.relativity-myths.org.uk/jhfield/pdf/sagnacp1.pdf

"Whether the Earth rotates once a day from west to east, as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west, as his predecessors believed, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same. This shows a defect in Newtonian dynamics, since an empirical science ought not to contain a metaphysical assumption, which can never be proved or disproved by observation."

- Dennis W. Sciama, "The Unity of the Universe", 1961, p. 102-103

Dennis W. Sciama Wiki~

"He is considered as one of the fathers of modern cosmology."

Superb essay on Geocentricity/Tychonianism.

Deals with the science in a very easy to understand manner.

But at the same time terrific use of the English language. Highly recommended.