Geocentric Vs Heliocentric

I think it is important to warn oscar that he mis-citing papers dealing with QSO distribution, in a discussion of galaxy distributions.

This is a very long and involved issue,m so I would simply urge oscar to notice that his citations are in fact of QSO data.

I would also point out that Hartnett (2009) personally discovered a selection effect in the band pass filters of the SDSS QSO survey protocol, which rendered the QSO data useless in the SDSS survey.

The papers published by Hartnet/Hirano (2008) and Hirano (2010) have nothing whatever to do with these citations of yours, oscar.

I know it can get confusing.

But the state of play is that QSO periodicities must await the next galaxy survey, where the bandpass issue can be addressed.

The galaxy periodicities reported by Hartnett/Hirano stand unrefuted in the literature, and a 3d Fourier analysis of SDSS galaxy survey results by Hartnett is underway.

The QSO periodicities will return to the "red hot item of contention" status they have enjoyed for the past forty years when the next galaxy surveys start to report data back, in 2014.

Thanks Rick.

I wonder if you have any input on modified LeSagean gravity, which integrates the idea of a planck density medium?

Oscar seems to be saying it wouldn't produce the desired shadowing or attenuation effects.

Strangelove:

It is always amusing to me when someone says that a "firmament" or "planckton" or "Maximon" type push-gravity "couldn't" do this or that.

These are typically the same folks who insist that Nobel Prizes are deservedly awarded to folks who propose that nothing expands, based on the influence of "inflation", a "field" whose particle physics identity is never so much as speculated at.

Let's try and be as fan as we can.

We leave physics behind, and pursue metaphysics, whenever we talk about the mechanisms of gravity.

Newton's action-at-a-distance= metaphysics.
Einstein's curved spacetime= metaphysics
Firmament-type aether= metaphysics

The difference is this, it eels to me.

The firmament type theories have the advantage of offering a way forward, in the face of the (my opinion) falsification of Einstein's Relativity as a viable physics, based on its contradiction of observed quantum phenomena, and the falsification of its predictions of a Copernican space-time on the universe's largest observable scales.

I can only say that push-gravity models are being developed, they do answer several otherwise untenable problems, ands they dpi require much more development.

oscarkipling wrote:I dont think our systems are covarient at all at this point as there is an entirely different concept of gravity at work, which you still claim is based on a lasage type effect. until I can reconcile this effect as being the inverse of Helio I have no reason to agree with this notion of covariance.

Hang on a sec, lets get this straight.

The two systems are either co-varient or they are not. We are not talking about theories regarding specific mechanisms of gravity or anything else. This is a crucial concept to grasp. And a simple one.

A spinning Earth against fixed stars produces Coreolis, Eular and centrifugal forces. This just happens, regardless of theories. We observe the forces. )even if you label them 'ficticious' forces!)

Now watch......we are going to transform our stationary reference frame from the stars over to the Earth. Now the stars are rotating and the Earth is still. It's just a change in perspective. It's all relative! Do you understand oscar? Nothing physical has changed, only our reference frame. We still have the same forces. So if nothing physical has changed then we are going to have the same forces obviously arn't we? Regardless of how we think those forces are produces on a PhD particle physics level right?

Thats why Ernst Mach admitted:

...all masses, all motion, indeed all forces are relative. There is no way to discern relative from absolute
motion when we encounter them...Whenever modern writers infer an imaginary distinction between
relative and absolute motion from a Newtonian framework, they do not stop to think that the Ptolemaic
and Copernican are both equally true. (Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwicklung historisch-kritisch
dargestellt, eighth ed, Leipzig, p. 222, 1921).

oscarkipling wrote:again, I have no explanation for this, moreover I dont know very much more about it than the contents of that article, but I assure you that it will be one of my main personal investigatory pursuits.

I feel the rest of our lines of investigation are quickly wearing thin oscar. We seem to have irreconcilable differences over the theory of relativity which you are leaning on as a crutch to explain interferometry results even though you admit its nutty science.

This may be all we have left. Conclusions of the data that show general concentricity of galaxies around a central Earth, and also the CBM and its 'Axis of Evil'. I maintain these blow the Copernican principle out of the water.

oscarkipling wrote:Well, because recession in every direction can be described as expansion. You can reject expansion of space time on the basis that you find it personally ridiculous, but this is not the same as saying that it would not be a plausible explanation for the redshift observations.

Huh?

It's exactly the same as saying it would not be a plausible.

oscarkipling wrote:hmm maybe it does, but I'll have to see how this integrates with Geo's gravity.

Geo's gravity is the same as helio's gravity. We may differ on our theories on the mechanisms that produces it but its the same force/effect either way. So I dont see why its relevant?

oscarkipling wrote:a special relativistic explanation was soon found giving

So where is the explanation? Lets see it!

oscarkipling wrote:A correct application of the SRT solves the problem and recovers complete internal consistency for the theory."

So WHATS the correct application of the SRT? Lets see it!

You seem to be just quoting papers that say..."don't worry...Relativity takes care of it...TRUST US!"

oscarkipling wrote:not to mention a really good and in depth explanation here, be warned there is some math:
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm

If its anything like the previous two 'explanations' I doubt it would help your case. But I'll pass your paper on to a physics PhD and see what he thinks. He made a blog called 'mythpages'....lolz.

oscarkipling wrote:again, ignoring things on the basis of personal incredulity or subjective appraisals of ridiculousness is not a strategy for discerning the validity of a proposition in my opinion. I feel that this is a disagreement so fundamental to our respective positions that this line of debate can only stalemate. However I can suggest once more that you do read the book that Einstein wrote that I linked earlier if you wish to understand the fundamentals of relativity.

after some thought i've decided to link to a relevant section from the book about length contraction and time dilation. These are just excerpts but I'd suggest reading the entire book.

Ok I get it...you think space bends and time dilates. Even though you know these concepts are nutty. It's all you got.

oscarkipling wrote:So obviously he mentioned the effect, but I mean given your refusal to read the book, how would you even know if he mentioned it or not?

He never EXPLAINED the effect oscar. Big difference.

Question. If you were a GPS engineer and you wanted your satellite to work properly, would you be messing around with nutty theories on how space bends and time dilates...or would you just make a correction for the Sagnac effect? Your on a deadline remember.

Please be honest mate.

oscarkipling wrote:well, that's not what I'm saying at all. The fact that I see something that could be construed as an apple doesn't mean that I'm seeing an apple, I could be seeing a tomato or a pomegranate. The purpose of doing scientific analysis on the distribution of mass is to determine if the way it seems is the way it is. Now its fine that Hartnett did an analysis that seems to confirm this idea of quantization, doing analysis if a great way to differentiate intuition or pareidolia from objective features. However I still maintain that the method of analysis used by Hartnet was and is know to to be an inferior method of analysis for this type of data set. Its much better than just using vision as the arbiter of such things, but for my money I dont trust either of them to give me an accurate appraisal of the data.

So you dont trust your own eyes and you dont trust the newest peer reviewed papers on the subject, Whats left?

oscarkipling wrote:this is exasperating, fine, In the rotor frame , the light beam should see no rotation, however it does experience 2 paths that are of unequal length.

And the question remains....why?

oscarkipling wrote:All the papers i posted reach the opposite conclusion

See Ricks reply on how your papers are irrelevant.

strangelove wrote:Question. If you were a GPS engineer and you wanted your satellite to work properly, would you be messing around with nutty theories on how space bends and time dilates...or would you just make a correction for the Sagnac effect? Your on a deadline remember.

Please be honest mate.

Bingo.

So often it is the engineers who wind up uncovering the cracks in the theoretical foundations.

After all, the postulate of curved space-time is not an experimentally verified datum of science.

Indeed, since we can never observe from the photon frame, it is
by nature a metaphysical assumption.

The engineers, faced with the need to make it all work in the real world, simply cut through the theoretical fog and adopt the solution that works.

The astonishing thing- the thing that it takes years and years for the average person to even begin to believe- is that one alternative solution accommodates all of the observations of Relativity, as well as of quantum physics:

The earth isn't moving, is at the center of the universe, and a planck-particle aether (firmament) is revolving around it once per sidereal day.

The above statement is offensive to the modern mind on metaphysical grounds.

There is no scientific basis upon which to reject it at all.

To the contrary, if one strictly limits oneself to scientific grounds, the above statement is the only one consistent with all the observations.

Innit amazing?

Rick DeLano wrote:Innit amazing?

Ittis...totally, Rick!

Thats why when I first came to Jesus bout 3 years ago...this first thing I wanted to bring to the attention of my new brethren in Christ, was this very issue. It was THE issue that dragged me to the cross in the first place. I thought...if we can all get behind the truth of Gods Earth centred universe, it can be a FANTASTIC tool for bringing others to Jesus too!

They (mostly) like our atheist friends..simply......do NOT wanna know! And its all because of lack of research!

The heavens declare His glory, and heathen man....has attempted to strip God of that Glory using nutty science. All the devils work I guess. Under God's ultimate supervision.

Ho-hum. I'm sure God will reveal the truth for all to see when we get closer the end.

God bless Rick.

Rick DeLano wrote:I think it is important to warn oscar that he mis-citing papers dealing with QSO distribution, in a discussion of galaxy distributions.

This is a very long and involved issue,m so I would simply urge oscar to notice that his citations are in fact of QSO data.

I would also point out that Hartnett (2009) personally discovered a selection effect in the band pass filters of the SDSS QSO survey protocol, which rendered the QSO data useless in the SDSS survey.

The papers published by Hartnet/Hirano (2008) and Hirano (2010) have nothing whatever to do with these citations of yours, oscar.

I know it can get confusing.

But the state of play is that QSO periodicities must await the next galaxy survey, where the bandpass issue can be addressed.

The galaxy periodicities reported by Hartnett/Hirano stand unrefuted in the literature, and a 3d Fourier analysis of SDSS galaxy survey results by Hartnett is underway.

The QSO periodicities will return to the "red hot item of contention" status they have enjoyed for the past forty years when the next galaxy surveys start to report data back, in 2014.

While I understand that QSO distribution, and galaxy distribution are different animals it does not seem reasonable to me that there would be no relationship between them. That is to say that If galaxies fall within a frequency distribution , then so should QSO's if in fact there is a large scale quantized structure to matter distribution.

I can only find the abstract for hartnett's paper about the QSO selection effect in the SDSS data, but so far as I can tell it relates to analyses that find periodicity in QSO distribution, not that it shouldn't be corrected for, but I dont quite understand what prevents it from being corrected thus rendering all the data useless.

I do look forward to Hartnett's 3d analysis, I think it would go a long way toward confirming quantization if in fact this is what his analysis concludes.

Rick DeLano wrote:

The firmament type theories have the advantage of offering a way forward, in the face of the (my opinion) falsification of Einstein's Relativity as a viable physics, based on its contradiction of observed quantum phenomena, and the falsification of its predictions of a Copernican space-time on the universe's largest observable scales.

I can only say that push-gravity models are being developed, they do answer several otherwise untenable problems, ands they dpi require much more development.

outside of purchasing the book you mentioned earlier, is there anywhere I can learn about the work being done on these "firmament" theories?

You say that you see general concentricity in galaxy distribution dude.

You see it.

Hi oscar:

The QSO's were the first big bombshell in periodicity observations, way way back decades ago, when Varshni first observed them.

The battle went back and forth for decades, with Halton Arp and Burbridge and Erickson and Tang and Zhang flaming each other back and forth.

The SDSS survey was intended to provide us, finally, with a large enough dataset to establish once and for all whether the periodicities were there.

Long story short:

Tang and Zhang published their truly disgraceful 2005 paper (you cited it), and then Hartnett himself found the very bandpass selection effect which rendered the very periodicities he and Arp had been pointing out for years an inevitable consequence of the selection effect of the filters.

Please take a moment to think about this.

The so called "cranks" like Arp and Hartnett, the ones who reported these periodicities, were the ones who discovered the underlying systematic flaw that would necessarily implant the periodicities in the data!

Now stop and think about the absurdity of Tang and Zhang's claim that no such periodicities existed!

Bottom line: science at this point is well-into a metaphysical warfare over observations.

The mainstream is completely committed to its Copernican metaphysics. All data will be interpreted through the CP metaphysical worldview.

There is not the slightest trace of objectivity here.

It is, as it has always been, a battle of metaphysical world views.

It just so happens that the dominant, Copernican worldview is collapsing in the face of observations.

Strangelove wrote:
Hang on a sec, lets get this straight.

The two systems are either co-varient or they are not. We are not talking about theories regarding specific mechanisms of gravity or anything else. This is a crucial concept to grasp. And a simple one.

A spinning Earth against fixed stars produces Coreolis, Eular and centrifugal forces. This just happens, regardless of theories. We observe the forces. )even if you label them 'ficticious' forces!)

Now watch......we are going to transform our stationary reference frame from the stars over to the Earth. Now the stars are rotating and the Earth is still. It's just a change in perspective. It's all relative! Do you understand oscar? Nothing physical has changed, only our reference frame. We still have the same forces. So if nothing physical has changed then we are going to have the same forces obviously arn't we? Regardless of how we think those forces are produces on a PhD particle physics level right?

Thats why Ernst Mach admitted:

...all masses, all motion, indeed all forces are relative. There is no way to discern relative from absolute
motion when we encounter them...Whenever modern writers infer an imaginary distinction between
relative and absolute motion from a Newtonian framework, they do not stop to think that the Ptolemaic
and Copernican are both equally true. (Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwicklung historisch-kritisch
dargestellt, eighth ed, Leipzig, p. 222, 1921).

Strangelove wrote:
I feel the rest of our lines of investigation are quickly wearing thin oscar. We seem to have irreconcilable differences over the theory of relativity which you are leaning on as a crutch to explain interferometry results even though you admit its nutty science.

I've said that its counter-intuitive, and that its very strange, but not that its incorrect or countered by evidence. But you are correct, I do not believe that the Sagnac effect is evidence against the veracity of the theory, and is compatible with it. I dont believe I would call it a crutch, as its something that I feel is genuinely valid, moreover there are other lines of evidence that indicate that it is a valid, although probably incomplete.

Strangelove wrote:
This may be all we have left. Conclusions of the data that show general concentricity of galaxies around a central Earth, and also the CBM and its 'Axis of Evil'. I maintain these blow the Copernican principle out of the water.

As I said to Rick, once Hartnett publishes his 3d results I think I would find concentricity, and quantization much more compelling if in fact those are the conclusions that he finds in his analysis. I do not see why at this time i should be compelled by the evidence as presented in his paper. And as far as the axis of evil, i've said multiple times that its intriguing and i'm researching it, I dont currently know what it means and I feel I need more information on the issue. While I understand that you are convinced at this time, you must understand that iI am not, and I feel that a thorough appraisal of the evidence is in order before i draw any conclusions.

Strangelove wrote:

Huh?

It's exactly the same as saying it would not be a plausible.

then I must not understand your position, please explain it in detail. That is, redshift observations that indicate that everything outside of the influence of local gravity (local galaxy cluster) could be receding, why is expansion as an explanation implausible.

Strangelove wrote:
Geo's gravity is the same as helio's gravity. We may differ on our theories on the mechanisms that produces it but its the same force/effect either way. So I dont see why its relevant?

I genuinely dont see how it could be when the earth is stationary, and the gravity here on earth is caused by the motion of the stars. I mean I simply dont understand what is going on with the forces in the Geo system enough to say that they are the same, with a perspective adjustment.

Strangelove wrote:

So where is the explanation? Lets see it!

So WHATS the correct application of the SRT? Lets see it!

You seem to be just quoting papers that say..."don't worry...Relativity takes care of it...TRUST US!"

this is exactly why I think quote battling is not a very good way to go about this. I mean I didn't post those things as if there was nothing more to it, the intention is to have you read the source material not simply look at the quote.

Strangelove wrote:
If its anything like the previous two 'explanations' I doubt it would help your case. But I'll pass your paper on to a physics PhD and see what he thinks. He made a blog called 'mythpages'....lolz.

yeah, alright

Strangelove wrote:
Ok I get it...you think space bends and time dilates. Even though you know these concepts are nutty. It's all you got.

nutty but they do work....but still i suppose this is just a difference between our constitutions.

Strangelove wrote:
He never EXPLAINED the effect oscar. Big difference.

Again, are you basing this off the selections I quoted from a book, because there is an entire book around those quotes.

Strangelove wrote:
Question. If you were a GPS engineer and you wanted your satellite to work properly, would you be messing around with nutty theories on how space bends and time dilates...or would you just make a correction for the Sagnac effect? Your on a deadline remember.

Please be honest mate.

yes, I would mess around with the nutty theories because simply correcting for the Sagnac effect and nothing else would leave me with a less accurate, if not completely useless navigation system.

Strangelove wrote:

So you dont trust your own eyes and you dont trust the newest peer reviewed papers on the subject, Whats left?

Well, generally just more information, and thought, but Hartnett's 3d analysis is something i look forward to as well.

Strangelove wrote:
And the question remains....why?

well, i've tried to explain that, and I've linked you several resources that endeavor to answer that question....you should read them.

Rick DeLano wrote:Hi oscar:

The QSO's were the first big bombshell in periodicity observations, way way back decades ago, when Varshni first observed them.

The battle went back and forth for decades, with Halton Arp and Burbridge and Erickson and Tang and Zhang flaming each other back and forth.

The SDSS survey was intended to provide us, finally, with a large enough dataset to establish once and for all whether the periodicities were there.

Long story short:

Tang and Zhang published their truly disgraceful 2005 paper (you cited it), and then Hartnett himself found the very bandpass selection effect which rendered the very periodicities he and Arp had been pointing out for years an inevitable consequence of the selection effect of the filters.

Please take a moment to think about this.

The so called "cranks" like Arp and Hartnett, the ones who reported these periodicities, were the ones who discovered the underlying systematic flaw that would necessarily implant the periodicities in the data!

Now stop and think about the absurdity of Tang and Zhang's claim that no such periodicities existed!

Bottom line: science at this point is well-into a metaphysical warfare over observations.

The mainstream is completely committed to its Copernican metaphysics. All data will be interpreted through the CP metaphysical worldview.

There is not the slightest trace of objectivity here.

It is, as it has always been, a battle of metaphysical world views.

It just so happens that the dominant, Copernican worldview is collapsing in the face of observations.

well I wont speak on cranks or disgraces or biases, just not my style, however my questions remain. what prevents the discovered selection effects from being corrected for(also do you know where I can read the entire paper, as I only have the abstract at this point)? And Should there not be a relationship between the quantized frequency of galaxy distribution and and QSO distribution? Also where can I find some details on the work on the "firmament" theories you spoke of?

The effects cannot be corrected for because QSO's are much higher redshift objects- because they are so much "redder" than galaxies, they have to be observed through bandpass filters to allow the identification as QSO's, and the redshift, to be made in accordance with CP assumptions (it gets complicated, but the whole controversy with Arp is that he has observed high-redshift QSO's physically connected to low-redshift galaxies, which simply cannot happen in a GR, expanding, standard model Copernican universe).

The periodicities have been reported for decades as applying to both galaxies and QSO's, and also (if you would read "Galileo Was Wrong" you would see that it was the QSO periodicities that were noticed first- by Varshni, way back in the 1970's.

Subsequent observations have shown Earth-centered periodic distributions for:

1. stellar clusters
2. Bl Lacertae
3. GRB (gamma ray bursters)
4. X-Ray galaxies
5. Binary stars

The SDSS was intended to provide a sample size sufficient to test the periodicities, but the QSO portion of SDSS is tainted by the preferred bandpass selection effect, correlated to one of the prominent QSO peaks.

I cannot post outside links, but if you google "Selbrede Rebuttal of North and Nieto" you will find an excellent primer on firmament theories.

These are primarily being developed by Gerardus Bouw and Selbrede in the US, with work based on other premises being conducted in Russia by followers of Maximov.

I will try and get a copy of Hartnett's paper posted here.

oscarkipling wrote:I've said that its counter-intuitive, and that its very strange, but not that its incorrect or countered by evidence. But you are correct, I do not believe that the Sagnac effect is evidence against the veracity of the theory, and is compatible with it. I dont believe I would call it a crutch, as its something that I feel is genuinely valid, moreover there are other lines of evidence that indicate that it is a valid, although probably incomplete.

I feel we are at a dead end regardng relativity. Your contradictory stance has been exposed so I'm racking that up as a debating point to me.

oscarkipling wrote:As I said to Rick, once Hartnett publishes his 3d results I think I would find concentricity, and quantization much more compelling if in fact those are the conclusions that he finds in his analysis. I do not see why at this time i should be compelled by the evidence as presented in his paper. And as far as the axis of evil, i've said multiple times that its intriguing and i'm researching it, I dont currently know what it means and I feel I need more information on the issue. While I understand that you are convinced at this time, you must understand that iI am not, and I feel that a thorough appraisal of the evidence is in order before i draw any conclusions.

I feel we are at a dead end regarding galaxy distributions as you keep arguing the paperwork yet admit you see a general concentricity with yur own eyes in the actual raw data. Thats another one to me O-man.

(not that I'm counting or anything)

oscarkipling wrote:then I must not understand your position, please explain it in detail. That is, redshift observations that indicate that everything outside of the influence of local gravity (local galaxy cluster) could be receding, why is expansion as an explanation implausible.

Because expansion is counter intuative. It's nutty.

oscarkipling wrote:I genuinely dont see how it could be when the earth is stationary, and the gravity here on earth is caused by the motion of the stars. I mean I simply dont understand what is going on with the forces in the Geo system enough to say that they are the same, with a perspective adjustment.

It's the SAME FORCE dude! It doesnt matter how we think its produced, its the same in both models. I notice you didnt respond to the first part of my post where I explained co-variance, why is that?

oscarkipling wrote:this is exactly why I think quote battling is not a very good way to go about this. I mean I didn't post those things as if there was nothing more to it, the intention is to have you read the source material not simply look at the quote.

You picked your quotes, and they didnt support your position. Never mind. +1 for me again. Competetive arn't I?

oscarkipling wrote:nutty but they do work....but still i suppose this is just a difference between our constitutions.

Exactly. Your nutty constitution and my sane one. Sun as a giant lamp still works but its a stupid idea.

oscarkipling wrote:Again, are you basing this off the selections I quoted from a book, because there is an entire book around those quotes.

And I'm sure the entire book is just as shallow as the bit you quoted.

oscarkipling wrote:yes, I would mess around with the nutty theories because simply correcting for the Sagnac effect and nothing else would leave me with a less accurate, if not completely useless navigation system.

Oh I'm sure other things need to be done to make the navigation system work. Like uhm.....wiring, and soldering and stuff,,,,but you are deceiving yourself if you truly believe investing time in nutty theories is required of GPS engineers. They get the job done. Nothing more. They wire it up, tighten up the screws, and punch in the correction for the Sagnac effect (which they calculate by using the Earth Inertial Frame and ignoring 'relatavistic effects') and then they let her rip.

oscarkipling wrote:Well, generally just more information, and thought, but Hartnett's 3d analysis is something i look forward to as well.

Hmmm.....

oscarkipling wrote:well, i've tried to explain that, and I've linked you several resources that endeavor to answer that question....you should read them.

The long and short of it is....

Light beams that see (even though they dont have eyes) a peice of apparatus 'bending' (but not really).

Sod the aether eh oscar? As long as we got light beams with eyeballz who experience blurryness when travelling towards a rod thats moving at speed, then we're safe from the horror of a stationary Earth and a Holy God who blatantly PUT IT THERE!

oscar:

Go to the place you found the abstract and click the "available at arxiv.org" button and you will be able to access the paper at arxiv.org.

Here are some relevant excerpts:

"I show, re- gardless of any interpretation of the meaning of the redshifts, and aside from any cosmological as- sumptions, that there is a significant periodicity in the SDSS quasar redshift abundance data. But also the same periods are seen in the mean of the parameter zConf supplied by the Sloan survey people to flag reliability of the redshift. Moreover if one filters the data by the zConf parameter the peaks in the Fourier spectrum are enhanced. This proves that, whatever their cause, they are funda- mentally connected to the algorithm that assigned the zConf parameter and not to some intrinsic effect from the quasars.......


"Quasars are identified optically and their red- shifts determined from their bright emission lines. The parameter zConf was assigned as figure of merit of the confidence on the redshift....

"Fourier spectral analysis has been carried out on the abundance of quasar redshifts as a func- tion of redshift from the SDSS DR6 data release. The analysis finds that there are preferred red- shifts separated by intervals of ∆z =0.258, 0.312, 0.44, 0.63, and 1.1, which could all be harmon- ics of some more fundamental value ∆z = 0.062. However there is also a strong correlation with the zConf parameter used to flag the quality of the z parameter itself. Regardless of the algorithm used to determine zConf, this fact then strongly brings into doubt any validity to the argument that these periodic redshifts indicate preferred intrinsic red- shifts for the quasars in the Sloan survey. Most probably an as-yet-undetermined selection effect simulates these periodic preferred redshifts.

Just to reiterate, oscar.

1. Hartnett has determined similar periodic redshifts from sources *other than* the SDSS for QSO's. So have Tifft, Varshni, Napier, Burbidge, Arp, etc

2. Some of these determinations were made from non-optical (radio) surveys, which would eliminate many possibility of an optical selection effect such as Hartnett identifies in SDSS.

3. These selection effects have nothing at all to do with the reported concentric preferred galaxy distributions in Hartnett/Hirano (2008) and Hirano (2010). These galaxy distributions are not affected by the Z Conf parameter identified in the SDSS QSO protocol.

4. We will have new QSO data starting in 2014. I predicts, and would be willing to wager, that the periodicities will be found, even more strongly than they have been previously.

5. These periodicities will be found to correlate around the preferred value identified by Hartnett/Hirano for galaxy distributions.

6. Combined with Planck's expected confirmation of the CMB Axis, this will spell the end of the standard model of cosmology. It may take a decade or so for the news to reach us mere mortals, but as Max Planck himself famously observed:

"Science progresse funeral by funeral....."

I started responding to this blog here:

http://unsettledchristianity.com/2010/09/geocentrism-seriously-yup/#comment-438596

After Ed's comment I posted a reply, and it never got published. Interesting. Here it is, I saved it.

ED: "What drew you to defend geocentrism?"

Hi Ed!

Common sense!

ED: "If you’ve studied the Bible you must know about the passages that assume a flat earth, a multi-tier flat cosmos"

Neddless to say I disagree but I'm happy to just discuss the science of it if you like.

ED: "Also, if our earth-sun system is so special why do other stars have matter and planets circling them?"

Our star has matter and planets circling it too. Never denied it. It's just that the Earth doesnt, becuase its uniquely placed at the centre of the universe.

ED: "When we look at other galaxies (there’s over 200 billion per latest estimates) we see them rotating around black holes in their center, not rotating around a planet inside them. And our earth-sun system is nowhere near the black hole in the center of our galaxy, we’re nearer the edges of one spiral arm. Logically speaking, based on the vast amount of data from galaxies that we can see, galaxies do not rotate around a single star or planet inside them, especially not around planets in their spiral arms."

I've never seen a black hole, or anything rotating around them.

If this is your best line of argument, that our little system has to be the same as others that we observe...then it is a very weak argument.

ED: "Geocentrism also implies that every object lying further from the earth than Saturn’s or Jupiter’s moon is travelling faster than the speed of light, countless times faster in the case of the most distant galaxies, because the entire cosmos must circle the earth each 24 hour period. What kind of special properties and equations must one devise to accommodate those kinds of speeds with the actual fine line data of the speed of light from distant objects? Also, it makes mincemeat of the idea of the speed of light since everything, every particle, every wave, is already travelling faster than light simply by virtue of the fact that it lies a little further out in space than Saturn or Jupiter."

Speed of light is not an issue. The aether is doing the moving and carrying the objects embedded in it, around the Earth.

How fast are galaxies moving away from eachother in your system?

ED "Astronomers can measure the angular movement of the Earth relative to distant quasars to an accuracy of about 20 milliarcseconds, IIRC. There is a continuous program that monitors the Earth’s minute changes to its rotation rate"

They are measuring something but how do they know its the rotation of the Earth rather than the rotation of the aether?

Presupposition?

Wanbli_Tokeya wrote: In this geocentric model, what is your opinion
on the size of the sun and distance from the earth?

In my opinion....I dont have a clue other than...Sun = relatively big and distance = relatively close.

But I'm more than happy to take the mainstream figures as they dont cause the geocentric system any problems at all.

Ok, thanks

Strangelove wrote:

In my opinion....I dont have a clue other than...Sun = relatively big and distance = relatively close.

But I'm more than happy to take the mainstream figures as they dont cause the geocentric system any problems at all.

rodin,
could you introduce yourself please?
tell us about your beliefs.
are you a Christian? Mason? Deist?

I am a truth seeker with no affiliation whatsoever. Belief is the enemy of truth. Nonetheless I am drawn to Jesus.

Hi rodin,

I've moved this if you don't mind..the other thread is a research thread that I don't want debate on. We can talk here.

rodin wrote:God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.


16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.


Now then, this implies that light is independent of source, not something I have ever noticed...

What do you mean? Please explain why light is independent of source?

rodin wrote:And in fact the truth is closer to the narrative of Dissipation of the Darkness, a book of which you are aware.

eh....who are you talking to? I'm not aware of any such book?

rodin wrote:Have you thought of this interpretation of the MMX... The Earth does indeed rotate around the sun
(on the KISS principle, one area where Tycho Brahe falls down)

You would need to explain how a simplistic interpretation of MMX would lead to the conclusion that the
Earth rotates around the sun?

The only "interpretation" that I've seen that leads thus is extremely complicated and unintuitive.

And just because the Tychonian model is not the simplest, doesn't mean it's incorrect. Who said the universe was simple?

rodin wrote:the Aether is in fact centred on Earth, and is of a much finer construction than can be measured using such things as coarse atoms, atomic particles or radiation associated with such a scale of structure. If the aether is very fine structure, it can handle massively more information (more bits and bytes) and support vastly superior computing/intelligence. Furthermore although we cannot see it, it can project into our scale via the principle of subharmonic generation..

???

That's nice?

One point at a time. 

We do not see light. We see its reflection or its incandescent source. Light has to have a source eg stars, sun, your laptop monitor. Light cannot exist by itself ergo God cannot create light without also creating a source. Unless the laws of Physics do not apply, in which case we might as well say Big Bang.

Edit 

You see, the fakers of the Genesis story did not realise that the blue sky is in fact refracted sunlight.

Strangelove"It [freemasonry] was founded by King Herod Agrippa at the suggestion of Hiram Abiud, with the consent of Moab Levy, Adoniram, Johanan, Jacob Abdon, Antipas, Solomon Aberon, and Ashad Abia in the year 43 A.D. The original name of the ideology was the "Mysterious Force." All its founders belonged to Judaism." 

- G.S.Lawrence (a Jew), who claimed to be in possession of a Hebrew copy of the true history of Masonry


etc

From the Freemasonry thread

The book in question is Dissipation of the Darkness.