Geocentric Vs Heliocentric

Page 2 of 7 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Geocentric Vs Heliocentric

Post by zone on Fri Apr 06, 2012 1:13 pm

hi oscar.

look this over if you want to. christians come to these conclusions independently.
i only speak for myself here, not anybody else.
http://www.fixedearth.com/nasas_spiritual_roots.htm

...
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentric Vs Heliocentric

Post by oscarkipling on Fri Apr 06, 2012 5:23 pm

zone wrote:hi oscar.

look this over if you want to. christians come to these conclusions independently.
i only speak for myself here, not anybody else.


...

I read it over, and several of the linked articles, but I found the connections pretty tenuous and ultimately unnecessary. I do appreciate you sharing that with me though.
avatar
oscarkipling

Posts : 245
Join date : 2012-04-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentric Vs Heliocentric

Post by Strangelove on Fri Apr 06, 2012 6:20 pm

oscarkipling wrote:well yep,then i guess we simply misunderstood eachother at first.

Maybe, and my conclusion to that little exchange is that it doesnt matter one jot if 'certain' types of aether model are not interchangeable with certain other theories of what space is made from. Space is still made of something, and I call it aether.

oscarkipling wrote:Are the properties of the aether mathematically defined anywhere that
you could link me to. Because it would be simple enough to test against
some general observations i imagine.

What would a mathematical definition achieve? Such a thing would only show that man can balance two sides of an equals sign within the parameters of whatever theory they are trying to support. I have no interest in maths. Only in observations.

If you can test observations of the aether against
some other general observations then go for it.

oscarkipling wrote:anyway in relativity in no way would you expect the movement of the
emitter to impart, reduce or in any way modify the velocity of light.
This is why when people are explaining relativity they usually say that
its not like a baseball thrown on a train or something like that. in
Einstein's model The speed of light is a constant its C, this is a
fundamental expectation in Einstein's model...that is to say that
photons cannot speed up or slow down under any circumstances. This
includes the movement of the emitter.

The distance between the source and the mirror remains the same relatively. Therefore relativity says that there should be no variation in the time taken for the light to reach the mirror.

There is a variation once you spin the table. This violates relativity and proves the aether.

Simple as that.

oscarkipling wrote:The Michelson-Morley experiment was designed to detect aether wind
through interferometry, if there was a static luminiferous aether, and
if the earth was moving in respect to it. This experiment failed to
detect this aether wind thereby rendering this particular model of the
luminiferous aether invalid.

The experiment failed to detect Earths 30mps movement through the aether. That was their aim, to detect Earths movement. It didnt fail to detect the aether. And it wasnt designed to detect the aether. They knew there was an aether, thats why they were devastated by the 'null' result.

"This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation... which presupposes that the Earth moves."

-
Albert Michelson (Albert A. Michelson, “The Relative Motion of the
Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 22,
August 1881, p. 125)


oscarkipling wrote:This experiment has nothing to do with the sagnac effect. He gale and
pearson went on to later to perform thier experiment which was a sagnac
effect experiment, but one designed to detect the rotation of the earth,
and had nothing to do with luminiferous aether.

Well, thats your opinion and regardless, they failed to detect rotation of the Earth too! Lolz!

oscarkipling wrote:again its not coupled to the source,and there is no expectation that it
would be within relativity because the speed of light is constant. While
the distance between the emitter and the detector remain for most all
intents and purposes constant, the light is not moving with the emitter.

Of course it is. When you throw a torch through the dark sky the light is moving with the emitter.

oscarkipling wrote:Einstein probably never mentioned it (cant say that I personally know if
he did or didn't), because its not really a test of relativistic
effects, outside perhaps the constancy of C, which it is completely in
line with. Your entire arguement hinges on a misrepresentation of what
Einsteins model predicts about light. which is that the speed of light
with respect to any observer is independent of the motion of the light
source.

Sagnac experiment shows the light is dependent on the aether.

_________________
"Gentlemen you cant fight in here, this is the War Room!"

Arrow IMPORTANT THREADS Arrow FORUM STATEMENT OF FAITH Arrow CHRISTIAN WILDERNESS BLOGSPOT

Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
avatar
Strangelove
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3142
Age : 42
Gender : Male Location : Israel of God
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile http://christian-wilderness-blog.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentric Vs Heliocentric

Post by Strangelove on Fri Apr 06, 2012 6:30 pm

oscarkipling wrote:aluminum foil is actually a pretty good shield for the type of radiation encountered in the van Allen belt.

Sooooooo....you really think they put aluminum foil on the outside of that craft??

_________________
"Gentlemen you cant fight in here, this is the War Room!"

Arrow IMPORTANT THREADS Arrow FORUM STATEMENT OF FAITH Arrow CHRISTIAN WILDERNESS BLOGSPOT

Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
avatar
Strangelove
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3142
Age : 42
Gender : Male Location : Israel of God
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile http://christian-wilderness-blog.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentric Vs Heliocentric

Post by oscarkipling on Fri Apr 06, 2012 8:03 pm

Strangelove wrote:

Maybe, and my conclusion to that little exchange is that it doesnt matter one jot if 'certain' types of aether model are not interchangeable with certain other theories of what space is made from. Space is still made of something, and I call it aether.
okay



Strangelove wrote:
What would a mathematical definition achieve? Such a thing would only show that man can balance two sides of an equals sign within the parameters of whatever theory they are trying to support. I have no interest in maths. Only in observations.

If you can test observations of the aether against
some other general observations then go for it.

well, I only asked for math so that I could understand and or derive specific expectations of what i could observe based on the aether theory that you are talking about here. that is to say, if there is some rigid definition then i could test it either with experiments, thought experiments or against agreed upon observations.





Strangelove wrote:
The distance between the source and the mirror remains the same relatively. Therefore relativity says that there should be no variation in the time taken for the light to reach the mirror.

There is a variation once you spin the table. This violates relativity and proves the aether.

Simple as that.

that is not a prediction of relativity. I mean you can literally look it up anywhere. The only time I've ever seen anyone suggest that Einsteins model proposes that light travels at C+v is with Geo proponents. Okay, can you explain to me what the speed of light as a constant means in relativity?




Strangelove wrote:
The experiment failed to detect Earths 30mps movement through the aether. That was their aim, to detect Earths movement. It didnt fail to detect the aether. And it wasnt designed to detect the aether. They knew there was an aether, thats why they were devastated by the 'null' result.

"This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation... which presupposes that the Earth moves."

-
Albert Michelson (Albert A. Michelson, “The Relative Motion of the
Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 22,
August 1881, p. 125)


okay, I can even give you that if there is an immobile luminiferous aether then the Michelson Morely results suggest that we are not moving in respect to it. Of course everyone thought it axiomatic at that point that the earth was moving. Therefore its only reasonable to suspect that the test was designed to detect the affect of the immobile luminiferous aether on light as the earth traveled through it. Not only can this be deduced reasonably as the purpose of the experiment from these facts, its also actually what the experiment was proposed to do. Here is a bit more of that quote you used which illustrates this:

"The interpretation of these results is that there is no displacement of the interference bands. The result of the hypothesis of a stationary ether is thus shown to be incorrect, and the necessary conclusion follows that the hypothesis is erroneous.

This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation of the phenomenon of aberration which has been hitherto generally accepted, and which presupposes that the earth moves through the ether, the latter remaining at rest."
Albert Michelson (Albert A. Michelson, “The Relative Motion of the
Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 22,
August 1881, p. 125)


Now having said that you can interpret the result to either mean that there is no immobile luminiferoous aether, or that the earth is not moving through it.






Strangelove wrote:
Well, thats your opinion and regardless, they failed to detect rotation of the Earth too! Lolz!

its actually not my opinion, The experiment that Morley, Gale and Pearson did was a Sagnac effect device and did in fact detect the rotation of the earth.

"The displacement fringes due to the earths rotation was measured on many different days, with complete readjustments of the mirrors, with the reflected image sometimes on the right and sometimes on the left oof the transmitted image, and by different observers. the deflections were averaged usually iin sets of 20, in the order which they were taken."

The Effect of the Earth's Rotation on the Velocity of Light, II.
Michelson, A. A. & Gale, H. G.
Astrophysical Journal, vol. 61, p.140







Strangelove wrote:
Of course it is. When you throw a torch through the dark sky the light is moving with the emitter.

no, the emitter is constantly emitting new photons, the photons are not moving with the emitter. The new photons are independent after emission, and their velocities are unaffected by the velocity of the torch, at best you would get a very slight spectrum shift, blue or red depending on if if its coming at you or away from you.


Strangelove wrote:
Sagnac experiment shows the light is dependent on the aether.

Maybe it would if the luminiferous aether free Einstein model suggested that the velocity of light was modified by the motion of the source, but it does not. Here is an excerpt from Einstien's "Relativity: The Special and General Theory." 1920. I would simply have linked it but the board says i need 7 days before i can put links in.

"
Of course we must refer the process of the propagation of light (and indeed every other process) to a rigid reference-body (co-ordinate system). As such a system let us again choose our embankment. We shall imagine the air above it to have been removed. If a ray of light be sent along the embankment, we see from the above that the tip of the ray will be transmitted with the velocity c relative to the embankment. Now let us suppose that our railway carriage is again travelling along the railway lines with the velocity v, and that its direction is the same as that of the ray of light, but its velocity of course much less. Let us inquire about the velocity of propagation of the ray of light relative to the carriage. It is obvious that we can here apply the consideration of the previous section, since the ray of light plays the part of the man walking along relatively to the carriage. The velocity W of the man relative to the embankment is here replaced by the velocity of light relative to the embankment. w is the required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we have
w = c - v.
The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c. 3
But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section V. For, like every other general law of nature, the law of the transmission of light in vacuo must, according to the principle of relativity, be the same for the railway carriage as reference-body as when the rails are the body of reference. But, from our above consideration, this would appear to be impossible. If every ray of light is propagated relative to the embankment with the velocity c, then for this reason it would appear that another law of propagation of light must necessarily hold with respect to the carriage—a result contradictory to the principle of relativity.

in view of this dilemma there appears to be nothing else for it than to
abandon either the principle of relativity or the simple law of the
propagation of light in vacuo. Those of you who have carefully
followed the preceding discussion are almost sure to expect that we
should retain the principle of relativity, which appeals so convincingly
to the intellect because it is so natural and simple. The law of the
propagation of light in vacuo would then have to be replaced by a
more complicated law conformable to the principle of relativity. The
development of theoretical physics shows, however, that we cannot pursue
this course. The epoch-making theoretical investigations of H. A.
Lorentz on the electrodynamical and optical phenomena connected with
moving bodies show that experience in this domain leads conclusively to a
theory of electromagnetic phenomena, of which the law of the constancy
of the velocity of light in vacuo is a necessary consequence.
Prominent theoretical physicists were therefore more inclined to reject
the principle of relativity, in spite of the fact that no empirical data
had been found which were contradictory to this principle.
"


Last edited by oscarkipling on Fri Apr 06, 2012 8:30 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
oscarkipling

Posts : 245
Join date : 2012-04-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentric Vs Heliocentric

Post by oscarkipling on Fri Apr 06, 2012 8:12 pm

Strangelove wrote:

Sooooooo....you really think they put aluminum foil on the outside of that craft??

well, it wasn't precisely Reynolds wrap, but definitely thin enough to fit into the foil category...actually maybe thinner than consumer grade foil. Anyway it was Mylar, which is a type of metalized plastic, gold and or aluminum is the metal used.
avatar
oscarkipling

Posts : 245
Join date : 2012-04-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentric Vs Heliocentric

Post by Strangelove on Fri Apr 06, 2012 8:55 pm

oscarkipling wrote:well, I only asked for math so that I could understand and or derive
specific expectations of what i could observe based on the aether theory
that you are talking about here. that is to say, if there is some rigid
definition then i could test it either with experiments, thought
experiments or against agreed upon observations.

Lol...oscar....whatever math I came up with, necessarily must be correct....and must tally up with agreed upon observations. So whats the point?

Lets say the agreed upon observation is...uhm....5.

I could give you 2+3.

I could give you 4+1.

I could give you 10-5.

etc etc etc.

I cant give you anything that wouldnt give us the right observation.

So whats the point my friend? Really?

All the above equations are correct to give us the observation but which one is right?

oscarkipling wrote:that is not a prediction of relativity. I mean you can literally look it
up anywhere. The only time I've ever seen anyone suggest that Einsteins
model proposes that light travels at C+v is with Geo proponents. Okay,
can you explain to me what the speed of light as a constant means in
relativity?

It's the basis of the theory.

And even its main proponent, Alberto himself...says its not even a solid assumption.

oscarkipling wrote:okay, I can even give you that if there is an immobile luminiferous
aether then the Michelson Morely results suggest that we are not moving
in respect to it. Of course everyone thought it axiomatic at that point
that the earth was moving. Therefore its only reasonable to suspect that
the test was designed to detect the affect of the immobile luminiferous
aether on light as the earth traveled through it. Not only can this be
deduced reasonably as the purpose of the experiment from these facts,
its also actually what the experiment was proposed to do. Here is a bit
more of that quote you used which illustrates this:

"The
interpretation of these results is that there is no displacement of the
interference bands. The result of the hypothesis of a stationary ether
is thus shown to be incorrect, and the necessary conclusion follows that
the hypothesis is erroneous.

This conclusion directly
contradicts the explanation of the phenomenon of aberration which has
been hitherto generally accepted, and which presupposes that the earth
moves through the ether, the latter remaining at rest."
Albert Michelson (Albert A. Michelson, “The Relative Motion of the
Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 22,
August 1881, p. 125)


Now
having said that you can interpret the result to either mean that there
is no immobile luminiferoous aether, or that the earth is not moving
through it.

OR BOTH!

There is a MOBILE luminiferoous aether AND the earth is not moving
through it.

no, the emitter is constantly emitting new photons, the photons are not
moving with the emitter. The new photons are independent after emission,
and their velocities are unaffected by the velocity of the torch, at
best you would get a very slight spectrum shift, blue or red depending
on if if its coming at you or away from you.

The light travels at the same speed relative to the source whether the source is moving or not. Thats the bottom line bud. Thats what relativity says, and its proved wrong by this simple experiment. The fringe patterns should stay the same, they do not. So the light is controlled by the medium.

oscarkipling wrote:its actually not my opinion, The experiment that Morley, Gale and
Pearson did was a Sagnac effect device and did in fact detect the
rotation of the earth.

"The displacement fringes due to the
earths rotation was measured on many different days, with complete
readjustments of the mirrors, with the reflected image sometimes on the
right and sometimes on the left oof the transmitted image, and by
different observers. the deflections were averaged usually iin sets of
20, in the order which they were taken."

The Effect of the Earth's Rotation on the Velocity of Light, II.
Michelson, A. A. & Gale, H. G.
Astrophysical Journal, vol. 61, p.140

OR they detected the MOBILE aether.

See how this works buddy? All your proffs for a spinning Earth are also proofs of a static Earth and a spinning universe.

oscarkipling wrote:Maybe it would if the luminiferous aether free Einstein model suggested
that the velocity of light was modified by the motion of the source, but
it does not

Einstein himself said that space without the aether is unthinkable.

"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the General Theory of Relativity space is endowed
with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an Aether. According to the General
Theory of Relativity space without Aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be
no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time
(measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.


[and then covering himself against the horrible implications of this statement.....]

"But this
Aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as
consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."


[of course he must say that this aether which MUST exist doesn't necessarily spin aroud the Earth...cuz...that....erm, means that all these experiments prove the Earth is stationary]

_________________
"Gentlemen you cant fight in here, this is the War Room!"

Arrow IMPORTANT THREADS Arrow FORUM STATEMENT OF FAITH Arrow CHRISTIAN WILDERNESS BLOGSPOT

Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
avatar
Strangelove
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3142
Age : 42
Gender : Male Location : Israel of God
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile http://christian-wilderness-blog.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentric Vs Heliocentric

Post by oscarkipling on Fri Apr 06, 2012 9:55 pm

Strangelove wrote:
Lol...oscar....whatever math I came up with, necessarily must be correct....and must tally up with agreed upon observations. So whats the point?

Lets say the agreed upon observation is...uhm....5.

I could give you 2+3.

I could give you 4+1.

I could give you 10-5.

etc etc etc.

I cant give you anything that wouldnt give us the right observation.

So whats the point my friend? Really?

All the above equations are correct to give us the observation but which one is right?

maybe, maybe not, but I'd like to work through the math myself.



Strangelove wrote:
It's the basis of the theory.

And even its main proponent, Alberto himself...says its not even a solid assumption.

whether or not Einstein felt it was a solid assumption, it is fundamental to the theory, which was my point.


Strangelove wrote:
OR BOTH!

There is a MOBILE luminiferoous aether AND the earth is not moving
through it.

No, The null result can only be interpreted as the earth is moving but there is no immobile lumenifrous aether, or that there is an immobile luminiferous aether but the earth is not moving in respect to it. If the lumeniferous aether is moving at 30kmps that would have given the
same result as if the earth were moving through a immobile aether at at
30kmps i.e a fringe pattern.



Strangelove wrote:
The light travels at the same speed relative to the source whether the source is moving or not. Thats the bottom line bud. Thats what relativity says, and its proved wrong by this simple experiment. The fringe patterns should stay the same, they do not. So the light is controlled by the medium.

Okay, let me try this. Does the theory of relativity propose that light ever travels at C+v or C-v?




Strangelove wrote:
OR they detected the MOBILE aether.

See how this works buddy? All your proofs for a spinning Earth are also proofs of a static Earth and a spinning universe.

nope, The results do indeed match up with a rotation of the earth at +/- 1600kph, or could be explained as aether rotating at that rate, but this motion alone wouldn't explain apparent motion of the sun and planets. For instance it would not explain why it appears that we are traveling around the sun at 30kps


Strangelove wrote:

Einstein himself said that space without the aether is unthinkable.

"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the General Theory of Relativity space is endowed
with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an Aether. According to the General
Theory of Relativity space without Aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be
no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time
(measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.


[and then covering himself against the horrible implications of this statement.....]

"But this
Aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as
consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."


[of course he must say that this aether which MUST exist doesn't necessarily spin aroud the Earth...cuz...that....erm, means that all these experiments prove the Earth is stationary]

This is a different aether with different properties that Einstein is talking about which couldnt be tested with the michleson morely experimental setup anyway, you would still get a null result. If Einsteins aether were rotating you would test through gravitational effects, you would expect perhaps some directionality to gravitational lensing...which is testable, but it is a different test.
avatar
oscarkipling

Posts : 245
Join date : 2012-04-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentric Vs Heliocentric

Post by zone on Sat Apr 07, 2012 5:49 pm

hi oscar.
i get that you want to just to do math and theory on this stuff.
that's fine. but i can't really go beyond what i've already posted.

i'm quite curious as to why you're just skipping over the organizations and people (NASA/Nazis/Masons) that are running the community.....do they make you a little suspicious?

zone


Last edited by zone on Sat Apr 07, 2012 8:45 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentric Vs Heliocentric

Post by oscarkipling on Sat Apr 07, 2012 7:10 pm

[quote="zone"]hi oscar.
hi oscar.
i get that you want to just to math and theory on this stuff.
that's fine. but i can't really go beyond what i've already posted.

i'm
quite curious as to why you're just skipping over the organizations and
people (NASA/Nazis/Masons) that are running the community.....do they
make you a little suspicious?





Well, its common knowledge that pretty much all modern rocket technology was pioneered in part by Nazi scientists, and that the soviet and american space programs (and by that influence all space programs) relied heavily on "defected" Nazi scientists. Simply put, they were the best rocket scientists in the world. This is not something that was ever covered up in my lifetime, i've known about this since I was a small child. Its also pretty common knowledge that Nazi ideology was(is) equal parts weird and despicable. The fact that Nazi scientist held personal beliefs that were atrocious does not make their scientific discoveries any less real or useful. The science of rocketry and physics is necessarily divorced from Nazi ideology, or any sort of ideaology, because its not about ideology rockets have no opinions. I suppose you put forth the Nazi connection as if I should believe that since they were generally evil, that they also couldn't do correct science. That is not a logical assumption imo. The science simply works, moreover its actually not so complicated that average people can understand and work it out for themselves. There is nothing magical about the way rockets or solar cells or nuclear energy or radiation shielding or gravity or robotics or telescopes work,so, NASA could be evil, making evil plans to destroy us all, but if
they are they are doing it with very real and true science and math. Its not that I'm ignoring your accusations, its just that they do not affect the veracity of the science behind satellites or space exploration in general.


Last edited by oscarkipling on Sat Apr 07, 2012 7:11 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
oscarkipling

Posts : 245
Join date : 2012-04-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentric Vs Heliocentric

Post by Strangelove on Sat Apr 07, 2012 7:10 pm

oscarkipling wrote:maybe, maybe not, but I'd like to work through the math myself.

Have you ever worked through the math for the expanding universe?

It doesnt work. So they made up a fudge factor called 'Dark matter' to make it work.

So whats the point? Even if the math doesnt work, you just invent fudge.

I'm not interested in math. If your interested I suggest you look around the internet for a mathmatical model for the geocentric aether that you can analyze to your hearts content. But remember, you can never prove it wrong if we take into account mysterious fudge factors.

oscarkipling wrote:whether or not Einstein felt it was a solid assumption, it is fundamental to the theory, which was my point.

That was my point too. And the theory is funamentally wobbly.

oscarkipling wrote:No, The null result can only be interpreted as the earth is moving but
there is no immobile lumenifrous aether, or that there is an immobile
luminiferous aether but the earth is not moving in respect to it.

LOL! It can only be interpreted like that if the idea of a stationary Earth in a moving aether is a horror to you!

oscarkipling wrote:
If the
lumeniferous aether is moving at 30kmps that would have given the same result as if the earth were moving through a immobile aether at at 30kmps i.e a fringe pattern.

They did get a fringe pattern...the 'null' results of the experiment were not zero. They called it 'null' because it nullified their hypothesis that the earth moved at 30kmps. They picked up results of between 0 and 10 kmps. Which cant be the Earth moving.

oscarkipling wrote:Okay, let me try this. Does the theory of relativity propose that light ever travels at C+v or C-v?

I dunno why dont you tell me?

oscarkipling wrote:nope, The results do indeed match up with a rotation of the earth at +/-
1600kph, or could be explained as aether rotating at that rate, but
this motion alone wouldn't explain apparent motion of the sun and
planets. For instance it would not explain why it appears that we are
traveling around the sun at 30kps

It DOESNT appear that we are
traveling around the sun at 30kps. It appears that the sun is travelling around us every 24 hours. This motion is explained perfectly by an aether that spins around the Earth once every 24 hours.

oscarkipling wrote:This is a different aether with different properties that Einstein is
talking about which couldnt be tested with the michleson morely
experimental setup anyway, you would still get a null result. If
Einsteins aether were rotating you would test through gravitational
effects, you would expect perhaps some directionality to gravitational
lensing...which is testable, but it is a different test.

You would expect GRAVITY in fact....which is the effect that is produced on Earth is Gods marvellous geocentric universe.

_________________
"Gentlemen you cant fight in here, this is the War Room!"

Arrow IMPORTANT THREADS Arrow FORUM STATEMENT OF FAITH Arrow CHRISTIAN WILDERNESS BLOGSPOT

Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
avatar
Strangelove
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3142
Age : 42
Gender : Male Location : Israel of God
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile http://christian-wilderness-blog.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentric Vs Heliocentric

Post by oscarkipling on Sat Apr 07, 2012 8:52 pm

Strangelove wrote:
Have you ever worked through the math for the expanding universe?

Yes.

Strangelove wrote:

It doesnt work. So they made up a fudge factor called 'Dark matter' to make it work.

there are quite a few things wrong with this, i'll explain. In Einsteins model an expanding universe is one of the predictions that come out, however at the time it was believed that the universe was static. Einstein put his cosmological constant in his equations in order to counter the expansion that was predicted. Eventually when it was observed that the universe does indeed appear to be expanding he recanted calling it his biggest blunder. That I think could rightfully be called a fudge factor. Dark matter is something else entirely, that is postulated for entirely different reasons, that is to say that that there appears to be more mass in galaxies than we can actually visually account for. perhaps you meant to say dark energy, which is energy postulated to be driving the observed acceleration of the expansion of the universe. Either way you look at it, dark energy and dark matter were not introduced in order to make the math of the expanding universe work, they were introduced due to observations.


Strangelove wrote:
So whats the point? Even if the math doesnt work, you just invent fudge.

I'd rather you didn't suggest that I'd just make stuff up in order to be right, I dont believe I would and I dont think I've given you any reason to believe I would either.


Strangelove wrote:
I'm not interested in math. If your interested I suggest you look around the internet for a mathmatical model for the geocentric aether that you can analyze to your hearts content. But remember, you can never prove it wrong if we take into account mysterious fudge factors.

Yes, I'll continue to look for that, I just assumed that you could point me to it or supply it yourself, my mistake. I understand your distrust of math, and how it can be manipulated in many ways to trick people...but that seems all the more reason to familiarize yourself with it.



Strangelove wrote:
That was my point too. And the theory is funamentally wobbly.

but see I brought this whole thing up because earlier you were arguing that Einsteins model predicts that light will move at C + the speed of the source,and his model is thereby contradicted with the Sagnac effect. I argued that this was not a prediction of his model, and the Sagnac effect is perfectly inline with the predictions of lights behavior, that is it does not change speed relative to the source (C+-v). Now we seem to agree that Einstein's model does in fact predict that C+V is not possible, but this renders your argument about the Sagnac effect untenable. Is this true or have I missed something?


Strangelove wrote:
LOL! It can only be interpreted like that if the idea of a stationary Earth in a moving aether is a horror to you!

I dont know why you would say this, did I give you the impression that I find a stationary earth horrifying? Anyway, I explained why I believe you cannot interpret it as a mobile aether moving at 30kps and a stationary earth.....which had nothing to do with horror.


Strangelove wrote:
They did get a fringe pattern...the 'null' results of the experiment were not zero. They called it 'null' because it nullified their hypothesis that the earth moved at 30kmps. They picked up results of between 0 and 10 kmps. Which cant be the Earth moving.


You're right I should have been more specific, they should have gotten the expected fringe pattern instead of a fringe pattern that fits well within the margin of error. The hypothesis, as we went through earlier was not that the earth moved, this was taken to be true, the hypothesis was that the luminiferous aether existed and was immobile. But I believe that I understand now, you believe that the aether is moving at something like 1600kph which would be undetectable by such a small device.


Strangelove wrote:
I dunno why dont you tell me?

I have multiple times, the answer is no. therefore the Sagnac effect is explicable and expected in Einsteins model.

Strangelove wrote:
It DOESNT appear that we are
traveling around the sun at 30kps. It appears that the sun is travelling around us every 24 hours. This motion is explained perfectly by an aether that spins around the Earth once every 24 hours.

okay I see your point i'll go with it. a 1600kph motion doesn't even explain the apparent motion you are talking about. I know you dont necessarily respect math,so i'll use as little as possible. The sun is 150 million km from the earth, if we assume a perfectly circular orbit, that's 942 million km the sun would have to traverse every 24 hours. which means it would have to move at something like 39 million kph, 1600kph just isn't enough speed.


Strangelove wrote:
You would expect GRAVITY in fact....which is the effect that is produced on Earth is Gods marvellous geocentric universe.

I dont quite understand, can you explain this?


Last edited by oscarkipling on Sat Apr 07, 2012 11:14 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
oscarkipling

Posts : 245
Join date : 2012-04-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentric Vs Heliocentric

Post by zone on Sat Apr 07, 2012 9:00 pm

oscarkipling wrote:Well, its common knowledge that pretty much all modern rocket technology was pioneered in part by Nazi scientists, and that the soviet and american space programs (and by that influence all space programs) relied heavily on "defected" Nazi scientists. Simply put, they were the best rocket scientists in the world. This is not something that was ever covered up in my lifetime, i've known about this since I was a small child. Its also pretty common knowledge that Nazi ideology was(is) equal parts weird and despicable. The fact that Nazi scientist held personal beliefs that were atrocious does not make their scientific discoveries any less real or useful. The science of rocketry and physics is necessarily divorced from Nazi ideology, or any sort of ideaology, because its not about ideology rockets have no opinions. I suppose you put forth the Nazi connection as if I should believe that since they were generally evil, that they also couldn't do correct science. That is not a logical assumption imo. The science simply works, moreover its actually not so complicated that average people can understand and work it out for themselves. There is nothing magical about the way rockets or solar cells or nuclear energy or radiation shielding or gravity or robotics or telescopes work,so, NASA could be evil, making evil plans to destroy us all, but if
they are they are doing it with very real and true science and math. Its not that I'm ignoring your accusations, its just that they do not affect the veracity of the science behind satellites or space exploration in general.

no oscar.
what i'm getting at is....is it just a coincidence that nazis (theosophists) and freemasons (alchemists and magicians) are at the helm of the sciences today?

i won't go into who controls our universities, but the point is this: is 'the big bang/oh what a huge expanding universe that happened by accident' crowd in any way related to the theosophist/kabbalistic/masonic crowd?

answer: of course! same guys.

so the next things is, what is the agenda of those guys and how could they be directing 'science' to accomplish it?

by ignoring the roots of our modern "space programs", theoretical sciences, etc. i think you're deliberatley trying to by-pass what i'm getting at.

anyways...are you at all familiar with esoterica?

isaac newton was an alchemist extraordinaire (and not the "i'm gonna turn lead into gold" kind).

do you understand what i'm asking oscar?
there are a couple of things those guys have in common. if we know what they are, we know their agenda.

if we know their agenda we can follow their movements. if we can follow their movements, we know what they are doing right now and why. its really kinda simple from there.
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentric Vs Heliocentric

Post by oscarkipling on Sat Apr 07, 2012 9:37 pm

zone wrote:
no oscar.
what i'm getting at is....is it just a coincidence that nazis (theosophists) and freemasons (alchemists and magicians) are at the helm of the sciences today?

I dont know this to be true.

zone wrote:
i won't go into who controls our universities, but the point is this: is 'the big bang/oh what a huge expanding universe that happened by accident' crowd in any way related to the theosophist/kabbalistic/masonic crowd?

I dont know.

zone wrote:
answer: of course! same guys.

I suppose I'll read around more here and check out the arguments for why you believe this, but i'm presently unconvinced.

zone wrote:
so the next things is, what is the agenda of those guys and how could they be directing 'science' to accomplish it?

Oh i'm sure there are evil scientists

zone wrote:
by ignoring the roots of our modern "space programs", theoretical sciences, etc. i think you're deliberatley trying to by-pass what i'm getting at.

I'm not ignoring it, I knew about the Nazi thing, and you provided no evidence for the masonry thing. I dont think whether or not NASA is evil means that they didn't land on the moon, or that imaging satellites are fake. The science is solid, and public knowledge for the most part. Honestly if I were evil and rich as I suppose you believe they are, I'd definitely want to have spy satellites, moon bases and space stations. I would invest huge amounts of time and money in making these things reality, whereas faking them would do much less for me than actually being able to take pictures of pretty much anyplace on earth.


zone wrote:
anyways...are you at all familiar with esoterica?

I'm familiar with it as a word, but i dont think you are talking about just the word.

zone wrote:
isaac newton was an alchemist extraordinaire (and not the "i'm gonna turn lead into gold" kind).

yes, I'm aware of this too. He was a kook and a jerk, and pretty brilliant.



zone wrote:
do you understand what i'm asking oscar?
there are a couple of things those guys have in common. if we know what they are, we know their agenda.

if we know their agenda we can follow their movements. if we can follow their movements, we know what they are doing right now and why. its really kinda simple from there.

perhaps, as I said before I will look around at what is on offer here and make my decisions based on the strenght of the evidence.
avatar
oscarkipling

Posts : 245
Join date : 2012-04-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentric Vs Heliocentric

Post by zone on Sat Apr 07, 2012 9:46 pm

that's cool.
there's lots to look for.
not a single one of us believes just anything anyone says. we check it out ourselves.

i do recommend praying though. asking the Spirit of Truth to reveal God to you. if you're sincere, He promised He would. He did for all of us....

He is Jesus of Nazareth.

love zone.

Matthew 11:27
"All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.


John 14
Jesus Comforts His Disciples
1“Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in Goda; trust also in me. 2In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. 3And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4You know the way to the place where I am going.”

Jesus the Way to the Father
5Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?”

6Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7If you really knew me, you would knowb my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

8Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”

9Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
10Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. 12I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. 14You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

Jesus Promises the Holy Spirit

15“If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will bec in you. 18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. 21Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him.”

22Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, “But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?”

23Jesus replied, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. 24He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.

25“All this I have spoken while still with you. 26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. 27Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.

28“You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. 29I have told you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe. 30I will not speak with you much longer, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold on me, 31but the world must learn that I love the Father and that I do exactly what my Father has commanded me.

“Come now; let us leave.

http://niv.scripturetext.com/john/14.htm

...
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentric Vs Heliocentric

Post by zone on Sat Apr 07, 2012 10:09 pm

oscar....everyone of us here was blind and unbelieving in the past.
The Holy Spirit draws us to the truth.
don't reject it.

keep seeking. real truth. not this garbage the world passes off as knowledge.
its all vanity. emptiness. nothing there.

the biggest problem you and i have is death.

regardless of whatever people tell themselves about what happens at death, very few actually believe its just lights out.

now the question is: what happens when i die?

i'm starting a thread called

IS THERE A GOD?

so i don't derail the stationary earth thread: Doc can you move this stuff over there?
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentric Vs Heliocentric

Post by oscarkipling on Sun Apr 08, 2012 12:28 am

Strangelove wrote:
It DOESNT appear that we are
traveling around the sun at 30kps. It appears that the sun is travelling around us every 24 hours. This motion is explained perfectly by an aether that spins around the Earth once every 24 hours.


I was thinking some more about this, and began to wonder what if the sun did in fact travel around the earth at 1600kph in 24 hours. This would mean that it would only be able to cover about 38000 km in 24 hours. if we again assume a circular orbit then its distance from the earth would have to be something like 6000km. That means that the earth would be inside of the sun since the sun itself is 4 million km around. But lets say that the surface of the sun is 6000km away that would fry the earth and since the sun itself is 4 million km around, it would take up pretty much the entire sky during the day, not that we could see it because we'd be dead. The moon is on average 385,000km from earth so solar eclipses would be impossible, but the sun could eclipse the moon, not that we could see that because we'd still be dead. Actually it wouldn't eclipse it so much as engulf it And this just is without taking into account the havoc and mayhem gravity would reek.
avatar
oscarkipling

Posts : 245
Join date : 2012-04-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentric Vs Heliocentric

Post by zone on Sun Apr 08, 2012 10:15 am

oscarkipling wrote:

I dont know this to be true.


Kabbalistic Cosmology
and its parallels in the
‘Big-Bang' of Modern Physics


In earlier articles I have tried to point out the links between hermetic and alchemical ideas and the developing current of thought in modern physics and cosmology. In this present piece I would like to pursue the strange parallels between the late 16th century reformation of kabbalistic cosmology that arose through the insights of Isaac Luria, and the recent reformulation of the ‘big-bang' into the so-called ‘inflationary model' of cosmic creation. Although the formulation of these two cosmologies was separated by some 400 years, we can recognise that they addressed the same problem, that of the emanation of the cosmos out of nothing.

Before Luria the main stream of kabbalistic ideas arose from the centres in Spain. From the Gerona school emerged the main statement of ideas on the sephiroth, while Moses de Leon put together the Zoharatic writings. This stream of mystical cosmology arose out of intuitive perceptions, and the writings of this period tend to be obscure and clouded in allusion rather than being deeply argued philosophical works. They derived their authority by appealing to interpretation of hidden wisdom in the canonical books of the Jewish tradition, the Pentateuch and Torah, rather than consistent argument. Thus, during this period it was assumed that the sephiroth and the layers, strata or worlds that made up the cosmos, emanated in some way directly from the Ein-Sof – the limitless being of the deity. There were, however, certain philosophical and theological contradictions in this simplistic emanation that were glossed over by the earlier kabbalists until Luria faced up to these problems, restructured the cosmology and resolved many of these paradoxes.

Similarly, the earliest formulation of the ‘big-bang' theory (first named in this way by astromomer Fred Hoyle in 1950) which pictured the universe as emerging or emanating from a single cosmic event, was flawed. If one followed its mathematical descriptions fully through to their conclusions it described states of affairs that did not correspond to reality. In particular it could not adequately account for the uniformity of the cosmos, the formation of galaxies, or the fact that the universe seems to be composed of matter rather than anti-matter. Cosmologists, however, clung to this model out of conviction, pushing its paradoxes to the back of their minds, and hoping that its problems would eventually be sorted out. Much of these contradictions were resolved by the ‘inflationary scenario' devised by Alan Guth in 1979.
...

http://www.levity.com/alchemy/luria.html

...

from: The Alchemy Website

~

if i considered myself an objective scientist today i would certainly want to be sure i wasn't actually a follower of the demonic crackpot Isaac Luria
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentric Vs Heliocentric

Post by zone on Sun Apr 08, 2012 11:16 am

oscarkipling wrote:
I'm not ignoring it, I knew about the Nazi thing, and you provided no evidence for the masonry thing. I dont think whether or not NASA is evil means that they didn't land on the moon, or that imaging satellites are fake. The science is solid, and public knowledge for the most part.

i never said we dont have satellites above us.

and i said the Apollo moon landings were BS, and the big bang with earth spinning and everything hurtling through space and revolving around the sun over eons and eons is bunk.



oscarkipling wrote:
Honestly if I were evil and rich as I suppose you believe they are, I'd definitely want to have spy satellites, moon bases and space stations. I would invest huge amounts of time and money in making these things reality, whereas faking them would do much less for me than actually being able to take pictures of pretty much anyplace on earth.

they do have spy stuff. tons of it now.
for a purpose.

exactly as Jesus said.

~

TORAH SCIENCE [they mean TALMUD MUSINGS - Kabbalah....z]
Indeed, we may say that the difference between the scientific and Torah approach to knowledge and understanding is based on this statement. Torah, and specifically Hassidism, does not make do with either intellect or emotion alone, but rather sees the human experience in its entirety.

Knowledge, whether it be of a theological o r a natural nature must include both faculties: the mind and the heart. Knowledge based on either the mind or the emotions alone, does not suit human needs. In its present state Science cannot address this urgent and important need of the bridging of the mind and the emotions. Indeed, it is one of our goals here at the Torah Science Foundation to explore and educate about the new dimensions that the bridging between Hassidism and science brings to human consciousness.

*** A full length article by Moshe Genuth is planned for our website. The article will include an in-depth analysis of this encounter and its impact on both the Rashab and on Freud's psychoanalytic theory.

3. Kabbalah meets science-fiction.

It is intriguing to note that many works of fiction feature basic Kabbalistic principles despite the fact that the author is not known to have studied Kabbalah. One example is “Contact”, the book turned movie, by the famous astrophysicist Carl Sagan. Sagan, though Jewish is not known to have come in direct contact with Jewish thought in general or Kabbalah specifically. Yet "Contact" has some important Kabbalistic concepts embedded in its narrative. Here is the first draft of an article devoted to the analysis of these parallels.

Knowing and not-Knowing: Dancing with G-d

Are we alone in the universe? It is hard to look at the stars and not to ask that question. If we are not alone, who else is out there? Cosmic contemplation can be enjoyed in different ways. The Kabbalah tells us of about cosmic spheres, and a divine plan behind the apparent chaos. Fiction has the power to help us deal with the question as if it does not really touch us.

Carl Sagan, the famous astronomer, explored the question of the presence of other living creatures in the universe in a book later made into a movie titled Contact. Here is a synopsis of Contact...

http://www.torahscience.org/newsletter3.html

...


Reincarnation best describes the concept where the soul or spirit, after the death of the body, is believed to return to live in a new human body, or, in some traditions, either as a human being, animal or plant. This doctrine is a central tenet within the majority of Indian religious traditions, such as Hinduism, Jainism, and Sikhism; the Buddhist concept of rebirth is also often referred to as reincarnation.[1] The idea was also fundamental to some Greek philosophers as well as other religions, such as Druidism, and later on, Spiritism, Theosophy, and Eckankar. It is also found in many tribal societies around the world, in places such as Siberia, West Africa, North America, and Australia.[2]

By the 19th century the philosophers Schopenhauer[59] and Nietzsche[60] could access the Indian scriptures for discussion of the doctrine of reincarnation, which recommended itself to the American Transcendentalists Henry David Thoreau, Walt Whitman and Ralph Waldo Emerson and was adapted by Francis Bowen into Christian Metempsychosis.[61]

By the early 20th century, interest in reincarnation had been introduced into the nascent discipline of psychology, largely due to the influence of William James, who raised aspects of the philosophy of mind, comparative religion, the psychology of religious experience and the nature of empiricism.[62] James was influential in the founding of the American Society for Psychical Research (ASPR) in New York City in 1885, three years after the British Society for Psychical Research (SPR) was inaugurated in London,[58] leading to systematic, critical investigation of paranormal phenomena.

At this time popular awareness of the idea of reincarnation was boosted by the Theosophical Society's dissemination of systematised and universalised Indian concepts and also by the influence of magical societies like The Golden Dawn. Notable personalities like Annie Besant, W. B. Yeats and Dion Fortune made the subject almost as familiar an element of the popular culture of the west as of the east. By 1924 the subject could be satirised in popular children's books.[63]

Théodore Flournoy was among the first to study a claim of past-life recall in the course of his investigation of the medium Hélène Smith, published in 1900, in which he defined the possibility of cryptomnesia in such accounts.[64] Carl Gustav Jung, like Flournoy based in Switzerland, also emulated him in his thesis based on a study of cryptomnesia in psychism. Later Jung would emphasise the importance of the persistence of memory and ego in psychological study of reincarnation; "This concept of rebirth necessarily implies the continuity of personality... (that) one is able, at least potentially, to remember that one has lived through previous existences, and that these existences were one's own...".[61] Hypnosis, used in psychoanalysis for retrieving forgotten memories, was eventually tried as a means of studying the phenomenon of past life recall.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation

...

ok? modern cosmological ideas are just souped-up kabbalah...like i said.
and what's behind kabbalah?

reincarnation.

so....is that one of the propositions about God/creation/human existence you find plausible, oscar? REINCARNATION/emanations from a god-source/force?
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentric Vs Heliocentric

Post by Strangelove on Sun Apr 08, 2012 5:09 pm

oscarkipling wrote:there are quite a few things wrong with this, i'll explain. In Einsteins
model an expanding universe is one of the predictions that come out,
however at the time it was believed that the universe was static.
Einstein put his cosmological constant in his equations in order to
counter the expansion that was predicted. Eventually when it was
observed that the universe does indeed appear to be expanding he
recanted calling it his biggest blunder. That I think could rightfully
be called a fudge factor. Dark matter is something else entirely, that
is postulated for entirely different reasons, that is to say that that
there appears to be more mass in galaxies than we can actually visually
account for. perhaps you meant to say dark energy, which is energy
postulated to be driving the observed acceleration of
the expansion of the universe.
Either way you look at it, dark energy
and dark matter were not introduced in order to make the math of the
expanding universe work, they were introduced due to observations.

We dont observe the expansion of the universe.
And we dont observe dark energy or dark matter.
Where are these observations oscar?

We observe the entire heavens revolving around us every 24 hours.
We observe from cosmic radiation background studies, an Earth centred universe with galaxies arranged in concentric rings around our position.

oscarkipling wrote:I'd rather you didn't suggest that I'd just make stuff up in order to be
right, I dont believe I would and I dont think I've given you any
reason to believe I would either.

Then lets see your real observations of an expanding universe.

oscarkipling wrote:Yes, I'll continue to look for that, I just assumed that you could point
me to it or supply it yourself, my mistake. I understand your distrust
of math, and how it can be manipulated in many ways to trick
people...but that seems all the more reason to familiarize yourself with
it.

I'm familiar with it thanks. It just doesnt interest me.
I could point out a scientific model for the geocentric aether but its easy enough to find on your own.

oscarkipling wrote:but see I brought this whole thing up because earlier you were arguing
that Einsteins model predicts that light will move at C + the speed of
the source,and his model is thereby contradicted with the Sagnac effect.
I argued that this was not a prediction of his model, and the Sagnac
effect is perfectly inline with the predictions of lights behavior, that
is it does not change speed relative to the source (C+-v). Now we seem
to agree that Einstein's model does in fact predict that C+V is not
possible, but this renders your argument about the Sagnac effect
untenable. Is this true or have I missed something?

You've missed something.

Relativity says that light travels away from a source at the same speed RELATIVE to the source whether the source is moving or not.

The sagnac experiment shows that this does not occur.

oscarkipling wrote:I dont know why you would say this, did I give you the impression that I
find a stationary earth horrifying? Anyway, I explained why I believe
you cannot interpret it as a mobile aether moving at 30kps and a
stationary earth.....which had nothing to do with horror.

I know you explained why you BELIEVE it cant be interpreted that way, and you hold that BELIEF because you cannot possibly accept the alternative....similar to all the scientists who performed these experiments and had to reinvent science to get away from the results.

oscarkipling wrote:You're right I should have been more specific, they should have gotten
the expected fringe pattern instead of a fringe pattern that fits well
within the margin of error. The hypothesis, as we went through earlier
was not that the earth moved, this was taken to be true, the hypothesis
was that the luminiferous aether existed and was immobile. But I believe
that I understand now, you believe that the aether is moving at
something like 1600kph which would be undetectable by such a small
device.

The results dont at all fit into a 'margin of error, and I have no opinion on how fast the aether is moving.

oscarkipling wrote:I have multiple times, the answer is no. therefore the Sagnac effect is explicable and expected in Einsteins model.

I think he would have mentioned it if thats the case. He didnt.

oscarkipling wrote:okay I see your point i'll go with it. a 1600kph motion doesn't even
explain the apparent motion you are talking about. I know you dont
necessarily respect math,so i'll use as little as possible. The sun is
150 million km from the earth, if we assume a perfectly circular orbit,
that's 942 million km the sun would have to traverse every 24 hours.
which means it would have to move at something like 39 million kph,
1600kph just isn't enough speed.

I never mentioned anything about a 1600kph speed.

oscarkipling wrote:I dont quite understand, can you explain this?

The turning universe produces gravity on Earth.

_________________
"Gentlemen you cant fight in here, this is the War Room!"

Arrow IMPORTANT THREADS Arrow FORUM STATEMENT OF FAITH Arrow CHRISTIAN WILDERNESS BLOGSPOT

Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
avatar
Strangelove
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3142
Age : 42
Gender : Male Location : Israel of God
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile http://christian-wilderness-blog.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentric Vs Heliocentric

Post by Strangelove on Sun Apr 08, 2012 5:13 pm

oscarkipling wrote:I was thinking some more about this, and began to wonder what if the sun did in fact travel around the earth at 1600kph in 24 hours. This would mean that it would only be able to cover about 38000 km in 24 hours. if we again assume a circular orbit then its distance from the earth would have to be something like 6000km. That means that the earth would be inside of the sun since the sun itself is 4 million km around. But lets say that the surface of the sun is 6000km away that would fry the earth and since the sun itself is 4 million km around, it would take up pretty much the entire sky during the day, not that we could see it because we'd be dead. The moon is on average 385,000km from earth so solar eclipses would be impossible, but the sun could eclipse the moon, not that we could see that because we'd still be dead. Actually it wouldn't eclipse it so much as engulf it And this just is without taking into account the havoc and mayhem gravity would reek.

Again, it was you who came up with the speed of the sun.

_________________
"Gentlemen you cant fight in here, this is the War Room!"

Arrow IMPORTANT THREADS Arrow FORUM STATEMENT OF FAITH Arrow CHRISTIAN WILDERNESS BLOGSPOT

Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
avatar
Strangelove
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3142
Age : 42
Gender : Male Location : Israel of God
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile http://christian-wilderness-blog.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentric Vs Heliocentric

Post by oscarkipling on Sun Apr 08, 2012 6:00 pm

zone wrote:

Kabbalistic Cosmology
and its parallels in the
‘Big-Bang' of Modern Physics

~snip~

...

from: The Alchemy Website

~

if i considered myself an objective scientist today i would certainly want to be sure i wasn't actually a follower of the demonic crackpot Isaac Luria


Okay, I'm going to attempt to see this rationale through. First off, in the very next paragraph the author of this article states "I am not here suggesting that Luria foresaw the problems of twentieth
century physics, or that cosmologists and fundamental physicists are
secretly adept in obscure areas of kabbalah", so using this article as evidence that scientist are secretly using the kabbalah becomes immediately untenable. Moreover after reading the entire article, at best the author takes some very superficial ideas in modern cosmology, and suggests that they could be interpreted as similar to some ideas in Luria's conception of Kaballah cosmology. This in itself only barely hangs together, and only on a very superficial level. I've seen the same thing done with the Koran, The Bible, Buddhist scriptures and Hindu scriptures, and the one thing they all have in common is that they take some superficial facts about modern science and then use some concepts in their respective scriptures to make a very tenuous link. This is a very low standard of evidence, and I would need more substantive evidence than some article where the author doesn't even believe that modern scientists have an in depth knowledge of the kabbalah.
avatar
oscarkipling

Posts : 245
Join date : 2012-04-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentric Vs Heliocentric

Post by Strangelove on Sun Apr 08, 2012 6:10 pm

oscarkipling wrote:Okay, I'm going to attempt to see this rationale through. First off, in the very next paragraph the author of this article states "I am not here suggesting that Luria foresaw the problems of twentieth
century physics, or that cosmologists and fundamental physicists are
secretly adept in obscure areas of kabbalah", so using this article as evidence that scientist are secretly using the kabbalah becomes immediately untenable. Moreover after reading the entire article, at best the author takes some very superficial ideas in modern cosmology, and suggests that they could be interpreted as similar to some ideas in Luria's conception of Kaballah cosmology. This in itself only barely hangs together, and only on a very superficial level. I've seen the same thing done with the Koran, The Bible, Buddhist scriptures and Hindu scriptures, and the one thing they all have in common is that they take some superficial facts about modern science and then use some concepts in their respective scriptures to make a very tenuous link. This is a very low standard of evidence, and I would need more substantive evidence than some article where the author doesn't even believe that modern scientists have an in depth knowledge of the kabbalah.

That article is from an alchemy website. Of course the author isn't going to flat out accuse scientists of being secretive kaballhists. Cus he is one. She posted the article to show that even those involved admit the connections between kaballah and modern theoretical science.

You frequently post phrases like....."not enough evidence"....and "not compelling enough".

Oscar.....mate......God isn't going to build you a time machine bud. Aint none of us gonna convince you of anything. Because your not really searching. Anything we bring forward, your just determined to bat away. You clearly just wanna debate Christians yes? For the fun of it? Am I right?

We are not gonna argue you into faith. And you are certainly not gonna argue us out of it.

_________________
"Gentlemen you cant fight in here, this is the War Room!"

Arrow IMPORTANT THREADS Arrow FORUM STATEMENT OF FAITH Arrow CHRISTIAN WILDERNESS BLOGSPOT

Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
avatar
Strangelove
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3142
Age : 42
Gender : Male Location : Israel of God
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile http://christian-wilderness-blog.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentric Vs Heliocentric

Post by oscarkipling on Mon Apr 09, 2012 12:25 am

Strangelove wrote:
We dont observe the expansion of the universe.
And we dont observe dark energy or dark matter.
Where are these observations oscar?


Correct we do not observe dark energy or dark matter directly, I said they were introduced due to observation. We'll start with dark matter which was proposed because of several observations. The earliest being that the motion of stars on the edges of galaxies appear to be too fast for the amount of mass that can be visually accounted for. This is consistent with another observation in the cosmic microwave background, specifically peaks in the acoustic oscillations indicate visible matter, and another type of matter that does not interact with em radiation. Another observation is the gravitational lensing caused by clusters of galaxies is stronger than the lensing you would expect if the galaxies were only made of visible matter. All of these observations give results that are consistent with each other. Next up is the expansion of the universe, which was predicted in Einsteins model, but he fudged it initially with his cosmological constant so that it could remain static as was the belief at the time. The most important for the expanding universe is the redshift observed in the light from cosmological sources (stars and galaxies and such). As for Dark energy, which is introduced because that expansion appears to be speeding up, similar observations of redshift with high precision tools indicate that the rate at which these bodies move away from us is increasing over time.


Strangelove wrote:
We observe the entire heavens revolving around us every 24 hours.

fair enough in some sense this is true. This is the apparent motion, but then there are other observations, like the variations in the yearly positions of the sun, stars and planets that suggest that we are orbiting the sun. Not to mention gravity.


Strangelove wrote:
We observe from cosmic radiation background studies, an Earth centred universe with galaxies arranged in concentric rings around our position.

There is no such evidence in the cosmic microwave background. At best galaxies tend to loosely cluster in a pattern that is reflected in the CMB, but its more of a fuzzy network than concentric spheres. The more data that has been gathered the more it has become clear that with a larger sample size there is nothing that resembles concentric spheres.

New members are not allowed to post external links or emails for 7 days

Its pretty easy to see how a small sample size could give one the impression that there is periodicity in the distribution of galaxies, but the more datapoints indicate that that is not the case.



Strangelove wrote:
Then lets see your real observations of an expanding universe.

I think the observed redshift is enough to confirm this much.



Strangelove wrote:
I'm familiar with it thanks. It just doesnt interest me.
I could point out a scientific model for the geocentric aether but its easy enough to find on your own.

haha, unfortunately I haven't been able to find it on my own. I apologize if I seemed condescending in suggesting you familiarize yourself with the mathematical side of modern cosmology, I should not have assumed that because you are disinterested that you are not familiar.



Strangelove wrote:
You've missed something.

Relativity says that light travels away from a source at the same speed RELATIVE to the source whether the source is moving or not.

The sagnac experiment shows that this does not occur.

But i literally just showed you a quote in Einstein's own words illustrating that this is not a prediction of relativity. C+-V is incompatible with relativity

"The velocity W of the man relative to the embankment is here replaced by the velocity of light relative to the embankment. w is the required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we have
w = c - v.
The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c. 3
But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section V. For, like every other general law of nature, the law of the transmission of light in vacuo must, according to the principle of relativity, be the same for the railway carriage as reference-body as when the rails are the body of reference."




Strangelove wrote:
I know you explained why you BELIEVE it cant be interpreted that way, and you hold that BELIEF because you cannot possibly accept the alternative....similar to all the scientists who performed these experiments and had to reinvent science to get away from the results.

No its because if the aether was moving around the earth at 30kps you would get the same fringe pattern as you would with the earth traveling through an immobile aether at 30kps. Now if the aether is moving around the earth at 1600kps or the converse, then that would be undetectable by the Michelson-Morely apparatus, thus the null result.



Strangelove wrote:
The results dont at all fit into a 'margin of error, and I have no opinion on how fast the aether is moving.

Okay, so then the later more accurate experiments which consistently show less variation in the measurement than the Michelson Morley results are wrong?

New members are not allowed to post external links or emails for 7 days

the original experiment had quite a large margin of error, subsequent experiments were more accurate with it, moreover as seen with miller with modern analytical tools the result dropped to 0.

Strangelove wrote:
I think he would have mentioned it if thats the case. He didnt.

So because Einstein never mentioned Sagnac, you believe that he predicted that Light moves at c+-v even though in his own words which I've quoted twice he says the exact opposite, and even though this is fundamental to his theory. Even though its been experimentally confirmed multiple times like here and a somewhat uncreativly titled paper:

"Is the Speed of Light Independent of the Velocity of the Source?"

Recent observations of regularly pulsating x-ray sources in binary star systems are analyzed in the framework of the "emission" theory of light. Assuming that light emitted by a source moving at velocity v with respect to an observer has a speed c′=c+kv in the observer's rest frame, we find that the arrival time of pulses from the binary x-ray sources implies k<2×10-9. This appears to be the most direct and sensitive demonstration that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the source.

Source:
New members are not allowed to post external links or emails for 7 days

and here

"A Direct Terrestrial Test of the Second Postulate of Special Relativity"

THE following is a preliminary report of an investigation performed to test directly, in a terrestrial experiment, the second postulate of special relativity, which states that the velocity of light is independent of the motion of the light source. A direct test means here that the velocity of the light from a moving source is measured by a time-of-flight technique and not by use of interference effects in a closed light path or a frequency measurement. Investigations of the last-mentioned type may lead to difficulties in the interpretation of the result and are therefore not very satisfactory, as pointed out by, for example, H. Dingle1.

Source:
New members are not allowed to post external links or emails for 7 days

here

"Experiment for Testing Special Relativity Theory"

Abstract—An experiment aimed at testing special relativity via a comparison of the velocity of
a non matter particle (annihilation photon) with the velocity of the matter particle (Compton
electron) produced by the second annihilation photon from the decay 22Na( β+)22Ne is proposed

Source:
New members are not allowed to post external links or emails for 7 days

and here

"Determination of the Constancy of the Speed of Light"

Kantor’s relativity experiment has been repeated with approximately four times the sensitivity. The experiment measures the speed of light which has passed through moving glass plates by the observation of the shift of interference fringes. It was performed with the interferometric path in vacuum, and with the fringes observed at infinity. The shift predicted by the emission theory used by Kantor was 2.9 fringes. The shift found was less than 0.02 fringe.

Source:
New members are not allowed to post external links or emails for 7 days


Strangelove wrote:
I never mentioned anything about a 1600kph speed.

So if you agree that the michelson-gale-pearson experiment detected something, that their results were in line with what would be expected if there was no luminiferous aether and the earth was rotating at ~1600kph and relativity that relativity does in no way suggest that C+-V is possible. Or that the earth is static, there is a luminiferous aether and it rotates around the earth at ~1600kph.

what do the results of the Michelson gale Pearson experiment say about the aether and its speed in your interpretation?

Is it just a coincidence that the 1600kph speed that they expected to detect was borne out in the experiment, even though you suggest that it is impossible in relativity?




Strangelove wrote:
The turning universe produces gravity on Earth.

I understood that this is what you were suggesting, what I'm asking is how it does this. What do you base this assertion on.
avatar
oscarkipling

Posts : 245
Join date : 2012-04-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentric Vs Heliocentric

Post by oscarkipling on Mon Apr 09, 2012 12:28 am

Strangelove wrote:
Again, it was you who came up with the speed of the sun.

If the sun is 93 million miles away that's how fast it has to be going in order to make the trip around earth in 24 hours. So I already know that you think it goes around the earth in 24 hours, how far away do you believe it is?
avatar
oscarkipling

Posts : 245
Join date : 2012-04-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentric Vs Heliocentric

Post by oscarkipling on Mon Apr 09, 2012 12:49 am

Strangelove wrote:
That article is from an alchemy website. Of course the author isn't going to flat out accuse scientists of being secretive kaballhists. Cus he is one. She posted the article to show that even those involved admit the connections between kaballah and modern theoretical science.

Have you genuinely never seen Muslims or Buddhist or Hindus make very similarly superficial claims?


Strangelove wrote:
You frequently post phrases like....."not enough evidence"....and "not compelling enough".

Well its not, and thats not even something especially unique to me. If you consider that you presumably believe that i've been lied to tricked and manipulated my entire life with fake evidence, lies and misdirection, does it make any sense that a couple of internet articles would be enough evidence to chuck all that i believe i know? That would be ridiculous, I would be having a total worldview changed every time I log onto the internet if that were the case...i'm open to changing my mind, but only with sufficient evidence.


Strangelove wrote:
Oscar.....mate......God isn't going to build you a time machine bud. Aint none of us gonna convince you of anything. Because your not really searching. Anything we bring forward, your just determined to bat away. You clearly just wanna debate Christians yes? For the fun of it? Am I right?

Well, actually I came here to discuss this geocentric model, because as i said i find this stuff fascinating, and yes I am incredulous on the issue. I didn't come here and start a bunch of threads about why i dont believe in God, you guys asked me questions and presented me with things, and I've been trying to answer as honestly as possible. If anyhing I want to debate a real live geocentricity vs helio, talk about cosmology and stuff, the fact that you are a christian is really not the most interesting thing about the issue imo, I'm here for the scientific discourse first and foremost....which i've actually been enjoying yes, as they say steel sharpens steel right?

Strangelove wrote:
We are not gonna argue you into faith. And you are certainly not gonna argue us out of it.

I have no desire whatsoever to argue you out of your belief in God, It seems pretty benign to me. Now if you were into some religion that was trying to hurt people or something, then I would probably try to dissuade you from that.
avatar
oscarkipling

Posts : 245
Join date : 2012-04-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentric Vs Heliocentric

Post by Strangelove on Mon Apr 09, 2012 4:05 pm

oscarkipling wrote:Correct we do not observe dark energy or dark matter directly, I said
they were introduced due to observation. We'll start with dark matter
which was proposed because of several observations. The earliest being
that the motion of stars on the edges of galaxies appear to be too fast
for the amount of mass that can be visually accounted for. This is
consistent with another observation in the cosmic microwave background,
specifically peaks in the acoustic oscillations indicate visible matter,
and another type of matter that does not interact with em radiation.
Another observation is the gravitational lensing caused by clusters of
galaxies is stronger than the lensing you would expect if the galaxies
were only made of visible matter. All of these observations give results
that are consistent with each other. Next up is the expansion of the
universe, which was predicted in Einsteins model, but he fudged it
initially with his cosmological constant so that it could remain static
as was the belief at the time. The most important for the expanding
universe is the redshift observed in the light from cosmological sources
(stars and galaxies and such). As for Dark energy, which is introduced
because that expansion appears to be speeding up, similar observations
of redshift with high precision tools indicate that the rate at which
these bodies move away from us is increasing over time.

Lots of fudge there mate.

If only you could just accept the straightforward observation of a stationary Earth and a rotating universe then you wouldn't need to utilise all these workarounds. If your theories start producing stuff that doesnt exist (dark whatever) then its not worth the paper its written on.

We dont see the universe expanding....and you coming up with a sentence like "The most important for the expanding
universe is the redshift observed in the light from cosmological sources
(stars and galaxies and such)"
....CERTAINLY doesnt make it any more plausable. The cosmic radiation background simply shows concentric shells of galaxies centred on our position. We are at the centre of the universe. And I've got plenty of quotes from the highpriests of the science religion who agree.

oscarkipling wrote:fair enough in some sense this is true. This is the apparent motion, but
then there are other observations, like the variations in the yearly
positions of the sun, stars and planets that suggest that we are
orbiting the sun. Not to mention gravity.

What observations?

It doesnt matter what is revolving around what, you would observe EXACTLY the same things from Earth.

oscarkipling wrote:There is no such evidence in the cosmic microwave background. At best
galaxies tend to loosely cluster in a pattern that is reflected in the
CMB, but its more of a fuzzy network than concentric spheres. The more
data that has been gathered the more it has become clear that with a
larger sample size there is nothing that resembles concentric spheres.

Its
pretty easy to see how a small sample size could give one the
impression that there is periodicity in the distribution of galaxies,
but the more datapoints indicate that that is not the case.



I really dont want to post the same quotes again in this thread. Maybe I ought to split this discussion off into a seperate thread. Anyways, the worlds authorities on the CRB certainly DO say that the galaxies are arranged in concentric shells around Earth. You can read back through this thread for reems of quotes on the subject.

oscarkipling wrote:I think the observed redshift is enough to confirm this much.

The observed redshifts confirm a geocentric universe.

oscarkipling wrote:

I dunno...try here maybe:

http://www.epola.co.uk/rothwarf/aethermodel.pdf

oscarkipling wrote:But i literally just showed you a quote in Einstein's own words
illustrating that this is not a prediction of relativity. C+-V is
incompatible with relativity

"The velocity W of the man relative
to the embankment is here replaced by the velocity of light relative to
the embankment. w is the required velocity of light with respect to the
carriage, and we have
w = c - v.
The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c. 3
But
this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity set
forth in Section V. For, like every other general law of nature, the law
of the transmission of light in vacuo must, according to the principle
of relativity, be the same for the railway carriage as reference-body as
when the rails are the body of reference."

I said:

"Relativity says that light travels away from a source at the same speed
RELATIVE to the source whether the source is moving or not."

Yes I know that C+or-V is incompatible with relativity. Thats what my statement is saying.

But C+-V is what happens. Therefore the Sagnac exp. refutes relativity and supports the aether medium.

Maybe you can read the following blog post and see if you get it?

http://alfachallenge.blogspot.com/search/label/Sagnac%20test%20-%20the%20key%20exp.

oscarkipling wrote:No its because if the aether was moving around the earth at 30kps you
would get the same fringe pattern as you would with the earth traveling
through an immobile aether at 30kps. Now if the aether is moving around
the earth at 1600kps or the converse, then that would be undetectable by
the Michelson-Morely apparatus, thus the null result.

Again....you are the one making up figures and then refuting them. Strawman.

The results of the experiment directly contradict the presupposition which is that the Earth moves, just like Michelson said.

oscarkipling wrote:Okay, so then the later more accurate experiments which consistently
show less variation in the measurement than the Michelson Morley results
are wrong?

the original experiment had quite a large margin of error, subsequent
experiments were more accurate with it, moreover as seen with miller
with modern analytical tools the result dropped to 0.

Oscar, the best you can do is say that the Sagnac, Michelson-Gale and Miller experiments all supported the aether. Whether it was the Earth moving through the aether or the aether moving around the Earth they couldn't say. But the aether is there either way.

Airy's failure confirms its the aether moving around the Earth.

oscarkipling wrote:So because Einstein never mentioned Sagnac, you believe that he
predicted that Light moves at c+-v

Lolz.

No, I'm saying that he predicted that light travels at the same speed relative to the source whether the source is moving or not.

I'm saying that reality proves (Sagnac) that light travels at c+-v (NOT the same speed relative to the source).

oscarkipling wrote:So if you agree that the michelson-gale-pearson experiment detected
something, that their results were in line with what would be expected
if there was no luminiferous aether and the earth was rotating at
~1600kph and relativity that relativity does in no way suggest that C+-V
is possible. Or that the earth is static, there is a luminiferous
aether and it rotates around the earth at ~1600kph.

what do the results of the Michelson gale Pearson experiment say about the aether and its speed in your interpretation?

Is
it just a coincidence that the 1600kph speed that they expected to
detect was borne out in the experiment, even though you suggest that it
is impossible in relativity?

The results of the Michelson gale Pearson experiment says that there IS an aether. He measured a change in the speed of light at two different latitudes. Obviously he put this down to a change in AETHER WIND SPEED due to the rotation of the Earth. Being a helio he obviously couldn't consider it could be due to the rotation of the aether...lolz. Either way it confirms there is an aether.

oscarkipling wrote:I understood that this is what you were suggesting, what I'm asking is how it does this. What do you base this assertion on.

Because the mass of the stars have gravitational effects the Earth. Seeing as all observations show we are sitting stationary in the centre, then its common sense that the rotating starry realm is keeping the Earth stablished that it cannot be moved and also produces Coriolis, Euler and gravitational forces. Call it a unified field theory as it were. Very Happy

_________________
"Gentlemen you cant fight in here, this is the War Room!"

Arrow IMPORTANT THREADS Arrow FORUM STATEMENT OF FAITH Arrow CHRISTIAN WILDERNESS BLOGSPOT

Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
avatar
Strangelove
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3142
Age : 42
Gender : Male Location : Israel of God
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile http://christian-wilderness-blog.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentric Vs Heliocentric

Post by Strangelove on Mon Apr 09, 2012 4:17 pm

oscarkipling wrote:If the sun is 93 million miles away that's how fast it has to be going in order to make the trip around earth in 24 hours. So I already know that you think it goes around the earth in 24 hours, how far away do you believe it is?

Sorry, lets start again. Your original statement was:

"I was thinking some more about this, and began to wonder what if the sun
did in fact travel around the earth at 1600kph in 24 hours. This would
mean that it would only be able to cover about 38000 km in 24 hours."

It appears here you have worked out that in order for the sun to orbit the Earth in 24 hours it must be going 1600kph.

But then you say that it would only cover about 38000 km in 24 hours.

Like....huh? I dont understand?

_________________
"Gentlemen you cant fight in here, this is the War Room!"

Arrow IMPORTANT THREADS Arrow FORUM STATEMENT OF FAITH Arrow CHRISTIAN WILDERNESS BLOGSPOT

Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
avatar
Strangelove
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3142
Age : 42
Gender : Male Location : Israel of God
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile http://christian-wilderness-blog.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentric Vs Heliocentric

Post by Strangelove on Mon Apr 09, 2012 4:26 pm

oscarkipling wrote:Have you genuinely never seen Muslims or Buddhist or Hindus make very similarly superficial claims?

Genuinely...no.

oscarkipling wrote:Well its not, and thats not even something especially unique to me. If
you consider that you presumably believe that i've been lied to tricked
and manipulated my entire life with fake evidence, lies and
misdirection, does it make any sense that a couple of internet articles
would be enough evidence to chuck all that i believe i know? That would
be ridiculous, I would be having a total worldview changed every time I
log onto the internet if that were the case...i'm open to changing my
mind, but only with sufficient evidence.

Try using your own eyes. Your God given senses.

Instead, you have had your worldview changed by theoretical brainwashing. We all have. Some of us got out.

oscarkipling wrote:Well, actually I came here to discuss this geocentric model, because as i
said i find this stuff fascinating, and yes I am incredulous on the
issue. I didn't come here and start a bunch of threads about why i dont
believe in God, you guys asked me questions and presented me with
things, and I've been trying to answer as honestly as possible. If
anyhing I want to debate a real live geocentricity vs helio, talk about
cosmology and stuff, the fact that you are a christian is really not the
most interesting thing about the issue imo, I'm here for the scientific
discourse first and foremost....which i've actually been enjoying yes,
as they say steel sharpens steel right?

Well, actually....if the geocentric model is true then its extremely compelling evidence for an intelligent creator. So God is gonna come into this whether you like it or not. Get ready to reassess that you thought you knew about everything!

oscarkipling wrote:I have no desire whatsoever to argue you out of your belief in God, It
seems pretty benign to me. Now if you were into some religion that was
trying to hurt people or something, then I would probably try to
dissuade you from that.

I think whether you are aware of it or not.....this is exactly whats going on. It's a spiritual battle.

Anyway. Gonna split this thread up. Otherwise I'll never be able to find anything in this mess.

_________________
"Gentlemen you cant fight in here, this is the War Room!"

Arrow IMPORTANT THREADS Arrow FORUM STATEMENT OF FAITH Arrow CHRISTIAN WILDERNESS BLOGSPOT

Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
avatar
Strangelove
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3142
Age : 42
Gender : Male Location : Israel of God
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile http://christian-wilderness-blog.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentric Vs Heliocentric

Post by Strangelove on Mon Apr 09, 2012 4:29 pm

ADMIN----Split this topic---Cheers.

_________________
"Gentlemen you cant fight in here, this is the War Room!"

Arrow IMPORTANT THREADS Arrow FORUM STATEMENT OF FAITH Arrow CHRISTIAN WILDERNESS BLOGSPOT

Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
avatar
Strangelove
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3142
Age : 42
Gender : Male Location : Israel of God
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile http://christian-wilderness-blog.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentric Vs Heliocentric

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 7 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum