Geocentric Vs Heliocentric

Strangelove wrote:

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.

I am fine with trying out the idea of a Geo model, but you are calling the explanations proposed for the observations fudge, and that's cool, because the could very well turn out to be the wrong explanations, but the observations are there. I dont see how geocentricity and a static universe (by static I mean not expanding) explains observations that led to them being proposed. If you could tell me how geocentricity and a static universe explains these observations that would be helpful.

How does the geocentric model explain the redshifts we observe in distant stars and galaxies?

How does the geocentric model explain the change in redshifts (lambda +) over time that we observe in distant stars and galaxies?

Actually, how does it explain redshift at all.

How does the geocentric model explain the observed gravitational lensing that is greater than would be expected based upon the amount of visible mass in galaxy clusters?

Actually, how does it explain gravitational lensing at all?

How does the geocentric model explain the higher than expected velocity of stars at the edges of galaxies?

Strangelove wrote:
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.

I find this very odd, I wanted to post pictures of the CMB and and data from the sloan digital sky survey last time, but i'll put those up tomorrow as I think that will be my seven days. But the plotting of galaxies in our field of view shows nothing that even visually resembles concentric circles or spheres much less mathematically. The density distribution of visible mass (dark matter need not be considered for this) does however show that with the right sample size and distribution, the distribution could appear to be those concentric spheres or rings, but this goes away with a large enough sample size...which at this point we have. Terabytes of Sloan digital data available to the public (even though it would take forever to download), where you can look for this pattern yourself, there is imaging and spectroscopy data. Anyway I dont suspect either of us will be using bandwidth to download all that data, but we can look at some visual representations of that data. the SDSS website has a cool galaxy map with hundreds of thousands of data points. In it you can see how even with tens of thousands of data point the periodicity of mass distribution could be indicated, but with the amount and depth of Sloan data its a different picture entirely.


Anyway, I suppose I could have indicated why redshifts indicated an expanding universe, I just assumed you knew. Anyway since light cant slow down in the relativistic model a receding source will cause the wavelengths to stretch out. the example that is usually given is the sound of sirens, where the frequency is lower as the ambulance moves away from you because the sound waves are essentially stretching out. So similarly, if a luminous object is moving away from you then you with see it light shift toward the red end of the visual spectrum, and as with the CMB the light has shifted well past the red in the visual spectrum and down into the microwave and radio spectrum, which is why The CMB is considered to tell us things about the composition of the universe in the distant past, because in some sense we can still see it.

speaking of that, in the geo model, why is there a CMB at all?

Strangelove wrote:
What observations?

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

And see, I dont think that would necessarily be true, but i'd need answers to those above questions and a few more before I could say whether I find this is plausible or not. In the other thread (on the other site), the ornery was posted that made a fairly reasonable case that with some very complex (epicyclical) motions that if gravity were not a factor, and only considering our solar system, and if the earth still rotated on its axis then our visual observations could match up. Although I found it to be a trivial concession considering gravitational forces, and other physics that would not line up with such a model. But again, i'll await the answers to the questions I posed.

Strangelove wrote:
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.

I dont need quotes,because the most up to date Data suggest otherwise, and has since at least the late 90's. Unless you have some quote from 2007-2012 then its most likely outdated, because the amount of data on mapping the distribution of galaxies, and the resolution and range of CMB data has increased by orders of magnitude. I dont think that anyone today would deny that there is a pattern to mass distribution (that is reflected in the anisotropy of the CMB), its certainly not what one could call homogenous in the strictest sense, but it is nowhere near anything like concentric spheres or circles.

Strangelove wrote:
The observed redshifts confirm a geocentric universe.

okay, how so

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

thank you sir, i'll check this out later tonight.

Strangelove wrote:
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?

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

Okay, perhaps I misunderstood you. However the assessment in the blog post is still wrong. Here he correctly indicates that the apparatus could be thought of as a rest frame, which harkens back to Einstein coming up with relativity by thinking about what the world would look like if he were traveling on a beam of light given that
C is constant in all frames. While its clever it does not fully take into
account that the rotation distorts the shape of the apparatus when viewed from the
perspective of light (that is as a rest frame), although strictly speaking not in the actual sense. At a consistent RPM it would have to be thought of as a rest frame that that consists of 2 asymmetric paths (we'll use this guys terminology CW and CCW), that is to say that in this frame one path is necessarily longer than the other. If you were on those light beams this is the kind of distortion you would see. CW & CCW at rest would be symmetrical, but in motion CW would be its length + the rotational velocity over the period of travel, That is CW= L+(rotV/t) and CCW would be the opposite. Of course this explains it from light's perspective, but the runners (or rockets) explanation is practically indistinguishable at non relativistic speeds, but easier to understand. All the weird warping (relativistic effects) is one of the things that relativity is famous for, it seems peculiar to me that anyone would say that physicists have deluded themselves into believing that it can explain this effect, when on its face its a very weird counter intuitive way to look at the world anyway.

Strangelove wrote:
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.

Well, no I'm not refuting a straw-man, let me explain. Michelson expected that if the earth was moving in respect to a immobile luminiferous aether at 30kps then he should get a particular fringe patter, or fringe deflection. I didn't make any of that up that is the hypothesis for the experiment. Since they did not get the expected fringe pattern it could be thought that the earth is not moving in respect to the aether at 30kps, or that the earth is moving at 30kps but there is no aether. If the aether was rotating around a stationary earth then they would have gotten the expected fringe pattern, you see what I'm saying? Because the expected result could be either the earth is moving at the predicted rate , or the aether is moving around the earth at the predicted rate. I added that if the aether or the earth was moving at a much slower rate than the predicted 30kps, then it is reasonable to say that the Michelson Morley experiment would have been unable to detect it. The 1600kph number comes from the Michelson Gale Pearson expiriment, which was designed to detect the rotation of the earth, which was predicted to be ~1600kph, their results line up with this prediction, so it also stands to reason that if this is the motion of the aether that they detected, then it was far to slow a motion for the Michelson Morley experiment to detect because that's like 1% of the expected speed, and the test setup wasn't nearly that accurate. So, there are what I believe are logical reasons to include all of the figures I have included.

Strangelove wrote:
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.

The Sagnac experiment is compatible with some luminiferous aether models or relativity, so its a wash there. Michelson-Gale-pearson was an enormous Sagnac apparatus designed to detect the rotation of the earth, as I said sagnac is a wash, but the motion that it did detect is in line with a 1600kph rotation of the earth. If the earth is static then I suppose it could be thought of has having detected a 1600kph motion of the aether around the earth, however that fails to explain even the apparent motion of the sun.

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

I'm still unable to find the original airy business, but the explanations up to this point make no sense, there just isn't the possibility of enough deviation to cause the angle change of a telescope as I explained earlier.

Strangelove wrote:
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).

I misunderstood you I guess, but I explained above why the rest frame argument in the blog only takes some of the relativistic implications into account. If you meant that the apparatus is a rest frame, by saying that light travels at c relative to the source then your phrasing is very confusing because that might incline one to believe that the speed of light is somehow dependent on the motion of the source because the source in that statement could be mistaken as an absolute frame for the emitted light. I think a better way to say it is that light's speed is independent of the source, which may in the future cause less confusion, I know that people with physics training would find that confusing at least. again its an interesting arguement, and i liked thinking about it, I just wish I had understood what you were trying to get across from the beginning (I'm sure at some point you were banging your head on the desk thinking "this guy cant be that dense can he?").

Strangelove wrote:
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.

I'm willing to go through the implications of aether rotating around the earth, but if it is ,then the result is in line with an aether rotating around the earth at 1600kph, because the predicted motion was expected to be in line with 1600kph, and that's what they got. Now they happed to think that this was because the earth was rotating at this rate, but if the aether is i'd be fine with going through those implications.

Strangelove wrote:
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.

lets not put the cart before the horse, i'm going to need to know more about your understanding of gravity, because this is immediately incompatible with both newton and Einsteins models, especially if mass is arranged in concentric circles around the earth. few questions:

What is the relationship between gravity and mass in geo?

Do things orbit each other due to gravitational effects?

How far away these objects?

The Sun

Earth's Moon

The first concentric sphere of galaxies

Strangelove wrote:
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?

Oh yeah I screwed up and commented on the wrong thing. Initially I calculated how fast the sun would need to be going if it is 150 million km away and it orbited the earth every 24 hours, it would have to be trucking at 39 million kph which doesn't even begin to match the 1600kph detected in the MGP experiment. But then I calculated how close the sun would have to be in order to orbit the earth once every 24 hours at 1600kph. So 1600kph*24 is 38400km, rounded off to 38000 to simplify. A 38000km orbit would place the sun 6000km from the earth, which is way too close. So I asked you how far away from the earth the sun is.

Hi oscar...

I will continue this debate if you continue these ones:

IS THERE A GOD?

and ....

Hello

Deal?

Strangelove wrote:Hi oscar...

I will continue this debate if you continue these ones:

IS THERE A GOD?

and ....

Hello

Deal?

gee, that's going to be lot more work, but alright, i'm game.

oscarkipling wrote: am fine with trying out the idea of a Geo model, but you are calling
the explanations proposed for the observations fudge, and that's cool,
because the could very well turn out to be the wrong explanations, but
the observations are there. I dont see how geocentricity and a static
universe (by static I mean not expanding) explains observations that led
to them being proposed. If you could tell me how geocentricity and a
static universe explains these observations that would be helpful.

How does the geocentric model explain the redshifts we observe in distant stars and galaxies?

How
does the geocentric model explain the change in redshifts (lambda +)
over time that we observe in distant stars and galaxies?

Actually, how does it explain redshift at all.

It explains redshifts with the same principles as your heliocentric model does.

In your model, the Earth goes around the sun. The sun and distant stars centred on it remain relatively static. As the Earth travels in its orbit, sometimes its closer to the distant stars and sometimes its farther. Therefore we get a small change in the redshift.

In my model, we simply switch our stationary frame of reference to the Earth. Now...the sun is orbiting the static Earth and the distant stars centred on the sun (like the planets are 'centred' on it) are moving slightly away and then slightly closer to the Earth as the sun moves. We get the same redshifts. Theres no difference. Same as we get steller parallax in both models. No dif bud.

oscarkipling wrote:How does the geocentric model explain the observed gravitational lensing
that is greater than would be expected based upon the amount of visible
mass in galaxy clusters?

Actually, how does it explain gravitational lensing at all?

Light does not bend because of gravity. There is no such thing as gravitational lensing. Light bends due to refraction through plasma. The suns plasma. Doesnt the suns gravity extend well beyond its plasma?

Hmmm....light doesnt bend when you go that far.

oscarkipling wrote:How does the geocentric model explain the higher than expected velocity of stars at the edges of galaxies?

We dont have any expectations for velocities of stars in the geo model. Because its not the stars that are going at speed. It's the aether. The stars are embedded in that rigid firmament. God 'set' them there. Like He 'set' the sun and moon. The aether spins around the Earth once every 24 hours and takes everything set with it.

oscarkipling wrote:I find this very odd, I wanted to post pictures of the CMB and and data
from the sloan digital sky survey last time, but i'll put those up
tomorrow as I think that will be my seven days. But the plotting of
galaxies in our field of view shows nothing that even visually resembles
concentric circles or spheres much less mathematically. The density
distribution of visible mass (dark matter need not be considered for
this) does however show that with the right sample size and
distribution, the distribution could appear to be those concentric
spheres or rings, but this goes away with a large enough sample
size...which at this point we have. Terabytes of Sloan digital data
available to the public (even though it would take forever to download),
where you can look for this pattern yourself, there is imaging and
spectroscopy data. Anyway I dont suspect either of us will be using
bandwidth to download all that data, but we can look at some visual
representations of that data. the SDSS website has a cool galaxy map
with hundreds of thousands of data points. In it you can see how even
with tens of thousands of data point the periodicity of mass
distribution could be indicated, but with the amount and depth of Sloan
data its a different picture entirely.

Well thats your opinion. You say pictures of our universe dont give us concentric rings of galaxies centred on the Earth. But I'm afraid the professionals who have written peer reviewed papers that say otherwise.

oscarkipling wrote:Anyway, I suppose I could have indicated why redshifts indicated an
expanding universe, I just assumed you knew. Anyway since light cant
slow down in the relativistic model a receding source will cause the
wavelengths to stretch out. the example that is usually given is the
sound of sirens, where the frequency is lower as the ambulance moves
away from you because the sound waves are essentially stretching out. So
similarly, if a luminous object is moving away from you then you with
see it light shift toward the red end of the visual spectrum, and as
with the CMB the light has shifted well past the red in the visual
spectrum and down into the microwave and radio spectrum, which is why
The CMB is considered to tell us things about the composition of the
universe in the distant past, because in some sense we can still see it.

speaking of that, in the geo model, why is there a CMB at all?

Redshifts dont indicate an expanding universe.
We see a CMB for the same principles as you do in your model.

oscarkipling wrote:And see, I dont think that would necessarily be true, but i'd need
answers to those above questions and a few more before I could say
whether I find this is plausible or not. In the other thread (on the
other site), the ornery was posted that made a fairly reasonable case
that with some very complex (epicyclical) motions that if gravity were
not a factor, and only considering our solar system, and if the earth
still rotated on its axis then our visual observations could match up.
Although I found it to be a trivial concession considering gravitational
forces, and other physics that would not line up with such a model. But
again, i'll await the answers to the questions I posed.

Answers given.

oscarkipling wrote:I dont need quotes,because the most up to date Data suggest otherwise,
and has since at least the late 90's. Unless you have some quote from
2007-2012 then its most likely outdated, because the amount of data on
mapping the distribution of galaxies, and the resolution and range of
CMB data has increased by orders of magnitude. I dont think that anyone
today would deny that there is a pattern to mass distribution (that is
reflected in the anisotropy of the CMB), its certainly not what one
could call homogenous in the strictest sense, but it is nowhere near
anything like concentric spheres or circles.

The fact its NOT homogenous should be setting off alarm bells oscar. Why isnt it?

And yes, I do have very up to date quotes.

Heres one:

“....there is visible evidence in the raw data for an apparent concentric shell structure centered on the observer.”

“A Fourier analysis on galaxy number counts from redshift data of both the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey indicates that galaxies have preferred periodic redshift spacings of Δz=0.0102, 0.0246, and 0.0448 in the SDSS and strong agreement with the results from the 2dF GRS. The redshift spacings are confirmed by the mass density fluctuations, the power spectrum P(z)and N calculations.....”

“The Great Wall is shown in the second and third quadrants as indicated. In those two quadrants it is evident to the eye that there is general concentric structure with a spacing of about 75 h ^-1 Mpc.”

- J.G. Hartnett K. Hirano Sep 2008 "Galaxy redshift abundance periodicity from Fourier analysis of number counts N(z) using SDSS and 2dFGRS galaxy surveys” published in "Astrophysics and Space Science" journal.

And a comment on those findings in another paper here:

“A widespread idea in cosmology is that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic above a certain scale. This hypothesis, usually called the cosmological principle, is thought to be a generalization of the Copernican principle that “the Earth is not in a central, specially favored position”. The assumption is that any observer at any place at the same epoch would see essentially the same picture of the large scale distribution of galaxies in the universe.

However, according to a Fourier analysis by Hartnett & Hirano, the galaxy number count N from redshift z data (N–z relation) indicates that galaxies have preferred periodic redshift spacings.........A natural interpretation is that concentric spherical shells of higher galaxy number densities surround us, with their individual centers
situated at our location.”

- Professor Shigeo Hirano, "Observational tests for oscillating expansion rate of the Universe" Physical Review D, 2010.

If you dont invent fudge there is a simple alternative to an expanding universe that fits the observations:

“A fundamental presupposition of modern cosmology is the Copernican Principle, that we are not in a central, or otherwise special region of the Universe. Studies of Type Ia supernovae, together with the Copernican principle, have led to the inference that the Universe is accelerating in its expansion. The usual explanation for this is that there must exist a ‘Dark Energy,’ to drive the acceleration. Alternatively, it could be the case that the Copernican Principle is invalid, and that the data has been interpreted within an inappropriate theoretical framework. If we were to live in a special place in the Universe, near the centre of a void where the local matter density is low, then the supernovae observations would be accounted for without the addition of dark energy.”

- Timothy Clifton, Oxford Astrophysics Member, BSc, PhD. (T. Clifton, et al, “Living in a Void: Testing the Copernican Principle with Distant Supernovae,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (13): 1302 (Sep 2008).

The observed redshifts confirm a geocentric universe.

oscarkipling wrote:okay, how so

For the same reasons you claim they show helio model.

oscarkipling wrote:Okay, perhaps I misunderstood you. However the assessment in the blog
post is still wrong. Here he correctly indicates that the apparatus
could be thought of as a rest frame, which harkens back to Einstein
coming up with relativity by thinking about what the world would look
like if he were traveling on a beam of light given that
C is constant in all frames. While its clever it does not fully take into
account that the rotation distorts the shape of the apparatus when viewed from the
perspective
of light (that is as a rest frame), although strictly speaking not in
the actual sense. At a consistent RPM it would have to be thought of as a
rest frame that that consists of 2 asymmetric paths (we'll use this
guys terminology CW and CCW), that is to say that in this frame one path
is necessarily longer than the other. If you were on those light beams
this is the kind of distortion you would see. CW & CCW at rest would
be symmetrical, but in motion CW would be its length + the rotational
velocity over the period of travel, That is CW= L+(rotV/t) and CCW would
be the opposite. Of course this explains it from light's perspective,
but the runners (or rockets) explanation is practically
indistinguishable at non relativistic speeds, but easier to understand.
All the weird warping (relativistic effects) is one of the things that
relativity is famous for, it seems peculiar to me that anyone would say
that physicists have deluded themselves into believing that it can
explain this effect, when on its face its a very weird counter intuitive
way to look at the world anyway.

The only thing that is weird oscar....is reletavist coming up with explanations like:

"rotation distorts the shape of the apparatus when viewed from the perspective
of light (that is as a rest frame), although strictly speaking not in
the actual sense."

So the apparatus is bending its shape?....lolz......but not 'actually'?

No sorry.......no sale on 'not actually bending apparatus'.

Light beams do not have eyes my friend. The light beam does not 'see' distortion. Do you see the lengths men will go to in order to explain away experiments that prove a stationary Earth?

oscarkipling wrote:Well, no I'm not refuting a straw-man, let me explain. Michelson
expected that if the earth was moving in respect to a immobile
luminiferous aether at 30kps then he should get a particular fringe
patter, or fringe deflection. I didn't make any of that up that is the
hypothesis for the experiment. Since they did not get the expected
fringe pattern it could be thought that the earth is not moving in
respect to the aether at 30kps, or that the earth is moving at 30kps but
there is no aether. If the aether was rotating around a stationary
earth then they would have gotten the expected fringe pattern, you see
what I'm saying? Because the expected result could be either the earth
is moving at the predicted rate , or the aether is moving around the
earth at the predicted rate.

No this is incorrect.

An aether wind would not produce the same fringe pattern as an Earth hurtling through space at 30kps.

Thats what the M-M exp. showed us. That the aether wind is small.

oscarkipling wrote:The 1600kph number comes from the Michelson Gale Pearson expiriment,
which was designed to detect the rotation of the earth, which was
predicted to be ~1600kph, their results line up with this prediction, so
it also stands to reason that if this is the motion of the aether that
they detected, then it was far to slow a motion for the Michelson Morley
experiment to detect because that's like 1% of the expected speed, and
the test setup wasn't nearly that accurate. So, there are what I believe
are logical reasons to include all of the figures I have included.

The aether wind would not be expected to be anywhere near the speed of either the rotation of the Earth or the speed of the Earths translation around the sun.

oscarkipling wrote:The Sagnac experiment is compatible with some luminiferous aether models
or relativity, so its a wash there. Michelson-Gale-pearson was an
enormous Sagnac apparatus designed to detect the rotation of the earth,
as I said sagnac is a wash, but the motion that it did detect is in line
with a 1600kph rotation of the earth. If the earth is static then I
suppose it could be thought of has having detected a 1600kph motion of
the aether around the earth, however that fails to explain even the
apparent motion of the sun.

If it fails to explain the apparent motion of the sun in the geo model then it fails to explain even the
apparent motion of the sun in the helio model.

The two models are identical, there is only a switch in stationary reference frame.

oscarkipling wrote:I'm still unable to find the original airy business, but the
explanations up to this point make no sense, there just isn't the
possibility of enough deviation to cause the angle change of a telescope
as I explained earlier.

You explained with your own made up parameters. Your own parameters didnt give you the deviation needed.

oscarkipling wrote:I misunderstood you I guess, but I explained above why the rest frame
argument in the blog only takes some of the relativistic implications
into account. If you meant that the apparatus is a rest frame, by saying
that light travels at c relative to the source then your phrasing is
very confusing because that might incline one to believe that the speed
of light is somehow dependent on the motion of the source because the
source in that statement could be mistaken as an absolute frame for the
emitted light. I think a better way to say it is that light's speed is
independent of the source, which may in the future cause less confusion,
I know that people with physics training would find that confusing at
least. again its an interesting arguement, and i liked thinking about
it, I just wish I had understood what you were trying to get across from
the beginning (I'm sure at some point you were banging your head on the
desk thinking "this guy cant be that dense can he?").

Yeah..sorry...I realise that might have been a little confusing for you.

I still dont accept 'reletavistic effects' like apparatus bending but not really. Still no sale on that.

oscarkipling wrote:I'm willing to go through the implications of aether rotating around the
earth, but if it is ,then the result is in line with an aether rotating
around the earth at 1600kph, because the predicted motion was expected
to be in line with 1600kph, and that's what they got. Now they happed to
think that this was because the earth was rotating at this rate, but if
the aether is i'd be fine with going through those implications.

I still dont know where you get 1600kph from?

But thanks for considering a revolving aether.

oscarkipling wrote:ets not put the cart before the horse, i'm going to need to know more
about your understanding of gravity, because this is immediately
incompatible with both newton and Einsteins models, especially if mass
is arranged in concentric circles around the earth. few questions:

What is the relationship between gravity and mass in geo?

Mass up there [stars] produces gravity down here [Earth].

oscarkipling wrote:Do things orbit each other due to gravitational effects?

Define 'gravitational effects'.

oscarkipling wrote:How far away these objects?

The Sun

Earth's Moon

The first concentric sphere of galaxies

I've never measured their distances. So I dont know.

oscarkipling wrote:Oh yeah I screwed up and commented on the wrong thing. Initially I calculated how fast the sun would need to be going if it is 150 million km away and it orbited the earth every 24 hours, it would have to be trucking at 39 million kph which doesn't even begin to match the 1600kph detected in the MGP experiment. But then I calculated how close the sun would have to be in order to orbit the earth once every 24 hours at 1600kph. So 1600kph*24 is 38400km, rounded off to 38000 to simplify. A 38000km orbit would place the sun 6000km from the earth, which is way too close. So I asked you how far away from the earth the sun is.

Where do you get 1600kph from again?

Strangelove wrote:

It explains redshifts with the same principles as your geocentric model does.

In your model, the Earth goes around the sun. The sun and distant stars centred on it remain relatively static. As the Earth travels in its orbit, sometimes its closer to the distant stars and sometimes its farther. Therefore we get a small change in the redshift.

Not quite, while its true that the motion of the earth must be taken into account measuring redshift, this motion is periodic, that is to say that you'll get greater redshift by some small amount when we are moving away from the observed body at orbital velocity, and less when we are moving toward them, even at its most extreme the red or blue shift would be far less than that expected for 30kps because of the elliptical nature of earths orbit, Our radial velocity would (and does) create a periodic sinusoidal red/blue shift pattern in the data and really only at its greatest when observing bodies within our orbital plane. The redshifts in general cannot be explained by our motion around the sun because once you do account for this distant bodies are still displaying significant redshift, not to mention that bodies observed outside of our orbital plane still display redshifts. moreover there appears to be an increase in redshift over distance (expansion), and over time(acceleration). In the model I'm describing the redshift is due to all distant bodies moving away from u because the space between us is expanding.

Strangelove wrote:
In my model, we simply switch our stationary frame of reference to the Earth. Now...the sun is orbiting the static Earth and the distant stars centred on the sun (like the planets are 'centred' on it) are moving slightly away and then slightly closer to the Earth as the sun moves. We get the same redshifts. Theres no difference. Same as we get steller parallax in both models. No dif bud.

No, you would only get the same periodic redshifts and blueshifts that indicate a regular orbit or in your case the regular motion of the aether carrying the celestial bodies. This is the same sinusoidal pattern I was talking about above, but once corrected for does not explain the redshift we get over distance and time. Actually I dont think a simple rotating motion would give you any redshift at all, but I guess there could be some eccentricity in the rotation that could give you the same sinusoidal pattern that we get due to earth's motion, but that still doesn't explain the detected redshift which indicates a constant motion of bodies away from us, and not a periodic moving away and then toward..

Strangelove wrote:
Light does not bend because of gravity. There is no such thing as gravitational lensing. Light bends due to refraction through plasma. The suns plasma. Doesnt the suns gravity extend well beyond its plasma?

Hmmm....light doesnt bend when you go that far.

Well, no one, or I should say Einstein's model does not predict that light should be significantly deflected at significant distances from a large mass. Gravity (for most intents and purposes) follows the inverse square law, which means at twice the distance the effect is half as strong, so as you can imagine the strength drops of quite dramatically as your angular distance from the sun increases. Anyway the lensing effect near the sun is greater than can be explained by the refractive index of the plasma (unless refractive indexes are different in Geo too, but then we'd notice that here on earth). Moreover, lensing near the sun and lensing near the edges of galactic clusters couldn't both be caused by refraction because the distances would be too great for any plasma in those galaxies to affect such a huge change.

Strangelove wrote:
We dont have any expectations for velocities of stars in the geo model. Because its not the stars that are going at speed. It's the aether. The stars are embedded in that rigid firmament. God 'set' them there. Like He 'set' the sun and moon. The aether spins around the Earth once every 24 hours and takes everything set with it.

I dont quite understand this...are galaxies made of stars? do those stars move within those galaxies? I mean a uniform rotating motion of all the heavens around us doesn't explain extrasolar orbits that we observe, or the orbits of moons around other planets. what causes the other planets moons to orbit them? It cant be the same motion that causes the sun to orbit the earth.

Strangelove wrote:

The fact its NOT homogenous should be setting off alarm bells oscar. Why isnt it?

Well, yes anisotropy does, and has in the scientific community. To date the best explanation for this is the inflation model, which describes a brief (relatively) rapid expansion in which fluctuations on the quantum level were "recorded" in matter because of the rapidity of this expansion. These are said to have caused density fluctuations and were compounded by subsequent acoustic wave propagation and the concomitant pressure fluctuations caused density heterogeneity in the early (acoustically transparent) universe.

Strangelove wrote:

And yes, I do have very up to date quotes.

Heres one:

“....there is visible evidence in the raw data for an apparent concentric shell structure centered on the observer.”

“A Fourier analysis on galaxy number counts from redshift data of both the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey indicates that galaxies have preferred periodic redshift spacings of Δz=0.0102, 0.0246, and 0.0448 in the SDSS and strong agreement with the results from the 2dF GRS. The redshift spacings are confirmed by the mass density fluctuations, the power spectrum P(z)and N calculations.....”

“The Great Wall is shown in the second and third quadrants as indicated. In those two quadrants it is evident to the eye that there is general concentric structure with a spacing of about 75 h ^-1 Mpc.”

- J.G. Hartnett K. Hirano Sep 2008 "Galaxy redshift abundance periodicity from Fourier analysis of number counts N(z) using SDSS and 2dFGRS galaxy surveys” published in "Astrophysics and Space Science" journal.

haha, I asked for it didn't i. I'm going to have to go over this paper a few more times, so I'm going to have to get back to you on this one, probably later tonight, i might be back to you before you even read this actually.

Strangelove wrote:
And a comment on those findings in another paper here:

“A widespread idea in cosmology is that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic above a certain scale. This hypothesis, usually called the cosmological principle, is thought to be a generalization of the Copernican principle that “the Earth is not in a central, specially favored position”. The assumption is that any observer at any place at the same epoch would see essentially the same picture of the large scale distribution of galaxies in the universe.

However, according to a Fourier analysis by Hartnett & Hirano, the galaxy number count N from redshift z data (N–z relation) indicates that galaxies have preferred periodic redshift spacings.........A natural interpretation is that concentric spherical shells of higher galaxy number densities surround us, with their individual centers
situated at our location.”

- Professor Shigeo Hirano, "Observational tests for oscillating expansion rate of the Universe" Physical Review D, 2010.

I cant seem to find this paper, and the only professor Shigeo Hirano I can seem to find is a political science and economics professor. Could you link me to this one?

Strangelove wrote:
If you dont invent fudge there is a simple alternative to an expanding universe that fits the observations:

“A fundamental presupposition of modern cosmology is the Copernican Principle, that we are not in a central, or otherwise special region of the Universe. Studies of Type Ia supernovae, together with the Copernican principle, have led to the inference that the Universe is accelerating in its expansion. The usual explanation for this is that there must exist a ‘Dark Energy,’ to drive the acceleration. Alternatively, it could be the case that the Copernican Principle is invalid, and that the data has been interpreted within an inappropriate theoretical framework. If we were to live in a special place in the Universe, near the centre of a void where the local matter density is low, then the supernovae observations would be accounted for without the addition of dark energy.”

- Timothy Clifton, Oxford Astrophysics Member, BSc, PhD. (T. Clifton, et al, “Living in a Void: Testing the Copernican Principle with Distant Supernovae,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (13): 1302 (Sep 2008).

In his conclusion he states "Two very different paradigms have been invoked to explain the current observation of an apparently accelerating Universe, depending on whether we invoke or reject the Copernican Principle. We have shown that in the
coming years it will be possible to experimentally distinguish between these two scenarios, allowing us to experimentally test the Copernican Principle [28, 29, 30], as
well as determine the extent to which Dark Energy must be considered a necessary ingredient in the Universe.".


While this is paper and model is really really really interesting, there are a few things that should be noted. First that while in this model the earth must be very near the center of an especially low density part of the universe, its not not necessary that this low density area itself be near or at the center of the universe . In fact in this model its necessary that there still must be more to the universe than is observable from our void, otherwise the geometry would not be anomalous in the context of the universe at large. Nor is it necessary that it is the only void of its kind in the universe. Also this paper postulates this model but does not itself "experimentally distinguish" between a statistically homogenous universe (Copernican model) and his statistically homogenous void, that is statistically anomalous in density and geometry in the context of the greater universe. In fact with current data (supernova survey data 2003-08) he says "The best fitting void is 71± 7% underdense at its centre, and has a scale corresponding to 850± 170h−1Mpc today. This is of the order expected to produce a feature in
dm on a scale of z ∼ 0.6, and large enough to avoid strong constraints from galaxy surveys that extend to z ∼ 0.1. On the other hand, the best fitting CDM model contains 74 ± 4% dark energy, and fits the data slightly better with |
lnE| ≃ 2.7. Thus, while the current data marginally prefers CDM, it is not yet able to distinguish between the two models decisively.". This is indeed cutting edge stuff, and I do appreciate you bringing it to my attention, but if you can call dark energy fudge, then I dont see how you could not equally call postulating anomalous local void geometry the same kind of fudge. Anyway based on even the latest supernova survey data, this may be outside of anyone's ability to determine using his proposed expiriment, and studies using CMB (as opposed to supernovae) data that support dark energy like the wiggle z dark energy survey might support the dark energy theory while still being unable to disprove this model, but I dont know, I'm going to have to compare the 2 which will take some time. I think one more important distinction must be made and that is that his proposition does rely on a non rotating space-time, the geometry warping that he is proposing here would not work outside of this context, or more precisely not a rotating aether with embedded mass. either way, good find, I'll keep my eye on this in the future.

Strangelove wrote:

For the same reasons you claim they show helio model.

well, no but I explained my position in an earlier post, so I'll not reproduce it here. But i can say that primarily they aren't used as evidence of a helio model per se, but redshifts do indicate that everything appears to be moving away from us (that is everything that's outside of the range of any significant gravitational effects). So primarily they are evidence of an expanding universe, but not necessarily a heliocentric solar system.

Strangelove wrote:

The only thing that is weird oscar....is reletavist coming up with explanations like:

"rotation distorts the shape of the apparatus when viewed from the perspective
of light (that is as a rest frame), although strictly speaking not in
the actual sense."

So the apparatus is bending its shape?....lolz......but not 'actually'?

The blogger proposed that it was the rest frame for light, at relativistic (@ or near light speed), there is warpage, length contraction and all of that jazz that relativity is famous for. The blogger put it into a relativistic context for which I simply worked out the further implications that he did not. The apparatus is not distorted (well probably slightly, but mostly mechanically) But the path the light would travel if you thought of it as a rest frame for light, it would be warped. If you think its nuts, sure, but relativity is nuts in the first place and all kinds of weird stuff is predicted.

Strangelove wrote:
No sorry.......no sale on 'not actually bending apparatus'.

Light beams do not have eyes my friend. The light beam does not 'see' distortion. Do you see the lengths men will go to in order to explain away experiments that prove a stationary Earth?

I didn't mean seeing in any sense beyond expressing that from the perspective of light, the apparatus could be thought of as being at rest, but it would be asymmetrical. Its not like these are not the kinds of things predicted by the model, I'm fine with you saying that Einstein was wrong, but claiming that its not an effect that is predicted by the model makes no sense. Are length contractions, time dilatation, and warping in Einsteins model? If people (me?) are just making up stuff then I'm making it up to keep what parts of Einstein's model exactly? because stuff like the warpage of the geometry of spacetime are key to some of the predictions like gravitational lensing which was used to test the validity of the theory itself, so if it were not a prediction of the theory coming up with that as an experiment would simply be a nonsensical thing to do. Same thing with time dilation and length contraction.

Strangelove wrote:

No this is incorrect.

An aether wind would not produce the same fringe pattern as an Earth hurtling through space at 30kps.

Thats what the M-M exp. showed us. That the aether wind is small.

I dont understand why a 30kps movement of the earth through an immobile aether isn't analogous to an aether moving at 30kps in respect to an immobile the earth. I can agree on one point that if there is an aether wind then M-M and subsequent experiments of the like show that it is small or non existent.

Strangelove wrote:
The aether wind would not be expected to be anywhere near the speed of either the rotation of the Earth or the speed of the Earths translation around the sun.

Well, of course not, it couldn't be (at least imo), but the MM and MGP experiments were done with the assumption that both those speeds were relevant, therefore they did expect that the aether wind would be measured in accordance to those velocities. In the geo model how fast is the aether moving, and is it doing so in a uniform manner?

Strangelove wrote:
If it fails to explain the apparent motion of the sun in the geo model then it fails to explain even the
apparent motion of the sun in the helio model.

The two models are identical, there is only a switch in stationary reference frame.

No if the earth is rotating on its axis then for the sun to traverse the sky once every ~24 hours it must be rotating at `1600kph. This is easy enough to figure out again @1600kph in 24 hours ~38,000km of travel occurs. If this motion is rotational, and every 24 hours you see the sunrise, this means the earth is ~38,000km around, because the sky stuff makes a complete circuit in that amount of time (for the most part, and not the moon, which tells you something about the moon).

Alternatively, if the sun is traveling around a stationary earth in this time, it has to be either really close (to be traveling at 1600kph) or really fast (150km away) which I detailed earlier.

Since we are fairly confident that the earth is something like 38,000km around, the ~1600kph rotational speed gives us a pretty good bead on whats happening. and why the 1600k in MGP makes sense in the helio context but not so much in the Geo context.

If the earth isn't rotating, then stuff is necessarily either orders of magnitude closer than we think, or orders of magnitude faster than we think.

Strangelove wrote:
You explained with your own made up parameters. Your own parameters didn't give you the deviation needed.

the only relevant thing I speculated about was the length of the telescope and aperture size, even if his telescope was 10 times longer and 10 times thinner, it wouldn't result in an angle change. If you have the dimensions of the original telescope he used, I'll calculate for that.

Strangelove wrote:
I still dont accept 'reletavistic effects' like apparatus bending but not really. Still no sale on that.

presumably you dont accept relativity at all, but its not about whether you believe that the theory itself is true, its about whether these are things that it predicts.

Strangelove wrote:
I still dont know where you get 1600kph from?

But thanks for considering a revolving aether.

okay...is the aether moving at a uniform speed?

Strangelove wrote:
Mass up there [stars] produces gravity down here [Earth].

yes, but how? why?

can gravity be thought of as a force that accelerates masses toward each other in the Geo model?

Strangelove wrote:
Define 'gravitational effects'.

A force that accelerates masses toward each other.

Or the warpage in space-time caused by mass.

If its not either of those things, then ism interested in the geo perspective on this.

Strangelove wrote:
I've never measured their distances. So I dont know.

So in the Geo model they could be any distance from us?

That's a real question, but now that I've thought through the implications of what you said earlier, if the motions of the bodies in our solar system are the same except the frame of reference changes i.e. that stuff is moving, but the earth isn't, then using the same triigonometric methods to measure distances of bodies within our solar system we can determine that the distances are the same, although the speeds are entirely different...no? Anyway, if we can determine the distance of bodies, and with some answers to other questions I posed in my posts,Ii think we can create a reasonable experiment to test the Geo theory, using data that we can both agree is accurate.

oscarkipling wrote: In the model I'm describing the redshift is due to all distant bodies moving away from u because the space between us is expanding.

You could maker up any model you want I guess.....and say that redshift is due to anything you please.

But I doubt you can prove that in reality, reshifts are due to all distant bodies moving away from u because the space between us is expanding. It could be a.....how you say?.....'gravitational effect'? More on that later with expert quotes.

Space expanding is a completely nonsensical explanation as it is.....and it requires fudge factors that have never been observed (dark energy/matter) to make it work.

Oscar.....if you have a theory that produces stuff that doesnt even exist...then it might be time to rethink.

"Dark Energy is problematic. No one really knows what it is. We can make an educated guess, and use quantum theory to estimate how much of it there might be, but then we overshoot by an astounding factor of 10120. That is grounds enough, says George Ellis…to take a hard look at our assumptions about the universe and our place in it. “If we analyse the supernova data by assuming the Copernican principle is correct and get out something unphysical, I think we should start questioning the Copernican principle…. Whatever our theoretical predilections, they will in the end have to give way to the observational evidence.”

So what would it mean if…the outcome were that the Copernican principle is wrong? It would certainly require a seismic reassessment of what we know about the universe….If the Copernican Principle fails, all that goes [with] that [the Big Bang] goes out the window too….Cosmology would be back at the drawing board. If we are in a void, answering how we came to be in such a privileged spot in the universe would be even trickier."

- Marcus Chown, “Is the Earth at the Heart of a Giant Cosmic Void? New Scientist, Nov. 12, 2008, pp. 32‐35.

oscarkipling wrote:that still doesn't explain the detected redshift which indicates a constant motion of bodies away from us, and not a periodic moving away and then toward..

Apparently, if Earth was at the centre of the universe...the surrounding mass of the stars would produce redshifts wherever we looked..

“Often the simplest of observations will have the most profound consequences. It has long been a cornerstone of modern science, to say nothing of man’s cosmic outlook, that the Earth attends a modest star that shines in an undistinguished part of a run-of-the-mill galaxy. Life arose spontaneously and man evolved on this miscellaneous clump of matter and now directs his own destiny without outside help. This cosmic model is supported by the Big-Bang and Expanding Universe concepts, which in turn are buttressed by the simple observation that astronomers see redshifts wherever they look. These redshifts are due, of course, to matter flying away from us under the impetus of the Big Bang. But redshifts can also arise from the gravitational attraction of mass. If the Earth were at the center of the universe, the attraction of the surrounding mass of stars would also produce redshifts wherever we looked! The argument advanced by George Ellis in this article is more complex than this, but his basic thrust is to put man back into a favored position in the cosmos. His new theory seems quite consistent with our astronomical observations, even though it clashes with the thought that we are godless and making it on our own.”

- Editor of Nature Magazine, Paul C. W. Davies.

oscarkipling wrote:lensing near the sun and lensing near the edges of galactic clusters
couldn't both be caused by refraction because the distances would be too
great for any plasma in those galaxies to affect such a huge change.

You say the distances would be too great. I say they wouldn't.

oscarkipling wrote:I dont quite understand this...are galaxies made of stars? do those stars move within those galaxies? I mean a uniform rotating motion of all the heavens around us doesn't explain extrasolar orbits that we observe, or the orbits of moons around other planets. what causes the other planets moons to orbit them? It cant be the same motion that causes the sun to orbit the earth.

Before you asked me about higher than expected speeds for stars. I answered that the aether carries the stars....so the stars are not actually travelling faster than we expect.

Now your asking me what causes independent orbits. I would say gravitational forces do.

oscarkipling wrote:Well, yes anisotropy does, and has in the scientific community. To date the best explanation for this is the inflation model, which describes a brief (relatively) rapid expansion in which fluctuations on the quantum level were "recorded" in matter because of the rapidity of this expansion. These are said to have caused density fluctuations and were compounded by subsequent acoustic wave propagation and the concomitant pressure fluctuations caused density heterogeneity in the early (acoustically transparent) universe.

So instead of accepting the obvious conclusion that we are at the centre of the universe...the "scientific community" has decided to put forward the ridiculous concept that...yeah....it only looks like that cuz of a 'big bang time stamp' that 'recorded' (lolz) a rapid [temporary] expansion. (??).

What absurd nonsense. How did this rapid expansion end up being centred on the Earth?

oscarkipling wrote:haha, I asked for it didn't i. I'm going to have to go over this paper a few more times, so I'm going to have to get back to you on this one, probably later tonight, i might be back to you before you even read this actually.

Cant wait.

oscarkipling wrote:I cant seem to find this paper, and the only professor Shigeo Hirano I can seem to find is a political science and economics professor. Could you link me to this one?

Seriously? Did you try googling Hirano, "Observational tests for oscillating expansion rate of the Universe"

????

Anywayz oscar....

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1008.4456.pdf

oscarkipling wrote:While this is paper and model is really really really interesting, there
are a few things that should be noted. First that while in this model
the earth must be very near the center of an especially low density part
of the universe, its not not necessary that this low density area
itself be near or at the center of the universe .

The only low density area we observe is the one we're at the centre of with all the galaxies arranged in concentric rings around us. If the galaxies are arranged like that...then we're at the centre of the universe.

oscarkipling wrote:In fact in this model its necessary that there still must be more to the
universe than is observable from our void, otherwise the geometry would
not be anomalous in the context of the universe at large. Nor is it
necessary that it is the only void of its kind in the universe.

Science is about going on what we DO observe. Not musing about what we cant.

oscarkipling wrote:Also this paper postulates this model but does not itself
"experimentally distinguish" between a statistically homogenous universe
(Copernican model) and his statistically homogenous void, that is
statistically anomalous in density and geometry in the context of the
greater universe. In fact with current data (supernova survey data
2003-08) he says "The best fitting void is 71± 7% underdense at its
centre, and has a scale corresponding to 850± 170h−1Mpc today. This is
of the order expected to produce a feature in
dm on a scale of z ∼ 0.6,
and large enough to avoid strong constraints from galaxy surveys that
extend to z ∼ 0.1. On the other hand, the best fitting CDM model
contains 74 ± 4% dark energy, and fits the data slightly better with
|
lnE| ≃ 2.7. Thus, while the current data marginally prefers CDM, it
is not yet able to distinguish between the two models decisively."

If we were to live in a
special place in the Universe, near the centre of a void where the
local matter density is low, then the supernovae observations would be
accounted for without the addition of dark energy.

One model requires adding a 'thing' we have never observed.

The other model fits the observations WITHOUT making up stuff. When you have a model that requires you to invent a fudge factor....its not worth the paper its written on.

oscarkipling wrote:well, no but I explained my position in an earlier post, so I'll not reproduce it here. But i can say that primarily they aren't used as evidence of a helio model per se, but redshifts do indicate that everything appears to be moving away from us (that is everything that's outside of the range of any significant gravitational effects). So primarily they are evidence of an expanding universe, but not necessarily a heliocentric solar system.

There is nothing outside of the range of any significant gravitational effects. The trillions of stars produce gravitational effects that affect the entire universe.

oscarkipling wrote:The blogger proposed that it was the rest frame for light, at relativistic (@ or near light speed), there is warpage, length contraction and all of that jazz that relativity is famous for. The blogger put it into a relativistic context for which I simply worked out the further implications that he did not. The apparatus is not distorted (well probably slightly, but mostly mechanically) But the path the light would travel if you thought of it as a rest frame for light, it would be warped. If you think its nuts, sure, but relativity is nuts in the first place and all kinds of weird stuff is predicted.

Well...?...?....I agree with you relativity is nuts. But its the only thing you have from accepting a geocentric universe. So why are you using crazy science as an escape hatch?

All the 'weird stuff' that is predicted is PRECISELELY the stuff that is needed to counter the interferometer experiments of the 19th century that prove a stationary Earth. They did it on purpose mate. Thats what it was designed for.

oscarkipling wrote:I didn't mean seeing in any sense beyond expressing that from the perspective of light, the apparatus could be thought of as being at rest, but it would be asymmetrical. Its not like these are not the kinds of things predicted by the model, I'm fine with you saying that Einstein was wrong, but claiming that its not an effect that is predicted by the model makes no sense. Are length contractions, time dilatation, and warping in Einsteins model? If people (me?) are just making up stuff then I'm making it up to keep what parts of Einstein's model exactly? because stuff like the warpage of the geometry of spacetime are key to some of the predictions like gravitational lensing which was used to test the validity of the theory itself, so if it were not a prediction of the theory coming up with that as an experiment would simply be a nonsensical thing to do. Same thing with time dilation and length contraction.

Oh no...I'm not saying your making it up. I'm saying Einstein did. His model most assuradly does have all that wacky stuff in it. Warpage of the geometry of spacetime...lolz....its just nuts innit?

oscarkipling wrote:I dont understand why a 30kps movement of the earth through an immobile aether isn't analogous to an aether moving at 30kps in respect to an immobile the earth. I can agree on one point that if there is an aether wind then M-M and subsequent experiments of the like show that it is small or non existent.

It's not analagous because its two different things. They have no relation to eachother. One happens and the other doesnt. We have a small aether wind. Thats it. Why does that wind have to be the same speed as some folks thought the Earth was moving through space?

oscarkipling wrote:Well, of course not, it couldn't be (at least imo), but the MM and MGP experiments were done with the assumption that both those speeds were relevant, therefore they did expect that the aether wind would be measured in accordance to those velocities. In the geo model how fast is the aether moving, and is it doing so in a uniform manner?

No its not uniform. It changes with altitude. It even stops completely at the geostationary distance (GSD) where we can literally hang a satellite in space unmoving for decades. After the GSD the aether starts moving the opposite direction (East to West) taking all the celestial bodies with it.

oscarkipling wrote:No if the earth is rotating on its axis then for the sun to traverse the sky once every ~24 hours it must be rotating at `1600kph. This is easy enough to figure out again @1600kph in 24 hours ~38,000km of travel occurs. If this motion is rotational, and every 24 hours you see the sunrise, this means the earth is ~38,000km around, because the sky stuff makes a complete circuit in that amount of time (for the most part, and not the moon, which tells you something about the moon).

Alternatively, if the sun is traveling around a stationary earth in this time, it has to be either really close (to be traveling at 1600kph) or really fast (150km away) which I detailed earlier.

Since we are fairly confident that the earth is something like 38,000km around, the ~1600kph rotational speed gives us a pretty good bead on whats happening. and why the 1600k in MGP makes sense in the helio context but not so much in the Geo context.

If the earth isn't rotating, then stuff is necessarily either orders of magnitude closer than we think, or orders of magnitude faster than we think.

I'll go with.....faster than we think.

oscarkipling wrote:the only relevant thing I speculated about was the length of the telescope and aperture size, even if his telescope was 10 times longer and 10 times thinner, it wouldn't result in an angle change. If you have the dimensions of the original telescope he used, I'll calculate for that.

Can you try doing a simple google search before you make me find it for you friend?

oscarkipling wrote:presumably you dont accept relativity at all, but its not about whether you believe that the theory itself is true, its about whether these are things that it predicts.

Lolz....the fact relativity predicts things does not make it correct. Of course it has to ultimately agree with observations otherwise it wouldnt get out of the gate.

oscarkipling wrote:okay...is the aether moving at a uniform speed?

Nope.

oscarkipling wrote:yes, but how? why?

can gravity be thought of as a force that accelerates masses toward each other in the Geo model?

I think of it as a disturbance in the aether caused by objects. Big objects produce big disturbances which produces big gravitational force. This force does accelerates masses toward each but its a 'push' rather than a pull.

oscarkipling wrote:A force that accelerates masses toward each other.

Or the warpage in space-time caused by mass.

If its not either of those things, then ism interested in the geo perspective on this.

Rather than a 'warpage in space-time caused by mass' I see it as a disturbance in the particles of the aether caused by mass.

oscarkipling wrote:So in the Geo model they could be any distance from us?

I'm happy to go with the mainstream science distances for the sun and moon but not the nearest stars.

oscarkipling wrote:
That's a real question, but now that I've thought through the implications of what you said earlier, if the motions of the bodies in our solar system are the same except the frame of reference changes i.e. that stuff is moving, but the earth isn't, then using the same triigonometric methods to measure distances of bodies within our solar system we can determine that the distances are the same, although the speeds are entirely different...no? Anyway, if we can determine the distance of bodies, and with some answers to other questions I posed in my posts,Ii think we can create a reasonable experiment to test the Geo theory, using data that we can both agree is accurate.

Ok.

I’m sorry this took so long, my original reply was destroyed when I mistakenly hit refresh. I decided to reorganize our conversation into some relevant sections so that we could sort of keep it all in order, I think it’s better for the convo, but if you have objections then I won’t do it again.

Einstein/Relativity:

Strangelove wrote:
Well...?...?....I agree with you relativity is nuts. But its the only thing you have from accepting a geocentric universe.

No, It’s not the only objection I have to Geo so far, moreover I can’t say that I know everything that is proposed in Geo yet so I can’t rightly say how much of it I find plausible. I am still learning about Geo and its implications.

Strangelove wrote:
So why are you using crazy science as an escape hatch?

I don’t believe that this is what I’m doing because Einstein’s model has been confirmed experimentally. I don’t consider this an escape hatch, but simply the best most useful model we have to date.

Strangelove wrote:
Note* I combined these replies as they are interrelated.
All the 'weird stuff' that is predicted is PRECISELELY the stuff that is needed to counter the interferometer experiments of the 19th century that prove a stationary Earth. They did it on purpose mate. Thats what it was designed for.
Oh no...I'm not saying your making it up. I'm saying Einstein did. His model most assuradly does have all that wacky stuff in it. Warpage of the geometry of spacetime...lolz....its just nuts innit?
Lolz....the fact relativity predicts things does not make it correct. Of course it has to ultimately agree with observations otherwise it wouldnt get out of the gate.

So, if it (relativity) was designed precisely to explain those experimental results, then how can you also claim that it is contradicted by those results? You earlier stated that “The Sagnac effect is unexplainable using Einsteinism”, and then later you linked me to that rest frame argument as evidence of this assertion. I pointed out to you some implications that were not taken into account by this argument (length contraction). Now you seem to be admitting that relativity does indeed predict these sorts of things (length contraction), but that it’s a crazy thing to predict. Saying that its nuts and disingenuous is one argument, but saying that it fails to account for the very things it was designed to account for is an entirely different argument. So was it designed to account for these experiments, by making up a bunch of stuff, in which case it is not contradicted by these results? Or does it fail to account for the results, therefore the results contradict it?
Another interesting thing that should be noted is that the timothy Clifton paper that you cited actually requires that the geometry of space-time is warped in such a way as to cause the redshifts that we observe. Now why is the warping of space-time a crazy escape hatch when it explains the rest frame argument, but its evidence when you use it to support the Geo model?


Redshift & Cosmic void:

Strangelove wrote:
You could maker up any model you want I guess.....and say that redshift is due to anything you please.
But I doubt you can prove that in reality, reshifts are due to all distant bodies moving away from u because the space between us is expanding. It could be a.....how you say?.....'gravitational effect'? More on that later with expert quotes. Space expanding is a completely nonsensical explanation as it is.....and it requires fudge factors that have never been observed (dark energy/matter) to make it work.
Oscar.....if you have a theory that produces stuff that doesnt even exist...then it might be time to rethink

Well no, as I see it so far we only have 2 opposing Ideas here, that the redshift that we observe is caused by distant objects moving away from us (the Doppler effect), or that the redshift is caused by gravitational effects. We can be confident that both gravitational effects and the Doppler Effect can cause shifting in the EM spectra. Unless of course you are arguing that no EM spectrum shift can be caused by the Doppler Effect, but I don’t think you are because earlier you stated “In my model, we simply switch our stationary frame of reference to the Earth. Now...the sun is orbiting the static Earth and the distant stars centered on the sun (like the planets are 'centered' on it) are moving slightly away and then slightly closer to the Earth as the sun moves. We get the same redshifts.”, this would be a Doppler effect shift that you are describing, not a gravitational effect. Anyway I will hazard to say that we agree that both effects (Doppler & gravitational) can cause redshift in general principle. I would argue that I can’t simply make up some new cause for EM shift (not anything that would stand up to scrutiny at least), but more importantly I don’t have to because a well accepted and evidenced causes for EM shift in general are things that we agree upon. The only point we are in disagreement about is which one of these effects is causing the shift observed in distant bodies. Now if it is caused by the Doppler effect, it means that the bodies are moving away from us, this isn’t nonsense this is simply the consequence of thinking though the implications of a Doppler effect caused redshift. It doesn’t tell us why stuff is moving away from us it simply tells us that it does and at what velocity(s). The why in this case would be dark energy, which admittedly it’s unclear as to what exactly it is or what causes it (you call this fudge, and I can see your point). Now you seem to ascribe to the idea that the redshift observed in distant bodies is caused by gravitational effects. If you think through the implications (or at least from one perspective) of this then the universe is not expanding. But there are further implications, that is we live in a low density area of a much larger universe, so large in fact we can’t observe anything but the “void” that we live in. So in this hypothesis there is an entire universe, that is necessarily more dense than anything we have observed, moreover it’s too far away to ever have the possibility of observing…so it seems to me that if dark energy is fudge, then likewise this unobservable high density (and in some cases spherically symmetrical) is also fudge. To paraphrase you, if you have a theory that produces stuff that has no possibility of being observed and is unlike anything we’ve ever observed, then it might be time to rethink. However, to be fair, I’m very interested in the future developments with this void theory, in the paper you cited timothy Clifton proposed a way to test the validity of the hypothesis, which I look forward to….But it can only be tested with indirect methods…just like dark energy tests so far.

Strangelove wrote:
Apparently, if Earth was at the centre of the universe...the surrounding mass of the stars would produce redshifts wherever we looked..
“Often the simplest of observations will have the
most profound consequences. It has long been a cornerstone of modern
science, to say nothing of man’s cosmic outlook, that the Earth attends a
modest star that shines in an undistinguished part of a run-of-the-mill
galaxy. Life arose spontaneously and man evolved on this miscellaneous
clump of matter and now directs his own destiny without outside help.
This cosmic model is supported by the Big-Bang and Expanding Universe
concepts, which in turn are buttressed by the simple observation that
astronomers see redshifts wherever they look. These redshifts are due,
of course, to matter flying away from us under the impetus of the Big
Bang. But redshifts can also arise from the gravitational attraction of mass.
If the Earth were at the center of the universe, the attraction of the
surrounding mass of stars would also produce redshifts wherever we
looked! The argument advanced by
George Ellis in this article is more complex than this, but his basic
thrust is to put man back into a favored position in the cosmos. His new
theory seems quite consistent with our astronomical observations, even
though it clashes with the thought that we are godless and making it on
our own.”

- Editor of Nature Magazine, Paul C. W. Davies.

I would be remiss if I did not point out that you have quoted the editor’s comments, which he admitted is a simplified version (I’d say oversimplified and grossly misrepresented) on an idea presented in an article, not a scientific paper, but a magazine article. Now to be fair Ellis in his article does cite some scientific papers, I suppose the most relevant to your quote is the paper he cited after this statement “The observed acceleration and data from NASA’s WMAP satellite, which is probing anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background (the radiation left over from the Big Bang), can be explained by assuming that we are near the centre of a Hubble-scale inhomogeneity of anomalously low density in a Universe that is spherically symmetrical” which was “Local Void vs Dark Energy: Confrontation with WMAP and Type Ia Supernovae” arXiv:0712.0370v3. Which is another interesting paper that deals with a low density void; in it they Endeavour to postulate a minimum size for the void, which if I understand correctly is only ~1200 lightyears across (Minimum Void). In the conclusion the author(s) says “The MV model can accommodate reasonably all of the data considered, although the fits are not as good as the concordance model. However, we see the possibility of obtaining just as good fits when one includes curvature or invokes non-standard features in the primordial spectrum (a “bump” for example). We leave these issues for an upcoming work. On the other hand we have seen that the Minimal Void is in trouble with the Baryon Acoustic Oscillations measurements, since outside the Void, the DL(z) curve is just the usual EdS one, and the Hubble parameter hout from WMAP is too low. More work is needed in order to find whether it would be possible to overcome this potential problem”, so while its intriguing work, it is not without its problems with current observations (specifically BAO measurements), they go on to say that “Both cases require significant model building and new physics that are currently being pursued by the community”, which is what you call fudge. The other issue is that Being at the center of the void, and being at the center of the universe are 2 different things, in every void theory I’ve seen so far, we are necessarily at the center of the void, and the void is necessarily in a larger universe, but the void is not necessarily in the center of the universe. Hypothetically speaking there is no reason why our void couldn’t be one of many such voids making up density fluctuations in a pattern similar to the ones that we map, except on a much larger scale. So, these are very interesting things you are bringing to my attention, but we cannot act as if it’s as simple as saying we are the center of the universe, now everything matches observations perfectly, at this point, they are competing theories..

Strangelove wrote:
The only low density area we observe is the one we're at the centre of with all the galaxies arranged in concentric rings around us. If the galaxies are arranged like that...then we're at the centre of the universe.

No, in this particular void theory we cannot possibly observe anything outside the local void, because it is the size of the observable universe. Since all we can see is the observable universe, it’s not particularly of a low density so far as we can observe, it is only postulated that if it is of lower density in the context of a larger unobservable universe will we get this redshift effect. If we could see that we were in a low density area as compare to the rest of the universe, then the void would be too small for Clifton’s model to work. As far as quantized distances of galaxies, I’m still working through the logic of the paper, but I promise to get back to you on that as soon as possible.

Strangelove wrote:
Science is about going on what we DO observe. Not musing about what we cant.

Yeah, I agree, but the model described in this paper that that you proposed as evidence postulates a denser larger universe that we necessarily cannot observe because it is too far away. So are you now saying that because his model postulates this unobservable universe, that its not evidence for your case anymore?

Strangelove wrote:
If we were to live in a
special place in the Universe, near the centre of a void where the
local matter density is low, then the supernovae observations would be
accounted for without the addition of dark energy.

One model requires adding a 'thing' we have never observed.

The other model fits the observations WITHOUT making up stuff. When you have a model that requires you to invent a fudge factor....its not worth the paper its written on.

One model proposes dark matter and the other proposes a distant denser unobservable universe. How is this unobservable denser universe not one of your “ fudge factors”?

Gravitational lensing/ refraction:

Strangelove wrote:
You say the distances would be too great. I say they wouldn't.

Okay, it should be easy enough to settle this, are the refractive indexes of matter different in the geo model? If not we can calculate the difference between the observed deflection and the amount of deflection that would be expected given the refractive index stellar plasma at the densities it would be at the distances from the star where the lensing effect is observed. If the refractive indexes of stuff are different, then we’d have a larger problem because pretty much nothing known about optics is correct and eyeglasses, movie projectors, microscopes, and blu-ray shouldn’t work either. So, which is it?


Gravity(general):

Strangelove wrote:
I think of it as a disturbance in the aether caused by objects. Big objects produce big disturbances which produces big gravitational force. This force does accelerates masses toward each but its a 'push' rather than a pull.

Hmm , I don’t quite understand this, but I’ll leave it alone for now for now. Is this what causes moons to orbit other planets, and stars to orbit galaxies?

Strangelove wrote:
Rather than a 'warpage in space-time caused by mass' I see it as a disturbance in the particles of the aether caused by mass.

Can you provide any more information about this, I mean conceptually, I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around it. I think an equation (or a family of equations) would really help me out here in understanding what you are talking about.

Strangelove wrote:
There is nothing outside of the range of any significant gravitational effects. The trillions of stars produce gravitational effects that affect the entire universe.

Maybe in the geo model, but then I don’t understand gravity in the context of Geo, hopfully you can help me out with that.
Google:

Strangelove wrote:
Seriously? Did you try googling Hirano, "Observational tests for oscillating expansion rate of the Universe" ???? Anywayz oscar....http://arxiv.org/pdf/1008.4456.pdf

No, I didn’t because you cited it as “- Professor Shigeo Hirano, "Observational tests for oscillating expansion rate of the Universe" Physical Review D, 2010.” Whereas the actual paper is (co)authored by a “Koichi Hirano”. Curiously, I can’t find where he teaches, but I did find the Ichinoseki National College of Technology’s website, but to my dismay they don’t even have a physics department at all…which is odd considering he’s introduced in the paper as being in the school’s physics department. Perhaps it’s just a simple mistake or misunderstanding…but anyway yeah, I Googled, I always Google first.

Strangelove wrote:Can you try doing a simple google search before you make me find it for you friend?

In fact that was the first thing I did, I think from here on out, I’ll assume that you have at least attempted a simple google search before you ask me for links , and you can do the same for me, sound fair?

Star velocities:

Strangelove wrote:
Before you asked me about higher than expected speeds for stars. I answered that the aether carries the stars....so the stars are not actually travelling faster than we expect. Now your asking me what causes independent orbits. I would say gravitational forces do.

No I asked exactly this “How does the geocentric model explain the higher than expected velocity of stars at the edges of galaxies?”. Now, perhaps you misunderstood what I was asking, but the stars are orbiting the galactic center of mass, but they are moving faster than can be accounted for by the visible amount of mass. I explained this when I laid out the observations that lead to the proposition of dark matter. So I hope that provides background and context for the question. So, in the geo model, why are the velocities of stars orbiting at the edges of galaxies faster than is expected given the amount of visible mass?

Aether:

Strangelove wrote:
It's not analagous because its two different things. They have no relation to eachother. One happens and the other doesnt. We have a small aether wind. Thats it. Why does that wind have to be the same speed as some folks thought the Earth was moving through space?

okay, so does this aether wind indicate that the aether is moving?

Strangelove wrote:
No its not uniform. It changes with altitude. It even stops completely at the geostationary distance (GSD) where we can literally hang a satellite in space unmoving for decades. After the GSD the aether starts moving the opposite direction (East to West) taking all the celestial bodies with it.

Interesting so, what causes it to do that?

Strangelove wrote:
I'll go with.....faster than we think.

Okay good, so given this and our agreement about the distance of the sun, can we agree that it must be moving at ~ 39million kph
Intrasolar distances:

Strangelove wrote:
I'm happy to go with the mainstream science distances for the sun and moon but not the nearest stars.

Well, this is a good thing, so the sun moon and planets are at their proper distances, then presumably we can calculate the approximate speeds at which they need to be moving around the earth correct?

oscarkipling wrote:I don’t believe that this is what I’m doing because Einstein’s model has been confirmed experimentally. I don’t consider this an escape hatch, but simply the best most useful model we have to date.

Any model can be 'confirmed experimentally' as you long as you start with the observation and build your theory around it. That doesnt make the theory any less nutty.

E.g.

Model for the sun being a big lamp.

1) I observe that the sun is very bright.
2) Lamps are bright.
3) The sun is a big lamp because its very bright.
4) The model has been confirmed experimentally.

oscarkipling wrote:So, if it (relativity) was designed precisely to explain those experimental results, then how can you also claim that it is contradicted by those results? You earlier stated that “The Sagnac effect is unexplainable using Einsteinism”, and then later you linked me to that rest frame argument as evidence of this assertion. I pointed out to you some implications that were not taken into account by this argument (length contraction). Now you seem to be admitting that relativity does indeed predict these sorts of things (length contraction), but that it’s a crazy thing to predict. Saying that its nuts and disingenuous is one argument, but saying that it fails to account for the very things it was designed to account for is an entirely different argument. So was it designed to account for these experiments, by making up a bunch of stuff, in which case it is not contradicted by these results? Or does it fail to account for the results, therefore the results contradict it?

If you dont believe in nutty pseudo science then relativity doesnt explain the results.
If you DO believe in nutty pseudo science then relativity does explain the results....in a nutty kinda way.

I dont believe in nutty science. So I'll accept the real scientific implications of the experiments. Which happily lines up with biblical teachings of geocentricity.

oscarkipling wrote:Another interesting thing that should be noted is that the timothy Clifton paper that you cited actually requires that the geometry of space-time is warped in such a way as to cause the redshifts that we observe. Now why is the warping of space-time a crazy escape hatch when it explains the rest frame argument, but its evidence when you use it to support the Geo model?

Where does he mention spacetime warping? Certainly not in the bit I quoted.

And anyway....if the author mentioned warped spacetime then thats HIS opinion on what could cause redshifts in the geocentric argument. The truth is we dont really know what causes them....but even relatavists like him will admit it could be gravitational effects. Warping of spacetime does not explain the rest frame argument. The data shows redshift patterns of concentric rings of galaxies centred on our position.

oscarkipling wrote:But there are further implications, that is we live in a low density area of a much larger universe, so large in fact we can’t observe anything but the “void” that we live in. So in this hypothesis there is an entire universe, that is necessarily more dense than anything we have observed, moreover it’s too far away to ever have the possibility of observing…so it seems to me that if dark energy is fudge, then likewise this unobservable high density (and in some cases spherically symmetrical) is also fudge.

I dunno what your talking about. We see out of the void. We see redshift patterns of concentric rings of galaxies centred on our position. We observe it.

Economy of words oscar...PLEASE! I work very hard during the day and come home tired. I'll happily discuss this stuff with you but for goodness sakes enough with the essay posts ok bud?

oscarkipling wrote:~SNIP~.....while its intriguing work, it is not without its problems with current observations (specifically BAO measurements), they go on to say that “Both cases require significant model building and new physics that are currently being pursued by the community”, which is what you call fudge.

All they need to do is accept the aether and all their problems will go away. The aether is not fudge. Space is made from something.

oscarkipling wrote:Hypothetically speaking there is no reason why our void couldn’t be one of many such voids

Science is about what we see, not musing about what we dont.

oscarkipling wrote:we cannot act as if it’s as simple as saying we are the center of the universe, now everything matches observations perfectly, at this point, they are competing theories..

There is only competition if you believe in nutty pseudo science.

oscarkipling wrote:No, in this particular void theory we cannot possibly observe anything outside the local void, because it is the size of the observable universe. Since all we can see is the observable universe, it’s not particularly of a low density so far as we can observe, it is only postulated that if it is of lower density in the context of a larger unobservable universe will we get this redshift effect. If we could see that we were in a low density area as compare to the rest of the universe, then the void would be too small for Clifton’s model to work.

Huh? We can see out of the void. We are in the centre of the void and the galaxies are arranged outside of that void. Just look at the data, not the theories. The fact there is a centre at all....whether or not its the centre of the universe is anathema to the Copernican principle.

oscarkipling wrote:Yeah, I agree, but the model described in this paper that that you proposed as evidence postulates a denser larger universe that we necessarily cannot observe because it is too far away. So are you now saying that because his model postulates this unobservable universe, that its not evidence for your case anymore?

No I think its still evidence because it shows a centre, that we are positioned at. And I think your being a tad silly now.

oscarkipling wrote:One model proposes dark matter and the other proposes a distant denser unobservable universe. How is this unobservable denser universe not one of your “ fudge factors”?

Dont be silly. We cant see the whole universe, but we see the pattern very clearly. Earth at the centre. Galaxies arranged around us.

oscarkipling wrote:Okay, it should be easy enough to settle this, are the refractive indexes of matter different in the geo model? If not we can calculate the difference between the observed deflection and the amount of deflection that would be expected given the refractive index stellar plasma at the densities it would be at the distances from the star where the lensing effect is observed. If the refractive indexes of stuff are different, then we’d have a larger problem because pretty much nothing known about optics is correct and eyeglasses, movie projectors, microscopes, and blu-ray shouldn’t work either. So, which is it?

How do I know the refractive index of stella plasma?....lolz.

oscarkipling wrote:Hmm , I don’t quite understand this, but I’ll leave it alone for now for now. Is this what causes moons to orbit other planets, and stars to orbit galaxies?

I dont know anything about stars orbiting galaxies. I've never seen such a thing.

oscarkipling wrote:Can you provide any more information about this, I mean conceptually, I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around it. I think an equation (or a family of equations) would really help me out here in understanding what you are talking about.

Try 'LeSagean' gravity. Dont expect any equations from me....math doesnt interest me.

oscarkipling wrote:No, I didn’t because you cited it as “- Professor Shigeo Hirano, "Observational tests for oscillating expansion rate of the Universe" Physical Review D, 2010.” Whereas the actual paper is (co)authored by a “Koichi Hirano”. Curiously, I can’t find where he teaches, but I did find the Ichinoseki National College of Technology’s website, but to my dismay they don’t even have a physics department at all…which is odd considering he’s introduced in the paper as being in the school’s physics department. Perhaps it’s just a simple mistake or misunderstanding…but anyway yeah, I Googled, I always Google first.

I linked you to the paper.

oscarkipling wrote:In fact that was the first thing I did, I think from here on out, I’ll assume that you have at least attempted a simple google search before you ask me for links , and you can do the same for me, sound fair?

Lovely.

oscarkipling wrote:No I asked exactly this “How does the geocentric model explain the higher than expected velocity of stars at the edges of galaxies?”. Now, perhaps you misunderstood what I was asking, but the stars are orbiting the galactic center of mass, but they are moving faster than can be accounted for by the visible amount of mass. I explained this when I laid out the observations that lead to the proposition of dark matter. So I hope that provides background and context for the question. So, in the geo model, why are the velocities of stars orbiting at the edges of galaxies faster than is expected given the amount of visible mass?

I dont know anything about stars orbiting galaxies. Never seen it. I see stars orbiting Earth.

oscarkipling wrote:okay, so does this aether wind indicate that the aether is moving?

I'd say so.

oscarkipling wrote:Interesting so, what causes it to do that?

Some kind of equilibrium being reached I guess.

oscarkipling wrote:Okay good, so given this and our agreement about the distance of the sun, can we agree that it must be moving at ~ 39million kph

The sun is moving but its the aether thats carrying it in its rigid framework.

oscarkipling wrote:Well, this is a good thing, so the sun moon and planets are at their proper distances, then presumably we can calculate the approximate speeds at which they need to be moving around the earth correct?

The aether moves. The celestial bodies are passengers so to speak. The sun rises and sets over our horizon due to the movement of the aether around us.

Strangelove wrote:

Any model can be 'confirmed experimentally' as you long as you start with the
observation and build your theory around it. That doesnt make the theory any
less nutty.

E.g.

Model for the sun being a big lamp.

1) I observe that the sun is very bright.
2) Lamps are bright.
3) The sun is a big lamp because its very bright.
4) The model has been confirmed experimentally.

Okay, I agree with the statement, but not the example. I think that 1 and 2 are
valid observations.3 Is a hypothesis that can be tested, and it will fail.
Lamps have properties which do not align with properties that align with
observations that we can make about the sun. The lamp model of the sun can be
falsified in several ways, and i outlined what we know about the sun in the
other thread which I won’t bother reproducing here, because you can read it
there if you like, and presumably you did. Given what we observe about the sun
and lamps, we can safely say that the sun is so dissimilar to terrestrial lamps
of any kind that it is in an entirely different category. It is valid to take
results of experiments as the observations to create an entirely new hypothesis
(model), but using those experiments to confirm that model would not be valid
IMO. However relativity does not have this problem, because many of the
experiments designed to test the theory weren't even possible to do back when
Einstein proposed the theory. That is to say, extremely accurate (atomic) clocks,
radio telescopes, sensors that detect a wide range of EM radiation with a high
degree of accuracy, satellites and lasers did not exist when Einstein proposed
his theory.

Strangelove wrote:
If you dont believe in nutty pseudo science then relativity doesnt explain the
results.
If you DO believe in nutty pseudo science then relativity does explain the
results....in a nutty kinda way.

I dont believe in nutty science. So I'll accept the real scientific
implications of the experiments. Which happily lines up with biblical teachings
of geocentricity.

Well, it’s your prerogative to determine what you find believable or not, but
it is not a valid argument to say that a model is invalid because you don’t
believe it. Likewise it is not valid argument if you cull out the parts of a
model that you find "nutty" and then claim that once those parts are
cut out it fails to explain phenomena. It appear to me that the root of your
incredulity about Einstein is that you find it "nutty", not that it
hasn't been confirmed by experimental results.

Strangelove wrote:
Where does he mention spacetime warping? Certainly not in the bit I quoted.

And anyway....if the author mentioned warped spacetime then thats HIS opinion
on what could cause redshifts in the geocentric argument. The truth is we dont
really know what causes them....but even relatavists like him will admit it
could be gravitational effects. Warping of spacetime does not explain the rest
frame argument. The data shows redshift patterns of concentric rings of
galaxies centred on our position.

Well, the paper did consist of more than just the abstract that you
quoted, I assumed that if you used the paper as support for you position that
you had indeed read it (that's the first thing I did). It is in fact based on
anomalous local space-time geometry (i.e. spacetime warpage). The fact is that
all of the void based papers i've read in the time during this discussion have
all included local geometry anomalies in the context of a larger universe. I'm
actually a little disappointed, your arguments so far have consisted of quotes
from stuff that I'm not sure you understand or even bothered to read,
misapprehensions of Einstein, and baseless assertions.

Strangelove wrote:
I dunno what your talking about. We see out of the void. We see redshift
patterns of concentric rings of galaxies centred on our position. We observe
it.

which void model are you basing this on?

Strangelove wrote:
Economy of words oscar...PLEASE! I work very hard during the day and come home
tired. I'll happily discuss this stuff with you but for goodness sakes enough
with the essay posts ok bud?

It always takes more words to thoroughly refute an assertion than it does to
make one. If i didn't thoroughly explain myself then we'd really just be going:


helio is right!

no, geo is right!

there is no aether!

Yes, there is!

You're wrong!

No, You're wrong!

Strangelove wrote:
All they need to do is accept the aether and all their problems will go away.
The aether is not fudge. Space is made from something.

...what? Of course it goes away if the
aether model explains everything simply because you assert that it does,and if
you ignore or reject observations like stars orbiting distant galaxies, or if
the aether can do whatever it wants for no apparent reason (rotate at different
speeds, stop and change direction), And if you never have to rigidly define
anything with math, and if the implications of theories that you claim support
your model are brushed aside…then yeah, all the problems go away.

Strangelove wrote:
Science is about what we see, not musing about what we dont.

agreed

Strangelove wrote:
There is only competition if you believe in nutty pseudo science.

I don’t get it, It seems that your only basis for what is or isn’t pseudoscience
is whether or not it agrees with the geocentric model.

Strangelove wrote:
Huh? We can see out of the void. We are in the centre of the void and the
galaxies are arranged outside of that void. Just look at the data, not the
theories. The fact there is a centre at all....whether or not its the centre of
the universe is anathema to the Copernican principle.

first, seriously, read the void paper that you quoted. Second, the one recent
analysis of the sdss data that claims that it indicates quantization of
galaxies (the Hartnett, Hirano paper) was coauthored by a guy that works for a
physics department that doesn’t exist. Which doesn’t mean the analysis is
wrong, but it does put it in a suspicious light. Another issue with the paper
is that it uses an analysis method that has been shown to indicate quantization
in random data under certain circumstances. Why would Hartnett and hirano do
that, idk, but it also casts suspicions. So, looking at the data which I’ve
done on multiple occasions does not to me imply to me that there is this
concentric nature to the distribution of matter, moreover the only things that
even led the idea credence is a type of analysis that is known to produce this
very type of false positive….which ironically is math that you claim to
distrust anyway. So tell me how one can
look at the data without any mathematical analysis, and come away with the
impression that there are concentric shells of matter around our planet?

Strangelove wrote:
No I think its still evidence because it shows a centre, that we are positioned
at. And I think your being a tad silly now.



*COMBINED*


Dont be silly. We cant see the whole universe, but we see
the pattern very clearly. Earth at the centre. Galaxies arranged around us.

it shows no such thing, it postulates that if we are at the
center of a void…nvm I’ve already said it, read the paper. I'm being silly? The
sdss data doesn’t even map the whole (known) universe, and the part that it
does map doesn’t indicate that we live in a void, nor that matter is arranged
in concentric spheres around us. To even confirm that we live in the minimum
void we would need more data than the sdss or any sky survey has provided up to
this point. I think its silly to claim that these proposed theories are proven
when they clearly are not….i mean at best they introduce ambiguity, which is a
far cry from claiming that these things have been “shown”.

Strangelove wrote:
How do I know the refractive index of stella plasma?....lolz.

you claimed that gravitational lensing isn't real, but instead that stellar
plasma was causing the lensing effect....how can you make such a claim if you
have no idea what the Refractive Index of stellar plasma is?

Strangelove wrote:
I dont know anything about stars orbiting galaxies. I've never seen such a
thing.

right, well I have. So you are familiar with redshift data, but not velocity
data about stars at the edges of galaxies?


http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/data/

Strangelove wrote:
Try 'LeSagean' gravity. Dont expect any equations from me....math doesn’t
interest me.

Lesagean gravity has been experimentally shown to fail to describe gravity.
Moreover it has implications, that have not bourne out in observation or experiment,
but if we were to ignore this, there are still a few reasons why a Lesage type
gravity wouldn’t work with your geocentric model.


1.
Directionality
problem: In lesage’s model, there are particles bombarding everything from
every direction, whereas in your model the aether, above of geostationary orbital
altitude (35/40,000km) has a definite rotational directionality. You claim that
all bodies are fixed in the aether, moving along with it as it moves, this
would not give you the omnidirectional bombardment required to make lasage’s
gravity work. Even if we offset it a bit and said that the mass was being
pushed along by the aether particles, that would still only allow for bodies to
appear to fall toward each other when they are on the opposite side of the direction of the aether or inside the “aether
shadow”. This could cause accretion of
matter, but not orbits as the effect is unidirectional due to the
directionality of the aether. Coincidentally this makes spherical rocky planets
inexplicable, they should show this directionality of accretion and should
probably look more teardrop shaped than spherical.





2.
Concentric
shells problem: This is a lot like the directionality problem, that is if
you want to insist that gravity on earth is caused by a Lesage effect you
cannot use the aether as your Lesage field. There is no explanation for how all
of this rotational motion is translated into and omnidirectional pushing force.
Moreover whether its Newton, or Lesage or Einstein, being at the center of
concentric shells of matter will create a null gravitational effect at the
center. With Newton it would be because all the matter is equally exerting the
same amount of force on all sides, with Lesage the mass at the center would be
effectively shielded equally on all sides from the particles, and in Einstein
space would take on a uniform curvature that would be symmetrical in every
direction. None of these things introduce the sort of gravitational aeffect you
are talking about at the center.


3.
Concentric
shells problem II: If galaxies are arranged in concentric shells, and
gravity is caused by the shielding of matter from particles, then why do we not
notice that galaxies aren’t arranged along meridians in the direction of the aether
rotation? I mean all depending on how distant they are we should see them
collecting in this manner. we’ve all but
established that the aether can move many times faster than the speed of light,
it shouldn’t take too many revolutions for some directionality to become apparent
due to galaxies shielding each other, and beginning to accrete along a
meridian.,

Strangelove wrote:
I linked you to the paper.

yes, after I mentioned that I couldn't find it you chided me about the use of
Google, then you linked me. I was simply pointing out that I did search but you
originally cited the paper with the wrong author.

Strangelove wrote:
I dont know anything about stars orbiting galaxies. Never seen it. I see stars
orbiting Earth.

so, since you haven't observed this then it does not happen?

Strangelove wrote:
I'd say so.

but the rate at which it does this is inscrutable ?

Strangelove wrote:
Some kind of equilibrium being reached I guess.

care to elaborate? I mean I find it unfathomable that you would declare that
relativity is nutty pseudoscience, but you feel perfectly fine with “Some kind
of equilibrium being reached I guess” as an explanation of why the aether exhibits
these bizarre behaviors.

Strangelove wrote:
The sun is moving but its the aether thats carrying it in its rigid framework.

moving at ~ 39million kph?

Strangelove wrote:
The aether moves. The celestial bodies are passengers so to speak. The sun
rises and sets over our horizon due to the movement of the aether around
us.

oh no I get that, but we can approximate these speeds correct?

You've slowed down in the other threads again oscar.

IS THERE A GOD?

Hello

oscarkipling wrote:Okay, I agree with the statement, but not the example. I think that 1 and 2 are
valid observations.3 Is a hypothesis that can be tested, and it will fail.
Lamps have properties which do not align with properties that align with
observations that we can make about the sun. The lamp model of the sun can be
falsified in several ways, and i outlined what we know about the sun in the
other thread which I won’t bother reproducing here, because you can read it
there if you like, and presumably you did. Given what we observe about the sun
and lamps, we can safely say that the sun is so dissimilar to terrestrial lamps
of any kind that it is in an entirely different category. It is valid to take
results of experiments as the observations to create an entirely new hypothesis
(model), but using those experiments to confirm that model would not be valid
IMO.

You cant falsify my model if I invoke nutty science though mate.

You might say 'oh wait....we dont see a huge cable coming out of the sun connected to a huge plug inlet, so the sun cant be a large lamp!'. But I can say 'aha!.....there IS a cable and plug...its just we call it a 'dark' cable and a 'dark' plug cuz we've never observed or measured them...but they are there! They MUST be!'

oscarkipling wrote:However relativity does not have this problem, because many of the
experiments designed to test the theory weren't even possible to do back when
Einstein proposed the theory. That is to say, extremely accurate (atomic) clocks,
radio telescopes, sensors that detect a wide range of EM radiation with a high
degree of accuracy, satellites and lasers did not exist when Einstein proposed
his theory.

None of those things prove that relativity is correct.

oscarkipling wrote:Well, it’s your prerogative to determine what you find believable or not, but
it is not a valid argument to say that a model is invalid because you don’t
believe it. Likewise it is not valid argument if you cull out the parts of a
model that you find "nutty" and then claim that once those parts are
cut out it fails to explain phenomena. It appear to me that the root of your
incredulity about Einstein is that you find it "nutty", not that it
hasn't been confirmed by experimental results.

YOU are the one who said that relativity is nuts. And I agreed with you. So why do you invoke nutty science?

oscarkipling wrote:Well, the paper did consist of more than just the abstract that you
quoted, I assumed that if you used the paper as support for you position that
you had indeed read it (that's the first thing I did). It is in fact based on
anomalous local space-time geometry (i.e. spacetime warpage). The fact is that
all of the void based papers i've read in the time during this discussion have
all included local geometry anomalies in the context of a larger universe. I'm
actually a little disappointed, your arguments so far have consisted of quotes
from stuff that I'm not sure you understand or even bothered to read,
misapprehensions of Einstein, and baseless assertions.

As I said, if he mentions spacetime warpage its because thats what HE thinks causes redshifts. I think they are caused by gravitational effects.

oscarkipling wrote:which void model are you basing this on?

I'm not basing it on any model just on raw observations.

oscarkipling wrote:It always takes more words to thoroughly refute an assertion than it does to
make one.

I noticed you've made no assertions that support YOUR model.

oscarkipling wrote:..what? Of course it goes away if the
aether model explains everything simply because you assert that it does,and if
you ignore or reject observations like stars orbiting distant galaxies, or if
the aether can do whatever it wants for no apparent reason (rotate at different
speeds, stop and change direction), And if you never have to rigidly define
anything with math, and if the implications of theories that you claim support
your model are brushed aside…then yeah, all the problems go away.

I know! It's great aint it?!

oscarkipling wrote:agreed

So seeing a redshift doesnt mean a star is travelling away from us it just means we see a redshift. But you and your buddies like to infer all sorts of stuff dont you?

oscarkipling wrote:I don’t get it, It seems that your only basis for what is or isn’t pseudoscience
is whether or not it agrees with the geocentric model.

Nah....the basis is whether or not it sounds remotely plausable. Spacetime warpage and magically bending (but not really??) apparatus doesnt.

oscarkipling wrote:first, seriously, read the void paper that you quoted. Second, the one recent
analysis of the sdss data that claims that it indicates quantization of
galaxies (the Hartnett, Hirano paper) was coauthored by a guy that works for a
physics department that doesn’t exist. Which doesn’t mean the analysis is
wrong, but it does put it in a suspicious light. Another issue with the paper
is that it uses an analysis method that has been shown to indicate quantization
in random data under certain circumstances. Why would Hartnett and hirano do
that, idk, but it also casts suspicions. So, looking at the data which I’ve
done on multiple occasions does not to me imply to me that there is this
concentric nature to the distribution of matter, moreover the only things that
even led the idea credence is a type of analysis that is known to produce this
very type of false positive….which ironically is math that you claim to
distrust anyway. So tell me how one can
look at the data without any mathematical analysis, and come away with the
impression that there are concentric shells of matter around our planet?

I come away with that impression cuz theres a peer reviewed paper that says so. Until you write a paper that refutes it I will continue to have that impression. So when are you gonna write it oscar?

Are all these little nitpicky answers casting doubt over the authers and their departments all because you really have NO ANSWER to their paper. I think so.

And its not just galaxy patterns that look geocentric. It's also gamma ray bursts...

"The uniform distribution of burst arrival directions tells us that the distribution of gamma-ray-burst sources in space is a sphere or spherical shell, with us at the center (some other extremely contrived and implausible distributions are also possible). But Copernicus taught us that we are not in a special preferred position in the universe; Earth is not at the center of the solar system, the Sun is not at the center of the galaxy, and so forth. There is no reason to believe we are at the center of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts. If our instruments are sensitive enough to detect bursts at the edge of the spatial distribution, then they should not be isotropic on the sky, contrary to observation; if our instruments are less sensitive, then the N ∝ S-3/2 law should hold, also contrary to observation. That is the Copernican dilemma. To this day, after the detection of several thousand bursts, and despite earnest efforts to show the contrary, no deviation from a uniform random distribution (isotropy) in the directions of gamma-ray bursts on the sky has ever been convincingly demonstrated.”

- Jonathan I. Katz, The Biggest Bangs: The Mystery of Gamma-Ray Bursts, The Most Violent Explosions in the Universe, pp. 84, 90-91 (Oxford University Press, 2002).

And nebulae distribution....

“The departures from uniformity are positive; the numbers of nebulae increase faster than the volume of space through which they are scattered. Thus the density of the nebulae distribution increases outwards, symmetrically in all directions, leaving the observer in a unique position. Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory, because the theory postulates homogeneity. Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position, the departures from uniformity, which are introduced by the recession factors, must be compensated by the second term representing effects of spatial curvature.”

-E. Hubble The Observational Approach to Cosmology, 1937, p.58

oscarkipling wrote:it shows no such thing, it postulates that if we are at the
center of a void…nvm I’ve already said it, read the paper. I'm being silly? The
sdss data doesn’t even map the whole (known) universe, and the part that it
does map doesn’t indicate that we live in a void, nor that matter is arranged
in concentric spheres around us. To even confirm that we live in the minimum
void we would need more data than the sdss or any sky survey has provided up to
this point. I think its silly to claim that these proposed theories are proven
when they clearly are not….i mean at best they introduce ambiguity, which is a
far cry from claiming that these things have been “shown”.

At worst they show centrality. Which blows the copernican principle out of the water.

oscarkipling wrote:you claimed that gravitational lensing isn't real, but instead that stellar
plasma was causing the lensing effect....how can you make such a claim if you
have no idea what the Refractive Index of stellar plasma is?

Do I need to know the refractive index of water to know that it causes refraction of light? No. I just observe it.

oscarkipling wrote:right, well I have. So you are familiar with redshift data, but not velocity
data about stars at the edges of galaxies?

Redshift does not necessarily equal velocity. We've established that already. It could be gravitational effects. I think it is. I've still never seen stars orbiting galactic centres. I've seen everything orbit Earth though.

oscarkipling wrote:Lesagean gravity has been experimentally shown to fail to describe gravity.

Lolz....at least its tried! What do you think gravity is oscar?

oscarkipling wrote:Moreover it has implications, that have not bourne out in observation or experiment,
but if we were to ignore this, there are still a few reasons why a Lesage type
gravity wouldn’t work with your geocentric model.


1.
Directionality
problem: In lesage’s model, there are particles bombarding everything from
every direction, whereas in your model the aether, above of geostationary orbital
altitude (35/40,000km) has a definite rotational directionality. You claim that
all bodies are fixed in the aether, moving along with it as it moves, this
would not give you the omnidirectional bombardment required to make lasage’s
gravity work. Even if we offset it a bit and said that the mass was being
pushed along by the aether particles, that would still only allow for bodies to
appear to fall toward each other when they are on the opposite side of the direction of the aether or inside the “aether
shadow”. This could cause accretion of
matter, but not orbits as the effect is unidirectional due to the
directionality of the aether. Coincidentally this makes spherical rocky planets
inexplicable, they should show this directionality of accretion and should
probably look more teardrop shaped than spherical.

Ultramundane corpuscles at Planck dimensions I think would work out just fine.

oscarkipling wrote:2.
Concentric
shells problem: This is a lot like the directionality problem, that is if
you want to insist that gravity on earth is caused by a Lesage effect you
cannot use the aether as your Lesage field. There is no explanation for how all
of this rotational motion is translated into and omnidirectional pushing force.
Moreover whether its Newton, or Lesage or Einstein, being at the center of
concentric shells of matter will create a null gravitational effect at the
center. With Newton it would be because all the matter is equally exerting the
same amount of force on all sides, with Lesage the mass at the center would be
effectively shielded equally on all sides from the particles, and in Einstein
space would take on a uniform curvature that would be symmetrical in every
direction. None of these things introduce the sort of gravitational aeffect you
are talking about at the center.

Indeed the geocentric universe actually HOLDS the Earth in position, locks it there....as all mass is arranged perfectly around us. God has created it so.

oscarkipling wrote:3.
Concentric
shells problem II: If galaxies are arranged in concentric shells, and
gravity is caused by the shielding of matter from particles, then why do we not
notice that galaxies aren’t arranged along meridians in the direction of the aether
rotation? I mean all depending on how distant they are we should see them
collecting in this manner. we’ve all but
established that the aether can move many times faster than the speed of light,
it shouldn’t take too many revolutions for some directionality to become apparent
due to galaxies shielding each other, and beginning to accrete along a
meridian.,

You probably wouldn't believe a scientific paper even if it statistically showed that galaxies are arranged just like you describe.

We see the stars passing through their spherical celestial motion around their poles. Isn't that a meridian?

oscarkipling wrote:yes, after I mentioned that I couldn't find it you chided me about the use of
Google, then you linked me. I was simply pointing out that I did search but you
originally cited the paper with the wrong author.

Erm...did I?

oscarkipling wrote:so, since you haven't observed this then it does not happen?

No ones observed this. Not just me. So its not science (knowledge).

oscarkipling wrote:but the rate at which it does this is inscrutable ?

You can give it whatever rate you want it doesnt cause geocentricity any problems at all.

oscarkipling wrote:care to elaborate? I mean I find it unfathomable that you would declare that
relativity is nutty pseudoscience, but you feel perfectly fine with “Some kind
of equilibrium being reached I guess” as an explanation of why the aether exhibits
these bizarre behaviors.

I'm just pointing out what we observe mate. No nutty pseudoscience to explain it, just saying what we see.

The aether wind below the GSD is stronger Eastward. Above the GSD the wind blows westward. Inside the GSD it doesnt blow at all. So I guess theres an equilibrium there.

oscarkipling wrote:moving at ~ 39million kph?

Whatever number you care for oscar.

oscarkipling wrote:oh no I get that, but we can approximate these speeds correct?

Approximate all you like friend.

love you Doc.

Strangelove wrote:

You cant falsify my model if I invoke nutty science though mate.

You might say 'oh wait....we dont see a huge cable coming out of the sun
connected to a huge plug inlet, so the sun cant be a large lamp!'. But I can
say 'aha!.....there IS a cable and plug...its just we call it a 'dark' cable
and a 'dark' plug cuz we've never observed or measured them...but they are
there! They MUST be!'

Well, yeah I suppose if I went the cable route, you could
claim that the cable is invisible, but I don’t know what evidence you have of
an invisible cable. Anyway, there are features about the sun that do not coincide
with the lamp model that don’t require cables, first that it appears to be made
up of mostly hydrogen, which isn’t what lamps are made of. Its energy source
appears to be ppchain fusion, which is very un-lamplike. It has a very active
surface an atmosphere and surface which are very un-lamplike qualities. Quite
simply in order to call the sun a lamp, it would need to be a very specific and
unique type of lamp…which is fine because once you describe this “lamp” it
would be indistinguishable from a star.

Strangelove wrote:
None of those things prove that relativity is correct.

Well, no, not on their own, but the experiments made
possible by those advances do align with relativity and confirm predictions.
Here are a few:


R.J. Kennedy and E.M.
Thorndike, “Experimental Establishment of the Relativity of Time”, Phys. Rev. 42
400–418 (1932).


Müller and Soffel, “A
Kennedy-Thorndike experiment using LLR data”, Phys. Lett. A 198, p71
(1995).


T.S. Jaseja, A. Javan, J.
Murray and C.H. Townes, “Test of Special Relativity or of the Isotropy of Space
by Use of Infrared Masers”, Phys. Rev. 133A 1221–1225 (1964)


A. Brillet and J.L. Hall,
“Improved Laser Test of the Isotropy of Space”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42
549–552 (1979).


Antonini, P., Okhapkin, M.,
Goklu, E., and Schiller, S., “Test of constancy of speed of light with rotating
cryogenic optical resonators”, Phys. Rev. A 71, 050101(R) (2005). arXiv:gr-qc/0504109.


Herrmann et al., “Test of the
Isotropy of the Speed of light using a Continuously Rotating Optical
Resonator”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 150401 (2005) arXiv:physics/0508097.


Wolf and Petit, “Satellite
test of special relativity using the global positioning system”, Phys. Rev. A 56,
p4405 (1997).


Chen et al., “Experimental
Test of the Isotropy of Two-way Light Speed”, A.S.N.U. Peking, 33, no. 5, pg
595 (1997).


Ragulsky, “Determination of
light velocity dependence on direction of propagation”, Phys. Lett. A, 235
(1997), pg 125.


Beckmann and Mandics, “Test
of the Constancy of the Velocity of Electromagnetic Radiation in High Vacuum”,
Radio Science, 69D, no. 4, pg 623 (1965).


Goldhaber and Nieto, “New
Geomagnetic Limit on the Mass of the Photon”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 21 no. 8
(1968), pg 567.


Davis et al., “Limit on the
Photon Mass Deduced from Pioneer-10 Observations of Jupiter's magnetic Fields”,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 35 no. 21 (1975), pg 1402.


Luo et al., “New Experimental
Limit on the Photon Rest Mass with a Rotating Torsion Balance”, Phys. Rev.
Lett, 90, no. 8, 081801 (2003).


G. Gwinner, “Experimental
Tests of Time Dilation in Special Relativity”, Mod. Phys. Lett. 1, 20, no. 11
(2005), pg 791.


H.E. Ives and G.R. Stilwell,
“An Experimental Study of the Rate of a Moving Atomic Clock”, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 28
pg 215–226 (1938); JOSA 31 pg 369–374 (1941).


Vessot et al., “A Test of the
Equivalence Principle Using a Space-borne Clock”, Gel. Rel. Grav., 10,
(1979) 181–204.

Strangelove wrote:
YOU are the one who said that relativity is nuts. And I agreed with you. So why
do you invoke nutty science?

That’s true, I did say it was nuts. I should point out that I
think quantum physics is also nuts. I say this because there are ideas within
these fields that are counter intuitive, Ideas that are so far outside of my
daily experience that they do not resonate with me in the same way Newton’s
laws do, or some other physics does. However the reason I use them is because
they have been experimentally confirmed. I use them because they can make accurate
predictions, and you can do actual work with them, if relativity isn’t true (which
honestly it can’t be the whole story given its inability to integrate with quantum
physics) then it’s simply the most accurate model we have to date. There is
real world work that is achieved with it, most famously would probably be GPS. It’s
weird, its nutty, but it’s also useful and experimentally confirmed.

Strangelove wrote:
As I said, if he mentions spacetime warpage its because thats what HE thinks
causes redshifts. I think they are caused by gravitational effects.

Right, so here we are again. His theory works only under the
condition that gravity is a geometric effect ( spacetime warpage). I don’t believe
that you he or I would disagree that gravity is what could be causing the redshifts,
but we seem to disagree on what gravity is. I don’t understand how your idea of
a Lesage type gravity would explain this at all especially when you consider
the rotating aether….but I explained my objections and I’ll respond to your
responses in the appropriate area.

Strangelove wrote:
I'm not basing it on any model just on raw observations.

Okay, what raw observations are you basing this on?

Strangelove wrote:
I noticed you've made no assertions that support YOUR model.

That seems a bit unfair, I feel like I’ve been very diligent
about trying to thoroughly explain my position….to the point where you told me
to use less words. I don’t think I’ve made much in the way of unsupported
assertions, but I’ll keep an eye on it and in the future make sure I back everything
that I assert with evidence.

Strangelove wrote:
I know! It's great aint it?!

No, I don’t think it is. But I see where I made my mistake, here
is a link to some of the data and analysis that indicate galactic rotation (that
is matter within galaxies orbiting around mass).


http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/data/


A lot of people who did this type of analysis used Nasa
extragalactic database here:


http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/


This is a paper by Vera Rubin probably the pioneer in the field
(dark matter), but I think the important thing here in this case is to check
out her data on galaxy rotation (if not her conclusions). Since its on the ned
page you can look at the data she used for yourself. http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept05/Sofue/Sofue_contents.html


And the references


http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept05/Sofue/Sofue_refs.html

Strangelove wrote:
So seeing a redshift doesnt mean a star is travelling away from us it just
means we see a redshift. But you and your buddies like to infer all sorts of
stuff dont you?

Well no, seeing a redshift doesn’t mean that a star is
travelling away from us, this is true. But we know of 2 things (3 if you count
refraction) that can cause redshift, the Doppler Effect, and gravity. With the
nature of the redshift that we observed, it can be inferred that either
everything is moving away from us, or that we live at or very near the center
of a low density region of the universe. They are both inferences given what we
know about the causes of redshift and the types of redshift that we observe.
Either of those explanations fit what we know (hypothetically), but they both
have a few serious issues…which I’ve gone over. We need more data in order to decide
which one of these is the most likely phenomena (which I’ve also gone over).

Strangelove wrote:
Nah....the basis is whether or not it sounds remotely plausable. Spacetime
warpage and magically bending (but not really??) apparatus doesnt.

That was a rude thing of me to say, I apologize. What I’d
like to know is on what basis you determine plausibility. It would seem to me
that experimental evidence trumps thought experiments (rest frame argument) every
time. If mass warping space-time explains gravity better than Newton or Lesage
then it’s the better theory. For example perihelion precession of mercury is
better described by Einstein than with Newton.

Strangelove wrote:

I come away with that impression cuz theres a peer reviewed paper that says so.
Until you write a paper that refutes it I will continue to have that
impression. So when are you gonna write it oscar?

I don’t have to, people have already done it.


http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0506366.pdf


http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0208117.pdf


http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0606294.pdf


Paper from 1991 that illustrates why the analysis method
that Hartnett used is not optimal for determining quantization, the authors on
others later went on to develop tools that were better suited to analyze this
type of data.


http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?db_key=AST&bibcode=1991ApJ...379..482K&letter=.&classic=YES&defaultprint=YES&whole_paper=YES&page=482&epage=482&send=Send+PDF&filetype=.pdf

Strangelove wrote:
Are all these little nitpicky answers casting doubt over the authers and their
departments all because you really have NO ANSWER to their paper. I think so.

Well, I could concede that maybe at the time of the paper
the physics department did exitst, or it just not on the website for whatever
reason, that’s fine. However using analysis tools that have been shown to
indicate quantization in random data is just poor methodology, and not a
nitpick at all.

Strangelove wrote:
And its not just galaxy patterns that look geocentric. It's also gamma ray
bursts...

"The uniform distribution of burst arrival
directions tells us that the distribution of
gamma-ray-burst sources in space is a sphere or spherical shell, with us at the
center (some other extremely
contrived and implausible distributions are also possible). But Copernicus
taught us that we are not in a special preferred position in the universe;
Earth is not at the center of the solar system, the Sun is not at the center of
the galaxy, and so forth. There is no reason to believe we are at the center of
the distribution of gamma-ray bursts. If our instruments are sensitive enough
to detect bursts at the edge of the spatial distribution, then they should not
be isotropic on the sky, contrary to observation; if our instruments are less
sensitive, then the N ∝ S-3/2 law should hold, also contrary to observation. That is the Copernican dilemma. To this day,
after the detection of several thousand bursts, and despite earnest efforts to
show the contrary, no deviation from a uniform random distribution (isotropy)
in the directions of gamma-ray bursts on the sky has ever been convincingly
demonstrated.”

- Jonathan I. Katz, The Biggest Bangs: The
Mystery of Gamma-Ray Bursts, The Most Violent Explosions in the Universe, pp.
84, 90-91 (Oxford University Press, 2002).

Here is a list of the detected gamma ray bursts arranged by their
red shift from nearest to furthest. The closest is ~120m ly away, and the
furthest 13 billion ly away. So if they are arranged in a sphere around t us
they definitely traverse several “shells”. You’ll also notice that there isn’t a
great deal of redshift data on GRB’s, or much data at all, they are pretty rare. But anyway to date they don’t appear to get
any closer than ~120million light years, so in that way, their distribution
could be said to be outside of a minimum 120million ly sphere.


http://tinyurl.com/8393kvg

Strangelove wrote:
And nebulae distribution....

“The departures from uniformity are positive; the
numbers of nebulae increase faster than the volume of space through which they
are scattered. Thus the density of the nebulae distribution increases outwards, symmetrically in all
directions, leaving the observer in a unique position. Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable;
moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory, because the theory
postulates homogeneity. Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to
escape the horror of a unique position, the departures from uniformity, which
are introduced by the recession factors, must
be compensated by the second term representing effects of spatial curvature.”

-E. Hubble The Observational Approach to
Cosmology, 1937, p.58

I’m not sure what he’s getting at here, but working with
1937’s data, I suppose a lot of things could look different. You have to
realize at this time they weren’t even sure that the “nebulae” weren’t part of
our galaxy (we’d later come to understand that the nebulae were actually other
galaxies).

Strangelove wrote:
At worst they show centrality. Which blows the copernican principle out of the
water.

Again with this word show, they don’t show anything of the
sort, to my knowledge there is not a single verified void theory. They have yet to show anything outside of a
possibility….not to mention that none of them use a lasagean model of gravity.

Strangelove wrote:
Do I need to know the refractive index of water to know that it causes
refraction of light? No. I just observe it.

No, you don’t need to know the refractive index of water to
simply claim that it refracts light. However if we are both looking at a transparent
sealed vat filled with some liquid and I
assert that the liquid is Toluene, and you assert that its ether, the
refractive indexes of these materials becomes quite important, because we could
use the refraction to determine which of our hypothesis are accurate. Likewise,
there is a specific prediction that is made in relativity about the deflection
of light at the edges of massive bodies, observations have confirmed that the predicted
deflection in relativity is accurate http://astro.berkeley.edu/~kalas/labs/documents/kennefick_phystoday_09.pdf
(*note this is an article not a scientific paper which outlines mistakes in the
original and subsequent reanalysis of these experiments). Here is a paper
describing the discovery of an Einstein ring http://hubblesite.org/pubinfo/pdf/2008/04/pdf.pdf
. Anyway, there is a bunch of math that
describes the predictions of the behavior of light near massive bodies, but the
important thing to note is that the prediction is very different from what you
might expect from a diffuse plasma refraction effect. The predicted amount of
deflection using Einstein’s model is something like ~1.75 seconds of arc. Now
presumably the part of the suns atmosphere that you are talking about is the chromospheres,
the photosphere is far too close to cause this lensing effect. So the chromosphere has a density of ~.01 kg/m3,
and is primarily composed of hydrogen. Hydrogen has a refractive index pretty
close to that of earth’s air. Actually before i go ahead and calculate the expected
deflection under these conditions, I should ask are these numbers agreeable to
you?

Strangelove wrote:
Redshift does not necessarily equal velocity. We've established that already.
It could be gravitational effects. I think it is. I've still never seen stars
orbiting galactic centres. I've seen everything orbit Earth though.

I’ve linked some data up there, but, so do moons orbit other
planets or is this some sort of illusion?

Strangelove wrote:


Lolz....at least its tried! What do you think gravity is
oscar?

Well yeah, nothing wrong with trying. Anyway, so far as I
can tell, thinking of gravity as the warping of space-time gets us the most
accurate result, so that’s what I go with for now.

Strangelove wrote:
Ultramundane corpuscles at Planck dimensions I think would work out just fine.

Why?…Lesage’s corpuscles were coming from every direction,
in your aether model there is a directional rotation, even without the other
problems with lesage’s gravity, this alone doesn’t make sense. How is this
axial motion translated into elliptical orbits through a legsage mechanism….you
didn’t address a single thing I brought up.

Strangelove wrote:
Indeed the geocentric universe actually HOLDS the Earth in position, locks it
there....as all mass is arranged perfectly around us. God has created it so.

I mean that’s all well and good, but it doesn’t address the
problem at hand. If the aether is rotating, then the Lesage mechanism doesn’t
work, it must be omnidirectional. But if there is a separate Lesage field, then
concentric shells of matter would only block the corpuscles equally on all
sides causing a null gravitational effect.

Strangelove wrote:
You probably wouldn't believe a scientific paper even if it statistically
showed that galaxies are arranged just like you describe.

Idk, do you have one to show me? Anyway it seems like bright
bands across the sky would be obvious.

Strangelove wrote:
We see the stars passing through their spherical celestial motion around their
poles. Isn't that a meridian?

No.

Strangelove wrote:
Erm...did I?

Maybe I misread it

Strangelove wrote:
You can give it whatever rate you want it doesnt cause geocentricity any
problems at all.

So no matter how fast or slow its moving, it would still
match all observations? How is this possible?

Strangelove wrote:
I'm just pointing out what we observe mate. No nutty pseudoscience to explain
it, just saying what we see.

The aether wind below the GSD is stronger Eastward. Above the GSD the wind
blows westward. Inside the GSD it doesnt blow at all. So I guess theres an
equilibrium there.

I don’t understand this…more words.

Strangelove wrote:
Whatever number you care for oscar.







Approximate all you like friend.

I can’t tell if you are agreeing with the rationale or
simply conceding because you don’t think it matters. If the sun is 150 million
km away, and it travels around the earth once every 24 hours in a more or less
circular motion…how fast must it be going?

oscarkipling wrote:
This is a paper by Vera Rubin probably the pioneer in the field
(dark matter), but I think the important thing here in this case is to check
out her data on galaxy rotation (if not her conclusions). Since its on the ned
page you can look at the data she used for yourself. http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept05/Sofue/Sofue_contents.html

The Standard Model of Cosmology - Simplified


The BBC's "Horizon" series has a fascinating hour long show presenting the ideas of the Standard Model of Cosmology - atoms, dark matter, and dark energy - in a simplified, easy to understand format. I recommend it highly. It brings together a lot of very abstruse material and makes it understandable to the non-scientist. Also unusual is its way of handling "talking head" shots, by setting scientists in unusual milieus for their interviews. According to the Standard Model of Cosmology the universe is composed of 4% baryonic matter (atoms and their sub-particles that make up the visible universe), 23% dark matter (a mysterious, heretofore undetected substance that interacts with baryonic matter only through its gravitational force), and 73% dark energy (a mysterious, so far undetected energy that is responsible for the acceleration of the expansion of the universe).

In keeping with George Gilder's ruminations in "The Israel Test", I will note that something like 8 of the 10 modern scientists instrumental in advancing the Standard Model of Cosmology are Jewish. One of them, Vera Rubin at The Carnegie Institue, who discovered the flat-rotation curve of spiral galaxies, is an observant Jew who chose her field of research so she could stay home, be a good Jewish wife, and raise her four children, all of whom became scientists in their own right. Sometimes a narrow discipline, instead of an abandonment, is the gateway to great discoveries. On the possible conflict between religion and science she said in an interview: "In my own life, my science and my religion are separate. I'm Jewish, and so religion to me is a kind of moral code and a kind of history. I try to do my science in a moral way, and, I believe that, ideally, science should be looked upon as something that helps us understand our role in the universe."

http://www.astronomyisrael.com/search/label/Vera%20Rubin

...

now oscar, since there is such a representation of jewish individuals in "modern cosmology".....is it worthwhile to understand Judaism do you think?

are you jewish, oscar?

"jewish" is not a racial designation.

what does Judaism say about cosmology? (see threads at this forum, or search for yourself).

zone wrote:
now oscar, since there is such a representation of jewish individuals in "modern cosmology".....is it worthwhile to understand Judaism do you think?

I think its worthwhile to understand most all religions, but not because many scientists are also religious people.

zone wrote:
are you jewish, oscar?
"jewish" is not a racial designation.

no, I am not. I'm not from Israel, nor do I ascribe to the Jewish religion (or any religion for that matter).

zone wrote:
what does Judaism say about cosmology? (see threads at this forum, or search for yourself).

ha, I suppose that depends on who you ask.

oscarkipling wrote:Well, yeah I suppose if I went the cable route, you could
claim that the cable is invisible, but I don’t know what evidence you have of
an invisible cable.

About as much as you have for dark matter......none.

oscarkipling wrote:
Anyway, there are features about the sun that do not coincide
with the lamp model that don’t require cables, first that it appears to be made
up of mostly hydrogen, which isn’t what lamps are made of. Its energy source
appears to be ppchain fusion, which is very un-lamplike. It has a very active
surface an atmosphere and surface which are very un-lamplike qualities.

All those 'qualities' are simply illusions caused by 'space warpage'. Bending of spacetime can do that ya know. The sun is still a giant lamp. The theory is still confirmed experimentally.

oscarkipling wrote:
Quite simply in order to call the sun a lamp, it would need to be a very specific and
unique type of lamp…which is fine because once you describe this “lamp” it
would be indistinguishable from a star.

Yes they are the same thing.

oscarkipling wrote:Well, no, not on their own, but the experiments made
possible by those advances do align with relativity and confirm predictions.

Lolz...of course they align with relativity. Everything aligns with relativity. Because relativity starts with what is observed then reverse engineers the theory about how it happens. Relativity explains everything. It has to. That doesnt mean its RIGHT.

oscarkipling wrote:That’s true, I did say it was nuts. I should point out that I
think quantum physics is also nuts. I say this because there are ideas within
these fields that are counter intuitive, Ideas that are so far outside of my
daily experience that they do not resonate with me in the same way Newton’s
laws do, or some other physics does. However the reason I use them is because
they have been experimentally confirmed. I use them because they can make accurate
predictions, and you can do actual work with them, if relativity isn’t true (which
honestly it can’t be the whole story given its inability to integrate with quantum
physics) then it’s simply the most accurate model we have to date. There is
real world work that is achieved with it, most famously would probably be GPS. It’s
weird, its nutty, but it’s also useful and experimentally confirmed.

GPS doesnt use relativity, it uses the sagnac effect...which relativity has ZERO answer for. Theres no nuttiness about it, the aether causes this effect that needs to be corrected for.

“In the GPS, the Sagnac effect can produce discrepancies amounting to hundreds of nanoseconds....A Sagnac correction is needed to account for the diurnal motion of each receiver during signal propagation. In fact, one can use the GPS to observe the Sagnac effect."

- Neil Ashby, “Relativity and the Global Positioning System,” Physics Today, May 2002, p. 5

Now....oscar....the next quote requires a bit of decoding for the layman (although a brain like yourself can probably figure out the irony all on your own) so I'm going to follow the quote with a translation I found by a geocentrist on a seperate Q&A session in cyberspace.

"In Earth’s neighborhood, the field equations of general relativity involve only a single overall time variable. While there is freedom in the theory to make arbitrary coordinate transformations, the simplest approach is to use an approximate solution of the field equations in which Earth’s mass gives rise to small corrections to the simple Minkowski metric of special relativity, and to choose coordinate axes originating at the planet’s center of mass and pointing toward fixed stars. In this Earth-centered inertial (ECI) reference frame, one can safely ignore relativistic effects due to Thomas precession of Lense- Thirring drag..."

- Physics Today, May 2002 p. 42

PDF LINK: http://www.ipgp.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf

Translation:

“General relativity allows the physicist to use all kinds of fudge factors to account for the results he sees. [The major fudge factors are the Fitzgerald Contraction and the Lorentz-transformation equations which allow you to change time, length, distance and mass, in order to arrive at the answer you want]. But we are going to dispense with all those “arbitrary” transformations! We are going to use the Earth as the inertial frame of reference! In other words, we’re going to pretend that the Earth is standing still to figure out how the GPS works, and we can do so because the Lense-Thirring results said we could!”

- Unknown geocentric apologist on the 'About scientific (& theological) aspects of Geocentricity' Q&A.

oscarkipling wrote:Right, so here we are again. His theory works only under the
condition that gravity is a geometric effect ( spacetime warpage). I don’t believe
that you he or I would disagree that gravity is what could be causing the redshifts,
but we seem to disagree on what gravity is. I don’t understand how your idea of
a Lesage type gravity would explain this at all especially when you consider
the rotating aether….but I explained my objections and I’ll respond to your
responses in the appropriate area.

I dont pretend to know everything about how the aether works anywayz oscar my friend. I just know its there cuz God says He made it.

oscarkipling wrote:Okay, what raw observations are you basing this on?

Earth in the middle of concentric rings of redshifts. The only explanation for redshifts is the effect of stars even if we disagree if its caused by stars moving or their gravitational effects.

oscarkipling wrote:No, I don’t think it is. But I see where I made my mistake, here
is a link to some of the data and analysis that indicate galactic rotation (that
is matter within galaxies orbiting around mass).

A bunch of graphs? Nha...still havn't observed stars orbiting galaxies.

oscarkipling wrote:A lot of people who did this type of analysis used Nasa
extragalactic database here:

Still no sign of stars orbiting anything other than Earth.

oscarkipling wrote:This is a paper by Vera Rubin probably the pioneer in the field
(dark matter), but I think the important thing here in this case is to check
out her data on galaxy rotation (if not her conclusions). Since its on the ned
page you can look at the data she used for yours

Since she probably bases everything on dark matter which doesnt even exist I think I'll skip it, thanks verily.

oscarkipling wrote:Well no, seeing a redshift doesn’t mean that a star is
travelling away from us, this is true. But we know of 2 things (3 if you count
refraction) that can cause redshift, the Doppler Effect, and gravity. With the
nature of the redshift that we observed, it can be inferred that either
everything is moving away from us, or that we live at or very near the center
of a low density region of the universe. They are both inferences given what we
know about the causes of redshift and the types of redshift that we observe.
Either of those explanations fit what we know (hypothetically), but they both
have a few serious issues…which I’ve gone over. We need more data in order to decide
which one of these is the most likely phenomena (which I’ve also gone over).

The data is conclusive. We live at the centre of the universe.

oscarkipling wrote:That was a rude thing of me to say, I apologize. What I’d
like to know is on what basis you determine plausibility. It would seem to me
that experimental evidence trumps thought experiments (rest frame argument) every
time. If mass warping space-time explains gravity better than Newton or Lesage
then it’s the better theory. For example perihelion precession of mercury is
better described by Einstein than with Newton.

Lolz....the prediction of the perihelion precession of mercury was total pot LUCK for Albert. Tell me oscar...does relativity predict the precession of the other planets that the test was done on? I'm pretty sure that Albert was way off with all of the others and even had the precession of one planet going in the opposite direction.

oscarkipling wrote:I don’t have to, people have already done it.


http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0506366.pdf


http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0208117.pdf


http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0606294.pdf


Paper from 1991 that illustrates why the analysis method
that Hartnett used is not optimal for determining quantization, the authors on
others later went on to develop tools that were better suited to analyze this
type of data.

herm....what? I have papers from 2010 that are still talking about concentric rings of galaxies around us. Your 1991 paper is old news.

oscarkipling wrote:Well, I could concede that maybe at the time of the paper
the physics department did exitst, or it just not on the website for whatever
reason, that’s fine. However using analysis tools that have been shown to
indicate quantization in random data is just poor methodology, and not a
nitpick at all.

So when are you gonna tell all these world class physicists that they are wasting their time in 2010?

oscarkipling wrote:Here is a list of the detected gamma ray bursts arranged by their
red shift from nearest to furthest. The closest is ~120m ly away, and the
furthest 13 billion ly away. So if they are arranged in a sphere around t us
they definitely traverse several “shells”. You’ll also notice that there isn’t a
great deal of redshift data on GRB’s, or much data at all, they are pretty rare. But anyway to date they don’t appear to get
any closer than ~120million light years, so in that way, their distribution
could be said to be outside of a minimum 120million ly sphere.

And?

I quoted a world famous scientist who says gamma ray bursts show we are in a special position in the universe. You link to a big list of data and talk about several shells and distances.

??

oscarkipling wrote:I’m not sure what he’s getting at here, but working with
1937’s data, I suppose a lot of things could look different. You have to
realize at this time they weren’t even sure that the “nebulae” weren’t part of
our galaxy (we’d later come to understand that the nebulae were actually other
galaxies).

What he's getting at quite obviously is that the data shows we are in a unique position. You can tell by the way he says..."the nebulae distribution increases outwards, symmetrically in all directions, leaving the observer in a unique position"

But cuz the data is more than 10 years old your allowed to ignore it. Ho-hum....

The data shows the same things today.

oscarkipling wrote:Again with this word show, they don’t show anything of the
sort, to my knowledge there is not a single verified void theory. They have yet to show anything outside of a possibility….not to mention that none of them use a lasagean model of gravity.

All the experts agree the data shows we are in a unique position...only space time warpage can be used as an escape hatch. Nutty.

oscarkipling wrote:Now presumably the part of the suns atmosphere that you are talking about is the chromospheres, the photosphere is far too close to cause this lensing effect. So the chromosphere has a density of ~.01 kg/m3, and is primarily composed of hydrogen. Hydrogen has a refractive index pretty
close to that of earth’s air. Actually before i go ahead and calculate the expected deflection under these conditions, I should ask are these numbers agreeable to you?

No. Cuz its not just hydrogen up there as you've said. you dont know the chromospheres density. You can only guess.

oscarkipling wrote:I’ve linked some data up there, but, so do moons orbit other
planets or is this some sort of illusion?

Moons orbit planets, planets orbit the sun, the sun orbits Earth.

Earth is not a planet.

oscarkipling wrote:Well yeah, nothing wrong with trying. Anyway, so far as I
can tell, thinking of gravity as the warping of space-time gets us the most
accurate result, so that’s what I go with for now.

You are mistaken, as I've shown with the GPS example, when scientists really want results they dispense with nutty pseudo scientific relativity and use an Earth centred reference frame.

oscarkipling wrote:Why?…Lesage’s corpuscles were coming from every direction,
in your aether model there is a directional rotation, even without the other
problems with lesage’s gravity, this alone doesn’t make sense. How is this
axial motion translated into elliptical orbits through a legsage mechanism….you
didn’t address a single thing I brought up.

How do you know the bombardment isn't coming from every direction on a microscopic level and still have a unidirectional for the actual aether as a whole?

oscarkipling wrote:I mean that’s all well and good, but it doesn’t address the
problem at hand. If the aether is rotating, then the Lesage mechanism doesn’t
work, it must be omnidirectional. But if there is a separate Lesage field, then
concentric shells of matter would only block the corpuscles equally on all
sides causing a null gravitational effect.

See above.

Both our models yield the same result. The inverse square law.

oscarkipling wrote:Idk, do you have one to show me? Anyway it seems like bright
bands across the sky would be obvious.

Thats what we see with the sky survey....bands of galaxies around us. Raw data.

oscarkipling wrote:So no matter how fast or slow its moving, it would still
match all observations? How is this possible?

Nope. I meant it doesnt matter how fast the sun needs to be travelling around Earth,,,the geocentric universe and the rotating aether can handle it. So whatever speed you work it out to be...thats fine.

oscarkipling wrote:I don’t understand this…more words.

What dont you understand specifically?

oscarkipling wrote:I can’t tell if you are agreeing with the rationale or
simply conceding because you don’t think it matters. If the sun is 150 million
km away, and it travels around the earth once every 24 hours in a more or less
circular motion…how fast must it be going?

I'm conceding because it doesnt matter. Whatever speed you have worked out is fine in Gods geocentric universe.

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

Strangelove wrote:
About as much as you have for dark matter......none.

Well, I've tried to explain to you why dark matter was postulated, but clearly you believe that galaxies are static and "graphs" and "numbers" aren't going to convince you that they do move.

Strangelove wrote:
All those 'qualities' are simply illusions caused by 'space warpage'. Bending of spacetime can do that ya know. The sun is still a giant lamp. The theory is still confirmed experimentally.

There is a difference between articulating a plausible argument given the evidence and just throwing around a bunch of terms and claiming victory... while I understand not being convinced by and argument or disputing in interpretation of observed phenomena, your approach here is a parody of what scientists do rather than an actual representation.

Strangelove wrote:
Lolz...of course they align with relativity. Everything aligns with relativity. Because relativity starts with what is observed then reverse engineers the theory about how it happens. Relativity explains everything. It has to. That doesnt mean its RIGHT.

In fact "everything" does not align with relativity, namely quantum physics, which is a huge problem for modern psychics. Anyway based on your objection here, i think you have a problem with the very philosophy of science...that is, observing a phenomena (or set of phenomena) and then postulating an explanation, then testing your hypothesis to see if your explanation was correct.

Strangelove wrote:
GPS doesnt use relativity, it uses the sagnac effect...which relativity has ZERO answer for. Theres no nuttiness about it, the aether causes this effect that needs to be corrected for.

“In the GPS, the Sagnac effect can produce discrepancies amounting to hundreds of nanoseconds....A Sagnac correction is needed to account for the diurnal motion of each receiver during signal propagation. In fact, one can use the GPS to observe the Sagnac effect."

- Neil Ashby, “Relativity and the Global Positioning System,” Physics Today, May 2002, p. 5

sure the sagnac effect will cause discrepancies if its not accounted for, but the effect I was referring to is the time dialiation caused by gravitational effects. indeed both sagnac and gravitational effects must be accounted for for accurate readings, which are 2 different things. if you simply accounted for one and not the other your accuracy would be thrown off. Presumably you didn't read the article you quoted as it talks about this effect in the very next section. entire article : http://tinyurl.com/7my6p5o

Strangelove wrote:
Now....oscar....the next quote requires a bit of decoding for the layman (although a brain like yourself can probably figure out the irony all on your own) so I'm going to follow the quote with a translation I found by a geocentrist on a seperate Q&A session in cyberspace.

"In Earth’s neighborhood, the field equations of general relativity involve only a single overall time variable. While there is freedom in the theory to make arbitrary coordinate transformations, the simplest approach is to use an approximate solution of the field equations in which Earth’s mass gives rise to small corrections to the simple Minkowski metric of special relativity, and to choose coordinate axes originating at the planet’s center of mass and pointing toward fixed stars. In this Earth-centered inertial (ECI) reference frame, one can safely ignore relativistic effects due to Thomas precession of Lense- Thirring drag..."

- Physics Today, May 2002 p. 42

PDF LINK: http://www.ipgp.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf

Translation:

“General relativity allows the physicist to use all kinds of fudge factors to account for the results he sees. [The major fudge factors are the Fitzgerald Contraction and the Lorentz-transformation equations which allow you to change time, length, distance and mass, in order to arrive at the answer you want]. But we are going to dispense with all those “arbitrary” transformations! We are going to use the Earth as the inertial frame of reference! In other words, we’re going to pretend that the Earth is standing still to figure out how the GPS works, and we can do so because the Lense-Thirring results said we could!”

- Unknown geocentric apologist on the 'About scientific (& theological) aspects of Geocentricity' Q&A.

?

Strangelove wrote:
I dont pretend to know everything about how the aether works anywayz oscar my friend. I just know its there cuz God says He made it.

so, essentially, it doesn't really have to make any sense at all.

Strangelove wrote:
Earth in the middle of concentric rings of redshifts. The only explanation for redshifts is the effect of stars even if we disagree if its caused by stars moving or their gravitational effects.

All i've seen to back this concentric rings claim up is a single paper that uses an analysis method that astronomers have know could give false positives since 1991. You keep saying rings and circles also, do you actually mean rings or do you mean spheres? Anyway, yeah I agree it is either the doppler effect, or gravitational effects that seem plausible at this point.

Strangelove wrote:
A bunch of graphs? Nha...still havn't observed stars orbiting galaxies.

what would you need to see in order to honestly say you've seen it?

Strangelove wrote:
Still no sign of stars orbiting anything other than Earth.

do stars orbiting eachother or (what might be) a black hole count?

Strangelove wrote:
Since she probably bases everything on dark matter which doesnt even exist I think I'll skip it, thanks verily.

she doesn't base everything on dark matter, at the time of her observations dark matter wasn't even a thing, it became a thing because of her observations, which is an important distinction.

Strangelove wrote:
The data is conclusive. We live at the centre of the universe.

Are we talking about the same data? what data?

Strangelove wrote:
Lolz....the prediction of the perihelion precession of mercury was total pot LUCK for Albert. Tell me oscar...does relativity predict the precession of the other planets that the test was done on? I'm pretty sure that Albert was way off with all of the others and even had the precession of one planet going in the opposite direction.

What test are you taking about...anyway the precession of the other planets are Newtonian. I'm not sure what you are talking about.

Strangelove wrote:
herm....what? I have papers from 2010 that are still talking about concentric rings of galaxies around us. Your 1991 paper is old news.

I'd like to see all of them actually, but anyway all of the papers I linked to were not from 1991. I only linked to it to show you that the analysis method used by hartnett was a method shown in 1991 to be a sub optimal method for determining the peaks in density, and could to a false conclusion of quantization.

Strangelove wrote:
So when are you gonna tell all these world class physicists that they are wasting their time in 2010?

Well, from what i've read about hartnet he seems to be a fine physicist and cosmologist, but i dont know why he would use that analysis technique when he knows (he cited the 1991 paper in his paper) about the flaws in the analysis technique he used...is that a waste of time....maybe. Anyway you haven't shown me any more of these papers by world class physicists, i'd like to read them.

Strangelove wrote:
And?

I quoted a world famous scientist who says gamma ray bursts show we are in a special position in the universe. You link to a big list of data and talk about several shells and distances.

??

I'm simply pointing out that there is a broad distribution of GRB distances that counter the idea that they are distributed in concentric shells, at best they appear to be evenly distributed throughout the universe. Now if matter is distributed in concentric shells of known distances, then the detected GRB's should always fall in one of these shells correct? Actually every observed speck of matter should fall into one of these shells correct?

Strangelove wrote:
What he's getting at quite obviously is that the data shows we are in a unique position. You can tell by the way he says..."the nebulae distribution increases outwards, symmetrically in all directions, leaving the observer in a unique position"

But cuz the data is more than 10 years old your allowed to ignore it. Ho-hum....

The data shows the same things today.

no, the data today doesn't show that...heck even hartnetts analysis of sdss data doesn't show this. You cant both have hubble and hartnett be correct.

Strangelove wrote:
All the experts agree the data shows we are in a unique position...only space time warpage can be used as an escape hatch. Nutty.

really? all he experts.

Strangelove wrote:
No. Cuz its not just hydrogen up there as you've said. you dont know the chromospheres density. You can only guess.

so, is there any way to test the veracity of your assertion?

Strangelove wrote:
Moons orbit planets, planets orbit the sun, the sun orbits Earth.

Earth is not a planet.

okay, so why do the planets orbit the sun, and why do the moons orbit other planets?

Strangelove wrote:
You are mistaken, as I've shown with the GPS example, when scientists really want results they dispense with nutty pseudo scientific relativity and use an Earth centred reference frame.

pretty sure you didn't read that entire article.

Strangelove wrote:
How do you know the bombardment isn't coming from every direction on a microscopic level and still have a unidirectional for the actual aether as a whole?

because there is directionality to aether wind. If it has an overall axial rotation, then it cant be that its equally apply force on all sides.

Strangelove wrote:
See above.

Both our models yield the same result. The inverse square law.

no, and this is ignoring everything else wrong with lesage's gravity.... the one thing that you need is omnidirection, equal force on all sides, if there is directionality to aether wind then you will end up with a side with greater force than the other.

Strangelove wrote:
Thats what we see with the sky survey....bands of galaxies around us. Raw data.

what data are you looking at?

Strangelove wrote:
Nope. I meant it doesnt matter how fast the sun needs to be travelling around Earth,,,the geocentric universe and the rotating aether can handle it. So whatever speed you work it out to be...thats fine.

okay, lets see, do you agree that an object on a path of known length has to travel at a certain velocity to traverse that path in a certain amount of time?

what is the speed of light, and is it constant?

Strangelove wrote:
What dont you understand specifically?

I didn't understand any of it, please elaborate.

Strangelove wrote:
How fast are galaxies moving away from eachother in your universe?

about 70kps/mpc

oscarkipling wrote:
In fact "everything" does not align with relativity, namely quantum physics, which is a huge problem for modern psychics. Anyway based on your objection here, i think you have a problem with the very philosophy of science...that is, observing a phenomena (or set of phenomena) and then postulating an explanation, then testing your hypothesis to see if your explanation was correct.

O'but were that what 'science' today really was about.

oscar: did Charles Darwin get sent out by the "Family" to 'come up with' an explanation for why uber-wealthy old money families shouldn't interbreed with the misfits and cattle?

hint: yes.

Darwin was a fraud, Albert was bogus, Freud was in on it...sham sham sham.

all rubbish.

oscarkipling wrote:Well, I've tried to explain to you why dark matter was postulated,

And I've explained to you why an invisible cable has been postulated for our giant sun lamp.

And both theories are complete idiocy.

oscarkipling wrote:...but clearly you believe that galaxies are static and "graphs" and "numbers" aren't going to convince you that they do move.

No, I believe that galaxies are rotating around the Earth...and clearly....my own eyes are convincing enough.

oscarkipling wrote:There is a difference between articulating a plausible argument given the evidence and just throwing around a bunch of terms and claiming victory... while I understand not being convinced by and argument or disputing in interpretation of observed phenomena, your approach here is a parody of what scientists do rather than an actual representation.

The hypothetical scientific establishments approach to science is a parody of itself.

oscarkipling wrote:In fact "everything" does not align with relativity, namely quantum physics, which is a huge problem for modern psychics.

I meant observations, not theories.

oscarkipling wrote:
Anyway based on your objection here, i think you have a problem with the very philosophy of science...that is, observing a phenomena (or set of phenomena) and then postulating an explanation, then testing your hypothesis to see if your explanation was correct.

The sun is a giant lamp. Tested and correct.

oscarkipling wrote:sure the sagnac effect will cause discrepancies if its not accounted for, but the effect I was referring to is the time dialiation caused by gravitational effects. indeed both sagnac and gravitational effects must be accounted for for accurate readings, which are 2 different things. if you simply accounted for one and not the other your accuracy would be thrown off. Presumably you didn't read the article you quoted as it talks about this effect in the very next section.

What the heck is time dialiation?

oscarkipling wrote:?

When oscar has no answer out comes the....... ?

GPS engineers use a geocentric model. They dont use relativity.

I have completely refuted your claim about relativity that.....

oscarkipling wrote:There is real world work that is achieved with it, most famously would probably be GPS.

...by quoting the GPS experts own words.

Whats the question mark all about oscar?

oscarkipling wrote:so, essentially, it doesn't really have to make any sense at all.

The fact I dont know everything about the aether doesn't mean it doesnt make sense.

It doesnt NOT make sense. Which is good enough for me at the moment.

oscarkipling wrote:All i've seen to back this concentric rings claim up is a single paper that uses an analysis method that astronomers have know could give false positives since 1991.

So when are you gonna win the nobel prize by writing a paper that refutes the 2010 paper I cited?

When are you gonna tell these world class physicists that they are wasting their time according to your opinions about a 20 year old paper?

oscarkipling wrote:what would you need to see in order to honestly say you've seen it?

Honestly? I would need to see it.

oscarkipling wrote:do stars orbiting eachother or (what might be) a black hole count?

Black holes might not count.

oscarkipling wrote:she doesn't base everything on dark matter, at the time of her observations dark matter wasn't even a thing, it became a thing because of her observations, which is an important distinction.

Look if you can really find anything specific that supports your position (whatever that is, you dont seem to be defending any position...simply desperately trying to bat away all geo evidence) from her data then bring it forward. Simply linking to a whole bunch of stuff is tiresome.

oscarkipling wrote:Are we talking about the same data? what data?

All of it. Every single thing you observe.

oscarkipling wrote:What test are you taking about...anyway the precession of the other planets are Newtonian. I'm not sure what you are talking about.

I'm obviously talking about the relativity test Einstein used to predict the precession of mercury oscar. If that test really did predict mercury's behaviour, and relativity fanboys like yourself are holding that up as proof that relativity is correct, then it should be right for all the planets...no?

Or is relativity a broken clock?

oscarkipling wrote:I'd like to see all of them actually, but anyway all of the papers I linked to were not from 1991. I only linked to it to show you that the analysis method used by hartnett was a method shown in 1991 to be a sub optimal method for determining the peaks in density, and could to a false conclusion of quantization.

And the paper you cited has been ignored by those in the field. So its obviously not relevant.

oscarkipling wrote:Well, from what i've read about hartnet he seems to be a fine physicist and cosmologist, but i dont know why he would use that analysis technique when he knows (he cited the 1991 paper in his paper) about the flaws in the analysis technique he used...is that a waste of time....maybe.

So its your "maybe" against cutting edge scientists who are going right ahead with their up to date papers.

Ok.

oscarkipling wrote:
Anyway you haven't shown me any more of these papers by world class physicists, i'd like to read them.

You need to refute the one I've already given you with a newer paper. This is how science works.

oscarkipling wrote:'m simply pointing out that there is a broad distribution of GRB distances that counter the idea that they are distributed in concentric shells, at best they appear to be evenly distributed throughout the universe. Now if matter is distributed in concentric shells of known distances, then the detected GRB's should always fall in one of these shells correct? Actually every observed speck of matter should fall into one of these shells correct?

Lets have some quotes by the experts who support your assertion. I've given you mine, wheres yours? I quoted a world famous scientist who says gamma ray bursts show we are in a special position in the universe. Ballz in your court.

oscarkipling wrote:no, the data today doesn't show that...heck even hartnetts analysis of sdss data doesn't show this. You cant both have hubble and hartnett be correct.

Quotes that support your position please. Documentation.

Not just oscar jumping up and down on the spot screaming..."No it doesnt show that!"

oscarkipling wrote:really? all he experts.

Unless you have any experts you wanna quote who feel different?

oscarkipling wrote:so, is there any way to test the veracity of your assertion?

Dunno.

oscarkipling wrote:okay, so why do the planets orbit the sun, and why do the moons orbit other planets?

Why do they do it in your system?

Can you trump Newton on this one and actually explain it?

zone wrote:

O'but were that what 'science' today really was about.

oscar: did Charles Darwin get sent out by the "Family" to 'come up with' an explanation for why uber-wealthy old money families shouldn't interbreed with the misfits and cattle?

hint: yes.

Darwin was a fraud, Albert was bogus, Freud was in on it...sham sham sham.

all rubbish.

I mean okay, I get that's how you have come to understand it, I just wonder if it might benefit you in some way to learn about these things so that you really know what they do and dont say.

oscarkipling wrote:pretty sure you didn't read that entire article.

And I'm pretty sure you want this line of the debate to go away really quickly as you answered my clear refutation of your claim that relativity makes GPS work with.........a question mark!

oscarkipling wrote:because there is directionality to aether wind. If it has an overall axial rotation, then it cant be that its equally apply force on all sides.

Sure it can....at the Plancke level. Where the tightly packed corpuscles are.

oscarkipling wrote:no, and this is ignoring everything else wrong with lesage's gravity.... the one thing that you need is omnidirection, equal force on all sides, if there is directionality to aether wind then you will end up with a side with greater force than the other.

Ok we'll call this a modified LeSagean gravity where there are no free flowing particles but instead they are really tightly packed, dense. The Firmament.

oscarkipling wrote:what data are you looking at?

oscarkipling wrote:okay, lets see, do you agree that an object on a path of known length has to travel at a certain velocity to traverse that path in a certain amount of time?

Erm....yeah.

oscarkipling wrote:
what is the speed of light, and is it constant?

No. As Michelson-Gale and Sagnac proves.

oscarkipling wrote:I didn't understand any of it, please elaborate.

I cant make it any simpler. Aether wind near the Earth flows Easterly. Hence jet streams. Aether wind doesnt flow at all at the GSD, hence geostationary satellites. Above the GSD it flows westerly, hence the movement of the heavenly bodies.

Why is this so complicated?

oscarkipling wrote:about 70kps/mpc

Lolz.....does that little mpc at the end mean per megaparsec?

So is this faster than the speed of light?