Geocentric Vs Heliocentric

oscarkipling wrote: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.

How about reversing that statement and aiming it at yerself?

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

And both theories are complete idiocy.

no, you said we cant see the cable because its a dark cable but why is it postulated, what observation indicates a cable?

Strangelove wrote:

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

I meant internally static, as in the stars inside galaxies dont move around, or more specifically do not orbit the center of mass in the galaxy.

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

perhaps, but I dont think your example illustrates that because its simply a bunch of terminology with no basis for its use.

Strangelove wrote:
I meant observations, not theories.

i see, so presumably you dont believe that quantum physical phenomena have been observed either?

Strangelove wrote:
The sun is a giant lamp. Tested and correct.

I dont think this line of discussion is getting us nywhere.

Strangelove wrote:
What the heck is time dialiation?

read the article that you quoted, I linked it.

Strangelove 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.....

...by quoting the GPS experts own words.

Whats the question mark all about oscar?

actually the question mark was a space holder i meant to come back to that but I forgot. Anyway sure, as i' said before if you cherrypick quotes from the article you can get it to say whatever you like, but if you read the article you will note that the section you quoted was talking about sycronizing clocks on the surface of the earth. The paragraph before your quote:

"Clocks moving along different trajectories in space and on Earth undergo
different gravitational and motional frequency shifts. The "proper times"
recorded by all these clocks in their own rest frames quickly diverge.
Therefore one needs some reasonable means of synchronization, in order that
equations 1 have their intended meaning--expressing signal propagation at
speed in straight lines in an inertial frame. The times at which the
transmissions originate must be established by a self-consistent
synchronization scheme."

he goes on to describe how clocks on earth at sea level are all synchronized with each other, and how you can get basically the same times from earth clocks because they are all basically at sea level and how this is a predictable difference between the clocks on the satelites:

"However, the rate of International Atomic Time (TAI) is based on atomic
clocks resting essentially at sea level, where they are subject to second-order
Doppler shifts due to Earth's rotation and gravitational redshifts relative to
clocks 20 000 km higher up. The two different time variables can be
reconciled by scaling the rate of coordinate time so that it matches the rate of
TAI. The time variable actually used in the GPS is related to the coordinate
time of equation 2 by = (1 - / ), where the constant parameter
includes motional effects due to Earth's rotation and gravitational effects
from its mass distribution."

The author is not saying that relativistic effects can be ignored with GPS simply that there are things that dont need to be factored in in order for it to work well enough. read the entire article.

Strangelove wrote:
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.

?

Strangelove wrote:

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?

First Hartnett's paper was from 2008, and I actually linked 4 papers, 3 of them from 2005,2002 and 2006 respectively and the one from 1991 was to illustrate that Hartnett was using an analysis technique that was known to be flawed since 1991. I dont have to tell hartnett that his technique is flawed because astronomers have known about the problem with the analysis for 20 years.

Strangelove wrote:

Honestly? I would need to see it.

i'll work on that.

Strangelove wrote:
Black holes might not count.

but binary stars definitely count? Also why can moons orbit planets but stars cant orbit the galactic center of mass?

Strangelove wrote:
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.

Its not random stuff, its the relevant paper that she published her results in and the data she used/collected....I cant really think of anything better than that.

Strangelove wrote:

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?

well yes, it doesn't disagree with the motions of the other planets, its just that the other planets dont experience significant relativistic effects, their motions were not unexpected in Newtonian predictions, it was mercury that couldn't be explained by newton.

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

I'd beg to differ, it hasn't been ignored in the field and the analysis tools that they developed (Feldman-Kaiser-Peacock). after they discovered the flaw are widely used in analysis today, along with later tools developed from them, the only person that I know of that still uses the old analysis method on this kind of data is Hartnett.

Strangelove wrote:

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

Ok.

No, my maybe is for one cutting edge physicist that decided for whatever reason to use outdated methods that are known to give inaccurate results in precisely the way he got them on exactly the data type that he used. Its not my maybe, thiis has been well known since 1991.

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

so since no one bothered to write a paper in 2009 outlining once again why using a method that has been know since 1991 to be a poor choice for analyzing this type of data its automatically the most valid paper out there?

Strangelove wrote:
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.

okay so now you dont want the "raw data" which I showed you, you want some quotes?

Strangelove wrote:
Quotes that support your position please. Documentation.
Not just oscar jumping up and down on the spot screaming..."No it doesnt show that!"

I posted 3 papers that indicate that there is no quantization of redshifts, and an additional paper that outlines the weaknesses of the method that hartnett used.

Strangelove wrote:
Unless you have any experts you wanna quote who feel different?

read the papers I posted

Strangelove wrote:
Dunno.

and presumably you dont care either.

Strangelove wrote:
Why do they do it in your system?
Can you trump Newton on this one and actually explain it?

Eisenstein gravity will work, Newtonian gravity will work in most cases too. Are you saying that geo abides the laws of newtonian gravitation?

Strangelove wrote:
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!

You dont know me very well, I'm not afraid of lines of debate, the worst that can happen is i can find out that i was wrong, which has happened tonnes of times.

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

i think this is the 3rd time you've mentioned the Planck level, can you explain to me why this makes a differnce?

Strangelove wrote:
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.

okay, but that completely removes the mechanism by which lesagen gravity explained the inverse square law, and the shadow effect that (poorly) allowed for orbits.

Strangelove wrote:

okay first, how does that even begin to look like discreet concentric rings?

Strangelove wrote:
Erm....yeah.

alright, so why do you disagree with the speed i calculated for the sun?

Strangelove wrote:

No. As Michelson-Gale and Sagnac proves.

wait , now i'm confused, so light does travel at c+v?

Strangelove wrote:
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?

gosh, sorry, I just didn't understand it before

Strangelove wrote:

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

So is this faster than the speed of light?

yes, megaparsec, but no its nowhere near the speed of light, although if the universe is actually speeding up, eventually it will be faster than light.

oscarkipling wrote:no, you said we cant see the cable because its a dark cable but why is it postulated, what observation indicates a cable?

The sun looks like a giant lamp, so the dark cable must be there. The alternative is horrifying.....so...there must be a dark cable. Thats why its postulated.

oscarkipling wrote:I meant internally static, as in the stars inside galaxies dont move around, or more specifically do not orbit the center of mass in the galaxy.

I have no problem with that concept and I dont think geocentricity does, I've just never observed it.

oscarkipling wrote:perhaps, but I dont think your example illustrates that because its simply a bunch of terminology with no basis for its use.

Like dark matter.

oscarkipling wrote:i see, so presumably you dont believe that quantum physical phenomena have been observed either?

Dunno, gimme some examples.

oscarkipling wrote:I dont think this line of discussion is getting us nywhere.

That line of theorizing gets science no where. That was the point of me engaging you in that example. It's silly.

oscarkipling wrote:read the article that you quoted, I linked it.

Theres no mention of 'time dialiation' in it, I did a word search.

oscarkipling wrote:Anyway sure, as i' said before if you cherrypick quotes from the article you can get it to say whatever you like

I've debated jews on the talmud oscar. I'm well used to folks screaming 'CONTEXT.....QUOTEMINE and ...CHERRYPICK' in order to save face, escape obvious meanings of the documentation or to simply muddy the line of debate. Carry on.

oscarkipling wrote:The author is not saying that relativistic effects can be ignored with GPS simply that there are things that dont need to be factored in in order for it to work well enough. read the entire article.

LOLZ! Ya RELATIVITY doesnt need to be factored in!

We need the sagnac effect and we need an Earth inertial frame of reference.

oscarkipling wrote:First Hartnett's paper was from 2008, and I actually linked 4 papers, 3 of them from 2005,2002 and 2006 respectively and the one from 1991 was to illustrate that Hartnett was using an analysis technique that was known to be flawed since 1991. I dont have to tell hartnett that his technique is flawed because astronomers have known about the problem with the analysis for 20 years.

Then why are top level physicists still using that method?

Either the method they are using is not flawed, or you get to win the nobel prize by pointing this matter out to these peolple. All your attempts to produce documentation are from papers older than my one.

No sale.

oscarkipling wrote:but binary stars definitely count? Also why can moons orbit planets but stars cant orbit the galactic center of mass?

They may very well do that I just havnt observed it.

oscarkipling wrote:Its not random stuff, its the relevant paper that she published her results in and the data she used/collected....I cant really think of anything better than that.

Well, a conclusion might help. A quote....SOMETHING?!

oscarkipling wrote:well yes, it doesn't disagree with the motions of the other planets, its just that the other planets dont experience significant relativistic effects, their motions were not unexpected in Newtonian predictions, it was mercury that couldn't be explained by newton.

What nonsense. Either the theory of relativity works for everything or its toilet paper.

"the other planets dont experience significant relativistic effects"

HORSERADDISH!

oscarkipling wrote:I'd beg to differ, it hasn't been ignored in the field and the analysis tools that they developed (Feldman-Kaiser-Peacock). after they discovered the flaw are widely used in analysis today, along with later tools developed from them, the only person that I know of that still uses the old analysis method on this kind of data is Hartnett.

And he's never been refuted. That means a LATER paper proving him worng by the way.

oscarkipling wrote:No, my maybe is for one cutting edge physicist that decided for whatever reason to use outdated methods that are known to give inaccurate results in precisely the way he got them on exactly the data type that he used. Its not my maybe, thiis has been well known since 1991.

But no-one has refuted him since, so you must be wrong that his methods are outdated.

oscarkipling wrote:so since no one bothered to write a paper in 2009 outlining once again why using a method that has been know since 1991 to be a poor choice for analyzing this type of data its automatically the most valid paper out there?

Yup. Thats how science papers work. Valid till refuted. Why dont you refute it oscar? You could be up for a prize or summink? You could get published in Scientific American! How cool would that be?

oscarkipling wrote:okay so now you dont want the "raw data" which I showed you, you want some quotes?

Yes I want both.

oscarkipling wrote:I posted 3 papers that indicate that there is no quantization of redshifts, and an additional paper that outlines the weaknesses of the method that hartnett used.

Which all predate the paper and therefore useless. You must think Hartnett is a complete dolt eh?

Or you and the ancient papers you are providing are wrong.

oscarkipling wrote:read the papers I posted

Need up to date papers. That was your demand to me at the start of the debate remember?

oscarkipling wrote:and presumably you dont care either.

You presume wrong.

oscarkipling wrote:Eisenstein gravity will work, Newtonian gravity will work in most cases too. Are you saying that geo abides the laws of newtonian gravitation?

You didnt explain how gravity works. You are demanding that I explain it in my system but you offer no explanation yourself.

I think I'll just say 'modified LeSagean gravity' and be done with it as you obviously think that coming out with a term is enough.

oscarkipling wrote:i think this is the 3rd time you've mentioned the Planck level, can you explain to me why this makes a differnce?

Quid pro quo.

First why dont YOU go to the next level and tell me how gravity works in your system?

Why do I have to deo all the explaining?

oscarkipling wrote:okay, but that completely removes the mechanism by which lesagen gravity explained the inverse square law, and the shadow effect that (poorly) allowed for orbits.

It doesnt remove the mechanism it just modifies it.

oscarkipling wrote:okay first, how does that even begin to look like discreet concentric rings?

That can be the title of your peer reviewed paper oscar. The one aimed at refuting this claim:

“....there is visible evidence in the raw data for an apparent concentric shell structure centered on the observer.”----“Galaxy redshift abundance periodicity from Fourier analysis of number counts N(z) using SDSS and 2dFGRS galaxy surveys” J.G. Hartnett K. Hirano Sep 2008.



The scientists see it, the referees of the journal see it. But oscar doesnt see it. Because he doesnt want to.

We can call it Copernmyopia.

Hartnett and Hirano go on:

“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.....”

Have you done Fourier analysis oscar? Looks like they have approached this stuff with indepth statisitical techniques too. Apparently they didnt need to though, cause concentric structure is visible to the eye.....

“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.”

oscarkipling wrote:alright, so why do you disagree with the speed i calculated for the sun?

Where did I disagree?

Show me the exact calculation again?

oscarkipling wrote:wait , now i'm confused, so light does travel at c v?

Sheesh you are confused arnt you mate? I thought we went thru all this before? Heres a cut and past from earlier.....

I said:

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

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

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

oscarkipling wrote:yes, megaparsec, but no its nowhere near the speed of light, although if the universe is actually speeding up, eventually it will be faster than light.

Ok, just wanted to establish that things moving faster than light isn't a problem in your system.

How do you reconcile the Copernican principle with this oscar?




From the paper - "Why is the Solar System Cosmically Aligned?"

LINK: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~huterer/PRESS/CMB_Huterer.pdf

“Developing the multi- pole vectors allowed us to examine how the CMB’s large-scale features align with each other and the ecliptic — the plane of Earth’s orbit around the Sun.”

Comment by geocentrist Rick DeLano at Magisterial Fundies:

LINK: http://magisterialfundies.blogspot.com/2012/01/discussion-on-geocentrism.html

"NOTE: In the geocentric model, simply reverse the position of the words “Earth” and “Sun” in the above sentence- and also in the graphic.

Remember to tilt the ecliptic 23.5 degrees, since the Earth is not tilted in the geocentric model, the cosmos is- and, interestingly enough, it is tilted exactly on the angle built into the CMB- the largest visible structure in the cosmos.

Please try and understand: there is one and only one cosmological model that would have predicted a cosmological significance to this 23.5 angle of the ecliptic.

It is the geocentric model.

In the heliocentric model, this 23.5 degree angle is ascribed to a tilt in the Earth’s axis- in other words, it is a purely local phenomenon, not expected to have any cosmological significance *at all*.

In this specific observation, it is the geocentric model which proves to have a better predictive fit to large-scale cosmological observations.

This will help you understand why this astonishing alignment with the ecliptic and equinoxes *of Earth* is described as the “Axis of Evil”.

Evil why?

Evil because there should be no possible reason to expect an alignment of the universe’s largest structure with supposedly insignificant Earth (or, if you prefer, supposedly insignificant local solar system)……
unless of course you are already a geocentrist, in which case the alignment is a very interesting confirmation that this angle is not merely local, but is cosmological, in significance."

Another paper here:

Large-scale periodicity in the distribution of QSO absorption-line
systems (2010) Ryabinkov, A. I., Kaminker, A. D.

LINK: http://en.scientificcommons.org/59178703

Abstract:

The spatial-temporal distribution of absorption-line systems (ALSs) observed in QSO spectra within the cosmological redshift interval z = 0.0--4.3 is investigated on the base of our updated catalog of absorption systems. We consider so called metallic systems including basically lines of heavy elements. The sample of the data displays regular variations (with amplitudes ~ 15 -- 20%) in the z-distribution of ALSs as well as in the eta-distribution, where eta is a dimensionless line-of-sight comoving distance, relatively to smoother dependences. The eta-distribution reveals the periodicity with period Delta eta = 0.036 /- 0.002, which corresponds to a spatial characteristic scale (108 /- 6) h(-1) Mpc or (alternatively) a temporal interval (350 /- 20) h(-1) Myr for the LambdaCDM cosmological model. We discuss a possibility of a spatial interpretation of the results treating the pattern obtained as a trace of an order imprinted on the galaxy clustering in the early Universe.. Comment: AASTeX, 13 pages, with 9 figures, Accepted for publication in Astrophysics & Space Science

WOW!



i LOVE nerds

Gentlemen:

Looks like a good thread here- I haven't had a chance
to go through the whole thing but first off, I think the periodic
concentric SDSS structure reported in Hartnet/Hirano 2008 and Hirano
2010 is much more readily visible in the actual NASA image here:

http://www.sdss.org/news/releases/galaxy_zoom.jpg

And you can see the reported periodicities superimposed on the galaxy distribution here:

http://www.galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/features/CopernicanMyopiaFinal.pdf

You have to scroll down seven pages for the second image.

I will try and address anything that I can find that seems useful.

Thanks for the invite!

Strangelove wrote:
The sun looks like a giant lamp, so the dark cable must be there. The alternative is horrifying.....so...there must be a dark cable. Thats why its postulated.

alright

Strangelove wrote:
I have no problem with that concept and I dont think geocentricity does, I've just never observed it.

fair enough.you've never observed it, but I do think that geo has a problem, or a different gravitational constant or a different way f estimating the amount of matter in galaxies or something else that would explain the velocity of stars in galaxies....not that it matters though if you (the general you) dont accept that these observations were made.

Strangelove wrote:
Like dark matter.

alright,I have on multiple occasion explained to you why dark matter was postulated, even linked you to one of the key papers and the data that lead to it, at this point i'm out of ideas on how to explain this to you.

Strangelove wrote:
Dunno, gimme some examples.

Strangelove wrote:
That line of theorizing gets science no where. That was the point of me engaging you in that example. It's silly.

alright, but I dont think its an accurate representation, dark matter may not be an actual exiting thing, and its never been directly observed, I've never objected to that...but postulating dark matter based on an observation I believe is perfectly valid, and finding ways to validate or falsify this postulated type of matter I also believe is perfectly valid.

Strangelove wrote:

Theres no mention of 'time dialiation' in it, I did a word search.

hmmm I hope this misunderstanding didnt all stem from me spelling "dilation" incorrectly, but if it did then I apologize its "time dilation".

Strangelove wrote:
I've debated jews on the talmud oscar. I'm well used to folks screaming 'CONTEXT.....QUOTEMINE and ...CHERRYPICK' in order to save face, escape obvious meanings of the documentation or to simply muddy the line of debate. Carry on.

well, as a person who has also debated religious people, I also know that feeling, but simply because people use quote-mine and cherry-pick as an invalid rebuttal, it is actually from time to time an actual valid charge. Now, I didn't simply assert that you had cherry picked, I actually showed using the surrounding material why I felt that it was a case of taking a section out of context. So, I may be falsify using the context argument, but i think it would be better if you showed me exactly why my particular argument fails instead of simply asserting that this type of argument is often used in an invalid manner.

Strangelove wrote:
LOLZ! Ya RELATIVITY doesnt need to be factored in!

We need the sagnac effect and we need an Earth inertial frame of reference.

again the author is not saying that relativity as a whole needn't be factored in, simply that every possible relativistic factor isn't going to make a significant differnce in the outcome. like here where he talks about ignoring distant masses like the moon "In the ECI frame, the only detectable effects of distant masses are their residual tidal potentials. Tidal effects on orbiting GPS clocks due to the Moon and Sun amount to less than a part in 10 . Currently they are ignored. But tidal potentials do have a significant effect on satellite orbits."

oscarkipling wrote:First Hartnett's paper was from 2008, and I actually linked 4 papers, 3 of them from 2005,2002 and 2006 respectively and the one from 1991 was to illustrate that Hartnett was using an analysis technique that was known to be flawed since 1991. I dont have to tell hartnett that his technique is flawed because astronomers have known about the problem with the analysis for 20 years.

Strangelove wrote:
Then why are top level physicists still using that method?

I suppose there are 2 ways to answer this, first the method is still useful for certain types of data sets and certain types of analysis, so if i gave the impression that it was entirely useless then I apologize...anyway, this is why the method hasn't been chucked in the trash bin for every type of analysis. Secondly, Knowing that this is precisely the type of data set that the method has been found to be less than reliable, I cannot say why Hartnett would have used this method in 2008 for this analysis.

Strangelove wrote:
Either the method they are using is not flawed, or you get to win the nobel prize by pointing this matter out to these peolple. All your attempts to produce documentation are from papers older than my one.

No sale.

The method Hartnett used is flawed for this type of analysis, but its true the only evidence I have for this are papers that are older than his, so I suppose that is the long and short of it.

Strangelove wrote:
They may very well do that I just havnt observed it.

alright

Strangelove wrote:
Well, a conclusion might help. A quote....SOMETHING?!

I really thought I was doing the right thing especially considering that I've criticized you of cherry picking your quotes in the past. I'd prefer if you simply read the entire thing, we can put it on the backburner for a while while your read it over if you like.

Strangelove wrote:
What nonsense. Either the theory of relativity works for everything or its toilet paper.

"the other planets dont experience significant relativistic effects"

HORSERADDISH!

I think you've misunderstood me, I'll try to be more clear. Relativity does not disagree with the motion of the other planets, its simply that it does not distinguish itself from Newtonian predictions except in the case of mercury. The reason mercury is different in newton and GR is because mercury experiences significant relativistic effects effects due to its proximity to a huge mass (the sun) while the other planets are far enough away that they do not experience these distinguishing differences (at least not to any significant degree).

Strangelove wrote:
And he's never been refuted. That means a LATER paper proving him worng by the way.

You are correct, I do not have a later paper refuting his paper.

Strangelove wrote:
But no-one has refuted him since, so you must be wrong that his methods are outdated.

Well, again I admit that I'm not aware of any more recent published refutations of his paper, however I do maintain that its not unimaginable that he used a method that has been known to be unreliable for this type of analysis.

Strangelove wrote:
Yup. Thats how science papers work. Valid till refuted. Why dont you refute it oscar? You could be up for a prize or summink? You could get published in Scientific American! How cool would that be?

I feel like work has already been done to refute the basic principle, as well as the methodology, but yeah it would be pretty cool to get published in Scientific American.

Strangelove wrote:
Yes I want both.

I dont have that either.

Strangelove wrote:
Which all predate the paper and therefore useless. You must think Hartnett is a complete dolt eh?

Or you and the ancient papers you are providing are wrong.

I've never attacked hartnett's intelligence, I simply pointed out the analysis method, and some other papers that contradict his conclusions. I'll admit once more that I'm not aware of a paper later than 2008 that address his method or results.

Strangelove wrote:
Need up to date papers. That was your demand to me at the start of the debate remember?

I do remember that, and it appears that statement has come back to bite me.

Strangelove wrote:
You presume wrong.

yeah I've been known to do that from time to time

Strangelove wrote:
You didnt explain how gravity works. You are demanding that I explain it in my system but you offer no explanation yourself.

well, the thing is that Newton and Einstein re mainstream, that is to say that there is lots of material about their models for gravity everywhere, whereas modified lesagean gravity is not quite as easy to just look up. but i'll briefly describe both

Newton- in Newtonian physics gravity is a force that causes masses to be attracted to other masses. there is really no underlying mechanism to explain exactly why this happens with newton, simply that it does. Lesage's corpuscles were proposed as one such underlying mechanisms, but to my knowledge it wasnt until einstien that a mechanism became widely accepted

Einstein- In GR gravity is the effect of mass on space-time, that is to say that mass causes space-time to bend and warp in relation to the amount of mass. Its less that objects are attracted to each other than they fall toward each-other like rolling down a hill.

Strangelove wrote:
I think I'll just say 'modified LeSagean gravity' and be done with it as you obviously think that coming out with a term is enough.

I genuinely didn't mean to simply throw terms out there, I just assumed that you were aware of the basics of Newton and GR, not to mention in the past you've complained that io was being too wordy, so maybe I over-corrected.

Strangelove wrote:
Quid pro quo.

First why dont YOU go to the next level and tell me how gravity works in your system?

Why do I have to deo all the explaining?

quite simply because I'm not aware of the vast and easy to find resources where the model you are proposing is described in detail.

Strangelove wrote:
It doesnt remove the mechanism it just modifies it.

perhaps, but i dont see how.

Strangelove wrote:
That can be the title of your peer reviewed paper oscar. The one aimed at refuting this claim:

“....there is visible evidence in the raw data for an apparent concentric shell structure centered on the observer.”----“Galaxy redshift abundance periodicity from Fourier analysis of number counts N(z) using SDSS and 2dFGRS galaxy surveys” J.G. Hartnett K. Hirano Sep 2008.



The scientists see it, the referees of the journal see it. But oscar doesnt see it. Because he doesnt want to.

We can call it Copernmyopia.

Hartnett and Hirano go on:

“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.....”

Have you done Fourier analysis oscar? Looks like they have approached this stuff with indepth statisitical techniques too. Apparently they didnt need to though, cause concentric structure is visible to the eye.....

I have not done the analysis, but i dont think i would use this analysis for this problem because, as I've said before it is known to be the sub optimal choice for this type of data.

Strangelove wrote:
“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.”

hmm, what appears to be a general concentricity, sure i can see that, this is entirely different than discreet concentric rings though....if what you mean is a loose sense of what might appear to be an indication of concentricity, then sure i see that.

Strangelove wrote:

Where did I disagree?

Show me the exact calculation again?

perhaps you didn't disagree and i've once more misunderstood you. anyway here is the calculation in plain words:The sun is 150 million km from the earth, if we assume a perfectly
circular orbit, that's 942 million km the sun would have to traverse
every 24 hours. which means it would have to move at something like 39
million kph

and in math

(pi(150*2)/24)

Strangelove wrote:
Sheesh you are confused arnt you mate? I thought we went thru all this before?

I dont ever pretend to be confused, I've found for me its better to feel stupid and ask than to not know.

Strangelove wrote:
Heres a cut and past from earlier.....

I said:

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

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

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

okay, yeah I remember now, that was a bit of a brain fart.

Strangelove wrote:
Ok, just wanted to establish that things moving faster than light isn't a problem in your system.

yeah, space can expand faster than the speed of light, and there might be some other none law breaking paradox inducing ways to travel faster than light but as far as I know the one thing they all have in common is no information can be transmitted FTL.

Strangelove wrote:How do you reconcile the Copernican principle with this oscar?




From the paper - "Why is the Solar System Cosmically Aligned?"

LINK: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~huterer/PRESS/CMB_Huterer.pdf

“Developing the multi- pole vectors allowed us to examine how the CMB’s large-scale features align with each other and the ecliptic — the plane of Earth’s orbit around the Sun.”

Comment by geocentrist Rick DeLano at Magisterial Fundies:

"NOTE: In the geocentric model, simply reverse the position of the words “Earth” and “Sun” in the above sentence- and also in the graphic.

Remember to tilt the ecliptic 23.5 degrees, since the Earth is not tilted in the geocentric model, the cosmos is- and, interestingly enough, it is tilted exactly on the angle built into the CMB- the largest visible structure in the cosmos.

Please try and understand: there is one and only one cosmological model that would have predicted a cosmological significance to this 23.5 angle of the ecliptic.

It is the geocentric model.

In the heliocentric model, this 23.5 degree angle is ascribed to a tilt in the Earth’s axis- in other words, it is a purely local phenomenon, not expected to have any cosmological significance *at all*.

In this specific observation, it is the geocentric model which proves to have a better predictive fit to large-scale cosmological observations.

This will help you understand why this astonishing alignment with the ecliptic and equinoxes *of Earth* is described as the “Axis of Evil”.

Evil why?

Evil because there should be no possible reason to expect an alignment of the universe’s largest structure with supposedly insignificant Earth (or, if you prefer, supposedly insignificant local solar system)……
unless of course you are already a geocentrist, in which case the alignment is a very interesting confirmation that this angle is not merely local, but is cosmological, in significance."

I didn't even know about this until you brought it to my attention, but no i dont have any explanation for this.

Strangelove wrote:Another paper here:

Large-scale periodicity in the distribution of QSO absorption-line
systems (2010) Ryabinkov, A. I., Kaminker, A. D.

LINK: http://en.scientificcommons.org/59178703

Abstract:

The spatial-temporal distribution of absorption-line systems (ALSs) observed in QSO spectra within the cosmological redshift interval z = 0.0--4.3 is investigated on the base of our updated catalog of absorption systems. We consider so called metallic systems including basically lines of heavy elements. The sample of the data displays regular variations (with amplitudes ~ 15 -- 20%) in the z-distribution of ALSs as well as in the eta-distribution, where eta is a dimensionless line-of-sight comoving distance, relatively to smoother dependences. The eta-distribution reveals the periodicity with period Delta eta = 0.036 /- 0.002, which corresponds to a spatial characteristic scale (108 /- 6) h(-1) Mpc or (alternatively) a temporal interval (350 /- 20) h(-1) Myr for the LambdaCDM cosmological model. We discuss a possibility of a spatial interpretation of the results treating the pattern obtained as a trace of an order imprinted on the galaxy clustering in the early Universe.. Comment: AASTeX, 13 pages, with 9 figures, Accepted for publication in Astrophysics & Space Science

this is more in depth than the article so it will take me some time to read this over and digest.

Rick DeLano wrote:Gentlemen:

Looks like a good thread here- I haven't had a chance
to go through the whole thing but first off, I think the periodic
concentric SDSS structure reported in Hartnet/Hirano 2008 and Hirano
2010 is much more readily visible in the actual NASA image here:

http://www.sdss.org/news/releases/galaxy_zoom.jpg

And you can see the reported periodicities superimposed on the galaxy distribution here:

http://www.galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/features/CopernicanMyopiaFinal.pdf

You have to scroll down seven pages for the second image.

I will try and address anything that I can find that seems useful.

Thanks for the invite!

Welcome Rick!

So glad you could join us.

If you see any errors please correct them. Most of all in my teachings on the topic. I really wanna get this issue down.

Cheers, Doc. (Strangelove)

oscarkipling wrote:
alright,I have on multiple occasion explained to you why dark matter was postulated, even linked you to one of the key papers and the data that lead to it, at this point i'm out of ideas on how to explain this to you.
.

oscar: that 'scientist' is disqualified (as far as i'm concerned) since she is a Talmudist/Kabbalist.

got anything else?

http://lettherebelightbook.com/

...

Rick DeLano wrote:Gentlemen:

Looks like a good thread here- I haven't had a chance
to go through the whole thing....I will try and address anything that I can find that seems useful.

Thanks for the invite!

welcome rick!
here's a complementary pocket protector




welcome aboard! this looks like its gonna be fun!
zone

(i'm the only girl here, but don't pay me any mind...i'm just a spectator mostly)

zone wrote:

oscar: that 'scientist' is disqualified (as far as i'm concerned) since she is a Talmudist/Kabbalist.

got anything else?

http://lettherebelightbook.com/

...

Well, I mean, that's not really how I go about my business, I dont feel that calling Hartnett a creationist will instantly render his work worthless, as I believe that people of all faith's or no faith at all are perfectly capable of doing good solid science. If I have a problem with the science it will be with their work, and not their personal views.

zone wrote:(i'm the only girl here, but don't pay me any mind...i'm just a spectator mostly)

Uhm...a major contributer dollface. Just that the eyes glaze over with the scientificcy stuff right?

zone wrote:oscar: that 'scientist' is disqualified (as far as i'm concerned) since she is a Talmudist/Kabbalist.

got anything else?

http://lettherebelightbook.com/

...

Quote from that sites book synopses:

"The universe began
out of nothing 13.7 billion years ago and has expanded in an evolving
process that resembles one that Jewish mystics envisioned centuries ago."

[slaps forehead]

oscarkipling wrote:
Well, I mean, that's not really how I go about my business, I dont feel that calling Hartnett a creationist will instantly render his work worthless, as I believe that people of all faith's or no faith at all are perfectly capable of doing good solid science. If I have a problem with the science it will be with their work, and not their personal views.

um....what is the foundation of their 'personal views'?
i asked you a couple of times if you'd looked into who the Darwins and Huxleys are, and what their 'personal views' really are.

doesn't it matter? yes, it does.

does it matter that NASA was FOUNDED by high level freemasons? yes, it does.

because of what their 'personal beliefs' are.
what you seem to be as well as brilliant is a little naive...somebody's actually lying about the things of the universe and our origins, and God, oscar.

now the question is who....and why....but that's for the IS THERE A GOD thread

Strangelove wrote:

Uhm...a major contributer dollface. Just that the eyes glaze over with the scientificcy stuff right?

ya.. i like the pretty pictures tho.
and a good mystery....lol.

Love ya

Strangelove wrote:

Quote from that sites book synopses:

"The universe began
out of nothing 13.7 billion years ago and has expanded in an evolving
process that resembles one that Jewish mystics envisioned centuries ago."

[slaps forehead]

hehehe. duh.

this guy being a gnostic blames 'christianity' but course that would be the infiltrated/apostate part (Joseph Smith the 'mormon' being a mason and whatnot << *cough*):

Joseph Smith and Kabbalah: The Occult Connection

^{by Lance S. Owens}


Alchemy

Essential to understanding the themes animating the Kabbalistic-Hermetic world view is a discussion of alchemy. In popular misconception, alchemy is an immature, empirical, and speculative precursor of chemistry having as its primary concern the transmutation of base metals into gold.⁴⁰ This simplification touches at only the most superficial veneer of alchemy; in stark contrast, current historical and psychological readings of the alchemical tradition suggest it had complex roots delving into the religious or philosophical subsoils of Western culture and aspirations far more subtle than the production of gold. Indeed, the dictum of medieval alchemists themselves avows this fact: Aurum nostrum no est aurum vulgi ("Our gold is not vulgar gold").

The historical foundations of alchemy rest in the same early Christian epoch and Gnostic cultural milieu that generated the texts of the Corpus Hermeticum and nurtured the early mystical roots of Kabbalah.⁴¹ As with Gnosticism and Hermeticism, after the emergence of Christian orthodoxy, alchemy submerged into the darker subsoil of Western culture until the Middle Ages. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries renewed contacts with Arabic and Greek alchemical materials, together with a reawakening interest in heterodox classical knowledge, inaugurated a new study of this ancient "Art." And to this study was eventually add-mixed Kabbalah. No less a figure than Albertus Magnus (1193-1280) became an adept of alchemy and authored numerous alchemical works. To Thomas Aquinas, the great student of Albertus and the signal theologian of the age, alchemical texts are also attributed--a fact suggesting the philosophical and religious tenor of alchemical thought.⁴² For the next four hundred years, alchemy ran like Ariadne's thread in a labyrinth of creative vision. As the Age of Reason dawned, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, and John Locke would secretly correspond on alchemy's occult mysteries; Newton is now well known to have penned more than a million words on the great Art.⁴³ A century and a half later its mystery would command Goethe's masterwork, Faust, considered by C. G. Jung "the final summit" of alchemical philosophy in its last creative extensions.<sup>44

http://www.gnosis.org/jskabb2.htm
...</sup>

zone wrote:

um....what is the foundation of their 'personal views'?
i asked you a couple of times if you'd looked into who the Darwins and Huxleys are, and what their 'personal views' really are.

doesn't it matter? yes, it does.

does it matter that NASA was FOUNDED by high level freemasons? yes, it does.

because of what their 'personal beliefs' are.
what you seem to be as well as brilliant is a little naive...somebody's actually lying about the things of the universe and our origins, and God, oscar.

now the question is who....and why....but that's for the IS THERE A GOD thread

I dont think I can begin to explore that as an actual possibility until I have determined that there is a reason to suspect that the science that has been produced by these people is wrong in such a manner as to indicate that its intentionally wrong, and intentionally misleading. If its simply wrong, while that would cause me to rethink the things that they were proposed to explain, it does not immediately signal to me that it was proposed with the intention of misleading me. Now, simply being wrong, or at least wrong in a way that indicates that the earth is in a special place in the universe would be something that would cause me to consider things about God and the bible differently, but as far as malicious intent on the part of pretty much the lionshare of scientists throughout history would require a different kind of evidence, evidence that i have yet to see....but we cant ...or i cant get there until I can be thoroughly convinced that the science is wrong...understand? i think thats a reasonable and honest approach.

oscarkipling wrote:I dont think I can begin to explore that as an actual possibility until I have determined that there is a reason to suspect that the science that has been produced by these people is wrong in such a manner as to indicate that its intentionally wrong, and intentionally misleading. If its simply wrong, while that would cause me to rethink the things that they were proposed to explain, it does not immediately signal to me that it was proposed with the intention of misleading me. Now, simply being wrong, or at least wrong in a way that indicates that the earth is in a special place in the universe would be something that would cause me to consider things about God and the bible differently, but as far as malicious intent on the part of pretty much the lionshare of scientists throughout history would require a different kind of evidence, evidence that i have yet to see....but we cant ...or i cant get there until I can be thoroughly convinced that the science is wrong...understand? i think thats a reasonable and honest approach.

i understand totally. i'm certain Doc and Rick will dispense with the rubbish science (kabbalah). as you said, the deception will either be clear to you or it won't.

if WHO a respected 'expert' really is doesn't matter to you, i think you have SERIOUS problem.

anthro-global warming is a total HOAX, designed and set up by a little lying cabal...you know that, right? not only was the 'science' WRONG - they LIED about it.

Close followers of the Climategate controversy know that much of the mêlée surrounds an e-mail in which Climate Research Unit (CRU) chief Phil Jones wrote about using “Mike’s Nature Trick” (MNT) to “hide the decline.” And yet, seventeen days and thousands of almost exclusively on-line op-eds into this scandal, it still seems that very few understand exactly which “decline” was being hidden, what “trick” was used to do so, and why Jones’s words have become the slogan for the greatest scientific fraud in history.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html

and i'll be posting on the conspiracy.

of course not all scientists are lying. we already told you this is about DECEPTION. we've all been lied to at some point in our lives, and we've all lied. we're sinners.
you believe what your teachers tell you for the most part. and they believed what they were told. only a tiny cabal knows the reality of it - they set up the lying system.

its only by the Grace of God that some are LED OUT (the greek word is AGO...it means literally carried or escorted as in under arrest) into the truth.

2 Timothy 3:13
But evil people and impostors will flourish. They will deceive others and will themselves be deceived.

oscarkipling wrote:fair enough.you've never observed it, but I do think that geo has a problem, or a different gravitational constant or a different way f estimating the amount of matter in galaxies or something else that would explain the velocity of stars in galaxies....not that it matters though if you (the general you) dont accept that these observations were made.

Why do I need to explain the velocity of stars in galaxies again?

oscarkipling wrote:alright,I have on multiple occasion explained to you why dark matter was postulated, even linked you to one of the key papers and the data that lead to it, at this point i'm out of ideas on how to explain this to you.

I have no problem understanding why dark matter was postulated. It's because without it, the expanding universe theiry doesnt work. But the fact remains, when your theory postulates something that doesnt exist....has never been observed, thats supposed to make up 95% of the universe, then its time to rethink the theory.

I'm fine with aether because its been experimentally proven, unless of course you subscribe to a science which we both agree is insane.

oscarkipling wrote:alright, but I dont think its an accurate representation, dark matter may not be an actual exiting thing, and its never been directly observed, I've never objected to that...but postulating dark matter based on an observation I believe is perfectly valid, and finding ways to validate or falsify this postulated type of matter I also believe is perfectly valid.

How can you validate or falsify something that doesnt exist? It's unfalsafiable. Which makes it worse than a useless theory.

oscarkipling wrote:hmmm I hope this misunderstanding didnt all stem from me spelling "dilation" incorrectly, but if it did then I apologize its "time dilation".

I've lost the flow of this line of questioning. Was it important?

oscarkipling wrote:well, as a person who has also debated religious people, I also know that feeling, but simply because people use quote-mine and cherry-pick as an invalid rebuttal, it is actually from time to time an actual valid charge. Now, I didn't simply assert that you had cherry picked, I actually showed using the surrounding material why I felt that it was a case of taking a section out of context. So, I may be falsify using the context argument, but i think it would be better if you showed me exactly why my particular argument fails instead of simply asserting that this type of argument is often used in an invalid manner.

Well, I'd just like you to address the original quote and tell me what it means if it doesnt mean what I said it means. You didnt do that,....you just headed for seperate quotes and completely muddied the discussion. Here it is again:

"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.

Oscar....specifically....

"In this Earth-centered inertial (ECI) reference frame, one can safely ignore relativistic effects"
"In this Earth-centered inertial (ECI) reference frame, one can safely ignore relativistic effects"
"In this Earth-centered inertial (ECI) reference frame, one can safely ignore relativistic effects"
"In this Earth-centered inertial (ECI) reference frame, one can safely ignore relativistic effects"

oscarkipling wrote:again the author is not saying that relativity as a whole needn't be factored in, simply that every possible relativistic factor isn't going to make a significant differnce in the outcome. like here where he talks about ignoring distant masses like the moon "In the ECI frame, the only detectable effects of distant masses are their residual tidal potentials. Tidal effects on orbiting GPS clocks due to the Moon and Sun amount to less than a part in 10 . Currently they are ignored. But tidal potentials do have a significant effect on satellite orbits."

"In this Earth-centered inertial (ECI) reference frame, one can safely ignore relativistic effects"

oscarkipling wrote:I suppose there are 2 ways to answer this, first the method is still useful for certain types of data sets and certain types of analysis, so if i gave the impression that it was entirely useless then I apologize...anyway, this is why the method hasn't been chucked in the trash bin for every type of analysis. Secondly, Knowing that this is precisely the type of data set that the method has been found to be less than reliable, I cannot say why Hartnett would have used this method in 2008 for this analysis.

I can say why. It's because you are wrong, and the method IS reliable for this type of data set.

Otherwise the guy is a buffoon, who got published in a peer reviewed paper. And the referees of the journal are all buffoons too.

Are they buffoons oscar? Or could it be that you are wrong?

oscarkipling wrote:The method Hartnett used is flawed for this type of analysis, but its true the only evidence I have for this are papers that are older than his, so I suppose that is the long and short of it.

Is it the Fournier analysis that you say is flawed for this type of data set?

oscarkipling wrote:I really thought I was doing the right thing especially considering that I've criticized you of cherry picking your quotes in the past. I'd prefer if you simply read the entire thing, we can put it on the backburner for a while while your read it over if you like.

I'd prefer if you cherry picked your best quote from any material you are presenting first. We'll work from there.

oscarkipling wrote:I think you've misunderstood me, I'll try to be more clear. Relativity does not disagree with the motion of the other planets, its simply that it does not distinguish itself from Newtonian predictions except in the case of mercury. The reason mercury is different in newton and GR is because mercury experiences significant relativistic effects effects due to its proximity to a huge mass (the sun) while the other planets are far enough away that they do not experience these distinguishing differences (at least not to any significant degree).

Do you have any documentation to support this position about relatavistic effects being related to proximity to huge mass?

oscarkipling wrote:I've never attacked hartnett's intelligence, I simply pointed out the analysis method, and some other papers that contradict his conclusions. I'll admit once more that I'm not aware of a paper later than 2008 that address his method or results.

That means that his work stands as scientific fact for now.
So you need to explain the results and stop messing around.

oscarkipling wrote:well, the thing is that Newton and Einstein re mainstream, that is to say that there is lots of material about their models for gravity everywhere, whereas modified lesagean gravity is not quite as easy to just look up. but i'll briefly describe both

Newton- in Newtonian physics gravity is a force that causes masses to be attracted to other masses. there is really no underlying mechanism to explain exactly why this happens with newton, simply that it does. Lesage's corpuscles were proposed as one such underlying mechanisms, but to my knowledge it wasnt until einstien that a mechanism became widely accepted

Einstein- In GR gravity is the effect of mass on space-time, that is to say that mass causes space-time to bend and warp in relation to the amount of mass. Its less that objects are attracted to each other than they fall toward each-other like rolling down a hill.

So, you dont actually have a mechanism for either of the two gravity theories?

P.S. GR gravity sounds blatantly insane can we just ignore it please?

oscarkipling wrote:I genuinely didn't mean to simply throw terms out there, I just assumed that you were aware of the basics of Newton and GR, not to mention in the past you've complained that io was being too wordy, so maybe I over-corrected.

There are no basics. You dont have a mechanism.

"a force that causes masses to be attracted to other masses" is not a basis for the theory.

oscarkipling wrote:quite simply because I'm not aware of the vast and easy to find resources where the model you are proposing is described in detail.

I'm not aware of the vast and easy to find resources where the model you are proposing is described in detail either. In fact you've just admitted that there is no mechanism.

oscarkipling wrote:perhaps, but i dont see how.

Well, its better than having no mechanism at all eh?

oscarkipling wrote:I have not done the analysis, but i dont think i would use this analysis for this problem because, as I've said before it is known to be the sub optimal choice for this type of data.

It might have been known 20 years ago but obviously modern scientists think its valid and no objections to the studies have been raised yet to the 2008 paper of the 2010 follow up.

oscarkipling wrote:hmm, what appears to be a general concentricity, sure i can see that, this is entirely different than discreet concentric rings though....if what you mean is a loose sense of what might appear to be an indication of concentricity, then sure i see that.

Well....uhm....did you think that I was saying that the galaxies form PERFECT CIRCULAR RINGS around us oscar? LOLZ!

Yeah....general concentricity is what I've always said mate, obviously.

So now that you've finally given some ground on the issue, what does this general concentricity mean for the copernican principle?

oscarkipling wrote:perhaps you didn't disagree and i've once more misunderstood you. anyway here is the calculation in plain words:The sun is 150 million km from the earth, if we assume a perfectly
circular orbit, that's 942 million km the sun would have to traverse
every 24 hours. which means it would have to move at something like 39
million kph

and in math

(pi(150*2)/24)

I got no problem with that speed if its correct....whats next?

oscarkipling wrote:I dont ever pretend to be confused, I've found for me its better to feel stupid and ask than to not know.

?

Where did I say you were pretending?

oscarkipling wrote:yeah, space can expand faster than the speed of light, and there might be some other none law breaking paradox inducing ways to travel faster than light but as far as I know the one thing they all have in common is no information can be transmitted FTL.

Ok.

Although space expanding sounds ridiculous to me.

oscarkipling wrote:I didn't even know about this until you brought it to my attention, but no i dont have any explanation for this.

What do you think it means for...

a) the Freidmann 'expanding balloon surface' universe and
b) the Copernican principle

?

Thanks for the welcome: my time is extremely constrained, I am sorry to have to say, so let me set forth a few basic propositions.

If any of these are unacceptable, I will try and defend them.

1. The scientific method per se is properly limited to that which can be, repeatedly, experimentally demonstrated.

2. Scientifically based philosophy or scientifically based metaphysics are perfectly admissible, but they must be subjected to criticism on metaphysical grounds.

(For example, the statement "The universe began
out of nothing 13.7 billion years ago and has expanded in an evolving
process that resembles one that Jewish mystics envisioned centuries ago" is not a scientific statement. It is a metaphysical statement. The first assertion is preposterous on its face, since it advances the metaphysical absurdity that something comes from nothing. "Ex nihil, nihil fit" (Aristotle). The "13.7 billion years" is a statement of scientifically-based metaphysics; that is, if we assume a Big Bang, if we assume inflation, if we assume decoupling, if we assume the subsequent emergence of the elements via natural processes, and if our assumptions concerning the speed of light, the gravitational constant, Hubble law, and cosmological redshift are correct, then the universe came into existence 13.7 billion years ago).

3. If the standard model is true, then the Copernican Principle must be true.

4. The Copernican Principle cannot be true. We now know that there exists a preferred direction, an Axis, visible in the universe;s largest structure and oriented wrt to the ecliptic and equinox of Earth.

5. Therefore we can reasonably expect a paradigm shift of the sort Kuhn talks about, in the very near future; that is, within the next several decades.

6. The best scientific evidence we have, in the event of such a paradigm shift, shows that the Earth is in a very special, privileged location, at or within observational margins of the center of the observable universe.

7. If physics is unable to establish absolute motion by direct experiment, the geocentric model becomes superior on metaphysical grounds (see #3 and #4 above).

8. If physics is able to establish absolute motion, then the existing evidence (MMX, Michelson Gale, Sagnac, Airy) supports the scientific conclusion that the Earth is not in motion.

One quick thing: the objector is understandably troubled by the rotational velocity of the firmament wrt Earth in a geocentric universe.

Two things.

First, GR allows for superluminal rotational velocities, and even for superluminal translational velocities in the presence of a gravitational field.

Second, superluminal velocities are observed. These can only be attributed to properties of space (the firmament, or aether, in the GC terminology).

In the standard model space is expanding and carrying objects along faster than the speed of light- the objects are not moving superluminally, just the space they are "carried along in".

In the GC model space (the firmament, or aether) is rotating and carrying objects along faster than the speed of light- the objects are not moving superluminally, just the space they are "carried along in".

It seems disingenuous to allow for superluminal expansion as a property of space, while denying superluminal rotation as a property of space.

While both motions are legitimate within GR, it seems...safer to ascribe it to a rotation of a firmament, since, after all, how can nothing stretch? :-)

Rick DeLano wrote:While both motions are legitimate within GR, it seems...safer to ascribe it to a rotation of a firmament, since, after all, how can nothing stretch? :-)

Which is why dark matter was inven...*cough*.....postulated.

I would say dark matter violates the first of your basic propositions regarding the scientific method.

If we map the universe, perform experiments regarding motion/non-motion and then say that either...

a) The data is to be taken simplisticly and its obvious meanings derived without adding anything unphysical leading us to the GC model.
OR
b) Something unphysical is added and the data extrapolated upon hypothetically leading us to warping of space-time, cosmic randomness and multiverses....then...

I'll take option A everytime.

I also tend to invoke 'Occums toothbrush'. (the most worldly popular position is most often the wrong one).