Re: Stationary Earth

by **strangelove** Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:40 pm

The Allais effect is a claimed anomalous precession of the plane of oscillation of a pendulum during a solar eclipse. It has been speculated to be unexplained by standard physical models of gravitation, but recent mainstream physics publications tend rather to posit conventional explanations for the reported observations.

LINK:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allais_effect

Allais' pendulum experiments earned him the 1959 Galabert
Prize of the French Astronautical Society, and in 1959 he was
made a laureate of the United States Gravity Research Foundation.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1999/ast06aug99_1/

.....

by zone Sat Feb 04, 2012 12:25 pm

http://galileowaswrong.blogspot.com/2010/11/first-annual-catholic-conference-on.html

First Annual Catholic Conference on Geocentrism (South Bend, IN)

by **strangelove** Sat Feb 04, 2012 8:52 pm

The debate was reopened in the latter part of the 19th century by Mach who put forward the argument that the correlation between the plane of oscillation of the Foucault pendulum and the fixed stars was neither an accident nor proved the existence of an absolute space but rather that the stars were responsible for the inertia of the pendulum bob. This would eliminate Newton's absolute space which Mach viewed as metaphysical and in addition suggested a cause for mass which then elevated it to something other than just a free parameter in Newton's theory.

Einstein was strongly influenced by Mach and the general theory of relativity may be said to have vindicated Mach --- but only in part. Certainly we now know that matter influences space and there are certain model calculations which are suggestive. For example, if a rotating shell of matter is introduced into an otherwise empty space, the equations of motion of test particles at the centre are modified. In particular, an inertial frame at the centre is now a frame that rotates at some speed that is determined by the mass, radius and rotation speed of the shell. (The two speeds are not equal except in a certain limit of large mass and radius.) Thus the shell of mass (read distant stars?) has affected the choice of "absolute space" but it has not completely determined it as would be required by Mach in that the mathematical solution has used boundary conditions at infinity that are quite independent of the matter distribution.

The problem remains an active field of research. At an elementary level one can say the pendulum in this room shows that the earth is rotating. But it also leaves open the more fundamental questions as to the origin of mass and inertia. We still wonder why is there mass? why inertia? why F = ma?

- The University of Guelph, Department of Physics

LINK:http://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/foucault/F8.html

by **strangelove** Sun Feb 05, 2012 8:40 pm

“We might hope therefore that the Einstein theory, which is well suited to such problems, would throw more light on the matter. But instead of adding further support to the heliocentric picture of the planetary motions, the Einstein theory goes in the opposite direction, giving increased respectability to the geocentric picture”

- Sir Fred Hoyle, Nicolaus Copernicus: An Essay on His Life and Work, p. 87

by **strangelove** Sun Feb 05, 2012 9:11 pm

"…scientists have announced tantalizing hints that the universe is actually relatively small, with a hall-of-mirrors illusion tricking us into thinking that space stretches on forever….Weeks and his colleagues, a team of astrophysicists in France, say the WMAP results suggest that the universe is not only small, but that space wraps back on itself in a bizarre way (Nature, vol. 425, p. 593)…. Effectively, the universe would be like a hall of mirrors, with the wraparound effect producing multiple images of everything inside.” [Spergel adds]: “If we could prove that the universe was finite and small, that would be Earth-shattering. It would really change our view of the universe”

- Hazel Muir, “Does the Universe Go On Forever,” New Scientist, October 11, 2003, p. 6

by zone Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:13 pm

Doc, what % of scientists are geocentric?

how will this whole thing come unravelled?

by **strangelove** Mon Feb 06, 2012 9:35 pm

zone wrote:Doc, what % of scientists are geocentric?

how will this whole thing come unravelled?

Most renowned scientists reject geocentrism, but they admit they reject it on philosophical grounds rather than scientific.

As for the unravelling, the geocentric movement is certainly gathering force. Who knows.

by **strangelove** Mon Feb 06, 2012 9:36 pm

“That the center of the system of the world is immovable. This is acknowledged by all, although some contend that the Earth, others that the sun, is fixed in that center”

- Isaac Newton, Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, Book 3: The System of the World, Proposition X, Hypothesis I

by **strangelove** Tue Feb 07, 2012 2:48 pm

Strangelove wrote:
Most renowned scientists reject geocentrism, but they admit they reject it on philosophical grounds rather than scientific.

The following verses, I think, are relavent:

Romans 1:18-22 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; (19) Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. (20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: (21) Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (22) Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

by **strangelove** Tue Feb 07, 2012 3:01 pm

“Although in the nineteenth century this argument was believed to be a satisfactory justification of the heliocentric theory, one found causes for disquiet if one looked into it a little more carefully. When we seek to improve on the accuracy of calculation by including mutual gravitational interactions between planets, we find – again in order to calculate correctly – that the center of the solar system must be placed at an abstract point known as the “center of mass,” which is displaced quite appreciably from the center of the Sun. And if we imagine a star to pass moderately close to the solar system, in order to calculate the perturbing effect correctly, again using the inverse-square rule, it could be essential to use a “center of mass” which included the star.

The “center” in this case would lie even farther away from the center of the Sun. It appears, then, that the “center” to be used for any set of bodies depends on the way in which the local system is considered to be isolated from the universe as a whole. If a new body is added to the set from outside, or if a body is taken away, the “center” changes.

- Fred Hoyle, 'Nicolaus Copernicus', 1973, p. 85.

by **strangelove** Tue Feb 07, 2012 3:14 pm

Consider a rotating, solid sphere immersed in a viscous fluid. As it rotates, the sphere will drag the fluid along with it. At various points in the fluid, set down little rods, and watch how the fluid rotates them as it flows past. Near the poles the fluid will clearly rotate the rods in the same direction as the star [i.e., sphere] rotates. But near the equator, because the fluid is dragged more rapidly at small radii than at large, the end of a rod closest to the sphere is dragged by the fluid more rapidly than the far end of the rod. Consequently, the rod rotates in the direction opposite to the rotation of the sphere

Now reverse the situation. If we want to cause the sphere to rotate clockwise, we would need to turn the rods at the poles clockwise, and the ones at the equators counter-clockwise….This picture is clear then: to turn the sphere, the rotation of the particles (MTW’s “rods”) at the poles must be the opposite of that at the equator…However, in the case of a rotating firmament, all the particles are rotating in the same direction, with the angular velocity common to the entire firmament. The equatorial inertial drag is in the opposite direction as that acting near the poles. Using calculus, one integrates the effect from the center of the Earth outward in infinitesimal shells, showing that the Earth is in fact locked in place, the resulting inertial shear being distributed throughout the Earth’s internal volume. It could be demonstrated that were the Earth to be pushed out of its “station keeping” position, the uneven force distribution would return it to its equilibrium state.

- Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, 'Gravitation', p. 1120.

by **strangelove** Tue Feb 07, 2012 3:29 pm

“As Einstein wrestled with the cosmological implications of the General Theory, the first of these alternatives, the Earth-centered universe of the Middle Ages, was effectively ruled out.”

- Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 267.

Indeed it was “ruled out,” yet not by any scientific proof but only because, after having five hundred years of Copernicanism drummed into one’s head from childhood, it was unthinkable to believe that mankind got it wrong and that the Earth was actually motionless in space. But there was a price to pay for this presumption. Rejecting what was “unthinkable” created what was unmanageable. Since, on the one hand, an Earth-centered cosmos was “ruled out,” but, on the other hand, Einstein was forced to answer both the results of the interferometer experiments and Maxwell’s electromagnetic equations, his only “alternative” was to invent a whole new physics; in fact, it was necessary to adopt a whole new way of looking at the world. If the Earth wouldn’t budge, then science had to budge. Consequently, Relativity theory advanced principles and postulates that heretofore would have been considered completely absurd by previous scientists, things such as matter shrinking, clocks slowing down, and mass growing larger; that two people could age at different rates, that space was curved, that light travels at the same speed for all observers (even observers moving at the speed of light); that time and space are one entity, and many other strange and bizarre concepts, all in an effort to answer the numerous experiments that showed the Earth was motionless in space. Unfortunately, 99% of the world simply doesn’t know the sordid history of what gave birth to Einstein’s high-falutin theory. - Robert Sungenis (Christian geocentrist)

by **strangelove** Tue Feb 07, 2012 3:35 pm

“We already know that general relativity must be altered. By predicting points of infinite density – singularities – classical general relativity predicts its own down-fall….When a theory predicts singularities such as infinite density and curvature, it is a sign that the theory must somehow be modified”

- Stephen Hawking, A Briefer History of Time, 2005, pp. 102, 84; Black Holes and Baby Universes, 1994, p. 92.

by **strangelove** Tue Feb 07, 2012 3:39 pm

"In my scientific activity, I am always hampered by the same mathematical difficulties, which make it impossible for me to confirm or refute my general relativist field theory."

- Einstein, Letter to Maurice Solovine, November 25, 1948).

"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics"

- Subtle is the Lord: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein, 1982, 2005, p. 467

"You imagine that I regard my life’s work with calm satisfaction. But a close look yields a completely different picture. I am not convinced of the certainty of a simple [single] concept, and I am uncertain as to whether I was both a heretic and reactionary who has, so to speak, survived himself"

- Einstein, Letters to Solovine, 1987, p. 111.

by **strangelove** Tue Feb 07, 2012 3:47 pm

"Let K [the universe] be a Galilean-Newtonian coordinate system [a system of three dimensions extending to the edge of the universe], and let K’ [the Earth] be a coordinate system rotating uniformly relative to K [the universe]. Then centrifugal forces would be in effect for masses at rest in the K’ coordinate system [the Earth], while no such forces would be present for objects at rest in K [the universe]. Already Newton viewed this as proof that the rotation of K’ [the Earth] had to be considered as “absolute,” and that K’ [the Earth] could not then be treated as the “resting” frame of K [the universe]. Yet, as E. Mach has shown, this argument is not sound. One need not view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of K’ [the Earth]; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of K’ [the Earth], whereby K’ [the Earth] is treated as being at rest. If Newtonian mechanics disallow such a view, then this could very well be the foundation for the defects of that theory… "

- Hans Thirring, “Über die Wirkung rotierender ferner Massen in der Einsteinschen Gravitationstheorie,” Physikalische Zeitschrift 19, 33, 1918, translated: “On the Effect of Rotating Distant Masses in Einstein’s Theory of Gravitation.”)

by PneumaPsucheSoma Tue Feb 07, 2012 3:54 pm

I find the evidence for geocentrism compelling; and the smoke and mirrors of modern science hoaxish. I will gladly wear Reynolds Wrap headgear if it means representing truth according to the inspired Word of Almighty God over the Ashkenazic Wizards of Oz.

by PneumaPsucheSoma Tue Feb 07, 2012 4:21 pm

Doc... Direct me to more on the topic of space as something versus space as nothing, and the interrelationship of time to space.

by **strangelove** Tue Feb 07, 2012 4:36 pm

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:Doc... Direct me to more on the topic of space as something versus space as nothing, and the interrelationship of time to space.

Oh hi PPS. Nice to see you bud.

I've been reading the Q&A at http://galileowaswrong.blogspot.com/p/q.html

You can download the word document on that page.

Pretty much all objections are answered there.

by **strangelove** Tue Feb 07, 2012 5:06 pm

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:I find the evidence for geocentrism compelling; and the smoke and mirrors of modern science hoaxish. I will gladly wear Reynolds Wrap headgear if it means representing truth according to the inspired Word of Almighty God over the Ashkenazic Wizards of Oz.

If you want you can join me on one of the biggest Christian forums in cyberspace. CARM. I discuss science with the secular members here:

For Strangelove - Foucault Pendulum

Is Geocentrism the Normative Christian Belief?

Mapping the Universe - Are We in the Middle?

Where is the water above the stars?

You will need to create an account before viewing the threads.

by **strangelove** Tue Feb 07, 2012 5:13 pm

"Everything becomes clear if the idea that particles always have a position in space through time is brought back…. According to my current thinking, the particle is always located within a physical wave….The movement of the particle is assumed to be the superposition of a regular movement… and of a Brownian movement due to random energy exchanges which take place between the wave and a hidden medium, which acts as a subquantum thermostat. The point of prime importance in this model is that at each moment the particle occupies a well-defined position in space, and this re-establishes the clear meaning which the configuration space had in classical mechanics.”

- Louis de Broglie, “Waves and Particles,” Physics Bulletin, 22, February 1971

by **strangelove** Tue Feb 07, 2012 5:15 pm

"…in 1905 I was of the opinion that it was no longer allowed to speak about the ether in physics. This opinion, however, was too radical, as we will see later when we discuss the general theory of relativity. It does remain allowed, as always, to introduce a medium filling all space and to assume that the electromagnetic fields (and matter as well) are its states…once again “empty” space appears as endowed with physical properties, i.e., no longer as physically empty, as seemed to be the case according to special relativity. One can thus say that the ether is resurrected in the general theory of relativity….Since in the new theory, metric facts can no longer be separated from “true” physical facts, the concepts of “space” and “ether” merge together."

- Albert Einstein, “Grundgedanken und Methoden der Relativitätstheorie in ihrer Entwicklung dargestellt,” Morgan Manuscript, EA 2070, as cited in Ludwik Kostro, Einstein and the Ether, 2000, p. 2.

by **strangelove** Tue Feb 07, 2012 5:17 pm

"Modern science has its roots in ancient Greek philosophy. This philosophy, as we know, used the word “ether” to designate the particular kind of matter that filled the universe. This term was used throughout the history of philosophy and science, and it was also current at the beginning of this century. A resumption of its use at the dawn of this new century is now a fact. Since, according to the General Theory of Relativity and other modern branches of physics, the space and time of the universe do not constitute a vacuum, but a structured material plenum characterized by different physical quantities, the historical and traditional word “ether” is the most appropriate to express these features of the universe."

- Ludwik Kostro, Einstein and the Ether, 2000, pp. 186-187.

And yet....schools and university's remain silent on the ether. Question

by **strangelove** Tue Feb 07, 2012 5:28 pm

"A few words about the gravitational ether, and the ether concept in general may be in place here. The ether hypothesis was thought to be buried by the Michelson-Morley experiment, but today it is more alive than ever, in the form of the CBR [Cosmic Background Radiation]: experiments capable of finding the ether were not possible in the 1880s, but were possible in the 1960s. In a sense, the electromagnetic ether has always been observed – as the heat of the Sun (since as pointed out, CBR is reprocessed photons)…. All the main cosmological, astrophysical and physical facts: the gravity and Olbers paradoxes, redshift effects and CBR, gravitation and radiation, and the existence of particles can be conceived in the framework of this ether concept."

- “Action-at-a-Distance and Local Action in Gravitation,” in Pushing Gravity, ed., Matthew Edwards, pp. 157-159.

LINK: redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V03NO3PDF/V03N3JAA.PDF

by **strangelove** Tue Feb 07, 2012 5:29 pm

"Today the vacuum is recognized as a rich physical medium….A general theory of the vacuum is thus a theory of everything, a universal theory. It would be appropriate to call the vacuum “ether” once again."

- S. Saunders and H. R. Brown, editors, The Philosophy of Vacuum, 1991, p. 251.

by **strangelove** Tue Feb 07, 2012 5:32 pm

"Later in our treatise we will find that the very ether Louis de Broglie desired offers a solution to the wave/particle conundrum that has hampered modern science since de Broglie first discovered that electrons produce waves. Any particle that moves through a medium will, indeed, create waves. In fact, a return to ether will help solve one of the most mysterious and perplexing problems in Quantum Mechanics today, the phenomenon of “entanglement” – the spooky connection between pairs of photons, electrons or atoms even though they are separated by great distances. Perhaps this was why John Stewart Bell, the inventor of Bell’s Theorem to answer the phenomenon of entanglement, stated in a BBC radio interview: “Yes, the idea that there is an ether…that is a perfectly coherent point of view.”

- Ludwik Kostro, Einstein and the Ether, p. 154, citing M. Jammer’s, “John Stewart Bell and the Debate on Significance of his Contributions to the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics,” in Bell’s Theorem and the Foundations of Modern Physics, eds. A. Van der Merwe, F. Felleri, G. Tarozzi, Singapore, 1992, p. 5; also cited in P. C. W. Davies and J. R. Brown, eds., The Ghost in the Atom, 1986, pp. 49-50.

by **strangelove** Tue Feb 07, 2012 5:39 pm

Response to GR proponents claiming things cant travel faster than light speed:

“Relative to the stationary roundabout [the Earth], the distant stars would have a velocity rω [radius x angular velocity] and for sufficiently large values of r, the stars would be moving relative to O’ [the observer] with linear velocities exceeding 3 × 108 m/sec, the terrestrial value of the velocity of light. At first sight this appears to be a contradiction…that the velocities of all material bodies must be less than c [the speed of light]. However, the restriction u < c = 3 × 108 m/sec is restricted to the theory of Special Relativity. According to the General theory, it is possible to choose local reference frames in which, over a limited volume of space, there is no gravitational field, and relative to such a reference frame the velocity of light is equal to c. However, this is not true when gravitational fields are present. In addition to the lengths of rods and the rates of clocks the velocity of light is affected by a gravitational field. If gravitational fields are present the velocities of either material bodies or of light can assume any numerical value depending on the strength of the gravitational field. If one considers the rotating roundabout as being at rest, the centrifugal gravitational field assumes enormous values at large distances, and it is consistent with the theory of General Relativity for the velocities of distant bodies to exceed 3 × 108 m/sec under these conditions.”

- An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity, William G. V. Rosser, 1964, p. 460, comments in brackets added.

by **strangelove** Tue Feb 07, 2012 5:52 pm

In response to Michelson-Morley:

“This would mean that the Earth’s diameter in the direction of its motion is shortened by 2½ inches."

~

“The Michelson-Morley experiment has thus failed to detect our motion through the aether, because the effect looked for – the delay of one of the light waves – is exactly compensated by an automatic contraction of the matter forming the apparatus.”

- Sir Arthur Eddington, Space, Time and Gravitation, p. 20

Yes thats right folks. The explanation offered as to why the experiment failed to pick up the delay of one of the light waves is cuz...

.....the apparatus....SHRUNK!? Stationary Earth - Page 6 11756

Enter the “Fitzgerald
contraction" and later the “Lorentz
transformation”.

Fancy terms that describe absolute fantasy!

by Grandpa Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:47 pm

Michelson and Morley were able to measure the speed of light by looking for interference fringes between the light which had passed through the two perpendicular arms of their apparatus. These would occur since the light would travel faster along an arm if oriented in the "same" direction as the ether was moving, and slower if oriented in the opposite direction. Since the two arms were perpendicular, the only way that light would travel at the same speed in both arms and therefore arrive simultaneous at the telescope would be if the instrument were motionless with respect to the ether. If not, the crests and troughs of the light waves in the two arms would arrive and interfere slightly out of synchronization, producing a diminution of intensity. (Of course, the same effect would be achieved if the arms of the interferometer were not of the same length, but these could be adjusted accurately by looking for the intensity peak as one arm was moved. Changing the orientation of the instrument should then show fringes.)
Although Michelson and Morley were expecting measuring different speeds of light in each direction, they found no discernible fringes indicating a different speed in any orientation or at any position of the Earth in its annual orbit around the Sun.

In 1895, Lorentz Stationary Earth - Page 6 Biography

concluded that the "null" result obtained by Michelson and Morley was caused by a effect of contraction made by the ether on their apparatus and introduced the length contraction equation

Why didn't they just say that according to their experiments the earth does not move? Then let someone come up with a better experiment. Isn't that what "science" is supposed to be, impartial?

by **strangelove** Wed Feb 08, 2012 6:22 pm

Grandpa wrote:Why didn't they just say that according to their experiments the earth does not move? Then let someone come up with a better experiment. Isn't that what "science" is supposed to be, impartial?

Because that would be admitting that there is a God which is a huge no no in the post Copernican revolution scientific world.

Hubble described that viewpoint as a 'horror' that needed to be escaped.

Ludicrous theories involving shrinking matter, singularities and slowing clocks provided this fantasmagorical escape hatch.

Glad to see you again Gramps. Very Happy

If you could post a link or credit the author of any quoted material that would be great bud.

by **strangelove** Wed Feb 08, 2012 6:42 pm

“investigations point towards a compelling idea, that all nature is ultimately controlled by the activities of a single superforce”

“[a living vacuum] holds the key to a full understanding of the forces of nature”

- Davies P. 'Superforce—the search for a grand unified theory of Nature. Simon and Schuster, New York, 1984, pp 5 and 104.

by Sponsored content