Re: Stationary Earth

by lifepsyop Tue Sep 03, 2013 3:21 am

Strangelove wrote:Seems Mr.Popov is interested in geocentrism.

I posted excerpts from another of his papers at the bottom of the last page in this thread.

Newton-Machian analysis of Neo-tychonian model of planetary motions.

Looks like he is destroying basic helio myths one by one in juicy up to date peer reviewed papers. Nice. Definitely collecting all this guys work.

I was thinking about Evolution and Heliocentrism today...

Evolution is just terrible non-falsifiable pseudo-science. and the evolution industry proves this every day by refusing to publicly debate critics, and basically using a non-stop propaganda campaign to frame any criticism of evolution as an "anti-science" religious conspiracy. So, in this regard, there is a constant witch-hunt for any scientist (and there are thousands) daring to criticize the premise that random mutations and natural selection produced the biodiversity on Earth. Such criticism is banned and carefully guarded against. Evolutionists are terrified of open and honest debate.

Heliocentrism, on the other hand, doesn't appear to be guarded at all. It is thought to be basically proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Even most creationists won't question it, so there aren't really any resources devoted to defending it. Reading those papers by Popov made me think about how the case for Geocentrism is just flying out of left-field (thinking about the CMB papers, too) and nobody is really prepared for it. It's like a surprise attack. People aren't taking Geocentrism seriously because we've all been so thoroughly indoctrinated into Pythagorean Apollo Sun God Worship Smile

by **strangelove** Tue Sep 03, 2013 2:43 pm

I have been through many debates on geocentrism and I can tell you that it is carefully guarded against also.

Reading through those John Martin threads you posted took me back to when I was a regular poster at CARM. I battled with the same aggressive atheist schoolyard bullies on that forum, the biggest Christian forum on the web. And on every other major Christian forum, its the same story.

Occultic Gatekeepers on Science Section of Christian Forums

Times are changing, its encouraging. There are some resources for geocentrist Christians now. You have the GalileoWasWrong team, Robert Sungenis has a long PDF that deals with every single objection here:

About scientific (& theological) aspects of Geocentricity

Plus their blogspot. And Rick DeLano's constantly updated blog at magisterialfundies

Then there's Gerardous Bouws excellent website at geocentricity.com

Don't forget ICR and AIG are finally onboard with weak geocentrism as I've mentioned on the last page in this thread. It's only a matter of time till they realize there is no science behind the moving Earth claim and go all the way too.

A nice intro is Van Der Kamp's superbly written book De Labore Solis here.

by lifepsyop Wed Sep 04, 2013 1:00 pm

Yea, you are certainly right about Heliocentrism being rabidly guarded on forums and blogs. I guess I was just surprised to see papers talking about it making it into journals. I mean you will never find a whisper of dissent from "Common Descent/Man evolved from Fish" in a secular biology journal. This may change soon, though, as biologists are finally starting to come out of the closet that Evolution in general basically does not make any sense. (the laughable idea that culled genetic accidents can build animals)

GalileoWasWrong team's geocentrism movie "The Principle" is supposed to be released any time now.. should be interesting.

But yea, it is a sight to behold to watch an entire forum gang up on one person advancing a contrary position, while slinging ad hom constantly. Some of their diversionary/redirection tactics even look professional.

by lifepsyop Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:32 pm

JohnMartin just posted a link to this document on Robert Bennett's Aether theory. Looks like a convenient list of relevant experiments, and includes one of the more clear descriptions of Airy's Failure that I've seen.

http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6051.pdf

by **strangelove** Sat Sep 21, 2013 4:24 pm

This is not proof I know but I love to see God's creation from space. Nice song too.

by lifepsyop Mon Sep 23, 2013 9:22 pm

Check it out, Doc. Quite a tease:

http://magisterialfundies.blogspot.com/

by **strangelove** Mon Sep 23, 2013 11:49 pm

lifepsyop wrote:Check it out, Doc. Quite a tease:

http://magisterialfundies.blogspot.com/

Oh yeah!!!

by lifepsyop Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:28 pm

Yep, I really like the tone of that intro. There is all the reason in the 'world', to posit that there may be something very special about Earth's relationship to the rest of the universe, objectively speaking. The reason is right under everyone's nose, but over a century of pseudo-scientific evolutinoary mysticism has blinded us to the obvious.

Hey Doc, could you do me a small favor and try and connect to www.theologyweb.com ? I've been unable to for a few days.

by **strangelove** Wed Oct 02, 2013 3:52 pm

Problem loading page.

by **strangelove** Thu Dec 05, 2013 3:47 pm

But the main reason for believing in an ensemble of universes is that it could explain why the laws governing our Universe appear to be so finely tuned for our existence. [...]This fine-tuning has two possible explanations. Either the Universe was designed specifically for us by a creator or there is a multitude of universes--a "multiverse".

- Marcus Chown, New Scientist, 06 June 1998.

The Copernican Principle is similarly flexible: When conjuring habitable planets, it assumes ours is one among countless winners. Yet when conjuring a multiverse, it assumes that our universe is a lonely winner among countless flops. The choice seems to depend on which assumption is required as a defense against design. That feature, as we shall see, can once again transform speculation into orthodoxy.

- Denyse O'Leary, Evolution News and Views

LINK to article

by **strangelove** Wed Dec 11, 2013 3:04 pm

The Principle Movie

Coming Soon!

by **strangelove** Thu Dec 12, 2013 12:39 pm

"According to Einstein, the argument over whether the earth turns around or the heavens revolve around it, is seen to be no more than an argument over the choice of reference frames. There is no frame of reference from which an observer would not see the effects of the flattening of the poles. Thus in frame number 1 (the earth turns round while the sky is at rest), the centrifugal force is a consequence of the earth’s motion (uniform acceleration) relative to the heavens. This causes the flattening. In the latter frame, number 2 (the sky rotates and the earth stands still), the centrifugal force should be understood as being an effect of “the rotating heavens,” which is generating a gravitational field that causes the flattening of the poles. The two explanations are equivalent as there is equivalence between inertial and gravitational mass."

- “Einstein’s Ether: D. Rotational Motion of the Earth,” Galina Granek, Department of Philosophy, Haifa University, Mount Carmel, Haifa 31905, Israel, Apeiron, Vol. 8, No. 2, April 2001, p. 61.

by **strangelove** Thu Dec 12, 2013 12:50 pm

“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 [earth] 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 [c] under these conditions”

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

by **strangelove** Sat Dec 21, 2013 5:45 pm

Science's Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse Theory

Our universe is perfectly tailored for life. That may be the work of God or the result of our universe being one of many.

SNIPPETT~

Call it a fluke, a mystery, a miracle. Or call it the biggest problem in physics. Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse. Most of those universes are barren, but some, like ours, have conditions suitable for life.

The idea is controversial. Critics say it doesn’t even qualify as a scientific theory because the existence of other universes cannot be proved or disproved.

- Tim Folger, November 10, 2008, Discover Magazine Online

LINK: http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator#.UrXSKCdNtlE

by lauramarc Thu Dec 26, 2013 10:03 pm

So this "Principle" movie looks like it'll be good by its trailer. Cool! Thing is... once the truth starts to be revealed, it'll probably be slammed right back down. Seems like that alien seeding people idea will be getting really loud soon. And people will be so sidetracked by the alien "evidence" that they will just ignore that little voice telling them something's wrong with the picture. I want to be optimistic, but we are in such a heavy battle here. And Daniel says the battle will wear out the saints before our victory comes. When will people wake up. Maybe this movie will wake up some more. Hope so. I suppose that even if only a few more wake up, that's something to be happy about. And this truth is key to understanding how the evolution lie gained so much traction.

by **strangelove** Fri Jan 03, 2014 1:06 am

"There currently exists considerable evidence in favor of a large scale anisotropy in the Universe with the preferred axis pointing roughly in the direction of Virgo, close to the CMBR dipole. This includes, radio (Jain & Ralston 1999) and optical polarizations (Hutsem ́ekers 1998; Hutsem ́ekers & Lamy 2001; Jain et al. 2004), CMBR quadrupole and octopole (de Oliveira-Costa et al. 2004) as well as the radio source distribution and brightness (Blake & Wall 2002; Singal 2011; Gibelyou & Huterer 2012; Rubart & Schwarz 2013; Kothari et al. 2013). The physical reason for these observations is not clear and points towards a violation of the cosmological principle."

- 'Dipole Anisotropy in Integrated Linearly Polarized Flux Density in NVSS Data', Prabhakar Tiwari and Pankaj Jain Department of Physics, Indian Institute of Technology, Kan pur - 208016, India, 20 August 2013.

LINK: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.3970.pdf

by **strangelove** Fri Jan 03, 2014 1:20 am

"We now have increasing direct evidence that dark matter does not exist in galaxies [3]. Then it is unlikely that some dark matter is hidden somewhere else in the universe. Therefore the widely excepted (sic) ΛCDM cosmology is in difficulty. For this reason it is worthwhile to reconsider the expansion in the universe by starting from scratch." [...] "Our result (4.37) has the merit that it does not contain hypothetical stuff."

- 'Inhomogeneous cosmology in the cosmic rest frame', G ̈unter Scharf, Institut fur Theoretische Physik, Universit ̈at Z̈urich Winterthurerstr. 190 , CH-8057 Z ̈urich, Switzerland, 13 Dec 2013.

by **strangelove** Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:05 am

“So which is real, the Ptolemaic or the Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest. Despite its role in philosophical debates over the nature of our universe, the real advantage of the Copernican system is simply that the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.” — Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design, pages 41-42.

by **strangelove** Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:08 am

"I have two things to say that might surprise you: first, geocentrism is a valid frame of reference, and second, heliocentrism is not any more or less correct.” — Phil Plait, The Bad Astronomer

LINK: Discover Magazine

by **strangelove** Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:16 am

Let's put geocentrism into textbooks

Prime Crackpot Blogspot

~Snippett

"Clearly, most modern scientists discretely acknowledge that the geocentric frame is just as valid as the heliocentric one. The only objection that can be made against the geocentric frame is that it cannot, according to relativity, be chosen as THE frame, the absolute frame. The honest scientist must proclaim that he is neither a geocentrist nor a heliocentrist. He can be either. There is no one correct frame; rather, there is a multitude of equally correct reference frames, and we can choose among them, so long as we don’t claim that any particular one is absolute. This MUST be the modern scientist’s perspective on the subject of geocentric versus heliocentric.

Why, then, does every science textbook present the heliocentric view as if it were the “correct” frame?"

by **strangelove** Tue Jan 07, 2014 4:12 pm

"By means of a concrete example it has been shown that in an Einsteinian gravitational field, caused by distant rotating masses, forces appear which are analogous to the centrifugal and Coriolis forces.”

- 'The Effect of Rotating Distant Masses in Einstein's Theory of Gravitation', Hans Thirring, translated from 'Physicalische Zeitschrift', 19:33-39, 1918.

by **strangelove** Fri Jan 31, 2014 5:25 pm

This is just awesome.

Look how fast this guy drops from the capsule at the start of this record breaking skydive from the stratosphere.

by **strangelove** Thu Feb 20, 2014 5:54 pm

"Before Copernicus, people thought that the earth stood still and that the heavens revolved about it once a day. Copernicus taught that "really" the earth revolves once a day, and the daily rotation of sun and stars is only "apparent"... But in the modern theory the question between Copernicus and his predecessors is merely one of convenience; all motion is relative, and there is no difference between the two... Astronomy is easier if we take the sun as fixed than if we take the earth... But to say more for Copernicus is to assume absolute motion, which is a fiction. It is a mere convention to take one body as at rest. All such conventions are equally legitimate, though not all are equally convenient."

- Bertrand Russell "The ABC of Relativity [ London: Allen & Unwin, 1958, p.13].

by **strangelove** Mon Mar 03, 2014 6:09 pm

It’s a Fact!

I have had your newspaper on my desk for weeks, hoping to find time to write you. You say in your headline (Fall), “Six Physicists Say it is Possible” that the earth stands still. I don’t know who your physicists are, but the situation is much simpler than they seem to think. It is not just possible, it is a fact.

It is also a fact that earth does not stand still. The fact that makes facts of those two apparently conflicting statements is that, as Einstein said, there are no milestones in the Universe, and thus no absolute standard of rest or motion that makes such categorical statements mutually exclusive.

Whether one says the earth stands still depends on the use to which the statement is put. To a navigator, the sun and stars rise and set, and it would merely be a bother to him to consider himself on a rolling earth. To you, there are philosophical reasons that make you wish to take this point of view. Very well, take it. It is not in conflict with anything we know, and is unlikely ever to be.

Of course, there is a reason why physicists and astronomers take the other view. It is this. These people wish, unlike yourselves, to understand the Universe by mathematical laws. The laws are different depending on whether you take the earth as a standard of rest or whether you consider it in motion. It is not a question of right or wrong, they are just different; and those used by astronomers and physicists are very much shorter and easier to deal with than those you would have to use if you were interested in doing mathematical astronomy, which I gather you are not.[2]

You cannot blame people for using compact, neat and accurate mathematical formulizations when they are available; and of course it is hard not to have the opinion that the Universe is better understood in this way. But you don’t have to. If it is important to you to consider the earth to be at rest, then the laws of nature can be formulated in an appropriate way.

The kind of thing that’s involved is this: you have probably seen in museums of elsewhere a long pendulum set swinging at the beginning of the day, whose direction of swing continually changes as the day goes on. This is usually, and simply, explained as an effect of the earth’s rotation. [The pendulum is called a Foucault Pendulum. –Ed.]

You don’t have to explain it that way. The laws of nature that you would use if you were interested in doing mathematical physics while assuming the earth to be at rest would contain a velocity-dependent force that would act upon the pendulum in such a way as to produce the observed rotation. The whole question is one of philosophic view point, or attitude towards the world. It is not a question of fact, as the word fact is ordinarily understood.

You will do fine, and perhaps even educate some of the confused people whose letters you publish, if you make this clear enough, often enough.

Peace,

David Park

Professor of Physics

Thompsonville Physical Laboratory

Williams College

Williamstown, Massachusetts 01267

by **strangelove** Mon Mar 03, 2014 6:13 pm

Concerning the “Killer Question” in the winter 1976 issue: In the usual Newtonian treatment of rotating reference systems, one must introduce “fictitious forces,” such as the centrifugal (not to be confused with centripetal) force and the Coriolis force, in addition to “real” forces such as gravitation. In the case of the geosynchronous satellite orbit as viewed from a reference frame rotating with the earth, the centrifugal and gravitational forces just cancel one another, so the satellite is unaccelerated in that frame and can remain motionless. (Note that this balance of centrifugal and gravitational forces is valid only here — it is not the correct way of explaining orbital motion in general.) Again, this only shows that it is possible to use a co-ordinate system in which the earth does not rotate, not that this is in some sense the correct or only system.

George L. Murphy —Physics
University of Western Australia
Nedlands, Western Australia

by **strangelove** Tue Mar 11, 2014 2:09 am

"...galaxies farther than 4300 megaparsecs from us are currently moving away from us at speeds greater than that of light. Cosmological innocents sometimes exclaim, “Gosh! Doesn’t this violate the law that massive objects can’t travel faster than the speed of light?” Actually, it doesn’t. The speed limit that states that massive objects must travel with v < c relative to each other is one of the results of special relativity, and refers to the relative motion of objects within a static space. In the context of general relativity, there is no objection to having two points moving away from each other at superluminal speed due to the expansion of space."

- "Introduction to Cosmology", Barbara Ryden, page 39.

by SarahM777 Thu Mar 13, 2014 12:09 pm

UMM Silly question but if one has two cars,the same size and shape,one going with the rotation and one going against the rotation,being crashed into a brick wall the same size,shape and density,shouldn't the car going against the rotation hit with more force then the car going WITH the rotation? (If the earth is truly rotating) scratch

by VelikaBuna Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:54 pm

@Sarah777

The simple answer is no, because both cars and the wall are equally affected by the rotation. The example you presented is the same as if the same scenario happened on the non rotation platform.

by lifepsyop Sat Mar 15, 2014 1:47 am

Sungenis recently published a book "Geocentrism 101"... It's got a lot of good quotes in it.. (even some scanned images of the original documents)

p.92
-------------------
Although Einstein sometimes tried to conceal the fact that the Michelson-Morley experiment was a direct cause for the writing of his 1905 paper, the direct connection between Michelson's disturbing results and Einstein's invention of the theory of Special Relativity was admitted two decades later by Einstein himself at his speech in Kyoto, Japan in 1924:

"Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea about the motion of the Earth with respect to the ether is incorrect, if we admit Michelson's null result as a fact. this was the first path which led me to the special theory of relativity. Since then I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by an optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the sun." - Albert Einstein
--------------------

Yet, in my experience, heliocentrists will balk at the idea that Relativity theory was invented to deal with the problem of experiments showing a non-moving Earth...

There are a lot more quotes, personal communications, from physicists following the M-M experiments, basically of them freaking out that there is no results showing the expected Earth motion...

Looking forward to 'The Principle' movie Very Happy

by **strangelove** Tue Jul 15, 2014 3:53 pm

by Sponsored content