Re: Stationary Earth

by lifepsyop Tue Jul 15, 2014 10:29 pm

Strangelove wrote:

Great presentation.

Really looking forward to The Principle release, and then this is going to become a lot more difficult to ignore, which should be interesting.

by **strangelove** Wed Jul 23, 2014 3:04 am

lifepsyop wrote:

Great presentation.

Really looking forward to The Principle release, and then this is going to become a lot more difficult to ignore, which should be interesting.

Yeah I'm looking forward to it too although scrappy in-fighting between the mainstream Catholic media and the films producers could take the gloss off the product.

by lifepsyop Thu Jul 24, 2014 9:11 pm

Strangelove wrote:
Yeah I'm looking forward to it too although scrappy in-fighting between the mainstream Catholic media and the films producers could take the gloss off the product.

One thing that bugs me is that the producers keep stressing that Geocentrism is a specifically "catholic" worldview when it is really simply a Biblical worldview, coming from a plain reading of Genesis.

by **strangelove** Fri Jul 25, 2014 3:27 pm

Well, I tried to sort out whether the catholic hierarchy still support the Geo model when I challenged the producer of The Principle in the following thread:

Catholic Chain of Command

Not enough time to discuss it obviously. He also blocked me on Facebook.

by **strangelove** Thu Jan 19, 2017 12:09 pm

"The work, published in 1543, was called On the Revolution of the Celestial Spheres. It stated that the center of the universe was a spot somewhere near the sun...The scheme met the requirements of philosophical and theological belief in circular motion. In every other respect, however, Copernicus struck at the heart of Aristotelian and Christian belief. He removed the Earth from the center of the universe and so from the focus of God’s purpose. In the new scheme man was no longer the creature for whose use and elucidation the cosmos had been created. His system also placed the Earth in the heavens, and in doing so removed the barrier separating the incorruptible from the corruptible."

- James Burke, The Day the Universe Changed, p. 135

by **strangelove** Sat Jan 21, 2017 6:24 am

"If we were to adopt a frame of reference like Tycho’s in which the Earth is at rest, then the distant galaxies would seem to be executing circular turns once a year, and in general relativity this enormous motion would create forces akin to gravitation, which would act on the Sun and planets and give them the motions of the Tychonic theory. Newton seems to have had a hint of this. In an unpublished ‘Proposition 43’ that did not make it into the Principia, Newton acknowledges that Tycho’s theory could be true if some other force besides ordinary gravitation acted on the Sun and planets."

- Steven Weinberg, To Explain the World: The Discovery of Modern Science, Harper Collins, 2015, pp. 251-252.

by **strangelove** Sat Jan 21, 2017 6:33 am

"In order for the Earth to be at rest in the center of the system of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, there is required both universal gravity and another force in addition that acts on all bodies equally according to the quantity of matter in each of them and is equal and opposite to the accelerative gravity with which the Earth tends to the Sun... For, such a force, acting on all bodies equally and along parallel lines, does not change their position among themselves, and permits bodies to move among themselves through the force of universal gravity in the same way as if it were not acting on them.

Since this force is equal and opposite to its gravity toward the Sun, the Earth can truly remain in equilibrium between these two forces and be at rest. And thus celestial bodies can move around the Earth at rest, as in the Tychonic system."

- Newton, Proposition 43.

by **strangelove** Sat Jan 21, 2017 9:24 am

“This ‘null’ result was one of the great puzzles of physics at the end of the nineteenth century. One possibility was that...v would be zero and no fringe shift would be expected. But this implies that the earth is somehow a preferred object; only with respect to the earth would the speed of light be c as predicted by Maxwell’s equations.

This is tantamount to assuming that the earth is the central body of the universe.”

- Douglas C. Giancoli, Physics: Principles with Applications, 1985, pp. 613-614 and 1980, p. 625.

by **strangelove** Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:39 am

"We need not necessarily trace the existence of these centrifugal forces back to an absolute movement of K’ [Earth]; we can instead just as well trace them back to the rotational movement of the distant ponderable masses [stars] in relation to K’ whereby we treat K’ as ‘at rest.’…On the other hand, the following important argument speaks for the relativistic perspective. The centrifugal force that works on a body under given conditions is determined by precisely the same natural constants as the action of a gravitational field on the same body (i.e., its mass), in such a way that we have no means to differentiate a ‘centrifugal field’ from a gravitational field….This quite substantiates the view that we may regard the rotating system K’ as at rest and the centrifugal field as a gravitational field….The kinematic equivalence of two coordinate systems, namely, is not restricted to the case in which the two systems, K [the universe] and K’ [the Earth] are in uniform relative translational motion. The equivalence exists just as well from the kinematic standpoint when for example the two systems rotate relative to one another."

- Einstein’s October 1914 paper titled: “Die formale Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie,” trans. by Carl Hoefer, in Mach’s Principle: From Newton’s Bucket to Quantum Gravity, eds. Julian Barbour and Herbert Pfister, pp. 69, 71.

"Kepler's standpoint is particularly interesting, since he was deeply impressed by Tycho Brahe's 'demolition' of the crystal spheres. Kepler posed the problem of astronomy in the famous words: "From henceforth the planets follow their paths through the ether like the birds in the air. We must therefore philosophize about these things differently."

His response to the problem was very `Machian'.... The planets could not possibly follow such precise orbits by a mere inspection of empty space — they must be both guided and driven in their motion by the real masses in the universe, namely, the sun and the sphere of the fixed stars.

This deeply held conviction was a decisive factor in Kepler's discovery of the laws of planetary motion — truly, a pre—Machian triumph of Mach's Principle."

- 'Mach's Principle: From Newton's Bucket to Quantum Gravity' p9. Julian Barbour, Herbert Pfister.

by **strangelove** Sun Feb 05, 2017 7:20 am

"The recent paper published in European Journal of Physics [1] aimed to demonstrate the kinematical and dynamical equivalence of heliocentric and geocentric systems. The work is performed in the Neo-Tychonian system, with key assumption that orbits of distant masses around the Earth are synchronized with the Sun's orbit. Motion of Sun and Mars have been analysed, and the conclusion was reached that the very fact of the accelerated motion of the Universe as a whole produces the so-called "pseudo-potential" that not only explains the origin of the pseudo-forces, but also the very motion of the celestial bodies as seen from the static Earth. After the paper was published, the question was raised if that same potential can explain the motion of the distant stars that are not affected by the Sun's gravity (unlike Mars), and if it can be used to reproduce the observation of the stellar parallax. The answer is found to be positive."

- Luka Popov, 'Stellar parallax in the Neo-Tychonian planetary system' 2013, Submitted to European Journal of Physics https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.7129

by **strangelove** Sun Feb 05, 2017 1:22 pm

"If the earth is affected with an absolute rotation about its axis, centrifugal forces are set up in the earth: it assumes an oblate form, the acceleration of gravity is diminished at the equator, the plane of Foucault's pendulum rotates, and so on. [In Newton's view] all these phenomena disappear if the earth is at rest and the other heavenly bodies are affected with absolute motion round it, such that the same relative rotation is produced. But if we take our stand on the basis of facts, we shall find we have knowledge only of relative spaces and motions. Relatively, not considering the unknown and neglected medium of space, the motions of the universe are the same whether we adopt the Ptolemaic or the Copernican mode of view."

- Ernst Mach, The Science of Mechanics 4th Edition pp 231-232

by **strangelove** Tue Feb 07, 2017 9:55 am

"The popular belief that Copernicus' heliocentric system constitutes a significant simplification of the Ptolemaic system is obviously wrong. The choice of the reference system has no effect on the structure of the model, and the Copernican models themselves require about twice as many circles as the Ptolemaic models and are far less elegant and adaptable!"

Modern historians, making ample use of the advantage of hindsight, stress the revolutionary significance of the heliocentric system and the simplification it had introduced. In fact, the actual computation of planetary positions follows exactly the ancient patterns and the results are the same. The Copernican solar theory is definitely a step in the wrong direction for the actual computation as well as for the underlying kinematic concepts"

- 'On Three Planetary Theory of Copernicus' - Otto Neugebauer 1968, p 103,

by **strangelove** Mon Feb 13, 2017 9:28 am

"Let it be understood at the outset that it makes no difference, from the point of view of describing planetary motion, whether we take the Earth or the Sun as the center of the solar system. Since the issue is one of relative motion only, there are infinitely many exactly equivalent descriptions referred to different centers - in principle any point will do, the Moon. Jupiter...So the passions loosed on the world by the publication of Copernicus' book De revolutionibus orbium coelestium libri VI were logically irrelevant..."

- Sir Fred Hoyle, Nicolaus Copernicus. An Essay on His Life and Work, p.1

by **strangelove** Mon Feb 13, 2017 9:37 am

"The ancient argument over Whether the Earth rotates or the heavens revolve around it (as Aristotle taught) is seen to be no more than an argument over the simplest choice of a frame of reference. Obviously. the most convenient choice is the universe.... Nothing except inconvenience prevents us from choosing the Earth as a fixed frame of reference...If We choose to make the Earth our ﬁxed frame of reference, we do not even do violence to everyday speech. We say that the sun rises in the morning, sets in the evening: the Big Dipper revolves around the North Star. Which point of view is “correct”? Do the heavens revolve or does the Earth rotate. The question is meaninglessness."

- The Relativity Explosion: Martin Gardner, 1976, pp 86-87

by **strangelove** Mon Feb 13, 2017 10:21 am

"The superior simplicity of the Copernican theory was just as much of a myth as its superior accuracy. The myth of superior simplicity was dispelled by the careful and professional work of modern historians. They reminded us that while Copernican theory solves certain problems in a simpler way than does the Ptolemaic one. the price of the simplification is unexpected complications in the solution of other problems. The Copernican system is certainly simpler since it dispenses with equants and some eccentrics: but each equant and eccentric removed has to be replaced by new epicycles and epicyclets. . .he also has to put the center of the universe not at the Sun. as he originally intended. but at an empty point fairly near to it.....I think it is fair to say that the ‘simplicity balance” between Ptolemy’s and Copernicus’ system is roughly even."

- The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes, Imre Lakatos, pp 173-174

by **strangelove** Mon Feb 13, 2017 10:42 am

"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. The relation of the two pictures is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation. and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view"

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

by **strangelove** Mon Feb 13, 2017 11:55 am

"I have known, too, for a long time, that we have no arguments for the Copernican system. but I shall never dare to be the fist to attack it. Don't rush into the wasp’s nest. You will but bring upon yourself the scorn of the thoughtless multitude. If once a famous astronomer arises against the present conception. I will communicate too, my observations; but to come forth as the first against opinions which the world has become fond of - I don’t feel the courage."

- Alexander von Humboldt, quoted in F.K. Schultzes's synopsis and translation of F.E. Pacshe's 'Christliche Weltanschauuing'

by **strangelove** Fri Feb 17, 2017 5:04 am

"Cosmology is not even astrophysics: all the principal assumptions in this field are unverified (or unverifiable) in the laboratory, and researchers are quite comfortable with inventing unknowns to explain the unknown. How then could, after fifty years of failed attempt in finding dark matter, the fields of dark matter..dark energy have become such lofty priorities in astronomy funding, to the detriment of all other branches of astronomy? I demonstrate in this article that while some of is based upon truth, at least just as much of ΛCDM cosmology has been propped by a paralyzing amount of propaganda which suppress counter evidence and subdue competing models. [...] I believe astronomy is no longer heading towards a healthy future, unless funding agencies re-think their master plans by backing away from such high a emphasis on groping in the dark."

- Richard Lieu, 'ΛCDM cosmology: how much suppression of credible evidence, and does the model really lead its competitors, using all evidence?', 2007, abstract.

https://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2462

by **strangelove** Fri Feb 17, 2017 5:19 am

"Dark energy appears to be the dominant component of the physical Universe, yet there is no persuasive theoretical explanation for its existence or magnitude. The acceleration of the Universe is, along with dark matter, the observed phenomenon that most directly demonstrates that our theories of fundamental particles and gravity are either incorrect or incomplete. Most experts believe that nothing short of a revolution in our understanding of fundamental physics will be required to achieve a full understanding of the cosmic acceleration. For these reasons, the nature of dark energy ranks among the very most compelling of all outstanding problems in physical science. These circumstances demand an ambitious observational program to determine the dark energy properties as well as possible."

- Report of the Dark Energy Task Force, 2006

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609591

by **strangelove** Sat Feb 18, 2017 8:12 am

"Particularly puzzling are the alignments with solar system features. CMB anisotropy should clearly not be correlated with our local habitat. While the observed correlations seem to hint that there is contamination by a foreground or perhaps by the scanning strategy of the telescope, closer inspection reveals that there is no obvious way to explain the observed correlations. Moreover, if their explanation is that they are a foreground, then that will likely exacerbate other anomalies that we will discuss in section IV B below.

Our studies indicate that the observed alignments are with the ecliptic plane, with the equinox or with the CMB dipole, and not with the Galactic plane: the alignments of the quadrupole and octopole planes with the equinox/ecliptic/dipole directions are much more significant than those for the Galactic plane. Moreover, it is remarkably curious that it is precisely the ecliptic alignment that has been found on somewhat smaller scales using the power spectrum analyses of statistical isotropy"

- 'Large-angle anomalies in the CMB', Craig J. Copi, Dragan Huterer, Dominik J. Schwarz and Glenn D. Starkman, 2010, p8.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.5602.pdf

by **strangelove** Mon Feb 20, 2017 2:38 am

Dynamical description of Tychonian Universe

Abstract. Using Mach’s principle, we will show that the observed diurnal and annual motion of the Earth can just as well be accounted as the diurnal rotation and annual revolution of the Universe around the fixed and centered Earth. This can be performed by postulating the existence of vector and scalar potentials caused by the simultaneous motion of the masses in the Universe, including the distant stars.

It is a matter of trivial exercise to show that these potentials can easily account for the popular “proofs” of Earth’s rotation like the Faucault’s pendulum or the existence of the geostationary orbits.

We have presented the mathematical formalism which can justify Mach’s statement that both geocentric and Copernican modes of view are “equally actual” and “equally correct.

- Luka Popov University of Zagreb

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.7290.pdf

by **strangelove** Mon Feb 20, 2017 4:56 am

Galactic ‘axis of asymmetry’ threatens cosmic order

Baffling rows of spiral galaxies that prefer to spin in one direction could have profound implications for our understanding of the cosmos

Snippett~

"If the universe does contain such an axis, it would contradict our current view of the cosmos, which assumes that matter and energy are uniformly distributed throughout, and that the universe looks pretty much the same in all directions."

"A similar bias among structures of cosmic proportions would have deep implications. For example, if more galaxies are spinning one way than the other, this implies that the universe has a net spin, or angular momentum, in a particular direction. Since angular momentum can neither be created or destroyed, the universe must have come into existence in a spin. What set it spinning, though, and what is it spinning relative to?"

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528794-700-galactic-axis-of-asymmetry-threatens-cosmic-order/

by **strangelove** Mon Feb 20, 2017 5:23 am

Is the Universe Spinning? New Research Says "Yes"

If the universe was born rotating, like a spinning basketball, Longo said, it would have a preferred axis, and galaxies would have retained that initial motion.

"It could be," Longo said. "I think this result suggests that it is."

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/07/-is-the-universe-spinning-new-research-says-yes.html

by **strangelove** Mon Feb 20, 2017 5:28 am

Galaxies spin, stars spin, and planets spin. So, why not the whole universe? The consequences of a spinning universe would be profound. The cornerstone of modern cosmology is that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic — it has no preferred orientation and looks the same in all directions.

On the face of it, the claim of a spin axis would seem anti-Copernican. In other words, the universe has a preferred axis, which means there is indeed a special direction in space.

A left-handed and right-handed imprint on the sky as reportedly revealed by galaxy rotation would imply the universe was rotating from the very beginning and retained an overwhelmingly strong angular momentum.

http://www.seeker.com/is-the-universe-spinning-1765290694.html#mkcpgn=rssnws1

by **strangelove** Mon Feb 20, 2017 5:33 am

Ultra-compact radio sources and the isotropy and homogeneity of the Universe
J. C. Jackson

A 2.29 GHz VLBI all-sky survey of ultra-compact radio sources has formed the basis of a number of cosmological investigations, which examine the relationship between angular-size and redshift. Here I use a sample of 468 such sources with 0.5This is interpreted as meaning that the Universe is not spatially homogeneous on the largest scales, and is better represented at late times by a spherically symmetric model with a density enhancement at its centre.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.0697

by **strangelove** Tue Feb 21, 2017 6:11 am

"We have shown that most of the global time cutoff measures of the multiverse suffer from severe inconsistencies and developed a new framework which allows us to study the measure problem from a completely different perspective. In the emerging picture an infinite multiverse is replaced with a finite geocentric region..."

- 'Geocentric cosmology: a new look at the measure problem', Mahdiyar Noorbala and Vitaly Vanchurin, Department of Physics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, 2011.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1006.4148.pdf

by **strangelove** Fri Feb 24, 2017 9:47 am

"...to the question whether or not the motion of the Earth in space can be made perceptible in terrestrial experiments. We have already remarked... that all attempts of this nature led to a negative result. Before the theory of relativity was put forward, it was difficult to become reconciled to this negative result."

- 'Relativity — The Special and General Theory', cited in Stephen Hawking's, 'A Stubbornly Persistent Illusion', 2007, p. 169.

by **strangelove** Sat Feb 25, 2017 9:49 am

"One could just as legitimately assume the Earth to be fixed and the entire universe, with its great spherical cloud of black-body radiation, to be moving. The equations are the same. Indeed, from the standpoint of relativity the choice of reference frame is arbitrary. Naturally, it is simpler to assume the universe is fixed and the Earth moving than the other way around, but the two ways of talking about the Earth's relative motion are two ways of saying the same thing."

- 'The Relativity Explosion', Martin Gardner, pp. 184-185. On another page Gardner writes: "Do the heavens revolve or does the Earth rotate? The question is meaningless. A waitress may just as sensibly ask a customer if he wanted ice cream on top of his pie or the pie placed under his ice cream" (ibid., p. 87).

by **strangelove** Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:11 am

"The high-velocity experiments on mesons, such as those at CERN, are definite evidence of the meson lifetime's functional relationship to their velocity with respect to the Earth, but have nothing whatsoever to do with the 'time-dilation' of Special Relativity. The experiments also are yet another 'ether-drift' investigation, with the usual answer: the velocity of the Earth with respect to a fundamental frame is zero."

- 'The "Time Dilation" of Mesons Re-Examined', Donald T. MacRoberts, Galilean Electrodynamics, Volume 3, No. 5, pp. 83-84.

by **strangelove** Wed Mar 01, 2017 6:49 am

"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 modem 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."

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

by Sponsored content