Geocentric Vs Heliocentric

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

Its an interesting word.

Wiki:

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world,[1] although the term is not easily defined.[2] Traditionally, metaphysics attempts to answer two basic questions in the broadest possible terms:

"What is there?"
"What is it like?"[3]

A person who studies metaphysics is called a metaphysicist[4] or a metaphysician.[5] The metaphysician attempts to clarify the fundamental notions by which people understand the world, e.g., existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility. A central branch of metaphysics is ontology, the investigation into the basic categories of being and how they relate to each other. Another central branch of metaphysics is cosmology, the study of the totality of all phenomena within the universe.

Prior to the modern history of science, scientific questions were addressed as a part of metaphysics known as natural philosophy. The term science itself meant "knowledge" of, originating from epistemology. The scientific method, however, transformed natural philosophy into an empirical activity deriving from experiment unlike the rest of philosophy. By the end of the 18th century, it had begun to be called "science" to distinguish it from philosophy. Thereafter, metaphysics denoted philosophical enquiry of a non-empirical character into the nature of existence.

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

because its one of if not THE reason dark matter was postulated.

Strangelove wrote:
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 think you do have a problem because you keep conflating it with dark energy. Dark energy was postulated because it appears that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, dark matter was postulated because it appears that there is more mass in galaxies or clusters of galaxies than can be accounted for by visible matter. We do not know that either of these things dont exist, but there are observations that have lead people to postulate their existence. With dark matter the speed at which stars appear to move around in galaxies is greater than what can be accounted for with the visible mass.

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

ok

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

you cannot validate or falsify something that does not exist, but something that does not exist will not have any effect in the universe. There are observations that are thought to be the effect of both dark matter and dark energy.

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

time dilation is important because it is one of the relativistic effects that you claimed is not accounted for in GPS systems, and i pointed out that it is indeed , and it is right in the paper...although to my shame i spelled dilation wrong.

Strangelove wrote:
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"

I did address this and i used quotes from the same section to illustrate my points. To put it simply this section you quoted is referring to the synchronization of earth clocks with each-other, explaining that since they all experience approximately the same forces (at sea level) relativistic effects need not be calculated for them.

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

this addresses nothing.

Strangelove wrote:
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?

I refuse to call anyone names, so I wish you would stop taking it there. I've said repeatedly that I could be wrong. However because of the method he used here, I contend that the results could be in error.

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

yes, but more precisely the one dimensional Fourier analysis hartnett used.

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

fine I suppose, i'll get back to you on that

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

If gravity generally follows the inverse square law as we seem to agree, then the closer you are to a massive body, the more pronounced the effect of gravity. In the case of GR gravity is the curvature of the geometry of space-time, so the further you are from the body the flatter the space, the closer you are the more significant the curvature.

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

I honestly have to disagree with the idea that because someone published a paper that the contents are immediately scientific fact unless someone else simply publishes another paper opposing it. Either hartnett is correct, or his results somehow fail to represent an actual property of the distribution of matter. Now at this time, due to the analysis method it is at the very least possible that the method used gave a false positive.

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

while i am unaware of a mechanism for Newtonian gravitation as it were, the mechanism behind GR is the bending of spacetime by massive bodies, at least above the quantum scale (below that gravitons are postulated as the force carrier, but are unproven at this time)

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

no

Strangelove wrote:
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.

that is not all i wrote....but okay what do you mean by mechanism?

It actually comes from Aristotle- "meta"= "after".

In his typical "bottom up" approach (as opposed to Plato's "top down" approach), Aristotle wrote the book after he wrote "Physics"; hence, "After Physics", hence, "Metaphysics".

From the Traditional Catholic perspective, metaphysics is understood as the second highest domain of knowledge (theology being the highest), with philosophy being the third (science, as you note above, would technically be a category of philosophy, one specializing in natural causes).

A key aspect of the present, modern world, was the Copernican Revolution's upending of that traditional ordering.

Before Copernicus, people looked to theology (the Bible, the Church) for the answers to how "things really were".

Science ("natural philosophy"), on the other hand, was always considered to be a handy way of making the appearances work out, without any assumption that the model would necessarily correlate to "reality" in any significant way.

Copernicus himself derived his model strictly as a consequence of having been asked by a Pope to assist in addressing problems with the calendar. Copernicus really had nothing to do with heliocentrism per se, you can see this by looking at his famous diagram in "De Revolutionibus"- the Sun does not appear in it!

As Dr. Julian Barbour says, Copernicus' revolution was really the revolution of the mobility of the Earth. By allowing the Earth to move, Copernicus could solve the riddle of retrograde motions of the planets, etc.

But the real driving force for Copernicus, ironically, was his hatred of Ptolemy's departure from absolutely circular motion!

As a dedicated Aristotelean, Copernicus detested the fact that Ptolemy's equant and epicycle allowed for non-uniform motion, and his system was specifically designed to eliminate that non-uniform motion!

It was not until Kepler came along and reintroduced non uniform motion (exactly as Ptolemy's system allowed, btw!), along with his notion of the Sun having the power to move the planets, that the heliocentric model really got steam.

A long digression intended to make this point:

We moderns have lived for a long time under the illusion that science was capable of giving us answers it cannot give.

Science has long since jumped the fence from its legitimate (experimentally reproducible) operational domain, and has begun to sell a metaphysics (but always under the label "science").

It is a very bad metaphysics.

We happen to live at the time when it is reaching the end of its rope.

Rick DeLano wrote:We moderns have lived for a long time under the illusion that science was capable of giving us answers it cannot give.

Shall we call it....Scientism

Strangelove wrote:
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.

here is a book Einstein himself wrote on the subject http://www.bartleby.com/173/

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

Well, I'd rather have a mathematical model that makes testable predictions with no mechanism, than a mechanism but no mathematical model that makes no predictions....but as they say, to each his own.

Strangelove wrote:

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.
.

one scientist, and also do you have any links to the second 2010 paper?

Strangelove wrote:

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.

honestly, that's exactly what I thought.

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

Given ground, I had no idea that this was what we were arguing about. I'm not sure if its real or if it only seems that way, I need to think more about it.

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

okay now we need to talk about the speed of light, it is moderated by the aether, but how is that quantified? that is to say are there known rates, for example does the aether slow it down or speed it up at a certain rate over specific distances?

Strangelove wrote:

Ok.

Although space expanding sounds ridiculous to me.

well, its all a bit ridiculous that any of it would be doing anything IMO, but I've resigned myself to the fact that no matter the truth about the universe, its all very trippy.

Rick DeLano wrote: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? :-)

well, lets see, My objection wasn't ever that the sun couldnt be moving at 39 million kph I mean in principle if space is is trucking along at that speed then that's well enough, but moving at that rate isn't without implications, and if there are several layers moving along at different rates and there is some kind of gravity at play, and this medium moderates the speed of light, then there are implications that I feel can be compared with observations.

oscarkipling wrote:because its one of if not THE reason dark matter was postulated.

Oh ya...sorry I forgot.

So.....is there any reason my aether cant do everything that your dark matter can do?

oscarkipling wrote:I think you do have a problem because you keep conflating it with dark energy. Dark energy was postulated because it appears that the expansion of the universe is accelerating

How does it appear to be doing that exactly?

oscarkipling wrote:dark matter was postulated because it appears that there is more mass in galaxies or clusters of galaxies than can be accounted for by visible matter.

How does it appear that this is the case exactly?

Is this what Rick was talking about with metaphysics?

oscarkipling wrote:We do not know that either of these things dont exist, but there are observations that have lead people to postulate their existence.

Observations? Or philosophical positions?

oscarkipling wrote:With dark matter the speed at which stars appear to move around in galaxies is greater than what can be accounted for with the visible mass.

?

I guess dark matter doesnt work then? Try the aether?

oscarkipling wrote:you cannot validate or falsify something that does not exist, but something that does not exist will not have any effect in the universe. There are observations that are thought to be the effect of both dark matter and dark energy.

You mean there are theories that can only be made to work with the introduction of dark energy/matter.

oscarkipling wrote:time dilation is important because it is one of the relativistic effects that you claimed is not accounted for in GPS systems, and i pointed out that it is indeed , and it is right in the paper...although to my shame i spelled dilation wrong.

He says the simplest approach is to choose the Earth centred inertial reference frame. Where you can one can safely ignore relativistic effects.

Did he say ignore relativistic effects except for time dilation?

No.

oscarkipling wrote:I did address this and i used quotes from the same section to illustrate my points. To put it simply this section you quoted is referring to the synchronization of earth clocks with each-other, explaining that since they all experience approximately the same forces (at sea level) relativistic effects need not be calculated for them.

The whole article is about GPS.

Do GPS sats use Earth clocks oscar?

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

oscarkipling wrote:this addresses nothing.

It says what it says. For clocks...and therefore...for GPS sats which use clocks.

oscarkipling wrote:I refuse to call anyone names, so I wish you would stop taking it there. I've said repeatedly that I could be wrong. However because of the method he used here, I contend that the results could be in error.

Well, you've already admitted that galaxies are arranged with general concentricity around the Earth so its moot really. Fergettit.

oscarkipling wrote:yes, but more precisely the one dimensional Fourier analysis hartnett used.

moot.

oscarkipling wrote:If gravity generally follows the inverse square law as we seem to agree, then the closer you are to a massive body, the more pronounced the effect of gravity. In the case of GR gravity is the curvature of the geometry of space-time, so the further you are from the body the flatter the space, the closer you are the more significant the curvature.

By documentation I meant.....a cherry picked quote by an 'expert'.

oscarkipling wrote:I honestly have to disagree with the idea that because someone published a paper that the contents are immediately scientific fact unless someone else simply publishes another paper opposing it.

thats how the journal system works. Always has been. The issue is real science, not theory. He did stats on the distribution of galaxies. It's plain fact unless rebutted. It's not a theory.

oscarkipling wrote:Either hartnett is correct, or his results somehow fail to represent an actual property of the distribution of matter. Now at this time, due to the analysis method it is at the very least possible that the method used gave a false positive.

Bizarre. You admit yourself you see the pattern with the naked eye.

oscarkipling wrote:while i am unaware of a mechanism for Newtonian gravitation as it were, the mechanism behind GR is the bending of spacetime by massive bodies, at least above the quantum scale (below that gravitons are postulated as the force carrier, but are unproven at this time)

Ok so for nutty science you have a silly and impossible mechanism and for Newtons version theres nothing.

Understood. So LeSage has been disproven unless we consider possible modifications, but because relativity is unfalsifiable you'd rather go with that? Ridiculous and unphysical though it is?

oscarkipling wrote:that is not all i wrote....but okay what do you mean by mechanism?

How it actually works, including components and their interactions/effects.

oscarkipling wrote:here is a book Einstein himself wrote on the subject http://www.bartleby.com/173/
...

You can cherrypick the most relevant quote on the underlying mechanism to save me trawling thru his insane ramblings ok?

oscarkipling wrote:Well, I'd rather have a mathematical model that makes testable predictions with no mechanism, than a mechanism but not mathematical model that makes no predictions....but as they say, to each his own.

You dont believe theres a mathematical model for the geocentric aether?

Its easy for mathmaticians to balance 2 sides of an equals sign oscar.

oscarkipling wrote:one scientist, and also do you have any links to the second 2010 paper?

AND the referees who published his paper in their journal.
AND the university that employs him.
AND all the scientists who havn't refuted his methods in peer review. (why WOULDNT they if it was wrong????)

http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v82/i10/e103513

....

oscarkipling wrote:honestly, that's exactly what I thought.

I find that extraordemely (yes thats a new word) hard to believe babe.

oscarkipling wrote:Given ground, I had no idea that this was what we were arguing about. I'm not sure if its real or if it only seems that way, I need to think more about it.

Yes you do. This is very important.

Why would it only 'seem that way'?

Reletavistic effects? Lolz. The cure-all.

oscarkipling wrote:okay now we need to talk about the speed of light, it is moderated by the aether, but how is that quantified? that is to say are there known rates, for example does the aether slow it down or speed it up at a certain rate over specific distances?

Sagnac exp? Dont the results of that experiment tell you all you need to know?

oscarkipling wrote:well, its all a bit ridiculous that any of it would be doing anything IMO, but I've resigned myself to the fact that no matter the truth about the universe, its all very trippy.

Cant say I can relate to your statement as I see the heavens go around the Earth with my own eyes. Quite believable. Whereas space expanding is a totally foreign, unphysical, never observed alledged phenomenon.

oscarkipling wrote:


well, lets see, My objection wasn't ever that the sun couldnt be moving at 39 million kph I mean in principle if space is is trucking along at that speed then that's well enough, but moving at that rate isn't without implications, and if there are several layers moving along at different rates and there is some kind of gravity at play, and this medium moderates the speed of light, then there are implications that I feel can be compared with observations.

Indeed. Not only can they be compared with observations, they have been compared with observations. I warmly recommend the book "Galileo Was Wrong", which will provide an exhaustive account of the experimental evidence which supports the existence of an absolute frame; that is, one in which the directionality of the universe can be established in a preferred coordinate system, as well as one in which the speed of light is constant with respect to the frame, and not with respect to an observer moving wrt that frame.

Strangelove wrote:

Oh ya...sorry I forgot.

So.....is there any reason my aether cant do everything that your dark matter can do?

honestly I don't know. The classic formulation of leasage's gravity wont get you any orbits at all. To the extent that you've described modified lesage it wont get you any orbits at all, much less any predictions about how stars should move around in galaxies. So, at this point no, the aether cant do what dark matter does, it cant even do what newton does...of course I cant even pretend that you've explained enough about it for me to say conclusively that its impossible.

Strangelove wrote:
How does it appear to be doing that exactly?

well i believe the first observations that indicated this were the redshifts of very distant supernovae being too small vs their predicted redshift. this indicates that the expansion rate has sped up because the light from those very distant supernovae has been en route for a long time, so if the redshift is different than expected then this can indicate that the universe in the distant past was either expanding slower or faster than it currently is, if the redshift is greater than expected this can indicate that the universe used to be moving faster but has since slowed, if the redshift is smaller then this could indicate that at one time it was moving slower but has since sped up.

Strangelove wrote:

How does it appear that this is the case exactly?

Is this what Rick was talking about with metaphysics?

Well,, as I said the speed of stars in galaxies appears to be too fast for the amount of observable matter. There are other things like the amount of gravitational lensing around galaxy clusters is too great for the observable amount of mass in those clusters. I dont believe that this fits into the metaphysics category.

Strangelove wrote:
Observations? Or philosophical positions?

no, observations. like the rotational velocity of galaxies, and gravitational lensing, and the redshifts of supernovae.

Strangelove wrote:
I guess dark matter doesnt work then? Try the aether?

first I dont understand why this leads you to say that dark matter doesn't work, and secondly i dont understand how aether fixes this, please elaborate.

Strangelove wrote:
You mean there are theories that can only be made to work with the introduction of dark energy/matter.

Sure, yes I think that's fair to say, but I'd say that the observations that led to them being postulated are the real culprits here, and by their very existence signaled to scientists that whatever they were thought was correct needed to be modified or chucked out completely.

Strangelove wrote:
He says the simplest approach is to choose the Earth centred inertial reference frame. Where you can one can safely ignore relativistic effects.

Did he say ignore relativistic effects except for time dilation?

No.

no, in that quote he did not say those words, but again, there is a whole article around that quote, if you aren't going to acknowledge that then there is really nothing i can do.

Strangelove wrote:

The whole article is about GPS.

Do GPS sats use Earth clocks oscar?

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

yes, there are clocks on earth, and clocks on the satellites.

Strangelove wrote:
It says what it says. For clocks...and therefore...for GPS sats which use clocks.

I think I've really said all I can say about this.

Strangelove wrote:
Well, you've already admitted that galaxies are arranged with general concentricity around the Earth so its moot really. Fergettit.

I said that to the naked eye that I can see something that could indicate such such a thing.

Strangelove wrote:
moot.

ok

Strangelove wrote:
By documentation I meant.....a cherry picked quote by an 'expert'.

well, after goggling around a bit, I cant say that i was able to find any famous physicists that said it flat out like that.

Strangelove wrote:
thats how the journal system works. Always has been. The issue is real science, not theory. He did stats on the distribution of galaxies. It's plain fact unless rebutted. It's not a theory.

I'm actually pretty sure it doesn't work like that, as people have published intentional nonsense in journals just to prove a point. I really didnt want to bring this up as i feel it muddies the waters, but i feel like my hand has been forced check out the Bogdanov affair. Now to be clear this isn't to say that Hartnett's work is wrong, or that being published is meaningless, but simply to point out that your assertion here about how the journal system works makes little sense.

Strangelove wrote:
Bizarre. You admit yourself you see the pattern with the naked eye.

I feel like you are taking that as being worth more than it actually is.

Strangelove wrote:
Ok so for nutty science you have a silly and impossible mechanism and for Newtons version theres nothing.

yes, I suppose thats one way to put it.

Strangelove wrote:
Understood. So LeSage has been disproven unless we consider possible modifications, but because relativity is unfalsifiable you'd rather go with that? Ridiculous and unphysical though it is?

why do you say its unfalsifyable?

what modifications to lesage precisely?

Strangelove wrote:
How it actually works, including components and their interactions/effects.

that's asking for a lot of depth, really more than can be explained with a few paragraphs, i think you would be better off reading a book , or a few books.

Strangelove wrote:
You can cherrypick the most relevant quote on the underlying mechanism to save me trawling thru his insane ramblings ok?

I'm probably not going to do that. I dont see the harm in reading it, know thine enemy and all that.

Strangelove wrote:
You dont believe theres a mathematical model for the geocentric aether?

cant say that I know whether there is or isn't, but I haven't seen it.

Strangelove wrote:
Its easy for mathmaticians to balance 2 sides of an equals sign oscar.

just out of curiosity I know you say that you dont care for math, but what is you level of mathematics familiarity? algebra, geometry, trig, calc, advanced calc, further?

Strangelove wrote:
AND the referees who published his paper in their journal.
AND the university that employs him.
AND all the scientists who havn't refuted his methods in peer review. (why WOULDNT they if it was wrong????)

http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v82/i10/e103513

thanks for the link

Strangelove wrote:
I find that extraordemely (yes thats a new word) hard to believe babe.

well, believe it or not.

Strangelove wrote:

Yes you do. This is very important.

Why would it only 'seem that way'?

Reletavistic effects? Lolz. The cure-all.

you cant even let me say that I'll think about something without taking a poke eh...anyway I dont know why it would seem that way. But i like to go back to Wittgenstein in these cases and I wonder "what would it seem like if it were some other way"

Strangelove wrote:
Sagnac exp? Dont the results of that experiment tell you all you need to know?

well, remember we interpret that in entirely different way, so no.

Strangelove wrote:
Cant say I can relate to your statement as I see the heavens go around the Earth with my own eyes. Quite believable. Whereas space expanding is a totally foreign, unphysical, never observed alledged phenomenon.

well, okay

Rick DeLano wrote:

Indeed. Not only can they be compared with observations, they have been compared with observations. I warmly recommend the book "Galileo Was Wrong", which will provide an exhaustive account of the experimental evidence which supports the existence of an absolute frame; that is, one in which the directionality of the universe can be established in a preferred coordinate system, as well as one in which the speed of light is constant with respect to the frame, and not with respect to an observer moving wrt that frame.

yeah, a book is looking like a more fruitful endevour at this point.

oscarkipling wrote:

yeah, a book is looking like a more fruitful endevour at this point.

I can promise you, the effort will not be unrewarded. The geocentric model is quite astonishingly hard to kill, and I am talking on scientific, not only metaphysical/theological, grounds.

If there were a penny stock market for cosmology, I would short chaotic inflation with a 5x multiple at 0.85, and go long geocentrism at .000000000001, up from .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 in just the last few weeks :-)

Long and strong.....

Rick DeLano wrote: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.

YAY! thanks Rick!

Oscar....that's all i've been trying to say: your modern cosmology is the ancient jewish mystical Mystery school teaching.

so you can't keep pretending it's just pure old empirical/observable/repeatable science. it ain't. its RELIGION. you can believe in it and defend if you want to, to each his own. but you can't keep passing mystical philosophy dressed up as science off as real science.

what about those billions of sardine cans for the last 100 years that have NEVER produced ANY spontaneous life in spite of DEAD MATTER + TIME + ENERGY? that's an experiment thats been repeated BILLIONS of time with the same result....NADA.

if we can do as Rick said and be fair and differentiate or at least identify metaphysics (Kabbalah) when it's mixed with science, then that's a fair fight.

you keep saying personal beliefs don't matter - they do when grants and tenures and power depend upon the power brokers. who happen to be overwhelmingly unbelieving jews at this point (whose 'science' just HAPPENS to match their kabbalah?)

and in that case, the jews (and the people who have bought scientism) have brought a spoon to a gun fight.

why is that science (sp: cosmology) is the supposedly the ONLY discipline on earth that is pristine in intent, no bad guys with weird agendas could possibly be involved? is that reasonable? no...it isn't.

what about those NAZIS kick-starting NASA?

~

here is the enemy of my enemies



He said He is GOD.
i believe Him, and i know Him. i was once like you. but He led (gr: "ago") me out and showed me stuff i used to scoff at.

love ya Osc.

oscarkipling wrote:honestly I don't know. The classic formulation of leasage's gravity wont get you any orbits at all. To the extent that you've described modified lesage it wont get you any orbits at all, much less any predictions about how stars should move around in galaxies. So, at this point no, the aether cant do what dark matter does, it cant even do what newton does...of course I cant even pretend that you've explained enough about it for me to say conclusively that its impossible.

Why cant an ultradense rotating aether made of Planck particles give you orbits?

How does expanding space made from dark matter give you orbits?

oscarkipling wrote:well i believe the first observations that indicated this were the redshifts of very distant supernovae being too small vs their predicted redshift. this indicates that the expansion rate has sped up because the light from those very distant supernovae has been en route for a long time, so if the redshift is different than expected then this can indicate that the universe in the distant past was either expanding slower or faster than it currently is, if the redshift is greater than expected this can indicate that the universe used to be moving faster but has since slowed, if the redshift is smaller then this could indicate that at one time it was moving slower but has since sped up.

Again, you are biased in your opinion that redshifts indicate expansion.

If Earth is at the centre of the universe...and the CMB proves that it is, then redshifts can simply represent gravitational effects.

oscarkipling wrote:Well,, as I said the speed of stars in galaxies appears to be too fast for the amount of observable matter. There are other things like the amount of gravitational lensing around galaxy clusters is too great for the observable amount of mass in those clusters. I dont believe that this fits into the metaphysics category.

Well, it does....because you are using assumptions based on philosophical biases on what causes redshifts and lensing.

oscarkipling wrote:no, observations. like the rotational velocity of galaxies, and gravitational lensing, and the redshifts of supernovae.

See above.

oscarkipling wrote:first I dont understand why this leads you to say that dark matter doesn't work, and secondly i dont understand how aether fixes this, please elaborate.

You said:

"With dark matter the speed at which stars appear to move around in galaxies is greater than what can be accounted for with the visible mass. "

Did you mean without dark matter?

Aether fixes it because it does what you claim dark matter does. It fills space. It is mass. Most of the mass of the universe.

oscarkipling wrote:Sure, yes I think that's fair to say, but I'd say that the observations that led to them being postulated are the real culprits here, and by their very existence signaled to scientists that whatever they were thought was correct needed to be modified or chucked out completely.

I agree, and the observations were that the Earth is not moving.

oscarkipling wrote:no, in that quote he did not say those words, but again, there is a whole article around that quote, if you aren't going to acknowledge that then there is really nothing i can do.

The whole article is about GPS sats.

oscarkipling wrote:yes, there are clocks on earth, and clocks on the satellites.

Which dont require relativty to work. They require adjustments to the Sagnac effect which relativty has never explained.

oscarkipling wrote:I said that to the naked eye that I can see something that could indicate such such a thing.

Well great. Thats real progress. Now.....the implications of what you see?

oscarkipling wrote:well, after goggling around a bit, I cant say that i was able to find any famous physicists that said it flat out like that.

You might be wrong then.

oscarkipling wrote:I'm actually pretty sure it doesn't work like that, as people have published intentional nonsense in journals just to prove a point. I really didnt want to bring this up as i feel it muddies the waters, but i feel like my hand has been forced check out the Bogdanov affair. Now to be clear this isn't to say that Hartnett's work is wrong, or that being published is meaningless, but simply to point out that your assertion here about how the journal system works makes little sense.

We're talking about BASIC STATISTICAL ANALYSIS oscar. Not weird hypothetical theories.
You simply cant get away with mistakes in that field on peer review.

oscarkipling wrote:I feel like you are taking that as being worth more than it actually is.

Thats an interesting remark....dont you put much stock in what you actually observe?

oscarkipling wrote:why do you say its unfalsifyable?

Because it doesnt exist. You can make up its effects.

oscarkipling wrote:what modifications to lesage precisely?

Ultradense particles rather than free flowing.

oscarkipling wrote:that's asking for a lot of depth, really more than can be explained with a few paragraphs, i think you would be better off reading a book , or a few books.

I think you did pretty good describing relativitys weird gravity which I can discount cuz it sounds ridiculous....and you admit theres no mechanism for newtons. So I think we're up to date.

Strangelove wrote:
Why cant an ultradense rotating aether made of Planck particles give you orbits?

well its the rotation of the aether that really does it in as far as I can tell. If the aether is rotating at variable speeds then gravity being a function of particles with a definite directional bias will first give you an uneven attractive effect based on the relationship of the mass being shielded from the particles and the direction of rotation. So if the mechanism for the apparent attraction is Lasagean, particle density is a not a factor that will mitigate this as they must be moving omnidirectionally for the lesage effect to work. Now I believe you said that the particles dont move, but are tightly packed and dense, this removes the basis for the lesage mechanism entirely, because it is fundamentally based on masses being bombarded omnidirectionally by these particles, and attraction occurs when these particles are blocked by other masses creating a net push toward each other. With static dense particles there is no potential difference to affect a change in net force.

Strangelove wrote:
How does expanding space made from dark matter give you orbits?

First, again, space isn't expanding because of dark matter. Second dark matter does not cause orbits by virtue of anything other than it has mass. Mass causes curvature in space-time, thereby creating a dimple of sorts for matter to fall toward other matter and in the case of orbits, to fall around other masses.

Strangelove wrote:
Again, you are biased in your opinion that redshifts indicate expansion.

If Earth is at the centre of the universe...and the CMB proves that it is, then redshifts can simply represent gravitational effects.

Its not a bias, it's a definite possibility...unless you are proposing that its not a possibility. Anyway, I have agreed before that it is possible that we are at or near the center of a low density void as well, and this too could be causing the observed redshifts, but at this time there is not a way to tell, but in the near future it is possible (coincidentally from more supernovae redshift measurements.).

Strangelove wrote:
Well, it does....because you are using assumptions based on philosophical biases on what causes redshifts and lensing.

well, if Doppler shift is not an assumption based on philosophical biases, its simple a way that light can become redshifted, and it does happen, even here on earth. I dont really see that there is way way to reject it as an exiting phenomena.

Strangelove wrote:
You said:

"With dark matter the speed at which stars appear to move around in galaxies is greater than what can be accounted for with the visible mass. "

Did you mean without dark matter?

yes, a typo.

Strangelove wrote:
Aether fixes it because it does what you claim dark matter does. It fills space. It is mass. Most of the mass of the universe.

I dont claim that Dark matter fills space, and especially not most of space, its about 20%.

Now the claim that space is filled with ultradense (could you put a number to that) massive particles (is this a uniform distribution?) has some implications especially when you say they interact with matter in a specific manner. I need to know more

Strangelove wrote:
I agree, and the observations were that the Earth is not moving.

ok

Strangelove wrote:
Which dont require relativty to work. They require adjustments to the Sagnac effect which relativty has never explained.

precisely, the space clocks undergo similar effects and can be synced with each-other, and the earth clocks experience effects similar to each-other and can be synced, but the offset between the earth and space bound clocks must incorporate correction for time dilation, the em signal to and from the satellites are corrected with sagnac.

Strangelove wrote:
Well great. Thats real progress. Now.....the implications of what you see?

There are a lot I suppose, copernican principle, the evolution of the universe, the possibility that the earth really is special. But its not like I've ever argued with you about what the implications might be if there is actually a pattern centered on earth.

Strangelove wrote:
You might be wrong then.

This is one of the few points on which I'm extremely confident that i'm not wrong.

Strangelove wrote:
We're talking about BASIC STATISTICAL ANALYSIS oscar. Not weird hypothetical theories.
You simply cant get away with mistakes in that field on peer review.

alright

Strangelove wrote:
Thats an interesting remark....dont you put much stock in what you actually observe?

It all depends, I do know that the eyes/brain can often indicate patterns where there are actually none.

Strangelove wrote:
Because it doesnt exist. You can make up its effects.

hmmm, while i do agree that you could just make up all manner of unconstrained traits and features that would encompass any observation, this is not the case.

Strangelove wrote:
I think you did pretty good describing relativitys weird gravity which I can discount cuz it sounds ridiculous....and you admit theres no mechanism for newtons. So I think we're up to date.

well, okay.

oscarkipling wrote:I'm probably not going to do that. I dont see the harm in reading it, know thine enemy and all that.

Oh I see the harm.

oscarkipling wrote:cant say that I know whether there is or isn't, but I haven't seen it.

And if you did see it, it would prove nothing.

oscarkipling wrote:just out of curiosity I know you say that you dont care for math, but what is you level of mathematics familiarity? algebra, geometry, trig, calc, advanced calc, further?

Layman.

oscarkipling wrote:you cant even let me say that I'll think about something without taking a poke eh...anyway I dont know why it would seem that way. But i like to go back to Wittgenstein in these cases and I wonder "what would it seem like if it were some other way"

Philosophy...ya......

.....pity.

The raw observations are right there. The Heavens declare His Glory.

oscarkipling wrote:well, remember we interpret that in entirely different way, so no.

Oh yeah.....you say that the apparatus bends (but not really??), just if light beams have eyeballz.

?

oscarkipling wrote:....what is you level of mathematics familiarity? algebra, geometry, trig, calc, advanced calc, further?

hi oscar.

2+2=5?


The phrase "two plus two equals five" ("2+2 = 5") is a slogan used in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four[1] as an example of an obviously false dogma one must believe, similar to other obviously false slogans by the Party in the novel. It is contrasted with the phrase "two plus two makes four", the obvious—but politically inexpedient—truth. Orwell's protagonist, Winston Smith, uses the phrase to wonder if the State might declare "two plus two equals five" as a fact; he ponders whether, if everybody believes it, does that make it true?

Eventually, while undergoing electric torture, Winston declared that he saw five fingers when in fact he only saw four ("Four, five, six – in all honesty I don't know"). The Inner Party interrogator of thought-criminals, O'Brien, says of the mathematically false statement that control over physical reality is unimportant; so long as one controls their own perceptions to what the Party wills, then any corporeal act is possible, in accordance with the principles of doublethink ("Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once").[2]

wiki

~

"Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz has written a multivolume work, The Talmud: The Steinsaltz Edition (Random House), which includes a A Reference Guide, in which he says:

"... The ultimate purpose of the Talmud is ... to seek out truth. ... The Talmudic dialectic can be compared to an inquiry in pure science, particularly in the sphere ... of mathematics. ...".

- The Talmud, by Tony Smith

~

"In A Beginning..." Quantum Cosmology and Kabbalah Joel R ...
Quantum Cosmology and Kabbalah. Joel R. Primack and Nancy Ellen Abrams. Modern cosmology--the scientific study of the universe as a whole--no longer ...

http://physics.ucsc.edu/cosmo/primack_abrams/InABeginningTikkun1995.pdf

"Modern cosmology--the scientific study of the universe as a whole--no longer sees the universe as an infinite, changeless arena in which events take place, the way Isaac Newton did. The universe is an evolving, expanding being, and its origin is the oldest mystery. For the first time in possibly a million years of human wondering, we are not simply imagining the beginning: We are observing it, in radiation that has been traveling to us since the Big Bang, possibly bearing information generated even earlier.

Theorists are piecing the data together into humanity’s first verifiable creation story."


2+2=5?

oscarkipling wrote:well its the rotation of the aether that really does it in as far as I can tell. If the aether is rotating at variable speeds then gravity being a function of particles with a definite directional bias will first give you an uneven attractive effect based on the relationship of the mass being shielded from the particles and the direction of rotation.

As far as I'm aware I never said the aether is rotating at variable speeds. It does one single rotation every 24 hours (ish) around the Earth from East to West.

Aether WIND is another thing entirely, that varies for sure.

oscarkipling wrote:So if the mechanism for the apparent attraction is Lasagean, particle density is a not a factor that will mitigate this as they must be moving omnidirectionally for the lesage effect to work. Now I believe you said that the particles dont move, but are tightly packed and dense, this removes the basis for the lesage mechanism entirely, because it is fundamentally based on masses being bombarded omnidirectionally by these particles, and attraction occurs when these particles are blocked by other masses creating a net push toward each other. With static dense particles there is no potential difference to affect a change in net force.

Cant the particles still be moving omnidirectionally even though they are tightly packed?

oscarkipling wrote:First, again, space isn't expanding because of dark matter.

I didnt imply that. I see how you might have thought I did, but I didnt.

oscarkipling wrote:Second dark matter does not cause orbits by virtue of anything other than it has mass. Mass causes curvature in space-time, thereby creating a dimple of sorts for matter to fall toward other matter and in the case of orbits, to fall around other masses.

Aether does not cause orbits by virtue of anything other than it has mass and it rotates. Mass and rotation causes gravitational effects of sorts for matter to fall toward other matter and in the case of orbits, to fall around other masses.

Ok?

oscarkipling wrote:Its not a bias, it's a definite possibility...unless you are proposing that its not a possibility. Anyway, I have agreed before that it is possible that we are at or near the center of a low density void as well, and this too could be causing the observed redshifts, but at this time there is not a way to tell, but in the near future it is possible (coincidentally from more supernovae redshift measurements.).

Earth is at the centre of the universe...and the CMB proves that it is. The 'Axis of Evil'.

oscarkipling wrote:well, if Doppler shift is not an assumption based on philosophical biases, its simple a way that light can become redshifted, and it does happen, even here on earth. I dont really see that there is way way to reject it as an exiting phenomena.

I dont reject Doppler shift, its the result of the sun and stars annual 'wobble', due to their axis being on a 23.5 degree tilt.

oscarkipling wrote:I dont claim that Dark matter fills space, and especially not most of space, its about 20%.

So you disagree with mainstream opinion?

Wiki - "Dark matter is estimated to constitute 83% of the matter in the universe..."

oscarkipling wrote:Now the claim that space is filled with ultradense (could you put a number to that) massive particles (is this a uniform distribution?) has some implications especially when you say they interact with matter in a specific manner. I need to know more

Yes we all need to know more. I'm not much of a theorizer though.

oscarkipling wrote:precisely, the space clocks undergo similar effects and can be synced with each-other, and the earth clocks experience effects similar to each-other and can be synced, but the offset between the earth and space bound clocks must incorporate correction for time dilation, the em signal to and from the satellites are corrected with sagnac.

Ok so we agree that GPS working correctly has everything to do with Sagnac and NADA to do with relativity. Thanks. Why did that take so blooming long to reach agreement?

oscarkipling wrote:There are a lot I suppose, copernican principle, the evolution of the universe, the possibility that the earth really is special. But its not like I've ever argued with you about what the implications might be if there is actually a pattern centered on earth.

Well.....I guess we are at an impasse then, waiting for your conclusions.

Strangelove wrote:
Oh I see the harm.

okay this is probably a tangent, but what is the harm you see? i'm not judging you or anything just genuinely curious.

Strangelove wrote:
And if you did see it, it would prove nothing.

well if it was incoherent, inconsistent or inaccurate it would indicate a problem with the model imo. if it is elegant and descriptive and accurate, then i'd be willing to give it more credence.

Strangelove wrote:

Philosophy...ya......

.....pity.

The raw observations are right there. The Heavens declare His Glory.

I suppose I just dont see it that way at this point.

Strangelove wrote:

Oh yeah.....you say that the apparatus bends (but not really??), just if light beams have eyeballz.

?

only if you decide to treat the apparatus as if it were at rest from the perspective of light.

oscarkipling wrote:okay this is probably a tangent, but what is the harm you see? i'm not judging you or anything just genuinely curious.

Well...madness breeds madness.

oscarkipling wrote:well if it was incoherent, inconsistent or inaccurate it would indicate a problem with the model imo. if it is elegant and descriptive and accurate, then i'd be willing to give it more credence.

It's maths.....it has to be accurate otherwise its not a model. Balancing an equals sign is easy....it warrants no creedence.

oscarkipling wrote:I suppose I just dont see it that way at this point.

I guess we'll learn more when you tell us what you think of the CMB axis of evil.

oscarkipling wrote:only if you decide to treat the apparatus as if it were at rest from the perspective of light.

Light beams dont have eyeballz. They dont see a 'blur'. The whole notion is absurd. What did Einstein or any of his fanboys say about the Sagnac effect? Can we see a detailed treatment of it?

I recon it would look alot like our GPS example.

"..warble warble.......relativity.....warble......Earth centred frame........relativity effects can be ignored, and everything works......warble warble......ahem".

Strangelove wrote:
As far as I'm aware I never said the aether is rotating at variable speeds. It does one single rotation every 24 hours (ish) around the Earth from East to West.

Aether WIND is another thing entirely, that varies for sure.

okay I didn't realize that the aether wind wasn't intrinsically tied to the motion of the aether, what is the relationship between the aether wind and the aether?

Strangelove wrote:
Cant the particles still be moving omnidirectionally even though they are tightly packed?

I suppose they could be Well I suppose if they dont interact with each other they could flit about freely, but this is precisely the the phenomena you were mitigating by introducing the idea of tightly packed particles. So within these constraints I can imagine that they could be oscillating in all directions within a limited range of freedom, but this still eliminates the possibility of a lesage type effect because there would be no shielding effect to other masses. The particles must move along vectors and be absorbed, reflected or deflected by the masses causing the a net force difference between the exposed surface, and the one in the particle "shadow"...so no.

Strangelove wrote:
I didnt imply that. I see how you might have thought I did, but I didnt.

my mistake.

Strangelove wrote:
Aether does not cause orbits by virtue of anything other than it has mass and it rotates. Mass and rotation causes gravitational effects of sorts for matter to fall toward other matter and in the case of orbits, to fall around other masses.

Ok?

I understand that you say this, but the lesage mechanism does not appear to be a good fit for this behavior. so, I still contend that a single uniform motion of the aether does not explain the motions of, well at this point anything, and the further now i dont understand what relationship the aether wind has to the aether, aor what accounts for its motions.

Strangelove wrote:
Earth is at the centre of the universe...and the CMB proves that it is. The 'Axis of Evil'.

well, I wont pretend that I've very familiar with the "axis of evil", but according to the article, it refers to the curious alignment of the plane of the earth's axis with features in the CMB, not that earth is at the center of the universe.

Strangelove wrote:
I dont reject Doppler shift, its the result of the sun and stars annual 'wobble', due to their axis being on a 23.5 degree tilt.

I'm sorry I'm not following this at all. Are you saying that Doppler shift in em radiation can be caused by motion of the source or not?

Strangelove wrote:

So you disagree with mainstream opinion?

Wiki - "Dark matter is estimated to constitute 83% of the matter in the universe..."

yes, it constitutes ~80 percent of matter, not space, matter constitutes about 30% of space where about ~20% of that is dark matter. I guess we can chalk that up to a semantic misunderstanding.

Strangelove wrote:
Yes we all need to know more. I'm not much of a theorizer though.

well that's fine, the general Geo scientific consensus on these matters is fine, I mean assuming such things exist on these matters.

Strangelove wrote:
Ok so we agree that GPS working correctly has everything to do with Sagnac and NADA to do with relativity. Thanks. Why did that take so blooming long to reach agreement?

Read it again, I was not agreeing with you.

Strangelove wrote:
Well.....I guess we are at an impasse then, waiting for your conclusions.

I dont know that i would say that, there are still tonnes of things that i dont know about the geo position, that i believe would be extremely useful in evaluating it.

oscarkipling wrote:okay I didn't realize that the aether wind wasn't intrinsically tied to the motion of the aether, what is the relationship between the aether wind and the aether?

It's tied to the motion of the aether.

oscarkipling wrote:I suppose they could be Well I suppose if they dont interact with each other they could flit about freely, but this is precisely the the phenomena you were mitigating by introducing the idea of tightly packed particles. So within these constraints I can imagine that they could be oscillating in all directions within a limited range of freedom, but this still eliminates the possibility of a lesage type effect because there would be no shielding effect to other masses. The particles must move along vectors and be absorbed, reflected or deflected by the masses causing the a net force difference between the exposed surface, and the one in the particle "shadow"...so no.

Oh boy.

Ok I postulate that they are densely packed but not so dense that they cant rotate, knock into eachother or cause a shadow effect.

oscarkipling wrote:I understand that you say this, but the lesage mechanism does not appear to be a good fit for this behavior. so, I still contend that a single uniform motion of the aether does not explain the motions of, well at this point anything, and the further now i dont understand what relationship the aether wind has to the aether, aor what accounts for its motions.

I dont think anyone fully understands it. And why would they? Can we get back to simple data please?

oscarkipling wrote:well, I wont pretend that I've very familiar with the "axis of evil", but according to the article, it refers to the curious alignment of the plane of the earth's axis with features in the CMB, not that earth is at the center of the universe.

Well were the centre of SOMETHING so thats the copernican principle in the dustbin/rubbish/trash.

oscarkipling wrote:I'm sorry I'm not following this at all. Are you saying that Doppler shift in em radiation can be caused by motion of the source or not?

I said what you quoted.

oscarkipling wrote:yes, it constitutes ~80 percent of matter, not space, matter constitutes about 30% of space where about ~20% of that is dark matter. I guess we can chalk that up to a semantic misunderstanding.

Amazing you say all this as fact.

oscarkipling wrote:well that's fine, the general Geo scientific consensus on these matters is fine, I mean assuming such things exist on these matters.

The general Geo scientific consensus on these matters on this is that we all need to know more about the aether. 100 years of nutty science after Michelson-Morley has stunted its study.

oscarkipling wrote:Read it again, I was not agreeing with you.

"satellites are corrected with sagnac."

Before you said Relativity theory makes GPS sats work.

Now you say Sagnac. What other conclusion is there but you changed your mind?

oscarkipling wrote:I dont know that i would say that, there are still tonnes of things that i dont know about the geo position, that i believe would be extremely useful in evaluating it.

Ok but I'd like to concentrate on general concentricity of galaxies in the sky survey, the CMB showing alignment of our position with a cosmic axis, interferometer results.....and other solid raw simple data that we can fully understand rather than dwelling on the atomic makeup of the aether which is pretty hardcore theorizing.

Again I ask what we must do with the Copernican principle in light of raw data?

Strangelove wrote:
It's tied to the motion of the aether.

Okay if the aether wind is tied to the motion of the aether then how does it change speed without the speed of the motion of the aether changing?

Strangelove wrote:
Oh boy.

Ok I postulate that they are densely packed but not so dense that they cant rotate, knock into eachother or cause a shadow effect.

Well then you are postulating something that isn't consistent with itself.

Strangelove wrote:
I dont think anyone fully understands it. And why would they? Can we get back to simple data please?

I think I should draw a distinction between "not fully understood" and incoherent. At this point you have described a mechanism for gravity that does not would not match observations even after I have ignored the problems inherent to the classic lesage gravity. It fails to provide a basis for orbiting bodies, attraction of masses outside of the direction opposite to the direction of the rotation of the aether (or not at all depending), It fails to provide any foundation for gravity on earth, and much more. I believe this fails to meet the bare minimum of what one can reasonably call a partial explanation or a partially understood effect.

Strangelove wrote:
Well were the centre of SOMETHING so thats the copernican principle in the dustbin/rubbish/trash.

It appears that our axis is aligned with features of the CMB, I admit that this is intriguing, and demands an explanation, but this alone is not conclusive.

Strangelove wrote:
I said what you quoted.

right on, I read what you said but I didn't understand whether or not it meant that you believe that doppler shift in EM radiation can be caused by the motion of the light source....so I'm asking.

Strangelove wrote:
Amazing you say all this as fact.

No, I stated it as the mainstream scientific understanding of the composition of the universe, as that's where our conflict on the issue arose.

Strangelove wrote:
The general Geo scientific consensus on these matters on this is that we all need to know more about the aether. 100 years of nutty science after Michelson-Morley has stunted its study.

alright. so is there or isn't there a well defined model for the geo view?

Strangelove wrote:

"satellites are corrected with sagnac."

Before you said Relativity theory makes GPS sats work.

Now you say Sagnac. What other conclusion is there but you changed your mind?

my goodness, that is a bizarre move. I said:

"precisely, the space clocks undergo similar effects and can be synced
with each-other, and the earth clocks experience effects similar to
each-other and can be synced, but the offset between the earth and space
bound clocks must incorporate correction for time dilation, the em
signal to and from the satellites are corrected with sagnac."

If you genuinely cannot see how you've taken what I said out of context, then that puts this entire discussion in a different light for me.

Strangelove wrote:

Ok but I'd like to concentrate on general concentricity of galaxies in the sky survey, the CMB showing alignment of our position with a cosmic axis, interferometer results.....and other solid raw simple data that we can fully understand rather than dwelling on the atomic makeup of the aether which is pretty hardcore theorizing.

Again I ask what we must do with the Copernican principle in light of raw data?

Well, on concentricity, Outside of the hartnett paper which i've already expressed my concerns with, most modern papers that i'm aware of seem to come to the opposite conclusion (barring the latest one you posted which I still haven't had time to read yet).

Cosmic axis alignment, well, again that one is just flat out intriguing, if you have more info about it I'd love to get into that.

As far as interferometry, I do not feel that you've made a good case for these results being evidence that supports an aether, and contradicts relativity. However I'm making efforts to get a better grasp on the aether theories of the day so that can better understand the results of these experiments, or what they would have been expected to be were the aether theories correct and why exactly.

on other raw data, sure lets do it.

on the aether, the makeup and properties of the aether are of extreme importance, without a good grasp on that then its really difficult to determine if it is consistent with observations or not. Even if i came to believe that the Copernican principle and relativity were incorrect, aether does not automatically win by default without some positive evidence that correlates to at least some well defined properties that can be used to make non trivial predictions.

oscarkipling wrote:Okay if the aether wind is tied to the motion of the aether then how does it change speed without the speed of the motion of the aether changing?

If you rotate a bucket full of water at a consistent speed to create a vortex...is the speed of the vortex uniform at every depth or does it vary?

If it varies...why does it vary?

oscarkipling wrote:Well then you are postulating something that isn't consistent with itself.

I think I should draw a distinction between "not fully understood" and incoherent. At this point you have described a mechanism for gravity that does not would not match observations even after I have ignored the problems inherent to the classic lesage gravity. It fails to provide a basis for orbiting bodies, attraction of masses outside of the direction opposite to the direction of the rotation of the aether (or not at all depending), It fails to provide any foundation for gravity on earth, and much more. I believe this fails to meet the bare minimum of what one can reasonably call a partial explanation or a partially understood effect.

Ok I'm not a particle physicist. I'll consult one and give you a coherent and full explanation soon.

For now, let me simply say that the shadowing and attenuation effects for the ultradense mass of aether would be produced by the same principles as the classical LeSagean "gas". The only difference being that the acoustic pressure waves transmit the gravitational pressure through the aethers 'matrix'.

Hope that makes it clearer. More to come.

oscarkipling wrote:It appears that our axis is aligned with features of the CMB, I admit that this is intriguing, and demands an explanation, but this alone is not conclusive.

I demand an explanation!

oscarkipling wrote:right on, I read what you said but I didn't understand whether or not it meant that you believe that doppler shift in EM radiation can be caused by the motion of the light source....so I'm asking.

Yeah.

oscarkipling wrote:alright. so is there or isn't there a well defined model for the geo view?

The Earth is stationary in the centre of the universe.
The heavens/biblical firmament/aether rotates around us every 24 hours taking all celestial bodies with it.
The universe is tilted on an axis that cuts straight thru the Earth at an angle of 24.5 degrees giving it an annual 'wobble'.
The sun and stars move together in the same plane.
The aether's daily movement and/or the rotation of the stars exerts a gravitational force which is transmitted through the aethers 'matrix' [no action at a distance] according to modified LeSagean principles and is responsible for coriolis and Euler effects and also what we call gravity on Earth.

Thats the basic model for the geo view.

oscarkipling wrote:my goodness, that is a bizarre move. I said:

"precisely, the space clocks undergo similar effects and can be synced
with each-other, and the earth clocks experience effects similar to
each-other and can be synced, but the offset between the earth and space
bound clocks must incorporate correction for time dilation, the em
signal to and from the satellites are corrected with sagnac."

If you genuinely cannot see how you've taken what I said out of context, then that puts this entire discussion in a different light for me.

Either Ralativity theory makes GPS sats work or its the correction made for the Sagnac effect which relativity has NEVER explained.

So WHATS IT TO BE?

oscarkipling wrote:Well, on concentricity, Outside of the hartnett paper which i've already expressed my concerns with, most modern papers that i'm aware of seem to come to the opposite conclusion (barring the latest one you posted which I still haven't had time to read yet).

Please cite a paper that deals with the SDSS that reaches the opposite conclusion.

I assume the opposite conclusion is that galaxies are randomly distributed around our position, which even you disagree with when you said that you see general concentricity in the sky map. So what the heck are you still arguing with me about this for?????????

oscarkipling wrote:Cosmic axis alignment, well, again that one is just flat out intriguing, if you have more info about it I'd love to get into that.

Our position is alignedwith the cosmic axis. We are at the centre of something. This is undisputed scientific fact. What more info do you need oscar? It's time for conclusions.

oscarkipling wrote:As far as interferometry, I do not feel that you've made a good case for these results being evidence that supports an aether, and contradicts relativity. However I'm making efforts to get a better grasp on the aether theories of the day so that can better understand the results of these experiments, or what they would have been expected to be were the aether theories correct and why exactly.

Well, my case (taking the results to their simplest possible conclusuions that the Earth is stationary) is a heck of a lot better than your efforts to discredit thhe experiments by saying that apparatus bends (but not really???) and that light beams possess eyeballs that see these bends visually.

oscarkipling wrote:on the aether, the makeup and properties of the aether are of extreme importance, without a good grasp on that then its really difficult to determine if it is consistent with observations or not. Even if i came to believe that the Copernican principle and relativity were incorrect, aether does not automatically win by default without some positive evidence that correlates to at least some well defined properties that can be used to make non trivial predictions.

Advanced particle theoretical physics? Ok gotcha. I'll try to get a good grasp on that for ya.

By the way....if you came to believe that the Copernican principle is wrong wouldn't God win by default irrespective of whether we managed to theorize an atomic model for the aether that worked?

Strangelove wrote:
If you rotate a bucket full of water at a consistent speed to create a vortex...is the speed of the vortex uniform at every depth or does it vary?

If it varies...why does it vary?

this can actually be a somewhat complicated problem, but I think at is simplest the interaction between the "layers" of water along with the wall of the bucket end up in an exchange of energy, and friction with each other, but eventually this could equalize, and you would end up with all of the liquid rotating at the same rate.

Strangelove wrote:
Ok I'm not a particle physicist. I'll consult one and give you a coherent and full explanation soon.

For now, let me simply say that the shadowing and attenuation effects for the ultradense mass of aether would be produced by the same principles as the classical LeSagean "gas". The only difference being that the acoustic pressure waves transmit the gravitational pressure through the aethers 'matrix'.

Hope that makes it clearer. More to come.

well, okay i'll save my comments for a fuller description of this phenomena.

Strangelove wrote:
I demand an explanation!

haha well, I certainly dont have one.

Strangelove wrote:
Yeah.

alright cool, so then we cant simply dismiss expansion as something that couldnt possibly cause the observed redshifts. the ideas that the redshift is either gravitational or due to a pretty uniform expansion are not simply things that are proposed for no reason or for nefarious reasons, there is a scientific basis for such propositions.

Strangelove wrote:
The Earth is stationary in the centre of the universe.
The heavens/biblical firmament/aether rotates around us every 24 hours taking all celestial bodies with it.
The universe is tilted on an axis that cuts straight thru the Earth at an angle of 24.5 degrees giving it an annual 'wobble'.

Okay

Strangelove wrote:
The sun and stars move together in the same plane.

could you elaborate on this.

Strangelove wrote:
The aether's daily movement and/or the rotation of the stars exerts a gravitational force which is transmitted through the aethers 'matrix' [no action at a distance] according to modified LeSagean principles and is responsible for coriolis and Euler effects and also what we call gravity on Earth.

Thats the basic model for the geo view.

again I'll reserve comment on this part awaiting further explanation.

Strangelove wrote:

Either Ralativity theory makes GPS sats work or its the correction made for the Sagnac effect which relativity has NEVER explained.

So WHATS IT TO BE?

Again i've explained to you multiple times the idea that relativity has no explanation for the Sagnac effect is not true, you simply reject the explanation because you believe it sounds too far fetched....this is entirely different from not having an explanation. I've also explained to you that there are corrections made for both the Sagnac effect and other relativistic effects like time dilation...moreover I've shown you in the article where the author describes what things need to be taken into account for what aspects of GPS and why. Correcting for multiple effects that are strong enough to have an effect and ignoring others that dont have any appreciable effect makes perfect sense. If you are designing a mountain bike for slow travel on rocky trails and rough terrain then aerodynamics need not be taken into account, but structural integrity is important, but if you are designing a downhill bike then structural integrity, and aerodynamics are both very important.

Strangelove wrote:

Please cite a paper that deals with the SDSS that reaches the opposite conclusion.

Of the 3 I posted , the first uses both sdss data and 2dF QSO Redshift Survey and the 3rd uses 2dF QSO Redshift Survey.

Strangelove wrote:
I assume the opposite conclusion is that galaxies are randomly distributed around our position, which even you disagree with when you said that you see general concentricity in the sky map. So what the heck are you still arguing with me about this for?????????

No, the opposite conclusion is a lack of quantization that emminates out from earth. This is not to say that there ios no large scale structure to the distribution of matter, which is readily apparent and widely accepted. The fact that I can see how it could seem like there is a vague concentricity of matter distribution doesn't mean that this is the case.

Strangelove wrote:
Our position is alignedwith the cosmic axis. We are at the centre of something. This is undisputed scientific fact. What more info do you need oscar? It's time for conclusions.

I think I'll decide when its time for me to draw conclusions.

Strangelove wrote:
Well, my case (taking the results to their simplest possible conclusuions that the Earth is stationary) is a heck of a lot better than your efforts to discredit thhe experiments by saying that apparatus bends (but not really???) and that light beams possess eyeballs that see these bends visually.

First, I haven't attempted to discredit the experiments, I have objected to your interpretations of the results of these experiments. And apparently you find my answer to the Sagnac rest frame argument the most unpalatable. Now we shall go through your objections, because you keep bringing up this whole eyeballs thing which you have to know isn't what I was saying at all, yet you keep bringing it up as if i meant it literallly.

Now in the blog that you linked me to illustrate the rest frame argument, the author there says "In the rotor frame , the light beam should see no rotation". Now obviously I know that he is simply illustrating that from the perspective of the light that the rotation should not matter, not that the light has eyeballs. So if my usage of what the light "see's" is absurd then the argument you are promoting is also absurd. However I dont think its an absurd argument simply because its based on thinking from the perspective of light, I think its perfectly valid, but incomplete. If you are standing over the apparatus you would say it was rotating (makes sense right?), but this is not the frame the argument uses ,it uses the
perspective of the light, or what the light "sees". What the light "sees" is not rotation, it "sees" 2 asymmetrical paths one longer and the other shorter. What it sees is changes in path length but what is happening is rotation of the apparatus, this is why it appears to stretch or contract for the light, but that's not what really happens, what really happens is the thing is spinning, hence it warps but not really. Now if you want to claim that from the perspective of the observer that the apparatus isn't rotating either, or that nothing is physically happening at all then you are free to do so, but then you are making an entirely different argument that does not correspond to the experiment. however as it stands the argument is entirely reliant on "seeing what the light sees" and thee fact that an actual physical event is occurring, and it has actual consequences.

Strangelove wrote:
Advanced particle theoretical physics? Ok gotcha. I'll try to get a good grasp on that for ya.

I'll be waiting with bated breath.

Strangelove wrote:
By the way....if you came to believe that the Copernican principle is wrong wouldn't God win by default irrespective of whether we managed to theorize an atomic model for the aether that worked?

I dont think so, but I think it would be a huge piece of indirect evidence that would make the case for a creator much stronger.

oscarkipling wrote:this can actually be a somewhat complicated problem, but I think at is simplest the interaction between the "layers" of water along with the wall of the bucket end up in an exchange of energy, and friction with each other, but eventually this could equalize, and you would end up with all of the liquid rotating at the same rate.

Erm....no...you would never end up with all of the liquid rotating at the same rate....cuz theres a vortex remember?

Anyway...just research the Lense-Thirring effect and frame dragging. You would not expect a shell rotating around a central sphere to create an aether drag that is the same rate as the shell itself. You actually get all kinds of weird effects, like coriolis, and 'locking' of the sphere in space.

Our two systems (Earth spinning/fixed stars and Earth fixed/spinning stars) are completely co-varient. They both exhibit the same forces. It's just a matter of perspective.

oscarkipling wrote:haha well, I certainly dont have one.

Well, I'm afraid yer gonna have to come up with one buddy!

oscarkipling wrote:alright cool, so then we cant simply dismiss expansion as something that couldnt possibly cause the observed redshifts. the ideas that the redshift is either gravitational or due to a pretty uniform expansion are not simply things that are proposed for no reason or for nefarious reasons, there is a scientific basis for such propositions.

Whats expansion got to do with anything?

I say redshifts can be caused by gravitational effects or stars moving towards or away from the Earth. I totally REJECT 'expansion' of space-time as any kind of explanation cuz its ridiculous.

The sun and stars move together in the same plane.

oscarkipling wrote:could you elaborate on this.

How do we get steller parallax in your model of the universe?

Now let the sun orbit the Earth but keep all relationships between the sun and the planets + stars the same.

The planets move in the same plane as the sun right? Which is why we observe the same things from Earth regardless what our stationary reference frame is.

The stars ALSO move in the same plane as the sun. Hence we still observe parallax in the geo model.

Hope my elaboration clarifies.

oscarkipling wrote:Again i've explained to you multiple times the idea that relativity has no explanation for the Sagnac effect is not true, you simply reject the explanation because you believe it sounds too far fetched

I have seen no explanation. Only pseudoscience. I would like you to back up your 'relativity explains Sagnac' assertions with documentation from experts. If you dont we need to assume that relativity cant explain it.

oscarkipling wrote:I've also explained to you that there are corrections made for both the Sagnac effect and other relativistic effects like time dilation...moreover I've shown you in the article where the author describes what things need to be taken into account for what aspects of GPS and why.

He said they use the stationary Earth model and IGNORE relatavistic effects.

He says it quite plainly. He never says they need to make a correction for time dilation. Time dilation is HIS RIDICULOUS attempt at an explanation for the effect. I wonder if he or you can provide a paper that discusses this theory in depth? Maybe one of Alberts? He knew about the effect but never mentioned it. Funny that.

oscarkipling wrote:Correcting for multiple effects that are strong enough to have an effect and ignoring others that dont have any effect makes perfect sense.

Theres only one effect that needs correcting for. The Sagnac effect. Everything else is theory.

oscarkipling wrote:Of the 3 I posted , the first uses both sdss data and 2dF QSO Redshift Survey and the 3rd uses 2dF QSO Redshift Survey.

I meant can you quote the paper where it reaches the opposite conclusion. Give us the conclusions where they say the data means there is no general concentricity.

oscarkipling wrote:No, the opposite conclusion is a lack of quantization that emminates out from earth. This is not to say that there ios no large scale structure to the distribution of matter, which is readily apparent and widely accepted. The fact that I can see how it could seem like there is a vague concentricity of matter distribution doesn't mean that this is the case.

LOLZ! Incredible. The fact you see an apple doesnt mean that it's not a banana. Sheesh oscar. Please stop before its too late.

oscarkipling wrote:I think I'll decide when its time for me to draw conclusions.

Well, this is crucial so we're all waiting.

oscarkipling wrote:First, I haven't attempted to discredit the experiments, I have objected to your interpretations of the results of these experiments. And apparently you find my answer to the Sagnac rest frame argument the most unpalatable. Now we shall go through your objections, because you keep bringing up this whole eyeballs thing which you have to know isn't what I was saying at all, yet you keep bringing it up as if i meant it literallly.

Now in the blog that you linked me to illustrate the rest frame argument, the author there says "In the rotor frame , the light beam should see no rotation". Now obviously I know that he is simply illustrating that from the perspective of the light that the rotation should not matter, not that the light has eyeballs. So if my usage of what the light "see's" is absurd then the argument you are promoting is also absurd. However I dont think its an absurd argument simply because its based on thinking from the perspective of light, I think its perfectly valid, but incomplete. If you are standing over the apparatus you would say it was rotating (makes sense right?), but this is not the frame the argument uses ,it uses the
perspective of the light, or what the light "sees". What the light "sees" is not rotation, it "sees" 2 asymmetrical paths one longer and the other shorter. What it sees is changes in path length but what is happening is rotation of the apparatus, this is why it appears to stretch or contract for the light, but that's not what really happens, what really happens is the thing is spinning, hence it warps but not really. Now if you want to claim that from the perspective of the observer that the apparatus isn't rotating either, or that nothing is physically happening at all then you are free to do so, but then you are making an entirely different argument that does not correspond to the experiment. however as it stands the argument is entirely reliant on "seeing what the light sees" and thee fact that an actual physical event is occurring, and it has actual consequences.

The light beam does not 'see' warpage because it has no eyeballs or visual cortex. The light beam cannot be tricked by a phenomenon that only animals with those biological structures can experience.

If you want to describe a directive point of view in the simplest terms then you can say "In the rotor frame , the light beam should see no rotation", thats perfectly acceptable. It's just saying that everything on the apparatus is moving relative to eachother. Nothing more nothing less.

Hence your argument and attempted explanation of the Sagnac exp. is still patently absurd.

oscarkipling wrote:I dont think so, but I think it would be a huge piece of indirect evidence that would make the case for a creator much stronger.

I'm waiting with bated breath for your conclusions on that issue then.

Strangelove wrote:
Erm....no...you would never end up with all of the liquid rotating at the same rate....cuz theres a vortex remember?

quite right, I was thinking of solid body rotation where the rates are different but there is no shear, my mistake.

Strangelove wrote:
Anyway...just research the Lense-Thirring effect and frame dragging. You would not expect a shell rotating around a central sphere to create an aether drag that is the same rate as the shell itself. You actually get all kinds of weird effects, like coriolis, and 'locking' of the sphere in space.

Our two systems (Earth spinning/fixed stars and Earth fixed/spinning stars) are completely co-varient. They both exhibit the same forces. It's just a matter of perspective.

I dont think our systems are covarient at all at this point as there is an entirely different concept of gravity at work, which you still claim is based on a lasage type effect. until I can reconcile this effect as being the inverse of Helio I have no reason to agree with this notion of covariance.

Strangelove wrote:

Well, I'm afraid yer gonna have to come up with one buddy!

again, I have no explanation for this, moreover I dont know very much more about it than the contents of that article, but I assure you that it will be one of my main personal investigatory pursuits.

Strangelove wrote:

Whats expansion got to do with anything?

I say redshifts can be caused by gravitational effects or stars moving towards or away from the Earth. I totally REJECT 'expansion' of space-time as any kind of explanation cuz its ridiculous.

Well, because recession in every direction can be described as expansion. You can reject expansion of space time on the basis that you find it personally ridiculous, but this is not the same as saying that it would not be a plausible explanation for the redshift observations.

Strangelove wrote:
The sun and stars move together in the same plane.
How do we get steller parallax in your model of the universe?

Now let the sun orbit the Earth but keep all relationships between the sun and the planets + stars the same.

The planets move in the same plane as the sun right? Which is why we observe the same things from Earth regardless what our stationary reference frame is.

The stars ALSO move in the same plane as the sun. Hence we still observe parallax in the geo model.

Hope my elaboration clarifies.

hmm maybe it does, but I'll have to see how this integrates with Geo's gravity.

Strangelove wrote:

I have seen no explanation. Only pseudoscience. I would like you to back up your 'relativity explains Sagnac' assertions with documentation from experts. If you dont we need to assume that relativity cant explain it.

okay

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9806019.pdf
Abstract:
"The fact that the round trip time for a light ray moving along a closed path (thanks to suitably placed mirrors) when its source is on a turntable varies with the angular speed ω of the platform may be thought classically as obvious.Furthermore that time, for a given ω, will be different if the beam is co-rotating or counter-rotating: longer in the
former case, shorter in the latter. This difference in times, when superimposing the two oppositely rotating beams,leads to a phase difference with consequent interference phenomena or, in case of standing waves, to a frequency shift and ensuing beats. According to Stedman [1] this phenomenon was anticipated by Lodge at the end of the XIX century and by Michelson at the beginning of the XXth . Experiments were actually performed by Harress [1] [3],without being aware of what he observed, and by Sagnac [4] in 1913 and the interference effect we are speaking of was since named after him. Sagnac was looking for an ether manifestation and his approach was entirely classical, but a special relativistic explanation was soon found giving, to lowest order in ω, the same formula for the time lag between the two light beams"

Another
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9805089v1.pdf

"It is often taken for granted that on board a rotating disk it is possible to
operate a \QTR{it}{global}3+1 splitting of space-time, such that both lengths
and time intervals are \QTR{it}{uniquely} defined in terms of measurements
performed by real rods and real clocks at rest on the platform. This paper
shows that this assumption, although widespread and apparently trivial, leads
to an anisotropy of the velocity of two light beams travelling in opposite
directions along the rim of the disk; which in turn implies some recently
pointed out paradoxical consequences undermining the self-consistency of the
Special Theory of Relativity (SRT). A correct application of the SRT solves the
problem and recovers complete internal consistency for the theory."


not to mention a really good and in depth explanation here, be warned there is some math:
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm

Strangelove wrote:

He said they use the stationary Earth model and IGNORE relatavistic effects.

He says it quite plainly. He never says they need to make a correction for time dilation. Time dilation is HIS RIDICULOUS attempt at an explanation for the effect. I wonder if he or you can provide a paper that discusses this theory in depth? Maybe one of Alberts? He knew about the effect but never mentioned it. Funny that.

again, ignoring things on the basis of personal incredulity or subjective appraisals of ridiculousness is not a strategy for discerning the validity of a proposition in my opinion. I feel that this is a disagreement so fundamental to our respective positions that this line of debate can only stalemate. However I can suggest once more that you do read the book that Einstein wrote that I linked earlier if you wish to understand the fundamentals of relativity.

after some thought i've decided to link to a relevant section from the book about length contraction and time dilation. These are just excerpts but I'd suggest reading the entire book.

"THE BEHAVIOUR OF MEASURING-RODS AND CLOCKS IN MOTION"

"Let us now consider a seconds-clock which is permanently
situated at the origin (x1=0) of K1. t1=0 and t1=I are two successive
ticks of this clock. The first and fourth equations of the Lorentz transformation give for these two ticks : t = 0 and As judged from K, the clock is moving with the velocity v; as judged from this reference-body, the time which elapses between two
strokes of the clock is not one second, but seconds, i.e. a somewhat larger time. As a consequence of its motion the clock goes more slowly than when at rest. Here also the velocity c plays the part of an unattainable limiting velocity."


http://www.bartleby.com/173/12.html

and in the rotating frame

"BEHAVIOUR OF CLOCKS AND MEASURING-RODS ON A ROTATING BODY OF
REFERENCE"

" To start with, he places one of two identically constructed
clocks at the centre of the circular disc, and the other on the edge
of the disc, so that they are at rest relative to it. We now ask
ourselves whether both clocks go at the same rate from the standpoint
of the non-rotating Galileian reference-body K. As judged from this
body, the clock at the centre of the disc has no velocity, whereas the
clock at the edge of the disc is in motion relative to K in
consequence of the rotation. According to a result obtained in Section 12, it
follows that the latter clock goes at a rate permanently slower than
that of the clock at the centre of the circular disc, i.e. as
observed from K. It is obvious that the same effect would be noted by an
observer whom we will imagine sitting alongside his clock at the centre of
the circular disc. Thus on our circular disc, or, to make the
case more general, in every gravitational field, a clock will go more
quickly or less quickly, according to the position in which the clock
is situated"

http://www.bartleby.com/173/23.html

So obviously he mentioned the effect, but I mean given your refusal to read the book, how would you even know if he mentioned it or not?

hmm i was editing my original post and adding information, but somehow i must have deleted some of the original stuff i posted...so here is the continuation of my response.

Strangelove wrote:
LOLZ! Incredible. The fact you see an apple doesnt mean that it's not a banana. Sheesh oscar. Please stop before its too late.

well, that's not what I'm saying at all. The fact that I see something that could be construed as an apple doesn't mean that I'm seeing an apple, I could be seeing a tomato or a pomegranate. The purpose of doing scientific analysis on the distribution of mass is to determine if the way it seems is the way it is. Now its fine that Hartnett did an analysis that seems to confirm this idea of quantization, doing analysis if a great way to differentiate intuition or pareidolia from objective features. However I still maintain that the method of analysis used by Hartnet was and is know to to be an inferior method of analysis for this type of data set. Its much better than just using vision as the arbiter of such things, but for my money I dont trust either of them to give me an accurate appraisal of the data.

Strangelove wrote:
The light beam does not 'see' warpage because it has no eyeballs or visual cortex. The light beam cannot be tricked by a phenomenon that only animals with those biological structures can experience.

If you want to describe a directive point of view in the simplest terms then you can say "In the rotor frame , the light beam should see no rotation", thats perfectly acceptable. It's just saying that everything on the apparatus is moving relative to eachother. Nothing more nothing less.

Hence your argument and attempted explanation of the Sagnac exp. is still patently absurd.

this is exasperating, fine, In the rotor frame , the light beam should see no rotation, however it does experience 2 paths that are of unequal length.

Strangelove wrote:
I'm waiting with bated breath for your conclusions on that issue then.

well, alright

geeze idk how this got so messed up okay here i missed this one somehow

Strangelove wrote:
I meant can you quote the paper where it reaches the opposite conclusion. Give us the conclusions where they say the data means there is no general concentricity.

All the papers i posted reach the opposite conclusion

"Critical Examinations of QSO Redshift Periodicities and
Associations with Galaxies in Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data"

"we find the distribution of projected distance between high redshift QSOs and nearby active galaxies and the distribution of redshifts of those active galaxies are consistent with a distribution of simulated random pairs, completely different from Bell’s previous conclusion. We also analyze the periodicity in redshifts of QSOs, and no periodicity is found in high completeness samples"

Now, periodicity and quantization are slightly different, but quantization must show periodicity whereas periodicity is not necessarily quantization, so no periodicity is no quantization.

"No Periodicities in 2dF Redshift Survey Data"

well the title says it all there but here

"These data provide by far the largest and most homogeneous sample for such
a study, yielding 1647 QSO–galaxy pairs. There is no evidence for a periodicity at the predicted frequency in log(1 + z), or at any other frequency."

the third paper is an image file so i cant pull quotes from it, so you'll just have to read it yourself.