Did Dr Carlip rule out the GeoCentric Model as false? Carlip fails to distinquish fact from conjecture. And a few material fallacies thrown in for good measure.
T Pagano
or that the GeoCentric model is false. It's falsity is the only good
reason to rule it out. Arguing that he prefers other models is not
equivalent to ruling out a false model. Let's look:
*****************************************************
[BEGIN DR CARLIP QUOTE]
*****************************************************
On Mon, 9 May 2011 18:52:44 +0000 (UTC),
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
>There's been some confusion here about coordinate systems, reference
>frames, general relativity, and geocentrism. Some of the issues are
>a bit subtle, so I thought I might try to clarify a little.
>
>*Coordinate systems*: coordinates are human-made labels of points
>in space or spacetime. There are a few technical restrictions, but
>in general, coordinates are almost completely arbitrary. Points don't
>come wearing little name tags; we can call them pretty much what we
>want.
>
>Obviously, Nature doesn't care about the choices we make for naming
>points. So no real physical process can depend on the choice of
>coordinates. The way we *describe* a process may depend on what
>coordinates we use for the description, but the actual process cannot.
>This is not just true in general relativity; it holds for any sensible
>physical theory. (It's possible, for instance, to rewrite ordinary
>Newtonian gravity in a way that makes no reference to coordinates;
>Cartan did this in 1923.)
>
>Can we make a choice in such a way that the coordinates labeling
>the Earth's position don't change in time? Certainly. We can also
>make a choice in which the coordinates labeling the Earth and the
>coordinates labeling the Moon dance a foxtrot. This means nothing
>about the actual motion; it's just a statement about our ability to
>choose creative names for points.
>
>(While coordinates don't affect physics, there is a sense in which
>physics can affect coordinates. Real physical processes can be easier
>to describe in some coordinates than others. If you want to actually
>calculate the motion of the planets, you'd be foolish to use anything
>other than a barycentric coordinate system. But even this is really a
>statement about us -- our ability to do the math -- and not about
>Nature.)
>
>*Reference frames*: a reference frame is not just another name for a
>coordinate system. A reference frame is a collection of imaginary
>observers, spread throughout space and moving along predetermined,
>nonintersecting trajectories, each carrying a standard clock. Talking
>about a physical process in a particular reference frame means
>describing what such a collection of observers would see. This may
>be a somewhat anthropomorphic formulation -- another definition
>refers to a system of ideal "rods and clocks" -- but the point is that
>a reference frame labels what a real, physical observer could actually
>observe.
>
>Every reference frame determines a coordinate system. We can simply
>label points by the observers at those points. The converse is not
>true, though: not every coordinate system determines a reference
>frame.
>
>For instance, we can choose coordinates such that the coordinate
>values of points on the surface of the Earth are not changing in time.
>(The shorthand is that this is a coordinate system in which the Earth
>is "not rotating," but keep in mind that this is a statement about the
>coordinates, not the Earth.). In such a coordinate system, however,
>distant objects will have rapidly changing coordinates ("rotating
>around the Earth"). You don't have to go very far -- just as far as
>Neptune -- to get to a place where the "coordinate speeds" are faster
>than light. Since no physical observer can move faster than light,
>such a coordinate system does not determine a reference frame.
As near as I can tell this issue does NOT arrise for the current
GeoCentric model. In the GeoCentric Model it is not the bodies which
are moving but the Universal Ether----that is, the fabric of space is
rotating. The celestial bodies are at rest relative to the universal
ether. The Universe is three dimensional, rotating about the
barycenter of the universe (that is, the Earth) and is non expanding.
The celestial bodies are at rest relative to the universal ether.
>
>In short, coordinates are imaginary; reference frames must be at least
>potentially real.
>
>*Causality*: it can sometimes be hard to disentangle real physical
>effects from effects of the choice of coordinate. In the early days of
>research on gravitational waves, for instance, there were debates
>about whether the waves were real or just "coordinate artifacts."
>
>There are some cases, though, in which the distinction is clear.
>There's a popular saying (well, popular in certain narrow circles)
>that physics propagates at the speed of light, but coordinates can
>propagate at the speed of thought.
>
>For coordinates in which the Earth is not rotating, for instance, it
>is certainly not true that Neptune is physically moving faster than
>light. We can imagine coordinates moving faster than light, but
>if we do, can be sure that the coordinate description will give us
>artificial results that do not reflect the real physics.
>
>For an Earth-centered coordinate system, in which the Earth is
>rotating but not moving around the Sun, the situation is slightly
>-- but only slightly -- trickier.
>We observe aberration of starlight,
>a regular change in the direction the light from stars reaches us.
>(Simple analogy: if you walk in the rain, the direction the drops
>hit you depends on which way you are walking.) In a heliocentric
>coordinate system, this variation comes from the orbital motion of
>the Earth. In an Earth-centered coordinate system, on the other hand,
>the change must instead come from the motion of the stars. (Simple
>analogy: you could get the same effect of slanting rain if you were
>standing still and the clouds were moving.)
>
>If light traveled at an infinite speed, this would be no problem.
>But in fact, light travels at a finite speed. In an Earth-centered
>coordinate system, the aberration of light coming from a star 100
>light years away would have to reflect the motion of the star 100
>years ago; the aberration of light coming from a star 1000 light years
>away must reflect the motion of the star 1000 years ago. While one
>can choose such a description, it does not reflect the real causality:
>there is no physical mechanism by which the motion of the Earth
>today can affect the motions of stars in the past. This is especially
>true because the Earth's orbit varies; the "cause" of a change in
>motion now cannot have the "effect" of changing stars' motions
>hundreds or thousands of years ago.
Some of the unanswered problems with this:
1. While I don't disagree that distance should be considered this is
not the case with either James Bradley's original formula or with
Einstein's Relativistic Aberration derivation. Neither forumla
includes distance between source and receiver; aberration supposedly
only depends upon the relative velocity between the two. Bradley used
the assumed orbital speed of the Earth (approx 30 km/sec) implying
that the Sun was at absolute rest. However there should be an
additional smaller component to stellar aberration due to the Earth's
rotation speed and a much larger component due to the motion of the
solar system around the Milky Way (anywhere from 200 km/sec to 800
km/sec depending on who's making the estimate). These don't seem to
be found anywhere.
2. Another problem is that in Relativistic Aberration (the equation
derived by Einstein) the v to be used is the relative motion
between star and Earth which can be a substantial percent of c
according to the current secular star red shift interpretations. No
where is this taken into account.
3. James Bradley based his original theory of stellar aberration on
the premise that the Earth was moving at approx 30 km/sec around the
Sun. From this he derived the 20.5" aberration angle for each star.
This required taking the Sun as fixed. But Einstein esablished that
any reference frame can be used. Using the Bradley formula if the
stars are considered moving and the Earth held fixed all the stars
regardless of their radial distance would be required to have a
tangential velocity of 30 km/sec. Einstein's relativity principle
states that there should be symmetry between the two frames.
4. 150 years after James Bradley discovered annual stellar aberration
George Airy conducted another experiment using a water filled
telescope. His expectation was to get some change in the effect of
astronomical aberration, since water seemed to partially
drag/transport a light beam in Armand Fizeau's experiments. However,
even though water slowed down the speed of light in the water filled
telescope he found no need to change its angle as compared to the air
filled one. Using Dr Carlip's rain drop analogy it is clear that if
the water filled telescope had been attached to a translating earth
(with a fixed star) Airy should have been required to tilt that
telescope. Recall that the water doesn't change the light's direction
only its speed. Airy found a null result; no additional tilt was
required with the water filled telescope. Obviously the starlight was
already coming in at the aberration angle prior to reaching the
telescope. One could reasonably infer that the stars were moving
relative to a stationary Earth and not the other way round. When
starlight slows down in the water, it was still hitting the telescope
bottom in the same place as in air because the deflection occurred
prior to entering the telescope. According to Carlip's analogy the
null result between water and air filled telescopes should not have
occurred if the earth were moving and the stars fixed.
5. ALL the Interferometer experiments contradict the claim that the
Earth is moving either 30 km/sec around the sun or 400 km/sec around
the Milky Way. And contrary to Carlip's claim the interferometer
results were NEVER zero but consistently reproducible between 1-10
km/sec. The only way the result were zeroized is via mathematical
jiggering (can we say ad hoc Lorentz Transformation). Furthermore the
Sagnac Interferometer results are consistent except they confirm
absolute rotation; that is, either the Earth is fixed and the Ether
is rotating or the Ether is fixed and the Earth is rotating.
>
>There is an even more dramatic instance of this issue of causality.
>The Universe is filled with cosmic microwave background radiation
>(CMBR), basically the afterglow from the period just after the Big
>Bang when the Universe was very hot and dense.
While there is no disputing the existence of the CMBR because we can
observe it, Dr Carlip argues equally as if its conjectured cause (the
events subsequent to the expansion of some cosmic singularity) was a
proven fact. Big Bang is a highly speculative theory with a number of
problems and has its secular detractors. Carlip is misrepresenting
what is known and what is conjectural.
This kind of intentional misrepresentation leads modern secular
scientists in general and Carlip in particular to repeatedly introduce
formal fallacies into their arguments which any undergraduate freshman
Philosophy of Logic student would recognize.
1. If "the Big Bang Occured" then "we should see the CMBR"
2. We see the CMBR.
3. therefore "the Big Bang Occurred"
Here Carlip has "asserted the consequent" and produced a fallacious
material fallacy.
> When we observe the
>CMBR, we see an annually varying Doppler effect that precisely matches
>the Earth's orbital speed and direction. But this radiation has been
>traveling freely in space for some 14 billion years. If one tries to
>physically explain this Doppler shift an an Earth-centered coordinate
>system, one must claim that the 14-billion-year-old plasma in the
>very early Universe, ten billion years before the Earth even existed,
>somehow exactly anticipated the Earth's orbit, with all its local
>variation. Call this what you like, it is not physics.
While the anistropic dipole of the CMB can be correlated with the
theory that our Solar System moves around the Milky Way and the theory
that our Earth moves in the solar system Carlip over sells the
correlation and this hardly rules out the currently held GeoCentric
model
I find it highly amusing that the only source that pops up for this
over-bloated claim in a google search is Carlip's post here.
It's apparent that Carlip refuses to distinguish fact from conjecture
and again he "asserts the consequent." It is impossible to take any
of this seriously.
Finally the Doppler Effect holds regardless of whether the source,
observer or both are in relative motion. And I'm not terribly sure
that Carlip a gives a hoot in hell whether he even has the GeoCentric
model being offered correctly. He is merely offering verifications of
his preferred model. And we know from Hume that verifications can
neither prove the truth of a theory nor even show that it is probably
true.
>
>[By the way: we really know that the CMBR pervades the Universe,
>and doesn't just surround the Earth. We can observe its effect in
>distant galaxies -- it can produce observable low-energy transitions
>among molecular energy levels -- and we can observe the effects of
>distant galaxies on the CMBR -- they can cause small but measurable
>shifts in its spectrum. Note also that this argument does not rely on
>any particular cosmological model: it's enough to know that the CMBR
>is reaching us from the very distant Universe, and we can tell that by
>the fact that it affects and is affected by distant galaxies.]
If it is model independent how does this rule out the currently held
GeoCentric model?
>
>*Relative and absolute motion*: There is an old argument over whether
>it is sensible to talk about absolute motion at all. The discussion
>is commonly expressed in terms of Mach's principle, which says in
>some form or another that local properties of matter, such as inertia
>and rotation, are determined by distant matter, and are fixed only
>relative to a particular distribution of matter in the Universe.
>
>The short answer is simply that we don't know. In particular, the
>question of whether general relativity implies/is consistent with
>Mach's principle is not settled. The longer answer is that we don't
>even know how to formulate the question properly. A 1997 paper by
>Bondi and Samuel, for instance, listed ten formulations of Mach's
>principle, some of which gave contradictory predictions for certain
>experiments.
>
>Note, though, that whether or not some version of Mach's principle
>is correct, it makes no sense to claim that *all* relative descriptions
>are physically meaningful. One still needs consistency with the
>requirement of causality that I described above. In particular:
>
>-- If absolute motion does not exist, then any correct description
>must be relative. But this does not mean any relative description
>must be correct. A relative description must still not allow events
>in the present to affect the past.
>
>-- If there is some absolute description of motion, it, too, must obey
>the condition of causality. Again, such a description must not allow
>events in the present to affect the past.
>
This is the catch all section where Carlip hedges his bets and admits
there are other possibilities and secular science might not really
have as many real facts as they'd like. So Mach's Princple isn't
really ruled out. Carlip opines that all logical possibilities aren't
physically meaningful but never connects any of the real facts in his
post to draw his final conclusion.
Carlip can't seem to distinquish between fact and conjecture and
offers several formal fallacies. And while the anistropic dipole of
the CMB can be correlated with the theory that our Solar System moves
around the Milky Way and the theory that our Earth moves in the solar
system this hardly rules out the currently held GeoCentric model
>In either case, a heliocentric description is very clearly ruled out.
Not even close. At least not in this post.
>
>Steve Carlip
>
>
>
Regards,
T Pagano
TomS
<apagano-m8jns696kbeh6...@4ax.com>, T Pagano stated..."
[...snip...]
>As near as I can tell this issue does NOT arrise for the current
>GeoCentric model. In the GeoCentric Model it is not the bodies which
>are moving but the Universal Ether----that is, the fabric of space is
>rotating. The celestial bodies are at rest relative to the universal
>ether. The Universe is three dimensional, rotating about the
>barycenter of the universe (that is, the Earth) and is non expanding.
>The celestial bodies are at rest relative to the universal ether.
In particular, then, the Sun is not moving, which is contrary to what
the Bible says.
This is the problem that Galileo pointed out, in his letter to
Castelli, with the Ptolemaic model.
--
---Tom S.
"... the heavy people know some magic that can make things move and even fly,
but they're not very bright, because they can't survive without their magic
contrivances"
Xixo, in "The Gods Must Be Crazy II"
RAM
> Dr. Carlip did not offer any information to prove that the Earth moves
Here is a non-distortion you need to acknowledge:
27. Ilas View
profile More
options Apr 4, 7:04 am
T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote in
news:apagano-bi2fp6ddbg6ks...@4ax.com:
> Notice that Thompson fails to substantiate his accusation that I
> plagiarized. What a surprise.
What exactly would you call this, if not plagarism? From the post in
question (there's more, but this will do):
-----------
Pagano:
it has perching feet,
Gish:
It had perching feet
-----------
Pagano:
possessed the basic pattern and proportions of the avian wing with
modern-like feathers; the primary fearthers of non flying birds are
distinctly different. there is little reason to suppose that the
Archeopteryx was not capable of and engaged in powered flight.
Gish:
The primary feathers of non-flying birds are distinctly different
from
those of flying birds. Archaeopteryx had the feathers of flying
birds,
had the basic pattern and proportions of the avian wing, and
an
especially robust furcula (wishbone). Furthermore, there was
nothing in
the anatomy of Archaeopteryx that would have prevented it
being a powered
flyer.
-----------
Pagano:
a robust furcula,
Gish:
an especially robust furcula
-----------
Pagano:
the quadrate of the Eichastatt specimen of the Archeopteryx was
double-headed and thus similar in condition to that of the modern
bird.
Gish:
the quadrate of the Eichstatt specimen of Archaepoteryx was double-
headed
and thus similar to the condition of modern birds
-----------
Pagano:
it has been asserted that Archaeopteryx shares 21 specialized
characters with coelurosaurian dinosaurs. Research on various
anatomical features of Archaeopteryx in the last ten years or so,
however, has shown, in every case, that the characteristic in
question
is bird-like, not reptile-like.
Gish:
It has been asserted that Archaeopteryx shares 21 specialized
characters
with coelurosaurian dinosaurs.4 Research on various
anatomical features
of Archaeopteryx in the last ten years or so,
however, has shown, in
every case, that the characteristic in
question is bird-like, not
reptile-like
-----------
Pagano:
it has been reasonably established that neither the teeth nor the
ankle of Archaeopteryx could have been derived from theropod
dinosaurs-the teeth being those typical of other (presumably later)
toothed birds, and the ankle bones showing no homology with those of
dinosaurs.
Gish:
L.D. Martin and co-workers have established that neither the teeth
nor
the ankle of Archaeopteryx could have been derived from theropod
dinosaurs—the teeth being those typical of other (presumably later)
toothed birds, and the ankle bones showing no homology with those of
dinosaurs
gdgu...@gmail.com
> As near as I can tell this issue does NOT arrise for the current
> GeoCentric model. In the GeoCentric Model it is not the bodies which
> are moving but the Universal Ether----that is, the fabric of space is
> rotating. The celestial bodies are at rest relative to the universal
> ether. The Universe is three dimensional, rotating about the
> barycenter of the universe (that is, the Earth) and is non expanding.
> The celestial bodies are at rest relative to the universal ether.
This scenario does not match what is observed, in several ways. Here's
one:
If the Earth is stationary, stellar aberration tells us that every
object in the universe (outside our solar system) must be making a 1AU
orbit around nothing. That is bad enough in itself, but there's a more
pressing problem. The orbits of all those various objects *appear* to
be in sync from our vantage point. If the speed of light were
infinite, you could conceivably argue that the "aether" itself somehow
makes that wobble, among others, and carries the stars and galaxies
along with it.
But light does in fact have a speed, so light from more distant
objects must arrive later than light from closer ones. Thus each
galaxy must make its 1AU orbit at a different time, calibrated
precisely so that its light arrives at the Earth to mimic
synchronization with every other object.
All this asynchronous movement of celestial objects rules out the idea
that the universe rotates as a whole and carries galaxies along with
it. They would need to move independently. Further, the apparent
synchronization, only as viewed from one spot, is inexplicable except
as the action of a deceptive God whose intention is to convince us
that the Earth does indeed orbit the Sun.
Greg Guarino
Rolf
In another thread, Tony was challenged with respect to the boundary between
the rotating universe, and Earth. Toney pretended that was no problem, but I
can't see how that fits. Where is the outer boundary of the Earth? Is it the
solid surface of the Earth, or a sphere at the height of Mount Everest? Or
at some arbitrary delimiter somewhere in
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/layers.html
alt. http://preview.tinyurl.com/2wuwkmq
Or maybe even farther out, say beyond the moon's orbit? Or?
Or?
TomS
<9e76dacb-c1bd-432e...@y31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
g...@risky-biz.com stated..."
Carlip had mentioned a related point, that the changes in the
more distant objects precede the changes in the nearer objects, and
the changes on Earth, so that there is a conflict in the order of
causality:
"On Mon, 9 May 2011 18:52:44 +0000 (UTC), in article
<iq9d5s$9dl$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu stated..."
[…snip…]
>If light traveled at an infinite speed, this would be no problem.
>But in fact, light travels at a finite speed. In an Earth-centered
>coordinate system, the aberration of light coming from a star 100
>light years away would have to reflect the motion of the star 100
>years ago; the aberration of light coming from a star 1000 light years
>away must reflect the motion of the star 1000 years ago. While one
>can choose such a description, it does not reflect the real causality:
>there is no physical mechanism by which the motion of the Earth
>today can affect the motions of stars in the past. This is especially
>true because the Earth's orbit varies; the "cause" of a change in
>motion now cannot have the "effect" of changing stars' motions
>hundreds or thousands of years ago.
[…snip…]
I would add that one doesn't need to accept the precise values for
the distances to the stars, in hundreds or more of light years. All
one needs is the fact that the stars are at different distances (and
perhaps also that they are outside the Solar System).
And I would also note that one could conceivably say that the changes
on Earth are the effect, not the cause, of the motions of the stars.
(For example, that the seasonal changes in the ocean currents and
winds are the result of changes in the stars!) But one is left with
the problem of explaining the order of timing of the changes in the
various stars depending on their distance from the Earth.
Consider three stars: Star A at distance X from the Earth; star B
at distance X from the Earth but at distance 2X from star A; and
star C at distance Y from the Earth and at distance (X-Y) from star
A. Star A and star B move in the same way at the same time, while
star C moves in the same way at at time (X-Y) later. Try to sort
out the causes of those motions in a geocentric model.
Mike Dworetsky
First of all, there is zero evidence for a universal aether. Someone a long
time ago dreamed up the idea and all the other ancients nodded it through
without a second thought. Talk about unscientific. Then, when people began
testing for it, the results of experiments disagreed with various theories
about what should be observed. As experiments improved, it became more and
more obvious that the hypothesis of a universal aether had to be dispensed
with.
So you are claiming that "everything can be explained by something imaginary
that I say exists but for which there is no proof."
You also have no proof that Earth is the barycentre of the universe and it
would be pretty bizarre if an ordinary planet orbiting around an ordinary
star in an ordinary galaxy just happened to be (a) our home and
simultaneously (b) the barycentre of the universe. Coincidence, miracle, or
designed that way by some all powerful being for his own amusement? Or, I
think, a manifestly false claim.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There is. Only your ignorance of astronomy prevents you from knowing this.
The diurnal component of aberration is small, less that 0.31 arcsec.
Nevertheless it is observed routinely from the ground. Although the
observation usually consists of correcting the observations or ephemerides
for it, and discovering that the geocentric positions of stars and other
celestial objects always come out correctly without an extra 0.3 arcsec
daily wobble.
> solar system around the Milky Way (anywhere from 200 km/sec to 800
> km/sec depending on who's making the estimate). These don't seem to
> be found anywhere.
Again it is only your ignorance of real astronomy that leads you to claim
this. The galactic orbital aberration component has a period of 200-250
million years, so we are unlikely to detect it in any way as a variation in
position of stars; not, at least, in the few centuries during which accurate
observations have been made. Essentially this is because over short periods
of time, the Earth's velocity vector around the galactic centre is a
straight line segment. Since the dawn of astrometric astronomy, we have
journeyed about 1 arc second of this orbital journey.
>
> 2. Another problem is that in Relativistic Aberration (the equation
> derived by Einstein) the v to be used is the relative motion
> between star and Earth which can be a substantial percent of c
> according to the current secular star red shift interpretations. No
> where is this taken into account.
It can be taken into account but for a speed of 30 km/sec the relativistic
corrections/effects are extremely small. I have told you this before but
you chose to ignore that and repeat your error.
>
> 3. James Bradley based his original theory of stellar aberration on
> the premise that the Earth was moving at approx 30 km/sec around the
> Sun. From this he derived the 20.5" aberration angle for each star.
I believe Bradley measured the aberration angle first, then realised what
the cause was. He was looking for parallax.
> This required taking the Sun as fixed. But Einstein esablished that
Not really, all that is required is that all other motions of the Sun (or
the barycentre) are linear over the time span of observing.
> any reference frame can be used. Using the Bradley formula if the
> stars are considered moving and the Earth held fixed all the stars
> regardless of their radial distance would be required to have a
> tangential velocity of 30 km/sec. Einstein's relativity principle
> states that there should be symmetry between the two frames.
They would all have to do a little dance yes, but if they were all moving at
30 km/sec in their little elliptical dance, then the further away they were,
the smaller would be their apparent ellipse.
There is no symmetry here because the Earth is accelerating.
>
> 4. 150 years after James Bradley discovered annual stellar aberration
> George Airy conducted another experiment using a water filled
> telescope. His expectation was to get some change in the effect of
> astronomical aberration, since water seemed to partially
> drag/transport a light beam in Armand Fizeau's experiments. However,
That was not what Airy was testing. He expected the experiment to produce
the same result as Bradley's, as the water would not change the situation
once the light had passed through. It's the same as when you shine a light
beam through a tank of water: the beam bends due to refraction, but when it
emerges it is travelling in the same direction as it was before it entered
the water.
> even though water slowed down the speed of light in the water filled
> telescope he found no need to change its angle as compared to the air
> filled one. Using Dr Carlip's rain drop analogy it is clear that if
> the water filled telescope had been attached to a translating earth
> (with a fixed star) Airy should have been required to tilt that
> telescope. Recall that the water doesn't change the light's direction
> only its speed. Airy found a null result; no additional tilt was
> required with the water filled telescope. Obviously the starlight was
> already coming in at the aberration angle prior to reaching the
> telescope. One could reasonably infer that the stars were moving
> relative to a stationary Earth and not the other way round.
There comes a point where your use of phrases like "reasonably infer" is
inappropriate. This is one of them.
When
> starlight slows down in the water, it was still hitting the telescope
> bottom in the same place as in air because the deflection occurred
> prior to entering the telescope. According to Carlip's analogy the
> null result between water and air filled telescopes should not have
> occurred if the earth were moving and the stars fixed.
Uh, I'll let Steve answer this question in more detail.
>
> 5. ALL the Interferometer experiments contradict the claim that the
> Earth is moving either 30 km/sec around the sun or 400 km/sec around
> the Milky Way. And contrary to Carlip's claim the interferometer
> results were NEVER zero but consistently reproducible between 1-10
> km/sec. The only way the result were zeroized is via mathematical
> jiggering (can we say ad hoc Lorentz Transformation). Furthermore the
> Sagnac Interferometer results are consistent except they confirm
> absolute rotation; that is, either the Earth is fixed and the Ether
> is rotating or the Ether is fixed and the Earth is rotating.
I note that Dr Carlip is an expert in the field of relativistic physics so
I'll take his word for it that a search of all the current literature shows
that (a) early experiments were full of subtle errors and were difficult to
perform--which I already knew) and (b) current measurements of such shifts
are zero within very tiny margins of error. No jiggery required.
You are right that the Sagnac effect confirms that the Earth rotates
absolutely. You are wrong to continue to claim that there is a universal
aether.
>
>
>>
>> There is an even more dramatic instance of this issue of causality.
>> The Universe is filled with cosmic microwave background radiation
>> (CMBR), basically the afterglow from the period just after the Big
>> Bang when the Universe was very hot and dense.
>
> While there is no disputing the existence of the CMBR because we can
> observe it, Dr Carlip argues equally as if its conjectured cause (the
> events subsequent to the expansion of some cosmic singularity) was a
> proven fact. Big Bang is a highly speculative theory with a number of
> problems and has its secular detractors. Carlip is misrepresenting
> what is known and what is conjectural.
I don't think anyone disputes that the CMBR is the final radiation that
emerged from the expanding universe as it cooled and became transparent at a
temperature of roughly 3000 K (I can't recall the exact figure) because the
hydrogen gas became completely neutral.
>
> This kind of intentional misrepresentation leads modern secular
> scientists in general and Carlip in particular to repeatedly introduce
> formal fallacies into their arguments which any undergraduate freshman
> Philosophy of Logic student would recognize.
>
> 1. If "the Big Bang Occured" then "we should see the CMBR"
> 2. We see the CMBR.
> 3. therefore "the Big Bang Occurred"
>
> Here Carlip has "asserted the consequent" and produced a fallacious
> material fallacy.
There are, of course, other observational facts that lead to the "Big Bang"
concept, most notably the Hubble expansion, and the composition of the
universe (mostly H and He) which could only have resulted from
nucleosynthesis as the expanding universe cooled enough to make these
elements stable.
>
>> When we observe the
>> CMBR, we see an annually varying Doppler effect that precisely
>> matches the Earth's orbital speed and direction. But this radiation
>> has been traveling freely in space for some 14 billion years. If
>> one tries to physically explain this Doppler shift an an
>> Earth-centered coordinate system, one must claim that the
>> 14-billion-year-old plasma in the
>> very early Universe, ten billion years before the Earth even existed,
>> somehow exactly anticipated the Earth's orbit, with all its local
>> variation. Call this what you like, it is not physics.
>
> While the anistropic dipole of the CMB can be correlated with the
> theory that our Solar System moves around the Milky Way and the theory
> that our Earth moves in the solar system Carlip over sells the
> correlation and this hardly rules out the currently held GeoCentric
> model
Au contraire, it is fully consistent with all the other anti-geocentric
evidence.
>
> I find it highly amusing that the only source that pops up for this
> over-bloated claim in a google search is Carlip's post here.
> It's apparent that Carlip refuses to distinguish fact from conjecture
> and again he "asserts the consequent." It is impossible to take any
> of this seriously.
Sorry to sink your boat, but you will find few papers by observational
cosmologists saying "we thought the universe might be geocentric, so we made
some careful measurements of the CMBR dipole and waddya know, we found an
annual variation in the doppler shift of 30 km/sec, in exactly the plane of
the ecliptic, proving that the Earth orbits around the Sun and not vice
versa." What happens is that every worker on CMBR data knows that the 30
km/sec variation can be a significant systematic source of noise when making
high-precision measurements, so their computer data reduction programs
automatically correct for it. I'm sure someone has tested to show that the
correction really improves the results in terms of eliminating this small
source of error.
You may find details of the reasoning and method used, in manuals for data
reduction of the Wilkinson MAP experiment teams.
>
> Finally the Doppler Effect holds regardless of whether the source,
> observer or both are in relative motion. And I'm not terribly sure
> that Carlip a gives a hoot in hell whether he even has the GeoCentric
> model being offered correctly. He is merely offering verifications of
Every time science moves on and proves that the geocentric model "du jour"
is false, by discovering gravity, and Kepler's laws, or parallax, or
aberration, or the annual doppler shift of stars, and proves that Earth
rotates, by explaining the rotation of large storms, or the circulation of
the atmosphere, observing diurnal aberration, launching satellites, doing
Sagnac experiments, etc, someone like Tony comes along and says, "Oh wait.
Sure, that's a false model, let's add on some epicycles^^^^^^^^^extra
hypotheses, maybe throw in some universal aether, whatever, and pronounce to
the world that there is no proof of heliocentrism. We don't gots to show no
steenkin' physics, we'll just make it up as we go along."
The very fact that each stage in the geocentrism model required adjustment
and add-ons just to "save the phenomenon", as observations showed more and
more evidence for heliocentrism, is a demonstration of its fundamental
weakenesses.
> his preferred model. And we know from Hume that verifications can
> neither prove the truth of a theory nor even show that it is probably
> true.
>
All science is provisional in that it might somehow be shown to be false by
some future crucial experiment. However, there comes a point where it
becomes perverse not to accept the results provisionally and move on. You
long since passed that point.
You certainly have not presented anything that would lead science to abandon
its current position. And you are basing much on old, outdated, and
outmoded experiments and observations, and on results shown to be false.
>>
>> [By the way: we really know that the CMBR pervades the Universe,
>> and doesn't just surround the Earth. We can observe its effect in
>> distant galaxies -- it can produce observable low-energy transitions
>> among molecular energy levels -- and we can observe the effects of
>> distant galaxies on the CMBR -- they can cause small but measurable
>> shifts in its spectrum. Note also that this argument does not rely
>> on any particular cosmological model: it's enough to know that the
>> CMBR is reaching us from the very distant Universe, and we can tell
>> that by the fact that it affects and is affected by distant
>> galaxies.]
>
> If it is model independent how does this rule out the currently held
> GeoCentric model?
How do you explain how something that is billions of light years away in
some ways, and everywhere at once in other ways, does a little dance around
the Earth's ecliptic? In phase? How does the information get there, then
back here, instantaneously?
There are lots of things we don't know and Mach's Principle has never been
elevated to the status of a Law. We don't know if it is true or false or
somewhere in between.
>
> Carlip can't seem to distinquish between fact and conjecture and
> offers several formal fallacies. And while the anistropic dipole of
> the CMB can be correlated with the theory that our Solar System moves
> around the Milky Way and the theory that our Earth moves in the solar
> system this hardly rules out the currently held GeoCentric model
I think you are grasping at straws here, Tony, and your hand is slipping,
slipping.....
>
>> In either case, a heliocentric description is very clearly ruled out.
>
> Not even close. At least not in this post.
You didn't even bother to correct the typo.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
TomS
<iqgv4a$525$1...@news.albasani.net>, Rolf stated..."
I am curious about what happens when something crosses that boundary.
There are interplanetary rockets which leave the Earth and become
part of the heavens. There are meteors which leave the heavens and
become part of the Earth. Also photons and cosmic rays (if the
geocentrists believe in such things).
>
>Or maybe even farther out, say beyond the moon's orbit? Or?
Traditionally, there was the division between the sub-lunar world
and the heavens. The Moon, and everything above it, moved in circles.
But the difference may have been what the object is made up of,
rather than where it is. (This would cause difficulties for
explaining interplanetary rockets and meteors, however.)
My guess is that modern geocentrists would include artificial
satellites in the heavens, which would put the boundary quite low.
>
>
>
>Or?
Mike Dworetsky
Greg, it's far worse. Either all objects are at the same distance from us,
in order to have the right size aberrational ellipse, or they are doing
dances at different speeds the further away they are. Sooner or later they
have to be moving faster than light. Whole galaxies have aberration. How
do you get them to dance in phase?
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
>Dr. Carlip did not offer any information to prove that the Earth moves
>or that the GeoCentric model is false.
Sorry, Tony, but no one but you (and other scientific
illiterates) thinks that science "proves" anything. The
heliocentric model of the solar system, and the "essentially
centerless" model of the universe, both explain the observed
evidence better than any geocentric model of either, and
require far fewer assumptions regarding as-yet-unobserved
requirements like the "universal ether". So the geocentric
model, while not "disproven, was abandoned in favor of a
better model. Compare phlogiston theory, which was *also*
never "disproven", only abandoned when a more parsimonious
theory was formulated which explained observations (no
"negative mass" requirement, for instance).
Stop trying to change the rules; you don't have the
authority.
And answer all the responses you requested, or be further
confirmed as a Running Coward. (I really like that term; I'm
*so* glad you introduced it.)
<snip>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
TomS
<KfOdne7RbuTOglHQ...@bt.com>, Mike Dworetsky stated..."
Not only that, but also those objects have to be *rotating*, in
order to keep the same orientation toward the Earth. Like the Moon which
has to rotate while it is revolving around the Earth to keep showing
the same face, so too do star clusters, gaseous nebulae, and galaxies,
which keep the same appearance over the course of their geocentric
daily orbit. How can they not show the effects of such fast rotation?
Not to mention that this spin is part of that synchronized dance.
TomS
<TpWdnTRzEvILg1HQ...@bt.com>, Mike Dworetsky stated..."
[...snip...]
>You also have no proof that Earth is the barycentre of the universe and it
>would be pretty bizarre if an ordinary planet orbiting around an ordinary
>star in an ordinary galaxy just happened to be (a) our home and
>simultaneously (b) the barycentre of the universe. Coincidence, miracle, or
>designed that way by some all powerful being for his own amusement? Or, I
>think, a manifestly false claim.
It is amusing for a geocentrist to use technical language like "barycenter"
when they reject the science of which it is a part. As if using scientific-
sounding words is enough to present the image of doing science.
In the case of saying that the Earth is the barycenter of the universe, how
is it that the Earth remains fixed at the barycenter, what with all of those
huge objects moving at high speeds through large distances? This demands
just another synchronization of things throughout the universe. When
Jupiter, for example, moves around the Sun, where is the counter-motion
of something else which keeps the Earth at the barycenter? How about the
daily rotation of the Milky Way around the Earth (the Earth is not anywhere
near the barycenter of the Milky Way)?
John Bode
[snip]
>
> As near as I can tell this issue does NOT arrise for the current
> GeoCentric model. In the GeoCentric Model it is not the bodies which
> are moving but the Universal Ether----that is, the fabric of space is
> rotating. The celestial bodies are at rest relative to the universal
> ether. The Universe is three dimensional, rotating about the
> barycenter of the universe (that is, the Earth) and is non expanding.
> The celestial bodies are at rest relative to the universal ether.
>
Then how do geostationary satellites stay in place? Why isn't the
ether causing them to rotate around the Earth's surface?
Why do satellites below geostationary orbits move opposite everything
else in the universe (west-to-east)? Why isn't the ether dragging
them in the same direction as everything else?
Does the ether not affect objects below the orbit of the Moon, or
below a certain mass? If not, why not? If it's mass-dependent,
what's the minimum mass that can be affected by the ether?
What is the *physical* basis for the ether's motion? Why does the
ecliptic plane oscillate every 12 months or so? Why have the
celestial poles wandered throughout history?
Glenn
> In the GeoCentric Model it is not the bodies which
> are moving but the Universal Ether----that is, the fabric of space is
> rotating. The celestial bodies are at rest relative to the universal
> ether. The Universe is three dimensional, rotating about the
> barycenter of the universe (that is, the Earth) and is non expanding.
> The celestial bodies are at rest relative to the universal ether.
>
Then since the Earth is included in the Universe, does the Earth
exists within the Universal Ether? A theory that proposes the Earth as
immovable requires an explanation for why it is not at rest relative
to the Universal Ether. Just saying the Universe "rotates around the
barycenter of the Universe" would not explain why the Earth violates
the principle of the "rotating" Ether.
Or does the Earth exist "outside" the Ether? If so, where is that
boundary? How do we know which celestial bodies are at rest relative
to the Universal Ether if we do not know the boundaries of the
Universal Ether?
Glenn
> carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
snip
>(Simple analogy: if you walk in the rain, the direction the drops
>hit you depends on which way you are walking.) In a heliocentric
>coordinate system, this variation comes from the orbital motion of
>the Earth. In an Earth-centered coordinate system, on the other hand,
>the change must instead come from the motion of the stars. (Simple
>analogy: you could get the same effect of slanting rain if you were
>standing still and the clouds were moving.)
Here I think Carlip has his directions and references somewhat skewed.
When walking in the rain, the direction the drops hit you depend on
the direction of the drops, not on which way you are walking. Rain
*does not slant* as a result of walking, nor is the direction of the
drops at time of impact dependent on the orbital motion of the Earth.
It is the moving walker that "hits" the drops in a different
direction. This would be the same regardless of which coordinate
system is used.
TomS
<ef983a57-bb27-4a54...@f31g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, John Bode
stated..."
>
>On May 12, 9:10 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>[snip]
>>
>> As near as I can tell this issue does NOT arrise for the current
>> GeoCentric model. In the GeoCentric Model it is not the bodies which
>> are moving but the Universal Ether----that is, the fabric of space is
>> rotating. The celestial bodies are at rest relative to the universal
>> ether. The Universe is three dimensional, rotating about the
>> barycenter of the universe (that is, the Earth) and is non expanding.
>> The celestial bodies are at rest relative to the universal ether.
>>
>
>Then how do geostationary satellites stay in place? Why isn't the
>ether causing them to rotate around the Earth's surface?
>
>Why do satellites below geostationary orbits move opposite everything
>else in the universe (west-to-east)? Why isn't the ether dragging
>them in the same direction as everything else?
>
>Does the ether not affect objects below the orbit of the Moon, or
>below a certain mass? If not, why not? If it's mass-dependent,
>what's the minimum mass that can be affected by the ether?
Meteors move in ordinary planetary orbits (and certain meteor showers
are associated with comets) before they collide with the Earth. And
interplanetary rockets after they leave the Earth assume a planet-like
orbit. So it couldn't be the size, or the composition, that determines
whether they are under the influence of the aether.
>
>What is the *physical* basis for the ether's motion? Why does the
>ecliptic plane oscillate every 12 months or so? Why have the
>celestial poles wandered throughout history?
>
J. J. Lodder
> As near as I can tell this issue does NOT arrise for the current
> GeoCentric model. In the GeoCentric Model it is not the bodies which
> are moving but the Universal Ether----that is, the fabric of space is
> rotating. The celestial bodies are at rest relative to the universal
> ether. The Universe is three dimensional, rotating about the
> barycenter of the universe (that is, the Earth) and is non expanding.
> The celestial bodies are at rest relative to the universal ether.
Very good.
So you predict also that a Foucault pendulum
(at ą45^o north for example) swinging east-west,
that is parallel to the aether flow,
will not be deflected,
while a north-south swinging one will be deflected
by suffering more aether flow on the soutward swing
than on the northward?
Yes or no please?
Jan
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):
Jan, Jan, Jan...
This is *Tony*.
Tony don' do no steenkin' "yes" or "no".
Tony does "Huh?", declares victory and runs away.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by John Bode
<jfbod...@gmail.com>:
>On May 12, 9:10 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>[snip]
>>
>> As near as I can tell this issue does NOT arrise for the current
>> GeoCentric model. In the GeoCentric Model it is not the bodies which
>> are moving but the Universal Ether----that is, the fabric of space is
>> rotating. The celestial bodies are at rest relative to the universal
>> ether. The Universe is three dimensional, rotating about the
>> barycenter of the universe (that is, the Earth) and is non expanding.
>> The celestial bodies are at rest relative to the universal ether.
>>
>
>Then how do geostationary satellites stay in place? Why isn't the
>ether causing them to rotate around the Earth's surface?
More to the point, just what exactly keeps them from
falling? Tony *adamantly* refuses to address this.
>Why do satellites below geostationary orbits move opposite everything
>else in the universe (west-to-east)? Why isn't the ether dragging
>them in the same direction as everything else?
Vacuum bubble generators, like the air bubble generators
ships use to reduce drag?
>Does the ether not affect objects below the orbit of the Moon, or
>below a certain mass? If not, why not? If it's mass-dependent,
>what's the minimum mass that can be affected by the ether?
>
>What is the *physical* basis for the ether's motion? Why does the
>ecliptic plane oscillate every 12 months or so? Why have the
>celestial poles wandered throughout history?
Prediction re:Tony - befuddled silence.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
<GlennS...@msn.com>:
You miss the point that it's the *perceived* motion of the
drops that counts. Since all frames of reference are equal
the perceived direction of the drops depends on the motion
of the observer WRT the drops. Or vice versa; the "drop"
frame is equally valid.
J. J. Lodder
I'll announce the result next week,
Jan
Walter Bushell
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> More to the point, just what exactly keeps them from
> falling? Tony *adamantly* refuses to address this.
They are in their proper place in the Universe. Why should they fall?
--
The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
is good, or is it the reverse?
Paul J Gans
>In article <q4irs6lgkvg5rtho9...@4ax.com>,
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> More to the point, just what exactly keeps them from
>> falling? Tony *adamantly* refuses to address this.
>They are in their proper place in the Universe. Why should they fall?
That's greek to me.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Bob Casanova
....and Tony will ignore them.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>In article <q4irs6lgkvg5rtho9...@4ax.com>,
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> More to the point, just what exactly keeps them from
>> falling? Tony *adamantly* refuses to address this.
>
>They are in their proper place in the Universe. Why should they fall?
Aargggghhhhh!
jillery
> On Sat, 14 May 2011 07:39:36 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>
> > Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> >> More to the point, just what exactly keeps them from
> >> falling? Tony *adamantly* refuses to address this.
>
> >They are in their proper place in the Universe. Why should they fall?
>
> Aargggghhhhh!
So many posters think it's fun to spoof Tony's style, but they assume
it's obvious that's what they are doing, thus giving him cover and
comfort.
J. J. Lodder
So brave Sir Tony fled in shame, again, again.
A somewhat broader question perhaps:
What does the rotating universal aether theory
predict for the motions of a Foucault pendulum
at moderate latitudes?
(in Washington or Paris for example)
What says the oh so empirically inclined Mr Pagano?
Jan
Walter Bushell
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Sat, 14 May 2011 07:39:36 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>
> >In article <q4irs6lgkvg5rtho9...@4ax.com>,
> > Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >
> >> More to the point, just what exactly keeps them from
> >> falling? Tony *adamantly* refuses to address this.
> >
> >They are in their proper place in the Universe. Why should they fall?
>
> Aargggghhhhh!
Just because I set physics back 2300 years?
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>In article <t3ots65reumr71fe4...@4ax.com>,
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 14 May 2011 07:39:36 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>>
>> >In article <q4irs6lgkvg5rtho9...@4ax.com>,
>> > Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >
>> >> More to the point, just what exactly keeps them from
>> >> falling? Tony *adamantly* refuses to address this.
>> >
>> >They are in their proper place in the Universe. Why should they fall?
>>
>> Aargggghhhhh!
>
>Just because I set physics back 2300 years?
Wouldn't that be enough?
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
[...]
> Some of the unanswered problems with this:
> 1. While I don't disagree that distance should be considered
Excellent! Then you agree that your geocentric model makes no sense
-- you just haven't fully realized it yet.
> this is
> not the case with either James Bradley's original formula or with
> Einstein's Relativistic Aberration derivation. Neither forumla
> includes distance between source and receiver; aberration supposedly
> only depends upon the relative velocity between the two.
No, silly. You're using the wrong formulas, and you're failing to
understand what the symbols in the formulas you're using mean.
You are referring to a formula in which there are only two objects
-- the Earth and one star -- and they are moving at a constant relative
velocity. Since the relative velocity is taken to be constant, it doesn't
matter when it is measured.
To apply this to a real observation, you need to look at the velocity
of the Earth at the time the aberration is *measured* relative to the
velocity of the star at the time the light was *emitted*. This would
be really obvious if you understood the formula. Then if you're looking
at two stars, you have to use three different times, the time the light
was observed at Earth and the time it was emitted from each star.
As soon as you do this, you'll see that your geocentric picture demands
that changes in the Earth's motion now affect the motions of stars in
the distant past.
> 2. Another problem is that in Relativistic Aberration (the equation
> derived by Einstein) the v to be used is the relative motion
> between star and Earth which can be a substantial percent of c
> according to the current secular star red shift interpretations. No
> where is this taken into account.
Of course it is. You'll find this, for example, in section 3-9 of the
introductory relativity book, _Spacetime Physics_, by Taylor and Wheeler.
[...]
> 5. ALL the Interferometer experiments contradict the claim that the
> Earth is moving either 30 km/sec around the sun or 400 km/sec around
> the Milky Way. And contrary to Carlip's claim the interferometer
> results were NEVER zero but consistently reproducible between 1-10
> km/sec.
If cited the references before, and you have acknowledged seeing my
posts. Perhaps you've forgotten. Let me try again:
Stanwix et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.95 (2005) 040404 and Phys. Rev. D74
(2006) 081101, reduced the limits to a few centimeters per second.
Mueller et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 020401, reduced this further
to microns per second. More recently, both Hermann et al., Phys. Rev.
D 80 (2009) 105011, and Eisele et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 (2009) 090401,
pushed the limits down to nanometers per second.
Please stop repeating this claim of yours. It is demonstrably false.
[...]
> While there is no disputing the existence of the CMBR because we can
> observe it, Dr Carlip argues equally as if its conjectured cause (the
> events subsequent to the expansion of some cosmic singularity) was a
> proven fact.
Irrelevant to the issue at hand. All that is needed is that it originated
in the distant past, and this we also observe, by seeing that it affects
and is affected by distant galaxies.
Steve Carlip
J. J. Lodder
Come on, dear Tony.
Don't be afraid to come out.
I'm not the worst, I'll help you with a hint:
the geocentric answer can be found on
<http://galileowaswrong.blogspot.com>
Click on Foucault pendulum, scroll down.
Jan
J. J. Lodder
So, (Pagano still being silent) the conclusion.
Standard science ascribes the observed rotation of the Foucault pendulum
to the rotation of the earth, and predicts that a Foucault pendulum
will rotate at a constant rate of 23h56' / sinus(geographical latidude),
or about 34 hours at an average latutide.
Geocentrism (and Tony Pagano) ascribes the motion of the pendulum
to the drag of the world aether fixed to the distant rotating universe,
which is thereforerotating around the fixed earth.
See, <http://galileowaswrong.blogspot.com> under Foucault pendulum.
At the poles and the equator this may give the right answer
(with some handwaving)
At an average latitude though (near 45 degrees for example)
geocentrism predicts something entirely different, namey:
A north-south swinging pendulum will be deflected,
an east-west swinging one, parallel to the the aether flow,
will not be deflected.
Experiment is clear:
Foucault pendulums are observed to rotate uniformly
at the rate predicted standard science,
independently of the direction they are started in.
(are you there, Paul)
So most empirical Tony, what will it be, flee again,
or admit to the falsification of geocentrism by experiment?
Jan
jillery
> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> > > J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > As near as I can tell this issue does NOT arrise for the current
> > > > > GeoCentric model. In the GeoCentric Model it is not the bodies which
> > > > > are moving but the Universal Ether----that is, the fabric of space is
> > > > > rotating. The celestial bodies are at rest relative to the universal
> > > > > ether. The Universe is three dimensional, rotating about the
> > > > > barycenter of the universe (that is, the Earth) and is non expanding.
> > > > > The celestial bodies are at rest relative to the universal ether.
>
> > > > Very good.
> > > > So you predict also that a Foucault pendulum
IIUC you're arguing against geocentrism by describing a phenomenon
that happens because the Earth rotates. So what made you decide such
an argument isn't such a stupid thing after all?
J. J. Lodder
> On May 21, 4:57 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> >
> > > > J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> >
> > > > > T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > As near as I can tell this issue does NOT arrise for the current
> > > > > > GeoCentric model. In the GeoCentric Model it is not the bodies
> > > > > > which are moving but the Universal Ether----that is, the fabric
> > > > > > of space is rotating. The celestial bodies are at rest relative
> > > > > > to the universal ether. The Universe is three dimensional,
> > > > > > rotating about the barycenter of the universe (that is, the
> > > > > > Earth) and is non expanding. The celestial bodies are at rest
> > > > > > relative to the universal ether.
> >
> > > > > Very good.
> > > > > So you predict also that a Foucault pendulum
> > > > > (at ą45^o north for example) swinging east-west,
> > which is therefore rotating around the fixed earth.
> > See, <http://galileowaswrong.blogspot.com> under Foucault pendulum.
> >
> > At the poles and the equator this may give the right answer
> > (with some handwaving)
> > At an average latitude though (near 45 degrees for example)
> > geocentrism predicts something entirely different, namey:
> > A north-south swinging pendulum will be deflected,
> > an east-west swinging one, parallel to the the aether flow,
> > will not be deflected.
> >
> > Experiment is clear:
> > Foucault pendulums are observed to rotate uniformly
> > at the rate predicted standard science,
> > independently of the direction they are started in.
> > (are you there, Paul)
> >
> > So most empirical Tony, what will it be, flee again,
> > or admit to the falsification of geocentrism by experiment?
> >
> > Jan
>
>
> IIUC you're arguing against geocentrism by describing a phenomenon
> that happens because the Earth rotates.
No, rotation happens anyway, in all accounts of the universe.
According to geocentrists the Foucault pendulum rotates
because the universe rotates around the earth.
(causing aether drag on it)
They don't deny that it is rotating.
> So what made you decide such
> an argument isn't such a stupid thing after all?
The predictions for what a Foucault pendulum should do,
according to geocentrists, differ markedly from what it should do
according to standard (rotating earth) science.
Observing what a Foucault pendulum really does falsifies geocentrism,
and confirms standard science.
Jan
jillery
> jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 21, 4:57 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > > J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> > > > J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> > > > > J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> > > > > > T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > As near as I can tell this issue does NOT arrise for the current
> > > > > > > GeoCentric model. In the GeoCentric Model it is not the bodies
> > > > > > > which are moving but the Universal Ether----that is, the fabric
> > > > > > > of space is rotating. The celestial bodies are at rest relative
> > > > > > > to the universal ether. The Universe is three dimensional,
> > > > > > > rotating about the barycenter of the universe (that is, the
> > > > > > > Earth) and is non expanding. The celestial bodies are at rest
> > > > > > > relative to the universal ether.
>
> > > > > > Very good.
> > > > > > So you predict also that a Foucault pendulum
IIUC Tony explicitly denies the Earth rotates. Also, I haven't read
any reasonable explanation of how aether drag causes a Focault
pendulum to behave as it does.
> > So what made you decide such
> > an argument isn't such a stupid thing after all?
>
> The predictions for what a Foucault pendulum should do,
> according to geocentrists, differ markedly from what it should do
> according to standard (rotating earth) science.
IIUC that point was made many times before. So why the apparent
change of heart?
> Observing what a Foucault pendulum really does falsifies geocentrism,
> and confirms standard science.
Welcome to the dark side of the Force :)
J. J. Lodder
> On May 21, 8:45 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 21, 4:57 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > > > J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> >
> > > > > J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > As near as I can tell this issue does NOT arrise for the current
> > > > > > > > GeoCentric model. In the GeoCentric Model it is not the bodies
> > > > > > > > which are moving but the Universal Ether----that is, the fabric
> > > > > > > > of space is rotating. The celestial bodies are at rest relative
> > > > > > > > to the universal ether. The Universe is three dimensional,
> > > > > > > > rotating about the barycenter of the universe (that is, the
> > > > > > > > Earth) and is non expanding. The celestial bodies are at rest
> > > > > > > > relative to the universal ether.
> >
> > > > > > > Very good.
> > > > > > > So you predict also that a Foucault pendulum
> > > > > > > (at ą45^o north for example) swinging east-west,
'Reasonable' and geocentrism don't go together.
Nevertheless, some bold geocentrists have ventured
handwaving arguments about what a Foucault pendulum should do.
They are falsified by experiment.
Moreover, it is very hard to see what other prediction
could be made on basis of aether dragging,
even with unreasonable handwaving.
So all geocentrism wit aether dragging stands falsified,
Jan
jillery
> jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 21, 8:45 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > > jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On May 21, 4:57 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > > > > J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> > > > > > J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > As near as I can tell this issue does NOT arrise for the current
> > > > > > > > > GeoCentric model. In the GeoCentric Model it is not the bodies
> > > > > > > > > which are moving but the Universal Ether----that is, the fabric
> > > > > > > > > of space is rotating. The celestial bodies are at rest relative
> > > > > > > > > to the universal ether. The Universe is three dimensional,
> > > > > > > > > rotating about the barycenter of the universe (that is, the
> > > > > > > > > Earth) and is non expanding. The celestial bodies are at rest
> > > > > > > > > relative to the universal ether.
>
> > > > > > > > Very good.
> > > > > > > > So you predict also that a Foucault pendulum
All of which was pointed out while you were on a bend about rotation.
Or it this just another case of who says what?
alextangent
I too am mystified by the "rotation" of JJ Lodder. Still, this is
Usenet, and anything can be expected. Except the rapture.
jillery
... or the Spanish Inquisition.
J. J. Lodder
> On May 22, 2:27 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 22, 4:40 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> >
> > > jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On May 21, 8:45 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > > > > jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On May 21, 4:57 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > > > > > > J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > As near as I can tell this issue does NOT arrise for
> > > > > > > > > > > the current GeoCentric model. In the GeoCentric Model
> > > > > > > > > > > it is not the bodies which are moving but the
> > > > > > > > > > > Universal Ether----that is, the fabric of space is
> > > > > > > > > > > rotating. The celestial bodies are at rest relative
> > > > > > > > > > > to the universal ether. The Universe is three
> > > > > > > > > > > dimensional, rotating about the barycenter of the
> > > > > > > > > > > universe (that is, the Earth) and is non expanding.
> > > > > > > > > > > The celestial bodies are at rest relative to the
> > > > > > > > > > > universal ether.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > Very good. So you predict also that a Foucault pendulum
> > > > > > > > > > (at ą45^o north for example) swinging east-west, that is
Checks. I'm mystified too,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> On May 22, 4:40 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 21, 8:45 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > > > jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On May 21, 4:57 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > > > > > J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > As near as I can tell this issue does NOT arrise for the
> > > > > > > > > > current GeoCentric model. In the GeoCentric Model it is
> > > > > > > > > > not the bodies which are moving but the Universal
> > > > > > > > > > Ether----that is, the fabric of space is rotating. The
> > > > > > > > > > celestial bodies are at rest relative to the universal
> > > > > > > > > > ether. The Universe is three dimensional, rotating
> > > > > > > > > > about the barycenter of the universe (that is, the
> > > > > > > > > > Earth) and is non expanding. The celestial bodies are at
> > > > > > > > > > rest relative to the universal ether.
> >
> > > > > > > > > Very good.
> > > > > > > > > So you predict also that a Foucault pendulum
> > > > > > > > > (at ą45^o north for example) swinging east-west,
What part of 'geocentrism with aether dragging' didn't you understand?
Jan