A recap of why Load-in-his-Pants's article is not POTM material; Dworetsky is desparate when he jumps on this band wagon

[T Pagano]

The T.O archive contains a handful of good POTM articles but the vast
majority are nonsensical along with Load-in-the-Pant's position shown
below.

********************************************
[Below is pasted a recap of JJ Load in his Pant's article:]
********************************************

Lodder) wrote:

>Since this topic recurs regularly I summarise the relevant points.

This was the same dim wit who claimed that a gyroscope aligned itself
with the north-south meridian BECAUSE the Earth rotated.
>
>1) Absolute rotation has no -observational- meaning.

This is nonsense. In 1904 Albert Michelson predicted that observers
on earth, if they are co-moving and co-rotating with a light source
and screen, will observe an interference pattern that is dependent on
the ABSOLUTE ROTATION OF THE SYSTEM. This is precisely what Georges
Sagnac demonstrated experimentally in 1913 with his rotating
interferometer.

The Sagnac Effect is a universal principle for all electromagnetic
counter-propagating beams. All the various beams and waves show the
same time differences, both for matter and light, independent of the
physical nature of the interference. These various testing elements
show that the Sagnac effect is not dependent on the nature of light,
per se, but solely on the principle of absolute rotation. Ring lasar
experiments have confirmed the Sagnac Effect to within one part in
10^20.


>
>2) The relative rotation of the earth w.r.t. the rest of the universe
>(or of the rest of the universe w.r.t. to the earth)
>can nowadys be measured with great precision)
>(see <www.iers.org> for more than you want to know)
>By GPS for the short term, by VLBI for long term stability.
>(and with other supplementary methods such as satellite laser ranging)

The fact that one can measure relative rotation has no bearing on
Load-in-the-Pant's claim that absolute rotation has no empirical
meaning. Michelson predicted and Sagnac showed by experiment (almost
100 years ago) that Load-in-his-Pants is wrong. Dworetsky hasn't
successfully rebutted this either.

And Load-in-his-Pants has a reputation for throwing around links which
almost never justify his position. This link is no different.

>
>3) The rotation rate of earth (or universe) is quite variable,
>when measured with modern accuracy. (of about a cm on the surface)
>See for example
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deviation_of_day_length_from_SI_day_.svg>
>for the long term development in the length of the day.
>Immediately obvious in the graph are the seasonal variation,
>(caused by changes in atmospheric circulation)
>and the secular slowdown.
>(caused by tidal friction, with a corresponding moving away of the moon)

JJ Load in his Pants misrepresents the facts.

The referenced link makes no claim whatsoever that any mass
distribution changes on the face of the earth have been conclusively
proved to cause angular momentum changes in a supposedly rotating
Earth.



>
>4) Note that the 'fuzz' in the graph isn't noise.
>Most of it has known causes, and can be predicted in great detail.
>Again, see www.iers.org for more than you want to know.

Load-in-his-Pants misrepresents the facts again.

The referenced web page also does NOT display any data correlating
mass distribution changes on the earth or the moon's recession to
these changes via any empirical means.

Furthermore all of the recent posts by other atheists along these
lines correlate mass distribution changes on the earth and angular
momentum changes with computer models only. Never with any actual
observations.

>
>5) If one insists on geostationarity, the universe must be rotating,
>and the possibility of a causal explananation
>of the observed variability in the rotation rate is lost.

When measured with reference to the stars (sidereal time) there is
little, if any, variability. This alone should put to rest the
notion that the variability with respect to other bodies is a function
"solely" upon changes in the Earth's angular momentum.




>
>6) And worse, most of the universe is more than one light year out.
>So all those stars, galaxies, and all the rest out there
>must anticipate, at a delay proportional to their distance,
>in order for them all to simultaneously match the observed variations
>in rotation rate, as seen from earth.
>A quasar, billions light years out,
>must adapt it's rate of rotation to match the seasons
>on a particular planet that wasn't even formed when it shone.

When measured with reference to the stars (sidereal time) there is
little, if any, variability. This alone should put to rest the
notion that the variability with respect to other bodies is a function
"solely" upon changes in the Earth's angular momentum.
>
>6bis) And worse than that, not only the rate is variable.
>The pole position also varies in largely predictable ways.
>The whole universe has to dance around in a synchronised way
>(with proper retardation) to match the wanderings of the earth's pole.


>
>7) So it is obvious that the only possible way
>to save the phenomena in geocentrism/geostationarity
>is by adopting omphalism to an extreme degree.
>God, or the designer, must orchestrate all the motions out there
>in just such a way (and with proper time delay)
>that they appear (falsely of course) to give the impression
>of a rotating earth (at a variable rate and pole direction)

Nonsense. The universe is a rotating system. Generally it is not the
stars, galaxies that are rotating but the ether/fabric of space
rotating. The stars and other bodies are generally being carried with
the ether and are not moving relative to the ether. Therefore any
wobbling of this rotating system is evident in the bodies being
carried by it.

Furthermore the stars all appear to be positioned in shells with the
Sun at the center. In the Big Bang model there is no center
whatsoever and this observation contradicts it.

>
>8) It should be obvious to any sane person that such a view
>(while logically unassailable) is completely crazy.

This is not a scientific claim but an emotional one.

>
>9) Moreover, like all other forms of omphalism
>this is unfalsifiable by definition,
>and therefore by definition unscientific.

Talk about omphalism: The Big Bang Model requires that the Universe
be made up of 95 percent of cold dark matte which no one can find or
describe.


>
>The absurdities inherent in geostationarity, outlined above,
>make it a belief system that's even crazier than flat-earthism.

Yet Load-in-his-Pants is wrong about everything:

1. Michelson predicted and Sagnac proved via experiment that absolute
rotation is an observational reality.

2. The fact that there is almost no variability in angular momentum
with respect to the stars (sidereal time) proves that the variability
in angular momentum referenced by Load-in-his-Pants can't be the sole
result of changes in mass distribution on the Earth (like tidal
braking).

3. All of the apparent anomolies that Load-in-his-Pants mentions can
be easily explained by GeoCentricism.

However here is just a partial list of serious problems that go
unexplained by Big Bang worshipers:
a. the unobservability of cold dark matter,
b. the interferometer evidence,
c. Airy's stellar aberration observations,
d. the inconstancy of c,
e. all the stars and galaxies observed to be in shells with
Earth at the center,
f. the isotropy of the CMBR
g. how did the cosmic singularity come to exist
h. if the cosmic singularity did exist what caused it to expand


>Even 'Answers in Genesis' rejects it vehemently,
>as adopting it would make believers
>appear to be extremely stupid to all normal people.

The argument from consensus is a sociological and psychological
argument and not a scientific one. That is, it is worthless if we are
trying to employ logic and science to solve the issue.


>
>There are limits to how crazy you can be
>if you want to be taken seriously,

Ahh, yes. The ol' standby argument of the intellectually bankrupt.

Regards,
T Pagano


Dworetsky is desparate when he jumps on this band wagon.

[Mike Dworetsky]

T Pagano wrote:

Another truly desperate new thread from you-kno-who.

Pagano-in-his-dick got all excited and produced weird stuff again:

(He isn't the only one that can do crude insults while pretending it's an
intellectual exchange.)

Indeed; the Sagnac effect is a good demonstration of the fact that the Earth
is rotating.

>
>
>>
>> 2) The relative rotation of the earth w.r.t. the rest of the universe
>> (or of the rest of the universe w.r.t. to the earth)
>> can nowadys be measured with great precision)
>> (see <www.iers.org> for more than you want to know)
>> By GPS for the short term, by VLBI for long term stability.
>> (and with other supplementary methods such as satellite laser
>> ranging)
>
> The fact that one can measure relative rotation has no bearing on
> Load-in-the-Pant's claim that absolute rotation has no empirical
> meaning. Michelson predicted and Sagnac showed by experiment (almost
> 100 years ago) that Load-in-his-Pants is wrong. Dworetsky hasn't
> successfully rebutted this either.

Um, it was Sagnac himself who interpreted his observations as proof of
Earth's rotation. Who are you to tell us you believe his results but he is
wrong about interpretation? What are your qualifications for rendering this
opinion?

>
> And Load-in-his-Pants has a reputation for throwing around links which
> almost never justify his position. This link is no different.
>
>>
>> 3) The rotation rate of earth (or universe) is quite variable,
>> when measured with modern accuracy. (of about a cm on the surface)
>> See for example
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deviation_of_day_length_from_SI_day_.svg>
>> for the long term development in the length of the day.
>> Immediately obvious in the graph are the seasonal variation,
>> (caused by changes in atmospheric circulation)
>> and the secular slowdown.
>> (caused by tidal friction, with a corresponding moving away of the
>> moon)
>
> JJ Load in his Pants misrepresents the facts.

No, this is undoubtedly true--the Earth's rotation rate does fluctuate and
the pole of rotation does wander.

>
> The referenced link makes no claim whatsoever that any mass
> distribution changes on the face of the earth have been conclusively
> proved to cause angular momentum changes in a supposedly rotating
> Earth.
>
>
>
>>
>> 4) Note that the 'fuzz' in the graph isn't noise.
>> Most of it has known causes, and can be predicted in great detail.
>> Again, see www.iers.org for more than you want to know.
>
> Load-in-his-Pants misrepresents the facts again.
>
> The referenced web page also does NOT display any data correlating
> mass distribution changes on the earth or the moon's recession to
> these changes via any empirical means.
>
> Furthermore all of the recent posts by other atheists along these
> lines correlate mass distribution changes on the earth and angular
> momentum changes with computer models only. Never with any actual
> observations.
>
>>
>> 5) If one insists on geostationarity, the universe must be rotating,
>> and the possibility of a causal explananation
>> of the observed variability in the rotation rate is lost.
>
> When measured with reference to the stars (sidereal time) there is
> little, if any, variability. This alone should put to rest the

Absolutely false. Where does Pagano-in-his-dick get such crazy notions?
The polar wandering and variations in the Earth's rotation are both measured
with respect to the stars, using special instruments.

> notion that the variability with respect to other bodies is a function
> "solely" upon changes in the Earth's angular momentum.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> 6) And worse, most of the universe is more than one light year out.
>> So all those stars, galaxies, and all the rest out there
>> must anticipate, at a delay proportional to their distance,
>> in order for them all to simultaneously match the observed variations
>> in rotation rate, as seen from earth.
>> A quasar, billions light years out,
>> must adapt it's rate of rotation to match the seasons
>> on a particular planet that wasn't even formed when it shone.
>
> When measured with reference to the stars (sidereal time) there is
> little, if any, variability. This alone should put to rest the
> notion that the variability with respect to other bodies is a function
> "solely" upon changes in the Earth's angular momentum.

Again, a false premise contradicts actual observations.

>>
>> 6bis) And worse than that, not only the rate is variable.
>> The pole position also varies in largely predictable ways.
>> The whole universe has to dance around in a synchronised way
>> (with proper retardation) to match the wanderings of the earth's
>> pole.
>
>
>>
>> 7) So it is obvious that the only possible way
>> to save the phenomena in geocentrism/geostationarity
>> is by adopting omphalism to an extreme degree.
>> God, or the designer, must orchestrate all the motions out there
>> in just such a way (and with proper time delay)
>> that they appear (falsely of course) to give the impression
>> of a rotating earth (at a variable rate and pole direction)
>
> Nonsense. The universe is a rotating system. Generally it is not the
> stars, galaxies that are rotating but the ether/fabric of space
> rotating. The stars and other bodies are generally being carried with

So far, the most sensitive observations yet made have placed an upper limit
on the rate of rotation of the universe of less than one revolution per age
of the universe. Which is not one day, last time I checked.

> the ether and are not moving relative to the ether. Therefore any
> wobbling of this rotating system is evident in the bodies being
> carried by it.
>
> Furthermore the stars all appear to be positioned in shells with the
> Sun at the center. In the Big Bang model there is no center
> whatsoever and this observation contradicts it.

Not according to modern observations. What are these "shells"?

>
>>
>> 8) It should be obvious to any sane person that such a view
>> (while logically unassailable) is completely crazy.
>
> This is not a scientific claim but an emotional one.

Actually, it is an accurate psychological diagnosis, based on the evidence
to hand.

>
>>
>> 9) Moreover, like all other forms of omphalism
>> this is unfalsifiable by definition,
>> and therefore by definition unscientific.
>
> Talk about omphalism: The Big Bang Model requires that the Universe
> be made up of 95 percent of cold dark matte which no one can find or
> describe.

It has been found, of course. But we do not yet know what sort of particles
make it up. We observe its gravitational effects.

>
>
>>
>> The absurdities inherent in geostationarity, outlined above,
>> make it a belief system that's even crazier than flat-earthism.
>
> Yet Load-in-his-Pants is wrong about everything:
>
> 1. Michelson predicted and Sagnac proved via experiment that absolute
> rotation is an observational reality.
>
> 2. The fact that there is almost no variability in angular momentum
> with respect to the stars (sidereal time) proves that the variability
> in angular momentum referenced by Load-in-his-Pants can't be the sole
> result of changes in mass distribution on the Earth (like tidal
> braking).
>
> 3. All of the apparent anomolies that Load-in-his-Pants mentions can
> be easily explained by GeoCentricism.
>
> However here is just a partial list of serious problems that go
> unexplained by Big Bang worshipers:
> a. the unobservability of cold dark matter,
> b. the interferometer evidence,
> c. Airy's stellar aberration observations,
> d. the inconstancy of c,
> e. all the stars and galaxies observed to be in shells with
> Earth at the center,
> f. the isotropy of the CMBR
> g. how did the cosmic singularity come to exist
> h. if the cosmic singularity did exist what caused it to expand

I see. I've dealt with many of these too many times to count, but Pagano
always ignores these comments and comes out with the same old stuff again.

His logic: We don't know everything yet, therefore geocentrism is true. Is
that a logical deduction?

>
>
>> Even 'Answers in Genesis' rejects it vehemently,
>> as adopting it would make believers
>> appear to be extremely stupid to all normal people.
>
> The argument from consensus is a sociological and psychological
> argument and not a scientific one. That is, it is worthless if we are
> trying to employ logic and science to solve the issue.

Actually it is scientific if those reaching the consensus do so based on
scientific evidence.

>>
>> There are limits to how crazy you can be
>> if you want to be taken seriously,
>
> Ahh, yes. The ol' standby argument of the intellectually bankrupt.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
>
>
> Dworetsky is desparate when he jumps on this band wagon.

Aw, poor little me.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

[Rolf]

How can you be so cruel?

Wikipedia:
"In 1926 a very ambitious ring interferometry experiment was set up by
Albert Michelson and Henry Gale. The aim was to find out whether the
rotation of the Earth has an effect on the propagation of light in the
vicinity of the Earth. The Michelson-Gale experiment was a very large ring
interferometer, (a perimeter of 1.9 kilometer), large enough to detect the
angular velocity of the Earth. The outcome of the experiment was that the
angular velocity of the Earth as measured by astronomy was confirmed to
within measuring accuracy. The ring interferometer of the Michelson-Gale
experiment was not calibrated by comparison with an outside reference (which
was not possible, because the setup was fixed to the Earth). From its design
it could be deduced where the central interference fringe ought to be if
there would be zero shift. The measured shift was 230 parts in 1000, with an
accuracy of 5 parts in 1000. The predicted shift was 237 parts in 1000.[11]"

Those stupid scientists with their predictions. I have to put my faith in
the geostationary earth on hold until Tony set things straight again.

[Greg Guarino]

On 11/6/2011 1:28 PM, T Pagano wrote:
>> 3) The rotation rate of earth (or universe) is quite variable,
>> >when measured with modern accuracy. (of about a cm on the surface)
>> >See for example
>> ><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deviation_of_day_length_from_SI_day_.svg>
>> >for the long term development in the length of the day.
>> >Immediately obvious in the graph are the seasonal variation,
>> >(caused by changes in atmospheric circulation)
>> >and the secular slowdown.
>> >(caused by tidal friction, with a corresponding moving away of the moon)
> JJ Load in his Pants misrepresents the facts.
>
> The referenced link makes no claim whatsoever that any mass
> distribution changes on the face of the earth have been conclusively
> proved to cause angular momentum changes in a supposedly rotating
> Earth.

"Conclusively proved" are weasel words, as nothing outside of a closed
system like mathematics can ever be "conclusively proved". But the site
does in fact explain in much detail the factors that are thought to
cause some of the modes of variation. Care to tell us specifically what
you think is wrong with the various analyses?

>> >
>> >4) Note that the 'fuzz' in the graph isn't noise.
>> >Most of it has known causes, and can be predicted in great detail.

>> >Again, seewww.iers.org for more than you want to know.

> Load-in-his-Pants misrepresents the facts again.
>
> The referenced web page also does NOT display any data correlating
> mass distribution changes on the earth or the moon's recession to
> these changes via any empirical means.
>
> Furthermore all of the recent posts by other atheists along these
> lines correlate mass distribution changes on the earth and angular
> momentum changes with computer models only. Never with any actual
> observations.

The IERS entire raison d'etre seems to be doing such empirical
measurements. Measurements are what is reported in the chart. The
methodology is discussed in detail. Do you think they are simply lying
about it?

>> >
>> >5) If one insists on geostationarity, the universe must be rotating,
>> >and the possibility of a causal explananation
>> >of the observed variability in the rotation rate is lost.
> When measured with reference to the stars (sidereal time) there is
> little, if any, variability.

The IERS measurements say otherwise.

This alone should put to rest the
> notion that the variability with respect to other bodies is a function
> "solely" upon changes in the Earth's angular momentum.


>> >6) And worse, most of the universe is more than one light year out.
>> >So all those stars, galaxies, and all the rest out there
>> >must anticipate, at a delay proportional to their distance,
>> >in order for them all to simultaneously match the observed variations
>> >in rotation rate, as seen from earth.
>> >A quasar, billions light years out,
>> >must adapt it's rate of rotation to match the seasons
>> >on a particular planet that wasn't even formed when it shone.
> When measured with reference to the stars (sidereal time) there is
> little, if any, variability. This alone should put to rest the
> notion that the variability with respect to other bodies is a function
> "solely" upon changes in the Earth's angular momentum.

"With reference to (distant) stars" is exactly how they measure, if
memory serves, and they report variation on all time scales.

>> >6bis) And worse than that, not only the rate is variable.
>> >The pole position also varies in largely predictable ways.
>> >The whole universe has to dance around in a synchronised way
>> >(with proper retardation) to match the wanderings of the earth's pole.
>
>> >
>> >7) So it is obvious that the only possible way
>> >to save the phenomena in geocentrism/geostationarity
>> >is by adopting omphalism to an extreme degree.
>> >God, or the designer, must orchestrate all the motions out there
>> >in just such a way (and with proper time delay)
>> >that they appear (falsely of course) to give the impression
>> >of a rotating earth (at a variable rate and pole direction)

> Nonsense. The universe is a rotating system.Generally it is not the

> stars, galaxies that are rotating but the ether/fabric of space
> rotating. The stars and other bodies are generally being carried with
> the ether and are not moving relative to the ether. Therefore any
> wobbling of this rotating system is evident in the bodies being
> carried by it.

I know you don't understand why, but even if this were the case, it
would not result in the observed motions we see. Even if you don't
believe the speed of light is fixed, you surely agree that it is not
instantaneous. Thus the light of distant objects arrives with a delay,
quite a long one. Yet all of the variations in length of day that we
observe seem to happen in sync from our perspective. Were it the
universe that was wobbling and changing speed while it was rotating, the
wobbles and speed changes would appear OUT OF SYNC, with each variation
appearing to happen first in the nearer objects, followed by those a
little further away, and so on.

>
> Furthermore the stars all appear to be positioned in shells with the
> Sun at the center.

This is simply untrue. What "shells" are the stars of the Milky Way in?
As we are pretty far out on one of its "arms", there's a heck of a lot
more Milky Way Thisaway then there is Thataway. Not very shell-like.