Forum Index
BesslerWheel.com
Discussion Board

Log inLog in RegisterRegister SearchSearch BlogsBlogs Blog NewsBlog News PollsPolls FAQFAQ FAQWiki
Forum Index
The Earth Doesn't Rotate or Move - No...seriously. It doesn't.

 
Page 8 of 9 Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Off-Topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ovyyus
Addict
Addict

Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 5541
Total Words: 277,335
Location: Australia

Reputation: Respected
Respected  
PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 8:32 pm    Post subject: re: The Earth Doesn't Rotate or Move - No...seriously. It do Reply with quote Report Post to Admin

Silvertiger wrote:
Door Number One, or Door Number Two?


Trusty old either/or argument again :D



_________________
Once upon a time,
In a galaxy far, far away,
Everyone believed in nothing,
Happily ever after.

www.orffyre.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send email Visit poster's website
Silvertiger
Aficionado
Aficionado

Joined: 06 Oct 2011
Posts: 600
Total Words: 53,961
Location: Evansville, IN

Reputation: Appreciated
Appreciated  
PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 9:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Report Post to Admin

Hey, I didn't title the article lol. I would say though that it's more like the process of elimination, whereby you eliminate all but two answers. Did you read it?


Back to top
View user's profile
Silvertiger






PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 9:44 pm    Post subject: re: The Earth Doesn't Rotate or Move - No...seriously. It do Reply with quote Report Post to Admin

This is a great source of information, imho...I bought the documentary a year ago but never found the articles database until this week lol. The link was hiding somewhere deep in gmail all along. :)

Quote:
Here we go again. Our last few updates have reported the ensemble of earth-oriented alignments, beginning with the CMB “Axis of Evil” first brought to the attention of the filmgoing public in “The Principle” in 2014.

Since then, the alignments have….multiplied, shall we say. Quasar polarization. Galaxy spin direction. Velocity flow. Fine structure constant. All observed and reported to lie preferentially along the same special direction of the sky, all related to the ecliptic and equinox planes of earth. This time around, we report on a study accepted for publication in Astronomy and Astrophysics and posted on the Cornell University pre-print site on September 21, 2016.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.06719.pdf

The authors conducted a test of the expected isotropy in distribution of galaxy types- e.g. spiral, bar, lenticular, etc. Standard Big Bang Copernican cosmology predicts these types to be distributed pretty much the same in every direction of the sky we might look, once we start looking at scales larger than 100 megaparsecs or so. But then again, no one had ever bothered to do such a study.

Until all these strange alignments started popping up, that is. The occurrence of the word “astonishing” in the abstract of a peer reviewed paper reporting earth-aligned cosmological phenomena is much rarer than is my tendency to employ the word when describing the discoveries.

But this time around, the authors use the term themselves, and I can certainly see why:
Quote:
For three samples of galaxies within around 100, 150, and 200 Mpc, we find a significant hemispherical asymmetry with a vanishingly small chance of occurring in an isotropic distribution. Astonishingly, regardless of this extreme significance, the observed hemispherical asymmetry for the three distance ranges is aligned with the Celestial Equator at the 97.1% − 99.8% and with the Ecliptic at the 94.6% − 97.6% confidence levels, estimated using a Monte Carlo analysis.


The Celestial equator, of course, is just the equator of earth extended out. In other words, the equator and ecliptic of earth are now seen to divide the universe into two highly asymmetrical distributions of galaxy types. Another of those….well, astonishing findings that Lawrence Krauss describes in “The Principle” as suggesting that the whole universe is “arranged around us”.

As is the case in the update we gave you in “The Pop Sci Press Is Starting To Pick Sides Over The Copernican Principle”, it has come down to two choices. Either the Copernican Principle, and therefore Big Bang standard cosmology itself, is wrong, or else some unknown systematic error has contaminated essentially all the observations of the last several decades at least!

But let the authors of the study summarize it for us:
Quote:
In this work, and for the first time, we search for possible deviations from isotropy in the all-sky distribution of the morphological types of galaxies within around 200 Mpc using the HyperLeda database. Based on the Cosmological Principle (generally understood to be confirmed by most of the observa- tions so far), on sufficiently large scales the properties of the Universe, including the distribution of galaxy types, should be statistically isotropic. Therefore, deviations from isotropy can be a hint of systematic issues in the morphological classification of galaxies or in the homogenization of catalogs.


Well, yes. Deviations from isotropy might be a hint of that.

But what about Door Number Two?
Quote:
On the other hand, it is vital to re-inspect the assumption of isotropy with various observations (Maartens 2011) and this is one of the motivations of our study. If a significant deviation from cosmic isotropy is detected and confirmed by various data sets, cosmology will face a major paradigm change.


Back to top
View user's profile
TGM
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 171
Total Words: 9,455
Location: Florida, USA

Reputation: Acknowledged
Acknowledged  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Report Post to Admin

While I am not participating, I gotta know what happened? Where did all the rhetoric go since March?


Back to top
View user's profile
Robinhood46
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Joined: 31 Oct 2017
Posts: 34
Total Words: 3,852
Location: Lot, France

Reputation: Acknowledged
Acknowledged  
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 10:25 pm    Post subject: re: The Earth Doesn't Rotate or Move - No...seriously. It do Reply with quote Report Post to Admin

They all jumped on that flying steam train and shot forwards in time to november 2017.


Back to top
View user's profile
Silvertiger






PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 11:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Report Post to Admin

@TGM: I stopped talking about it because no one will even consider the possibility that Ernst Mach was right...twice. No one will consider the possibility of what they believe to be impossible...and yet it is right in front of us. That's what makes this thread ironic, considering the main topic of the forum itself lol.

Recap:
If you remove dark matter and dark energy from the cosmological (Copoernican) model (which is required to make balloon model fit), and instead have the starfield rotating about its CoG in 24 hours, an empty parking space occupied by the earth, all of the required math and gravitational data fit perfectly...perfectly. It explains the Coriolis force. It explains universal expansion. It explains red shift. It explains spiral-armed galaxies. It explains the observations of the concentric ring shells that contain matter and galaxies and virtually nothing in between, as well as the fact that according to the data, earth is at the center of these concentricities, verified by the data that says "X" marks the spot - two axes in the CMB; one that aligns with our ecliptic plane; one that aligns with the equatorial plane - an "X" that we could not possibly observe once in a thousand lifetimes, much less 24 hours a day, if the earth were moving. This parking spot can be observed 24/7/365 because we don't even rotate. But...people don't seem to take this as legitimate...that Einstein's elusive "frame of reference," a point at true rest against which all motions can be measured, was discovered within our own CMB back yard by two college kids in 2006. Ask yourself, WHY are the orbits of satellites and space shuttles circular? Why can we take off from opposite sides of the earth into space and meet halfway in exactly the same amount of trip time?

@Robinhood46: Huh?


Back to top
View user's profile
Fletcher
Addict
Addict

Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 5218
Total Words: 873,084
Location: NZ

Reputation: Respected
Respected  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 12:25 am    Post subject: re: The Earth Doesn't Rotate or Move - No...seriously. It do Reply with quote Report Post to Admin

A small thing I know - but - if the earth doesn't rotate that means all our weather forecasting and computer model extrapolations of wx are wrong. I mean obviously they give a pretty accurate prediction but the underlying math and assumptions must be wrong.

Something else must explain Cyclones moving away from the equator towards the poles, and why their spin directions are opposite in opposite hemispheres. And why wx moves from west to east.

And then we have the flight times between cities at the same latitudes. Quicker one way and slower the other, and that's not invoking the jet streams.


Back to top
View user's profile Skype Name
Silvertiger






PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 12:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Report Post to Admin

Those effects are also experienced in Mach's model. A starfield that rotates about a CoG, an empty spot in space where the earth sits, in a cycle of 24 hours will produce every single one of those affects and the math will support it. The math works both ways. However, the Copoernican Cosmological Model utilizes ad-hoc theories such as the big bang, the current universal expansion balloon model, dark matter, and dark energy. They are unobserved, unmeasured and unproven. You cannot measure something if you don't know what you're not seeing. Mach's uses none of these. We have a frame of reference in our own back yard the CMB that many choose to ignore. A parking spot, X marks the spot...something we could not see 24/7 if we were moving or even rotating. Mach's Principle actually has evidence and observation and quantifiable data, while the Copoernican has none.


Back to top
View user's profile
Fletcher






PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 2:50 am    Post subject: re: The Earth Doesn't Rotate or Move - No...seriously. It do Reply with quote Report Post to Admin

So .. if the earth isn't spinning on its axis, and this is not the cause of the atmosphere being dragged along with it etc etc, then we have to assume that aether exists. And it is that which drags the atmosphere along with it as it blows past the stationary earth. But there is absolutely no evidence for aether theory. This was confirmed in the early 1900's by Michelson and Morleys' experiments.

Now I need to state the obvious (to me).

It takes about 9 minutes for light from the sun to reach the earth. The sun being our nearest star (the next closest is purportedly 4 light years away). Radio signals from intersolar satellites sometimes take even longer to reach earth depending on where the planetary body is that they are orbiting or landed on. And we know that that time delay in receiving and sending signals varies dependent on where that planet is in its elliptical path around the sun compared to earths position i.e. takes longer if on opposite sides of the solar elliptical plane that when at their closest point for example.

How does one explain this changing of time taken depending on relative positions ? That is assuming that Einstein was right (Special Relativity) and nothing can exceed the speed of light, right ?

So we currently presume that the cosmos is roughly spherical in shape, and expanding (the balloon). That means that it has depth and breadth etc, because its a volume.

So if everything in the cosmos is rotating around stationary earth in 24 hours Houston has a problem.

Because space has volume it means that all observable objects are at different radii from the earth. And remember the suns rays take about 9 minutes to reach earth (empirical data notwithstanding). So using some triangulation we can estimate how fast things are actually moving (angular velocity wise) because we know the diameter and circumference of the earth etc etc. So x minutes of arc covered translates to a certain velocity of a heavenly body. It doesn't take long to realize that more distant objects to hold their position relative to other celestial bodies must be traveling at fantastical speeds, well in excess of light speed. And we roughly know how far some of them are away by their consistent brightness indicators (supernovae).

How is it that these far away objects can achieve their increasing angular velocities proportional to distance from stationary earth that far exceeds the upper limit light speed of Einsteins' equations ?

And you don't necessarily need dark energy and dark matter to explain an expanding universe. Not that I'm any expert in any of this. But if Einsteins SpaceTime is real and objects travel in straight lines (have momentums) but appear to follow elliptical orbits because of a bending of SpaceTime etc etc. I'll use the analogy of a heavy ball on a trampoline and a marble. Then if valleys are created in SpaceTime that causes curved paths for objects traveling close to massive objects then for every valley there is probably a dividing hill. And what happens to objects on the side of hills ? (rhetorical question) They invariably roll down and away from the ridge line. So a layman like me might think the universe is expanding and accelerating (without invoking dark energy and dark matter) because the sides of hills are pushing things on opposite sides of the ranges farther apart.

Hey, but who am I to argue with Einstein, Mach or any other physicist.


Back to top
View user's profile Skype Name
Silvertiger






PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 3:47 am    Post subject: re: The Earth Doesn't Rotate or Move - No...seriously. It do Reply with quote Report Post to Admin

Am I the only spokesman in the world for this and the only one who has access to this public data? (Rhetorical)

I'll probably keep repeating the same things ad infinitum anyway. ;P

The aether has nothing to do with the drag on the atmosphere. Although, even though I am rusty, I think the existence of the aether was confirmed, and just too lazy right now to go back and find the sources on that. If you want me to, I will.

The balloon model for the cosmos has no volume. It is a concept to illustrate homogeneity on the hypothetical balloon surface, which represents space. Much like using the surface of a trampoline to describe gravity.

I'm definitely not an astrophysicist, so the above-lightspeed question about all the rotating bodies is a good one! But if I were to venture a guess based on available data and observations from spaceflights and satellites, I would say that space, relative to all those bodies in motion, should be moving right along with them. In physics, warped space is an everyday thing. Satellites use Einstein's algorithms to keep accurate time, etc. I like looking at electronics analogies: just as a changing electric field produces a changing magnetic field, the reverse is also true. From what we have seen, space and matter are no different. They are analogous in every respect, for a moving body will produce a changing warp vector (mag+dir), and a changing warp vector will move a body (Soren blowing up Veridian III is a great visual for that). All that matter, at the end of the day, is still a moving system that acts on space, producing a constantly changing warp vector to get a net warp vector value of ZERO. So I am just guessing that the interaction allows them to move at sublight speeds but still travel faster than light when compared to a normal warp state (relativity), which would lie at the center of it all, which is here lol.

And you definitely need dark energy to explain the current model of the expanding universe...it's what dark energy was invented for. Ad-hoc. They came up with it to avoid having their theory falsified.

The marbles would just roll to the next biggest thing in space creating another valley. No "hills" per se, just a cresting point between one body and another. There's always a bigger fish for your marbles to roll to.

Also, Michelson and Morley set out to discover the Aether, but ended up proving the earth doesn't move. I'm fairly certain of the aether confirmtion, but I would have to doublecheck, for if the aether is there, the earth leaves no wake in it. (I think I may have been looking into fluid dynamics as a model for interspacial kinetic interactions of gravitational forces.) Anyways, this experiment is where the FIRST ad-hoc theory came along, put forward by these guys Lorentz and Fitzgerald called Contraction of Length. They told them their apparatus shrunk. Convenient, don't you think, that it shrunk miracualously to such a precise and convenient length that their apparatus read no change whatsoever?


Back to top
View user's profile
Fletcher






PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:36 am    Post subject: re: The Earth Doesn't Rotate or Move - No...seriously. It do Reply with quote Report Post to Admin

Nah .. aether has never been proven to exist empirically, AFAIK. You will have to find your proof ;)

Of course space has volume - and all galaxies in the cosmos are moving apart (expanding) at an equal rate, from all points in space. The time arrow moves in one direction and its getting longer - 13.7 billion years by all accounts. It says the universe is 13.7 billion years wide and growing.

Yeah, the surpassing of light speed at the outer reaches of the universe (13.7 billion lyrs / 2 for earth center) distance and circulating in 24 hours is a doozy all right. Kinda hard to gloss over with contracting space et al.

That's why I leave stuff like this to the theoretical physicists, until things are proven empirically, one way or another.

Adios amigo.


Back to top
View user's profile Skype Name
Silvertiger






PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 6:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Report Post to Admin

Space does have volume. They could have picked a better visual aid than a 3d object to imagined as a 2d representation of something in 3d lol. The balloon model is a 2d representation of homogeneity, which is why I said it doesn't have volume. It is just a visual aid. You're just supposed to look at the expanding surface like a 2d plane and imagine the expansion in 3d space as that 2d plane gets expanded, like airing up a balloon.


Back to top
View user's profile
Fletcher






PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 7:35 am    Post subject: re: The Earth Doesn't Rotate or Move - No...seriously. It do Reply with quote Report Post to Admin

Yeah, I realize that. That's what the expanding balloon model represents. You're at some local point (2D flat surface view) and everything is moving away from you in the x and y directions. It is also moving away from you in the z plane as well (hence expansion/inflation).

So that makes Mach's theory even more difficult for me to imagine as true. Nonsensical in fact. Earth is at some local point on the balloon surface which is the CoR pivot for the entire cosmological sphere. The whole sphere is expanding (increasing in volume in all directions) and also rotates around the earth pivot in 24 hours.

If angular momentum and angular velocities are conserved then I would expect after many millennia of expansion for it to take considerably longer than 24 hours for the same cosmological mass to rotate around the earth CoR ? Else the angular velocities are increasing as the average density of the universe decreases with expansion.

Yeah, I know the earth day is increasing slightly but that's due to tidal lock with the moon.

In some ways Mach's theory might work at some level, but to me its a bit like Newtonian Mechanics of the macro and Quantum Mechanics of the tiny scale. Both work depending on context. Clearly there is a threshold or cross over point between the tiny and the large where one or t'other must dominate until breaking thru that scale barrier. So that tells me that neither is completely accurate for all contexts (large and small). And this is how Mach's theory as you've presented the argument strikes me.


Back to top
View user's profile Skype Name
Silvertiger






PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 11:29 am    Post subject: re: The Earth Doesn't Rotate or Move - No...seriously. It do Reply with quote Report Post to Admin

I'll try a different tact on the rotating starfield. What is objectively true is that there exists a relative rotation.

What modern physics says is that the choice of a fixed frame is entirely a matter of convenience.

What victims of a modern education say is that only an earth rotating frame is possible.

What geocentrists say is that which our own eyes report- that is, by the way, precisely that "the countless stars in the night sky revolve around earth"- however, this just happens to BE what the experimental and observational evidence affirms.

Fact: General Relativity solves (must solve) for a stationary earth around which the stars rotate nightly. This is what it was structured to do.

Since every experiment shows earth to be at rest, we must either accept earth to be at rest, or we must accept General Relativity.

There is no theory of nature ever devised which has proposed a universal limit of the speed of light on objects except Special Relativity. That limit obviously does not apply in General Relativity; that is, in the presence of non-negligible gravitational fields. In the presence of gravitational fields, the speed of light can assume any numerical value whatsoever.

Quote:
In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity,the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity.
- Albert Einstein, Relativity: The Special and the General Theory, authorized translation by Robert W. Lawson, 1961, p. 85).


Quote:
Relative to the stationary roundabout [the Earth], the distant stars would have a velocity rω [radius x angular velocity] and for sufficiently large values of r, the stars would be moving relative to O’ [the observer] with linear velocities exceeding 3 × 108 m/sec, the terrestrial value of the velocity of light. At first sight this appears to be a contradiction…that the velocities of all material bodies must be less than c [the speed of light]. However, the restriction u < c = 3 × 108 m/sec is restricted to the theory of Special Relativity. According to the General theory, it is possible to choose local reference frames in which, over a limited volume of space, there is no gravitational field, and relative to such a reference frame the velocity of light is equal to c. However, this is not true when gravitational fields are present. In addition to the lengths of rods and the rates of clocks the velocity of light is affected by a gravitational field. If gravitational fields are present the velocities of either material bodies or of light can assume any numerical value depending on the strength of the gravitational field. If one considers the rotating roundabout as being at rest, the centrifugal gravitational field assumes enormous values at large distances, and it is consistent with the theory of General Relativity for the velocities of distant bodies to exceed 3 × 108 m/sec under these conditions.
- An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity, William G. V. Rosser, 1964, p. 460




Also, spherical distribution of galaxies does not appear to be the case:
Quote:
For three samples of galaxies within around 100, 150, and 200 Mpc, we find a significant hemispherical asymmetry with a vanishingly small chance of occurring in an isotropic distribution. Astonishingly, regardless of this extreme significance, the observed hemispherical asymmetry for the three distance ranges is aligned with the Celestial Equator at the 97.1% − 99.8% and with the Ecliptic at the 94.6% − 97.6% confidence levels, estimated using a Monte Carlo analysis.

The occurrence of the word “astonishing” in this abstract of a peer reviewed paper reporting earth-aligned cosmological phenomena is a rare occurence that the authors chose to use.


Also:
Quote:
As a young man I was interested, as a physicist, in the question what is the nature of light, and, in particular, what is the nature of light with respect to bodies. That is, as a child I was already taught that light is subordinate to the oscillations of the light ether. If that is the case, then one should be able to detect it, and thus I thought about whether it would be possible to perceive through some experiment that the earth moves in the ether. But when I was a student, I saw that experiments of this kind had already been made, in particular by your compatriot, Michelson. He proved that one does not notice anything on earth that it moves, but that everything takes place on earth as if the earth is in a state of rest.
- Albert Einstein


Check out this paper on Michelson-Morley: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/4778/1/Einstein_Chicago_Web2.pdf

More stuff:
Quote:
Einstein stands or falls on his own merit. It is a fact, however, that Einstein invented SRT to answer the 1887 Michelson‐Morley experiment – an experiment that showed the Earth wasn’t moving through space. Instead of admitting the Earth was motionless, Einstein changed the constitution of space from aether to “spacetime” (and never told us what constitutes “spacetime”). Einstein also explained away the small positive results for the presence of aether found in the Michelson‐Morley experiment (about 5% of what was needed if the Earth were revolving around the Sun) by claiming that it was there because of experimental error. But in 1925, Michelson did another experiment that measured for aether and found a 98% presence. Since 98% cannot be “experimental error,” Einstein tried to answer Michelson’s 1925 experiment by using GRT instead of SRT (since the confirmed presence of aether in 1925 nullified SRT). Einstein believed he could use GRT since in GRT he allowed back a form of aether (whereas he allowed no aether in SRT). But since the aether Einstein allowed back for GRT was, according

to his own description, “non‐ponderable” and “could not be tracked by time,” then it shouldn’t have registered anything in the 1925 Michelson experiment. As such, we see that Einstein’s theories are contradictory. The utter irony is, as Einstein invented SRT in 1905 so that modern science would have at least some answer to the 1887 Michelson‐Morley experiment (which experiment showed the Earth wasn’t moving), since SRT did not include gravity, Einstein was forced to invent GRT in 1915, but GRT allows the Earth to be motionless in the center of the universe and have the whole universe rotate around it, as Einstein himself admitted:

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

-R. Sungenis


Back to top
View user's profile
Fletcher






PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 7:43 pm    Post subject: re: The Earth Doesn't Rotate or Move - No...seriously. It do Reply with quote Report Post to Admin

Hey .. take it up with Galileo, his telescope, and his mates, who started the business about the heliocentric (sun center) model.

Otherwise I would have just believed the biblical geocentric (earth center) view of the church and what my eyes told me every night and day. So much easier.

But if you want to believe the 1600's Roman Catholic view or change the reference frame then that's fine by me.

Me, I don't buy it but then I don't buy String Theory either with 6 other dimensions to explain dark energy and dark matter and an expanding accelerating universe.

And that's the thing .. they're all theory's until the undisputed empirical data is in. And tbh you've peaked my interest to check out Mach's theory because you say that empirical data is in to support the geocentric model. I'll get to it one of these days.


Back to top
View user's profile Skype Name
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic  Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Off-Topic All times are GMT
Page 8 of 9 Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next


 
Jump to:   
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum

Log in:         Remember me     

Please click below to help support this website!

Google