The rise of Machian physics: gravity, intertia, and geocentrism

[Fletcher]

Hi ST .. can your theory explain upper atmosphere jet-streams ?

Coriolis effect ?

And Ballistic Trajectory Calculations for firing large calibre shells from a ship deck over the horizon to a target accurately ?

While they do include Magnus effect of a spinning shell (for aerial stability purposes) they also use trig to allow for Coriolis Effect of planet spin while in flight and the longitude and latitude of the shot variance, IINM.

[Silvertiger]

It's all in there:

Weinberg's reference to "forces akin to gravitation" refers to INERTIAL forces, such as centrifugal, Coriolis, and Euler forces. Using Einstein's General Relativity, G = 8πT, as the sanction, Weinberg indicates that in the view of modern physics, a universe revolving around a fixed earth will create inertial forces that mimic the force of gravity. (This is WHY dark matter can be thusly excluded from calculations attempting to account for all the gravity that is present in the cosmos with there not being enough mass to do the job.) As the universe's inertial forces meet the gravitational forces in our solar system, both will and must contribute to how the sun and the planets move with respect to one another.

This of course works for trajectories, as nothing is done differently since the behavior is exactly the same, but the magnus effect does not apply here since it is a property of the behavior of a spinning projectile in a gas or fluid and is thus unrelated.

[Fletcher]

I don't buy that explanation.

If the stationary earth were at the center and everything else revolved around it then there would be an approximate even distribution of mass (WMAP) from that point in space in every direction in the celestial plane. The metaphor like the moment a pebble is dropped onto the surface of a pond and rings propagate out from it evenly in every direction. So we would expect there to be no variance in ballistic trajectory calculations to allow for latitude and longitude. But they are wildly effected IIRC. It also accounts for the jet-streams at high altitude being stronger in some places than others.

Then we have the more obvious problem of the cosmos rotating around planet earth in a 24 hour period here on earth. The distances are vast, and the speeds required to orbit make the proposal patently ridiculous, not requiring further examination.

Now the physics and math modeling may be deficient to explain all observations. Or two models might explain the same results. But that doesn't make one or both right.

I'll stick with common sense for the moment rather than intelligent design and a geocentric argument.

[WaltzCee]

. . .
Then we have the more obvious problem of the cosmos rotating around planet earth in a 24 hour period here on earth. The distances are vast, and the speeds required to orbit make the proposal patently ridiculous, not requiring further examination.
. . .

Pretty much since I got here on earth I noticed the constellations followed a seasonal path.
I always look for Orion.

Took me a minute, but I see what you mean.

In addition, our solar system--Earth and all--whirls around the center of our
galaxy at some 220 kilometers per second, or 490,000 miles per hour. As we consider
increasingly large size scales, the speeds involved become absolutely huge!

I wonder how fast the eccentrics on Tesla's flying stove have to spin before it levitates.
Recently I read someone had them going at 35k rpm. No levitation.

[Silvertiger]

If the stationary earth were at the center and everything else revolved around it then there would be an approximate even distribution of mass (WMAP) from that point in space in every direction in the celestial plane.

Actually, there is. Physicists have long been studying the distribution of quasars and gamma ray bursters in the universe. Astrophysicist Jonathan I. Katz of Washington University, a scientist who admits to having no partiality toward a geocentric universe, found disturbing evidence that directly put the Copernican theory into question. In Katz’s studies it was found that, when all the known gamma-ray bursts are calculated and catalogued, they show Earth to be in the center of it all. He writes:

The uniform distribution of burst arrival directions tells us that the distribution of gamma-ray-burst sources in space is a sphere or spherical shell, with us at the center (some other extremely contrived and implausible distributions are also possible). But Copernicus taught us that we are not in a special preferred position in the universe; Earth is not at the center of the solar system, the Sun is not at the center of the galaxy, and so forth. There is no reason to believe we are at the center of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts. If our instruments are sensitive enough to detect bursts at the edge of the spatial distribution, then they should not be isotropic on the sky, contrary to observation; if our instruments are less sensitive, then the N ∝ S3/2 law should hold, also contrary to observation. That is the Copernican dilemma.

- The Biggest Bangs: The Mystery of Gamma-Ray Bursts, The
Most Violent Explosions in the Universe, 2002, pp. 90-91

See how he wrote “There is no reason to believe we are at the center of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts" - he's having a hard time with what he saw in his telescope. But then, he actually admitted twice that such a position would be contrary to observation. In other words, he can’t believe his own eyes since obviously he has been so conditioned to see just the opposite. Katz continues:

To this day, after the detection of several thousand bursts, and despite earnest efforts to show the contrary, no deviation from a uniform random distribution (isotropy) in the directions of gamma-ray bursts on the sky has ever been convincingly demonstrated.

- The Biggest Bangs: p. 84

And thus, in their face, the “Copernican dilemma� for astronomers is that they are required to explain why there are no faint gamma-ray bursts, since, according to the Big Bang theory, the universe is old and expansive. If so, then more distant bursts should register more faintly when compared to closer bursts. Think about it.

But now let's go back a bit. About ten years prior to the discovery of gamma-ray bursts, astronomers observed yet another unique phenomenon in the universe. In the 1960s, radio telescopes observed radio waves being transmitted by objects outside the solar system. Optical telescopes were then pointed at those sources. They found faint points of light, which they named “quasi-stellar radio sources." The name was soon after shortened to “quasars.�

Quasars presented a problem soon after their discovery since, according to the popular theory in which redshift is understood as representing a recessional velocity, the quasars would have to be moving away from Earth at tremendous speeds, some between 15% and 95% of the speed of light. If that was the case, then they would literally have to be on the outer edges of the known universe, which meant that, if we are able to see their light, then they must be putting out tremendous amounts of energy, starting at about a thousand times the luminosity of a galaxy. Not only that, but since any given quasar will vary in brightness, this means that the lower ebb of the luminosity translated into the quasar being an amazingly small object.

Astrophysicist Yatendra P. Varshni did extensive work on the spectra of quasars. In 1975 he catalogued 384 quasars between a redshift of 0.2 and 3.53 and, wouldn't you know it, found that they were formed in 57 separate groupings of concentric spheres around the Earth, of which he made the following amazing conclusion:

...the quasars in the 57 groups...are arranged on 57 spherical shells with the Earth as the center....The cosmological interpretation of the redshift in the spectra of quasars leads to yet another paradoxical result: namely, that the Earth is the center of the universe.

- “The Red Shift Hypothesis for Quasars: Is the Earth the Center of the Universe?� Astrophysics and Space Science, 43: (1976), p. 3

Varshni first based his calculations on the spectra of the quasars and then did a second test on their actual redshifts. Both tests produced the same results. Varshni concludes that if his analysis is correct for quasars, then…

The Earth is indeed the center of the Universe. The arrangement of quasars on certain spherical shells is only with respect to the Earth. These shells would disappear if viewed from another galaxy or quasar. This means that the cosmological principle will have to go. Also it implies that a coordinate system fixed to the Earth will be a preferred frame of reference in the Universe. Consequently, both the Special and General Theory of Relativity must be abandoned for cosmological purposes.

- Astrophysics and Space Science, 43: (1976), p. 8

Now...onto WMAP. I need to keep this short. Clearly the observation of the distribution of mass was not the purpose of the WMAP...wrong neighborhood. Its purpose was to map and measure the CMB. The variations in the temperature of the CMB that show a definite anisotropy of the universe are too small to have been observed in the 1960s, but they were first discovered in 1992 by NASA’s COBE satellite, which showed some discrepancies, in the form of distinct ANISOTROPIES, to the Copernican theory, and thus it was measured by its successor, the WMAP satellite, which was launched in 2001. The core crux is the fact that that the Big Bang theory predicted isotropy - not anisotropy.

Although the science community tried to put a lot of cosmetic makeup over the anisotropies of the CMB, this didn't really help, since COBE seemed to be painting a pretty clear picture. Nevertheless, they did it anyway to make the data presentable to the Copernican Big Bang audience, even though a gnawing feeling persisted that it just wasn't going to go away. Trying to avoid the alignment of the universe with the tiny ecliptic of the Sun-Earth was like trying to avoid the rain without an umbrella.

And so, plans were then made in the late '90s to test whether the anisotropies of COBE were indeed the reality. The new project was named after the original discoverer of the CMB anisotropies in 1981, David T. Wilkinson - and was thus named the Wilkinson Microwave Anistropy Probe.

WMAP produced even clearer confirmation that the universe was aligned with the Earth as its hub. And yet, they weren't quite satisfied, and so they redesigned all hardware and software, and Planck was launched in 2009. When it returned in 2013, it painted the same exact picture, but in crystal clear detail that its predecessors couldn't come close to. The answer was loud and clear: the earth is at the center of a spherical, inhomogeneous, anisotropic universe that has concentric shells of beautiful distributions of celestial bodies.

So we would expect there to be no variance in ballistic trajectory calculations to allow for latitude and longitude. But they are wildly effected IIRC. It also accounts for the jet-streams at high altitude being stronger in some places than others.

All is well here on earth. The same calculations you used yesterday will also work tomorrow. It isn't the math that's wrong. It's the explanation of why the math works.

Then we have the more obvious problem of the cosmos rotating around planet earth in a 24 hour period here on earth. The distances are vast, and the speeds required to orbit make the proposal patently ridiculous, not requiring further examination

What exactly makes it a problem? Is there something out there that says the universe should not be rotating? Speed is not a problem in a rotating system with unimaginable mass in a non-friction environment like space. Einstein knew this, which why he allowed for speeds greater than light in a rotating system. He stubbornly chose to believe that the earth moved, even though he knew better...but he wasn't stupid, so he accounted for it just in case. So, like all the other contradictions he came up with, such as the constancy of the speed of light, he allowed for bodies to travel at superluminal speeds. Now, why would he go and do a thing like that? We shall see...

Popular scientist Martin Gardner wrote on Relativity the following:

…it is permissible to assume that the Earth is a nonrotating frame of reference. From this point of view, the stars will have a circular velocity around the Earth that is much greater than the speed of light. A star only ten light-years away has a relative velocity around the Earth of twenty thousand times the speed of light.

- Relativity Explosion, 1976, p. 68

Einstein himself admitted this very principle:

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. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g., of light).

- Relativity: The Special and General Theory, 1920, p. 76

Hence, according to Einstein’s own words, a limitation on the speed of light is only true when gravity does not affect the light, or put another way, variations in the gravitational field will allow variations in the speed of light. Since in a rotating universe the gravitational force increases in proportion to the radial distance from Earth, consequently, the farther the distance, the faster light will be able to travel.

Now the physics and math modeling may be deficient to explain all observations. Or two models might explain the same results. But that doesn't make one or both right.

The physics is not deficient lol. They just work better (perfectly in fact) with a geocentric universe. The scientific method makes one of them right, and the other wrong:
- Make an observation.
- Ask a question.
- Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
- Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
- Test the prediction.
- Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.
- Draw conclusions.

Name ONE observation that LCDM has made that gives credit to the theory. {Crickets}
LCDM always starts with a conclusion and works backwards through the scientific method, HOPING that they will end up with an observation. But the scientific method in reverse is, especially without observations, in point of fact philosophy, isn't it?

I'll stick with common sense for the moment rather than intelligent design and a geocentric argument.

Okey dokey.

[agor95]

Hi Silvertiger

I value your research for it gives us an alternative view of reality.

Philosophy is the beginning of science

I will consider your latest compilation.

Addendum:

There are several Philosophical points you have touched on in you last post.

They could easily distract me off the point I am putting forward.
So Philosophical points may be in another thread.

"the Earth has variable rotation in relation to various objects," this is clearly relating to cases of stellar parallax, stellar aberration, and the retrograde motions of local bodies such as Mars and Mercury.

As shown the measurement of Earth rotation is changing over time in relation to observable objects. Some of those objects are so far away none of the effects above apply.

The Earth rotation is slowing down as that energy is being passed to the moon. This results in the distance between Earth and the Moon to increase.

When you measure movement between two objects it's not possible to know which has moved. There needs to be many other observations from different viewpoints to infer the amount of movement of those objects.

However we are talking about rotation not a change in distance.

So all the stars in the far distance are fixed to Earth in your Philosophy.
The measurements being done show this is not true on a regular basis.

Regards

[Silvertiger]

The moon is slowing down, not earth. The earth does not rotate. There are no measurements that prove the earth moves. All attempts in this regard have always shown no movement. They have always yielded a "nil" or zero result. If you put an interferometer on the moon, it will show movement. If you put it on earth, it will just show ether flow. (Contrary to popular opinions, ether is a real medium through which light, which is really just a form of heat transfer, creates the perturbations (excitation) of the medium, like ripples in a pond or waves on the ocean or wind over the grass, and it is detectable and measurable in terrestrial experiments.)

No philosophy involved. Just proven results.

[WaltzCee]

ST,
Do you think Foucault's pendulum proves the earth moves/rotates?

[Silvertiger]

Nope. The motion of the pendulum is an effect of inertial forces produced by the combined gravity of all celestial bodies in the rotating universe. There are three inertial forces produced by the stars: centrifugal, Coriolis, and Euler.

[WaltzCee]

I've enjoyed your discussion, ST. You've definitely given the matter a lot of thought.

If you ask an astronomer, out of one side of their mouth they'll say yes then out the other
they'll say no.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/our-so ... termediate

It is important to note that according to the theory of relativity, we can always move
to a reference frame in which the Earth is not moving--i.e., its "inertial" reference frame.
So it is technically possible to define a reference frame in which the Earth does not
move, while the Sun, planets, and stars orbit around the Earth, but making this reference
frame consistent with our observations of Doppler shift and parallaxes would be very
complicated. It is much simpler to explain our observations in a reference frame where the
Earth does move, and Occam's razor directs us, as scientists, to use the simplest
explanation whenever possible. 

If the moving earth theory requires the invention of dark matter and energy, I'm a flat
earther. A proud flat earther!

[Silvertiger]

Lol. He's lying. Pay close attention to what he says about Doppler shift (redshift) and stellar parallax. On local scales, even in the LCDM balloon 4d-flat model, the math is the same whether you choose the sun or the earth for the inertial reference frame. The reason he says it becomes "complicated" is that the LCDM does not permit a rotating spherical universe, in favor of an inflated cosmic balloon that appears flat on local scales. He's basically a flat earther, except he's regarding space as flat...he's a flat spacer.most most of them are unfortunately. Hail to the flat spacer movement! ;)

[Fletcher]

Ever since I was a kid I tried to form some sort of mental model in my mind about galaxies and the shape of the cosmos at large.

Then along came the big bang theory. The cosmos formed from a singularity and expansion event 13.7 billion years ago thereabouts.

And the expanding balloon metaphor with our solar system and the milky way galaxy on that ever expanding inflating balloon skin was put forward as a simple approximation for the expansion of space-time.

And that seemed to make quite a lot of sense to me. Like a stone dropped into a pond analogy for the local flat space portion we are carried along in.

And it seemed to me to explain nicely the red shift of observable galaxies as Hubble came on line etc. And why astronomers said that all galaxies were accelerating away from us (i.e. the milky way galaxy) on the expanding balloon skin. There were none moving towards us tho some galaxies would cross paths and be assimilated like some of Andromeda will be by all accounts.

Here's the interesting bit from my perspective.

Faiths have a vested interest in proving the biblical account of a geocentric cosmos, for their faith. Many scientists are Christians etc. Many believe in the intelligent design hypothesis.

I would think that if there are at least two competing models of which one is a geocentric intelligent design cosmos model then it should be of utmost importance to them to prove beyond doubt that this is so. To put it at the front of the queue so to speak.

I would expect the drums to be loudly beating in the halls of science, and in the Vatican, to actively and experimentally prove the case as this would politically be a massive strategic boost to their religious beliefs and acceptance. And recruitment drive.

Even dyed-in-the-wool hardliner non-religious scientists can not forever ignore 'facts'. If indeed they can be proven to be 'facts' and more than a theory or a hypothesis.

With all those big brains out there the size of planets you'd expect an appointed task force of the best of them to be pouring over the different sources of information and experiments to find the strengths and identify the weaknesses of each argument. And to quantify and publish a cohesive account for the layman.

Never been a better opportunity to 'prove' intelligent design theory.

But I'm not seeing that happen. At least I'm not reading about it.

[WaltzCee]

The Andromeda Galaxy is blue shifting from the Milky Way's perspective.

[Fletcher]

I believe so .. and it is hard to reconcile given the simplistic balloon expansion model with increasing acceleration (enter music for dark energy and dark matter).

Unless perhaps gravitational influences can come into the picture again.

Because WMAP quantified cosmic background radiation (and heat) and shows space is not entirely homogeneous. It has clusters and areas of greater or lesser density (and heat and gravitation). Perhaps gravitational attraction at cosmic scales near these clumps can deviate a radial bound galaxy so that it 'bends' in space-time. IOW's while two galaxies like the Milky-way and our nearest neighbour Andromeda are on different 'radials' they also can be gravitationally attracted to each other, trajectories arcing towards each other.

If so this might go some way to explaining a local blue shift between the two and a scenario of a future merge to a larger local clump ?

I'd assume this was happening with other galaxies etc on the expanding balloon meaning that local ectropy can occur in a sea of greater entropy, imo.

This does seem to be what has happened (to explain clumpiness of WMAP) and what will happen ?!


The question still stands .. where are the big brains and theoretical physicists putting ST's different sources of informed opinion into one tested and coherent ideology that competes with the expanding balloon metaphor and big bang model, where earth is the geocentric center of the universe ?

[Silvertiger]

Fletcher, that's the thing. They know what they are observing proves a geocentric universe, but the ones who hold fast to LCDM are atheists, and then there are others who have simply been fooled by their doctrine. In fact, it is no different than religious dogma. At the end of they day, they acknowledge that it is not possible for something to come from nothing...you have to press them to get them to admit it, but they all do eventually. Keep going back in time and they have no explanations for how things got started, along with absolutely no evidence to support their claims...none. They operate perhaps on greater faith than most Christians, but it is misplaced, and it grossly inhibits their objectivity, causing them to abandon the scientific method in favor of philosophy.