The proof of earth's non-motion: the experiments

[Silvertiger]

TGM, would you mind if I copy and paste what you wrote into a new topic? I know that if I address any of it here, it will get off-topic quick LOL.

[TGM]

ST, not at all, go ahead.

It's just the arguments for the earth moving or not are IMHO, pointless when you cannot determine if your frame of reference is actually a FOR.

[Silvertiger]

Science does indeed have, for the first time, an absolute frame of rest against which we can measure the motion of all bodies in the universe. We've talked about it before in the original thread: the CMB alignments. COBE saw the alignments, and so did WMAP. Cosmologists didn't like what they were seeing, since the crystal clear isotropy violated the Copernican Principle; so they launched Planck, and Planck said the same thing as its predecessors. That's the nutshell recap of it.

[daxwc]

I agree TGM. People might scoff at the universe being a hologram but it was what Professor Stephen Hawking's final theory was working on. So if all our consciousness create reality will perpetual Motion ever be rediscovered when so many people believe it impossible? Did Apollo 13 make it home safely despite all odds due to science alone or collective will?

[agor95]

Hi TGM

You are both right.

It is best for us, figments of your imagination, to agree with you.

Work with the model that takes less time and gives a reasonable results within the context of it's use.

When a model becomes inaccurate use another. When you have the time.

Fixating on one model is the way to dogma.

For practical members results trump dogma.

Regards

[daxwc]

Fixating on one model is the way to dogma.

Reminds me of whether electrons are waves or particle. Since both are true use whichever relationship you need.

[agor95]

Fixating on one model is the way two dogma ;-)

My dogma is to imagine there is only one fundamental thing.

That being an electric field. It can change in amplitude and everything comes from that.

As you can imagine proving this is a little tricky. So I go with dogma; it's less effort.

Regards

[Fletcher]

I think ST is laying out the empirical evidence as he sees it for a geocentric universe.

Initially he cited MM et al and their use of a crude interferometer device in preference to looking for say doppler shifts in light frequency from a distant source (ala Hubble). MM were using an interferometer with an internal sodium light source within the instrument trying to detect and prove an aether medium. It failed within any levels of statistical confidence.

Others to come after improved the accuracy of interferometers and still got a null result.

Then ST (IINM) says interferometers can be used to detect movement. Because the light pattern interference generated should indicate a change in wavelength with movement. Still a null result here on the earths surface apparently.

Then he makes the case for WMAP and the state of the art Planck observatory experiments to measure and quantify the cosmic microwave background. And they show a very even distribution which he (and others) contend supports the proposition that earth is the static center of the universe. And that the math works fine without dark energy and dark matter, and relativity.

And all along the question has been how can this experimentally be proven to be the correct model of the universe, or at least promote its chances ahead of the rest of the pack of hypothesis's.

He says while an interferometer test on earths surface gives a null result he expects one on Mars to give a result (because its rotating and moving).

Since that isn't going to happen anytime soon then it has been suggested that an interferometer experiment on say a space shuttle could establish some truths. I would expect a space shuttle in geo-stationary 'orbit' to also give the same null result as a duplicate interferometer below it on the earths surface. I would expect as a blind test that if the space shuttle were to set up pole to pole orbit, and then an around the equator orbit, both east and west, then the interferometer experiments could be compared.

I guess someone will have to check out Elon Musk's space X and convince him that these empirical experiments are a good idea to help settle the debate about the center of the universe. Perhaps Elon can be persuaded on religious beliefs grounds.

[Silvertiger]

WELL said , Fletcher. Someone should most definitely do that LOL. Not to nitpick, but the wavelength in an interferometer does not change; it is the distance measured peak-to-peak of the crests of the wavelength that changes with motion. This means that the light pointed in the direction of the earth's motion around the sun MUST traverse a greater distance than light pointed AT the sun. This is why the null result was so alarming. But it wasn't completely a null result. All interferometers do measure a 0.02 fringe gap that is only 5% of what the earth's motion should be. This was a detection of the ether; more specifically its flow. But this 0.02 fringe gap has been discarded completely by all of modern "science" even though it consistently showed up in experiment after experiment.

[daxwc]

I don't think you have talked about Foucault's Pendulum. So how do you account for that Silvertiger?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum

[TGM]

[Silvertiger]

Hi dax, this thread is about the experiments that failed to prove the motion of the earth. Look in the Machian Physics thread. Foucault's pendulum is discussed in the first post, and why it doesn't prove motion. :)

[TGM]

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

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.

So you arbitrarily cut Foucault's pendulum from the ceiling? Remember, it has mathematics that proves it works just as you have your mathematical inference it doesn't. I call that a draw.

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 the 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.

I was raised Southern Baptist. What you are obviously trying to say here is God exists.

If you follow the reasoning that every religion is correct, he cannot possibly exist. If you follow the writings of even the kindest faith, he cannot possibly exist. No deity could exist that would allow his creation to inordinately suffer as we do and allow humans to be so cruel to each other. And an all-powerful God would not allow an evil to exist in the form of a devil.

The only explanation that fits is we are in a simulation. This is the only way the stationary earth could exist with the created mathematics to support both a rotating planet and a fixed one in space.

And if we are in a simulation, there is no consequence to free will. The people on the imaginary earth can kill and maim as they desire since there is no actual substance in a simulation.

This can only be true if we are the creation of 1)An all-powerful God. or 2) Inside a simulation.

As an aside, I have always said there is no other life in the Universe except us. I base this on the fact that zero fossil remains are to be found (so far) anywhere else. The moon, Mars, nowhere else at this time.

One other thing. The moon. When the full solar eclipse occurs, it is an absolute marvel. Think about it. The moon has to be in the exact spot to produce such an effect, AND be the exact size. While coincidence exists, I have an incredibly hard time imagining it is just an accident. But this can be accomplished by God or a simulation.

In any event, the purpose of discovering if the earth is stationary or rotates is pointless. The major discovery here is to enjoy the real/artificial minutes you have in the now.

[daxwc]

If you ask people if they can see the day that before you die that you transfer all of your brain data into a computer and you can live on and most say yes. Ask those same people if it is possible that you already live in a simulation and the opposite reaction ensues.

[agor95]

I am reasonable confident that each planet rotates.
The footage of the Galileo Probe passing Earth is helpful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_( ... ntry_probe

The 1888 experiment accuracy has been surpassed and with more understanding of the propagation of light we can get even more accurate.

In 1888 Michelson and Morley, with their interferometer, had a sensitivity that allowed the measurement of 0.02 of a fringe, or about 0.126 radian. Prototype interferometers constructed by the LIGO science team have already demonstrated a phase noise spectral density of ϕf=10−10radian/Hz for frequencies above 500 Hz. Assuming a 1 kHz signal with 1 kHz bandwidth this implies a phase sensitivity of Δϕ=3.2×10−9 radian. This is about the phase sensitivity that LIGO hopes to accomplish in the 4-km Fabry–Perot system.

What you can get from this text is the 1888 had an measurement accuracy of 0.126 radians and now we can get accuracy of 10 decimal places.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/ph ... ferometers

I see no relation of this experiment and the motion of Earth in our modern era.