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

[Silvertiger]

Here's the dilemma: observations place us at the center of the universe, but only if the universe is a 3d sphere. This is a scientific absolute that all cosmologists will admit to. The dilemma for them was that they did not want this to be the case, otherwise it WOULD place the earth in the omnipotent position in the universe. No one wanted that, and I have quoted and can quote again the founders of modern cosmology that say as much...that in essence they do not want God, no matter the evidence. This is why they created a flat balloon model: get rid of the center, and you get rid of God. I will REQUOTE them when I have more time. :)

[agor95]

This is why they created a flat balloon model

A flat balloon has no volume. So there is no place for anyone.

get rid of the center, and you get rid of God

God is omnipresent so God is present off center.

I will require them when I have more time

Require WHAT from WHO.

founders of modern cosmology

Name them and lets see how modern they are.

... they did not want ... earth in the omnipotent position

The dilemma for them

The dilemma; you need the omnipotent Earth; the them do not.

all cosmologists will admit to

Just one says otherwise this statement would be false.
You can not have checked ALL of them.

observations place us at the center of the universe, but only if the universe is a 3d sphere

Fortunately light travels at a constant speed within an expanding universe.

So viewing from another far off planet will show another 4 dimensional observable bubble.

So reverse time and everywhere become the center. Yes Earth is the center then.

Remember 'God is omnipresent' in space and time.

[WaltzCee]

Ur haid is phlatt.

of cause.

[Silvertiger]

A flat balloon has no volume. So there is no place for anyone.

4d flat, thus 3d with volume.

God is omnipresent so God is present off center.

Not to their way of thinking.

Require WHAT from WHO.

Phone autocorrected...requote, not require.

Name them and lets see how modern they are.

Edwin Hubble and Albert Einstein.

...the them do not.

What??

Just one says otherwise this statement would be false.
You can not have checked ALL of them.

I guess you have your work cut out. ;)

Fortunately light travels at a constant speed within an expanding universe.

Are you sure about that? Arthur Lynch recorded in his 1932 book that Einstein admitted that his theory of the constancy of light in vacuo had to be “modified.� Below, Lynch is quoting Einstein, and gives a brief footnote (which is in parentheses):

Einstein continues: “In a similar manner we see ‘unmittelbar’ [immediately] that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light in a vacuum must be modified. For one easily recognizes that the path of a beam of light, relative to K’, must generally be crooked, when the light, with respect to K, moves in a straight line with definite constant velocity.� (What Einstein sees here as ‘unmittelbar,’ he failed to see during the many years when he was insisting on his dogma of the constancy of the velocity of light). The word ‘unmittelbar’ amused me so much that I have taken care to give it in the original German….The whole paragraph is interesting because it goes on to deal with one of the profound discoveries of Relativity, that the velocity of light in reference to a body is the same whether that body be at rest, or in motion towards the source of light!…I notice for the moment that Einstein, having postulated the constancy of light, is content to “modify� it when his own reasoning leads him to contradiction; but he does not touch the previous mode of thought that led him to decree this constancy.

- The Case Against Einstein, Arthur Lynch, pp. 209-210

Similar to Lynch, in the 1940-50s, Hebert Ives wrote extensively on the “self-contradictory� nature of Einstein’s principle of the constancy of the speed of light. Even some of today’s popular Relativists admit that the speed of light is not always constant in vacuo, and they go through the most strained semantic contortions in order to deny it is happening. As always, mathematics comes to the rescue. Clifford Will explains:

The speed of light is indeed the same in every freely falling frame, but we are forced to consider a sequence of such frames all along the light path, and when we do so, we find that the observer at the end of the path determines that the light took longer to cover a given trajectory when it passed near the Sun than it would have had it passed farther from the Sun. Whether or not the observer used the words “light slows down near the Sun� is purely a question of semantics. Because he never goes near the Sun to make the measurement, he can’t really make such a judgment; and if he had made such a measurement in a freely falling laboratory near the Sun, he would have found the same value for the speed of light as in a freely falling laboratory far from the Sun, and might have thoroughly confused himself. All the observer can say with no fear of contradiction is that he observed a time delay that depended on how close the light ray came to the Sun. The only sense in which it can be said that the light slowed down is mathematical: in a particular mathematical representation of the equations that describe the motion of the light ray, what general relativists call a particular coordinate system, the light appears to have a variable speed. But in a different mathematical representation (a different coordinate system), this statement might be false.

- Clifford Will, Was Einstein Right? pp. 112-113

Concerning a similar perspective on light, Charles Lane Poor reveals that the postulates of Relativity...

indicate that light travels with different speeds in different directions, that the velocity of light depends upon the direction of transmission. That such a mathematical result represents the facts of nature is highly improbable, for in free space there is no difference between right and left, between north and south, or east and west; there is no reason why a ray of light should travel faster to the north than to the south. To overcome this mathematical difficulty, or inconvenience, as he calls it, the relativist makes a substitution, or approximation. Instead of using the direct distance between the centers of two particles of matter, the relativist adds a small, a very small, factor to this distance; or, as Eddington puts it, “we shall slightly alter our coordinates.� Such an approximation is very common among physicists: it is done every day to simplify troublesome formulas. The only precaution necessary in such a procedure is to remember always that the final result is necessarily approximate, and, before drawing any conclusion, to thoroughly test the effects of the approximation.

- Charles Lane Poor, “Relativity: An Approximation,� Paper presented to the
American Astronomical Society, Thirteenth Meeting, 1923, Mount Wilson Observatory, California, p. 3

Physicist Bryan Wallace revealed that when he discovered that the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory was basing their analysis of signal transit time in the solar system on the Newtonian and Galilean concept of c + v (i.e., the speed of light plus the speed of the source or medium of light) and not c as required by Einstein’s theory, he was summarily censured by the editors of Physics Today. His July 9, 1984 letter to the magazine states:

During a current literature search, I requested and received a reprint of a paper published by Theodore D. Moyer [Celestial Mechanics 23, 33 (1981)] of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory….The paper’s (A6) equation and the accompanying information that calls for evaluating the position vectors at the signal reception time is nearly equivalent to the Galilean c + v equation (2) in my paper “Radar Testing of the Relative Velocity of Light in Space� [B. G. Wallace, Spectroscopy Letters, 2, 361 (1969)]….The fact that the radio astronomers have been reluctant to acknowledge the full theoretical implications of their work is probably related to the unfortunate things that tend to happen to physicists that are rash enough to challenge Einstein’s sacred postulate [B. G. Wallace, Physics Today, 36, (1), 11 (1983)]. Over twenty-three years have gone by since the original Venus radar experiments clearly showed that the speed of light in space was not constant, and still the average scientist is not aware of this fact! This demonstrates why it is important for the APS [Astrophysical Society] to bring true scientific freedom to the PR [Physical Review] journal’s editorial policy [B. G. Wallace, Physics Today, 37 (6), 15 (1984)].

- B. G. Wallace, “Publication Politics� in The Farce of Physics, 1994.

Should I keep going...?

Remeber 'God is omnipresent' in space and time.

Not if it isn't true.

[Silvertiger]

This is why they created a flat balloon model: get rid of the center, and you get rid of God. I will REQUOTE them when I have more time. :)

I'll just share a couple of quotes, one from the father of modern cosmology, and one from a modern cosmologist.

…Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth.…This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility...the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs...such a favored position is intolerable….Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position…must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape.

…there must be no favored location in the universe [i.e., no central Earth], no center, no boundary; all must see the universe alike. And, in order to ensure this situation, the cosmologist postulates spatial isotropy and spatial homogeneity.…

- The Observational Approach to Cosmology, 1937, pp. 50, 51, 58-59; 63

Physicist Lawrence Krauss, although not furious like Hubble, certainly was dumbfounded, as he was a devout Copernican man:

But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That’s crazy. We’re looking out at the whole universe. There’s no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe….The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we’re the center of the universe, or maybe the data is simply incorrect, or maybe it’s telling us there’s something weird about the microwave background results and that maybe, maybe there’s something wrong with our theories on the larger scales.

- "The Energy of Empty Space that Isn't Zero," https://www.edge.org/conversation/lawre ... -isnt-zero

[agor95]

Hi Silvertigher

Based of this quote from Edwin Hubble (1889-1955).

The first satellite 1957 and of cause 1969 moon landing.

That makes him not modern. Also is as bias as the non-moving Earth followers.

So we go out and improve the methods of observations to address bias.

Wow Lawrence Krauss in modern he hopeful actually alive.

So a he points to the CMB map and the Earths Orbit.
Well lets check that out. However we have given proof of variable rotation rate and other examples.

So this does not invalidate the rotating Earth and this CMB is about the Earths orbit.

[Silvertiger]

Edwin Hubble is the "father of modern cosmology" precisely because he created it and laid the foundation upon which Albert Einstein built his theories. Prior to that, believe it or not, very ironically he looked to Ernst Mach for his inspiration - the very man who taught the physics and principles of a geocentric universe based on observations. And the foundation that Hubble laid is the same foundation that holds up today's modern cosmology. Tear down the foundation, and EVERYTHING built on it since then collapses like a house of cards. That's why it's so much simpler to go back to where and how it all began.

And yes, Lawrence Krauss is very much alive and well. :)

[agor95]

Hi Silvertiger

It's good to see you have a seam of anarchy.

Modern Cosmology is the child of Hubble. It has grown up since then.

So how are you going to pull down the expansion of the universe observations?

However the expansion does not invalidate the observation of the Earth variable rotation.

All the Best

[Silvertiger]

Easy...there are no observations that support it. Centrifugal force is causing the galaxies to fly apart, since that force is stronger than the gravity that tethers them together. :)

Also, although it may "appear" that the earth is rotating, that is only because they use everything else as a static frame of reference, like the universe or the sun, against which to measure it. However, there is no observation that proves the earth rotates. On the contrary, observations do prove that the universe rotates, and that its variability lies within its own precession (if that's what you meant by variable rotation), thus observationally rotating about the apparent axis of the earth. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that the earth does not rotate, but the experiments bear out that it doesn't.

Addendum:
The Lambda Cold Dark Matter (LCDM) balloon model does not permit a spinning universe, nor is it even possible for the universe to spin in that model...on the surface of a big balloon. Thus, our observations of the majority of the galaxies' spiral handedness in a particular preferred direction of spin DIRECTLY contradicts the Copernican model, which utterly destroys Hubble's fantasy foundation of modern cosmology.

Interesting sidenote:
The coriolis force of the spinning universe is what causes the galaxies to spin in one direction, and this coriolis force also extends to the earth.

[agor95]

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that the earth does not rotate, but the experiments bear out that it doesn't.

I am not able to agree with the above statement as true.

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

Again we adjust clocks too address the variation in the Earth rotation.

In your cosmos we are in effect adjusting clocks too address variation in the observable universe rotation rate.

All the Best

[Silvertiger]

That's the Sagnac Effect, which can come from a rotating earth, OR a rotating universe. The effect is the same either way. Once again, observations of the spiral handedness of the galaxies PROVE that it is the universe that is spinning. (I also added some stuff to my above post.)

[agor95]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson ... experiment

The outcome of the experiment was that the angular velocity of the Earth as measured by astronomy was confirmed to within measuring accuracy.

I found this informative

https://arxiv.org/abs/0904.2529

The axis of the dipole asymmetry lies at approx. (l, b) =(52 d, 68.5 d), roughly along that of our Galaxy and close to alignments observed in the WMAP cosmic microwave background distributions.

Which implies the universe spins around the centre of our galaxy not the Earth when using your cosmos.

[Silvertiger]

The MM experiment proved no motion. They invented the Lorentz-Fitgerald contraction of length out of thin air (aka ad-hoc) to "transform" the null result into a positive result. Later, Einstein redefined the contraction and turned it into the modern day "Lorentz Transform." No motion was ever detected.

I'll check out the paper when I get home.

[ovyyus]

The MM experiment proved no motion.

Not detecting something isn't proof of anything. Unless you're religious :)

[Silvertiger]

Let me clarify: the expected fringe distance between wave crests in the MM interferometer for a moving earth was 0.4. What they got was 0.02, which was only 5% of what they were expecting; this means that there was something out there moving very slowly at only ~3,350 mph. It was thus considered a "negative" or "null" result in regards to motion. Hence, NO motion WAS detected. The 0.02 fringe gap was the first detection of ether, which they disregarded, even though it showed up in every single interferometry experiment since.