The Earth Doesn't Rotate or Move - No...seriously. It doesn't.

[Silvertiger]

Although it is now on Wikipedia, it is not actually the source that I used. But it is nonetheless a good one. :) The original source was from a conference and retreat funded by science philanthropist Jeffrey Epstein, of which the topic was "Confronting Gravity". The conference was posted on Edge.org, entitled "The Energy of Space that Isn't Zero," an interview with Lawrence Krauss and many other notable physicists and cosmologists. Even Stephen Hawking showed up! (Too bad TGM doesn't know how to Google lol.)

I did find this interesting from the Wikipedia article mentioned:

...although several later studies have shown systematic errors in the collection of that data and the way it is processed.

I have the paper on this. And it is truly hilarious. According to the paper, which I cited on the previous page, either one of the following is true:

1. The Copernican cosmological Principle is wrong, and hence all of standard cosmology will have to be re-conceptualized, or

2. Every cosmological observation over the last twenty years, at least, is contaminated by an unknown systematic error.

They even went as far as to reintroduce the Aether as a possible cause!

In order to explain the bulk flow, in [56] the authors considered that the universe is influenced by large-scale “wind�,
and the cosmic matter is drifted by this “wind�. The velocity of the “wind� takes account for the observed peculiar
velocity. When the “wind� has a privileged direction, the cosmic matter drifts towards the same direction.

But they do at least admit the truth of the ramifications of the undeniable observations of the CMB map.

[eccentrically1]

The edge article was referenced in the wiki entry.
I'm sure he knows how to google.

[Silvertiger]

From the same paper:

D. Unsolved systematical errors or contaminations

On the contrary, some people believe that the standard model of cosmology, based on the cosmological principle and general relativity, is an accurate model to describe the current universe. Considering that the observed large-scale directional anomalies have a non-cosmological origin, being therefore caused by some unsolved systematical errors,
calibration errors or contaminations, we list some possibilities.

One possible explanation is related to the contaminations generated by the collective emission of Kuiper Belt objects and other minor bodies in the solar system where the kinematic dipole of CMB is located. Since the emission of the Kuiper Belt objects is nearly independent of the frequency, this contamination is very hard to remove from the CMB data analysis. In Maris et al. [62] and Hansen et al. [63], it was discussed that this foreground residual could leave significant imprints in the CMB low multipoles and possibly explain the CMB parity asymmetry, as well as the
alignment of the CMB quadrupole and octopole.

Another explanation may relate to a deviation measured in the CMB kinematic dipole, which could be due to a measurement error in the dipole direction, a problem in the antenna pointing direction, sidelobe pickup contamination, and so on. In [64], it was found that this kinematic dipole deviation could generate the artificial CMB anisotropies in the low multipoles. If this is true, these artificial components may account for the CMB large-scale anomalies.

It is also possible that the preferred direction is caused by the tidal field originated from the anisotropy of our local halo. In [65], the authors found that the tidal field tends to preferentially align with the orientation and spatial distribution of galaxies, which may also generate some unsolved kinematic or higher order effects, and influence the
cosmological observations [66].

In other words...they have no freakin' clue. As an analogy, they just saw a ship disappear over the horizon for the first time and are trying to figure out why the earth is flat, when in fact they're missing the whole concept of curvature. I mean, come ON. Really? Aetherial winds and tidal effects from some invisible force field?

(Just so you don't have to look it up, the word "halo" refers to a field of dark matter that encompasses and penetrates and binds galaxies to hold them together gravitationally in a non-rotating starfield...which is nonsense. I have heard this once before...in Star Wars. Sooo...they pretty much believe in the Force. O.o Wow, can I be a Jedi, too? Can I? Can I? Just more unobserved, unproven, unquantified patchwork for all the holes present in the Copernican principle...this is known as philosophy where I come from.)

[Tarsier79]

How can the earth be hollow when it is flat?

[Silvertiger]

How can the earth be hollow when it is flat?

Well...you can believe that if you want to, although it isn't recommended lol.



Anyway, here is an interesting chronicle of quotes supported by experimental and observational data that all say pretty much the same thing...the earth is at rest:

And thus celestial bodies can move round the Earth at rest, as in the Tychonic system.

- Isaac Newton, Proposition 43, 1667

Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest.

- Hendrik Lorentz, 1886

A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth’s movement. The results were always negative.

- Henri Poincaré, 1904

Whether or not the motion of the Earth in space can be made perceptible in terrestrial experiments...all attempts of this nature have led to a negative result.

- Albert Einstein, 1952

No physical experiment has ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.

- Lincoln Barnett, 1957

The data were almost unbelievable…. There was only one other possible conclusion to draw — that the Earth was at rest.

- Bernard Jaffe, 1960

Thus, even now, three and a half centuries after Galileo's condemnation by the Inquisition, it is still remarkably difficult to say categorically whether the earth moves...

- Julian Barbour, 1989

I can construct for you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds.

- George Ellis, 1995

So which is real, the Ptolemaic or the Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true…one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for observation of the heavens can be explain by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.

- Stephen Hawking, 2010

And just to reiterate the 2013 findings: as of March 21st, 2013, the public release date of the data from Planck Satellite, finally, the anisotropies of the CMB were confirmed by Max Tegmark and were used as the first-ever frame of reference to compute the Earth's position and non-movement in space.

There is NO room in philosophy for observation (under which the current cosmological model and foundational Copernican principle are accurately categorized), and BARELY enough room for speculation. Observation and experimentation belong to REAL science and physics. One cannot simply say, "Well, what if..." and then write 500 papers on it and call it a fact, or law, or theory. In the words of physicist Kent Scheller: "Theory in science is not the same as theory as in a guess. In physics, theory describes WHAT is happening; law describes WHY." Neither one, by nature of observation and experimentation, can permit one iota of philosophy. And theory can only be established from observation and verified through experimentation. Law must confirm the results mathematically. I would imagine that there on not many who are aware of these definitions, as the current cosmological model is, in truth, supported by neither. It is supported by guesswork and by mathematics that best fit those guesses, which is one of the reasons why the four fundamental interactions cannot be united into one framework of theory.

Just because accepted science says something, doesn't mean it is 100% correct and there are no other explanations.

You said it, Chewy.

- Han Solo

:)

[Silvertiger]

Am I still talking hot air here? Is there no one who is willing to look at this for what it truly is? Then let me add yet more failed experiments, all leading to one massive successful one (even though it was considered a failure among the heliocentrists) that scored big time for the geocentrists, to the repertoire. If you like history then you will love this:

In 1818, a French scientist named Dominique Arago performed two experiments to establish the motion of the Earth and prove it once and for all. For the hypothesis of the first experiment, he posited that, just as a camera must have its lens refocused to capture an object that has moved in position relative to his, either closer or away, the same must be done for telescopes viewing celestial bodies like stars as the Earth moves closer to them and further away from them as it's proximity to them changes throughout the course of its orbit about the sun. Simple enough, right? WRONG.

So he set about his experiment and set his telescope to view a particular star over a period of six months. During that time frame, he never once had to refocus the lens. His experiment failed, and he was astonished at the result. In light of this data, as it was known then that the speed of light was constant, he reasoned like any heliocentrist would that the star was simply so far away that the slight movement of the Earth in relation to it simply didn't provide a large enough difference to have to refocus the lens. However, from the geocentrist point of view, the focusing problem still applied, but that nothing needed refocusing because the star retained the same distance from the Earth the entire time, and thus the Earth had not moved.

So Arago did another experiment to explain the first. Knowing that light travels slower through denser mediums, such as glass or water, Arago reasoned that if the Earth were not revolving around the sun, then the space between the sun and the Earth, which was understood at the time to be composed of a rarefied substance called Aether, then the speed of light should be impeded to some degree or another by the Aether, just as it is in glass or water. The experiment, however, revealed that regardless of whether a beam of light was pointed in the direction of Earth's supposed orbit around the sun, or in the opposite direction of its orbit, there was no effect on the speed of light. The experiment also showed that the beam of light had the same refraction index in glass as that of starlight in glass. The data from this experiment only seemed to point to an Earth that did not move.

This was his conclusion from the experiments:

Arago submitted the matter to the test of experiment, and concluded that the light coming from any star behaves in all cases of reflexion and refraction precisely as it would if the star were situated in the place which it appears to occupy in consequence of aberration, and the earth were at rest; so that the apparent refraction in a moving prism is equal to the absolute refraction in a fixed prism.

- E.T. Whittaker, (A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity, 1910, Chapter: The Luminiferous Medium, pg. 116)

So, in response, this guy, Augustin Fresnel, comes along and says the experiment showed nothing because the lens, which contained Aether (which penetrated all substances), was dragged along inside of the lens against a fixed Aether background at just the right amount of drag to offset and equalize the 67,000 mph motion of the Earth relative to the star such that it would never appear that the Earth had moved at all! He even wrote an equation of drag to go along with it. This gave reprieve to the momentary tightness in the chest the heliocentric community was feeling. But of course this was only speculation (philosophy) and not direct empirical evidence, and they knew this. But guess what? We have known for some time that there is no Aether...or so they say, and therefore the experiment is valid!...or is it? O.o Just scratch your head and nod. It's what I do.

Anyway, Armand Fizeau comes along and attempts to prove Frisnel's aetherial drag ad-hoc explanation by filling two parallel tubes with water, connecting the tubes with a little cross-tube, and inducing a rapid water flow from one to the other so that the current would be reversed in relation to the other. He then sent light through both tubes in the direction of the flow, and a separate beam against the flow. He posited that the light beam moving against the flow would move slower than the beam moving with the flow. And this is exactly what he measured in his experiment. And of course his excuse was exactly the same as Frisnel's...that the Aether against the light beam was dragging the light which retarded its speed. His hypothesis was immediately called into question and it has been found that he only succeeded in measuring a change in the water's refractive index based on the direction of flow in relation to the direction of the light traveling through it.

Since Fizeau's experiment was "indeterminate," along comes George Airy to take up the torch. His was a new and innovative approach. Fill up one telescope with water and the other with air. He reasoned that since light moved slower in water than in air, the starlight would thus refract more, causing it to refract outward toward the side of the telescope in a changing direction of refraction that correlated with the motion of the Earth around the sun before hitting the eyepiece. So he accounted for this by saying he would have to slightly tilt the telescope into the direction of the refraction (like pointing an umbrella in the direction of the rain to keep it off your body) so that the light would always hit the eyepiece.

To his amazement, no tilting was required. It captured the same amount of light from the same direction as the air-filled telescope did. Although the light did move slower, it did not refract into the sidewall and went straight into the eyepiece. This data seemed to be in direct opposition to the heliocentric/Copernican model, as it appeared from this experiment as well that the Earth was not moving! A moving Earth would have caused the starlight to constantly refract into the sidewall of the water-filled telescope, but this was not the case. This experiment, unlike the others, could not be questioned with notions of Aetherial drag and the limited speed of light. This experiment came to be known as Airy's Failure, and remains one of the strongest pieces of scientifically observed and experimentally verified evidence that shows that the Earth does not move.

Fifteen years later, in 1886, physicist Hendrik Lorentz, an advertised heliocentrist, in response to the unchallenged experiment, amazingly, conceded that "Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest, and the relative rays were the absolute rays."

[Art]

If you extend a line from the earth to the Sun and observe and use this as the reference point , then

1. the earth rotates once every 24 hours in relation to the Sun .

2. If you further project this line off into the distance to the CMB and observe the CMB fine structure and use this as reference then (you claim) that the Earth does not rotate in relation to this ?

So according to this reasoning the CMB must appear to be rotating around the Sun at a speed of one rotation every 24 hours otherwise it cannot be said to be stationary in relation to the Earth (or should it be that we are stationary in relation to it) !

This means it also must be rotating around the background of fixed stars which are largely static in relation to the position of the Sun as we observe them in our telescopes.

3. The CMB is a a radiation pattern . What we seem to know with a fair degree of certainty is that light and electromagnetic radiation always radiates in a spherical pattern from its source . We observe this incoming light also from a "source " (the Earth) . All directions have the same "weighting" for validity of direction when observing electromagnetic radiation .

To say we are stationary in relation to the CMB is equivalent to saying that we are stationary in relation to a torch light beam that we shine in the dark as we spin in a circle .

The rotation (or not) of the Earth must be measured in relation to other Matter not a field of view of incoming (omnidirectional) radiation .

4. The background star mass is what makes up the majority of the mass in the Universe and it is logical to continue using this unless there is good evidence that what we think we see is a chimera .

5. The value (and only reason for accepting) a new theory is if it explains better known observations, and predicts further observations not recognised by the supplanted theory.

This one placing the scanty observations of the CMB in a dominant position has a long way to go .

And besides , I like the idea that this time tomorrow the sun will be back to the same position again warming my back nicely ( providing there aren't too many clouds obscuring the view ) and that it happens because the Suns overriding gravity will dictate that we orbit it for some considerable time in the future with or without us thinking we are the centre. ! : )

[Silvertiger]

And yet, Newton (from his proposition 43), Mach, Einstein, and even Galileo and Hawking, admitted either through math or direct admission or both that the Earth doesn't move or that it is possible that it doesn't move. Stellar parallax, stellar aberration, centrifugal force, coriolis force, and euler force can all be explained in a stationary earth model wherein the cosmos rotates about a center of mass with a wobble of 23 degrees. By saying that this is not possible is saying that you agree with a philosophical point of view. Those view are predicated and modeled under the unobserved and unproven assumption that the starfield does not rotate and that the Earth orbits the Sun.

The position of the Earth can be measured against the anisotropies of the CMB whose mapped poles align with Earth's equinox plane and with its ecliptic plane.

an·i·so·trop·ic
anˌīsəˈtrōpik,-ˈträpik
adjective PHYSICS
(of an object or substance) having a physical property that has a different value when measured in different directions. A simple example is wood, which is stronger along the grain than across it.
(of a property or phenomenon) varying in magnitude according to the direction of measurement.

As you can see from the definition, and from excerpts from the cited paper which admits to as much, there is a preferred direction of the CMB which can be used to map the position of Earth in space. Doppler redshift supports this position. Airy's Failure supports this. The geocentric model is the only cosmological model to date that has actual observed and tested data (and from multiple experiments) that support it, whereas the Copernican model, our current model, has none. Zilch. They have actually concocted things like dark matter, dark energy, and the multiverse philosophies to support its weak foundations.

Go back and read the two most recent posts. Then go back further. The evidence is everywhere. If we rotated, we would not see the anisotropic alignments 24/7 now would we? It is constant. Just because this evidence is not what is taught in physics doesn't mean it isn't real. It just means that it isn't voted for by popular opinion. They have replaced science with philosophy and built a big mansion right on top.

ONCE AGAIN...and I don't know how many times I will repeat this in the future...every experiment ever conducted to attempt to prove that the Earth moves AT ALL has failed...miserably. In fact, those very experiments have shown the Earth to be at rest. Many of them can be done from the comfort of your own home. Please read and try not to skim lol. :) And I do appreciate those who do take the time to read and respond.

[ovyyus]

...every experiment ever conducted to attempt to prove that the Earth moves AT ALL has failed...

Could that also be the case for someone on Mars who might conduct the same experiments to determine if Mars moves?

[Art]

"If we rotated, we would not see the anisotropic alignments 24/7 now would we?"

Thats the problem right there ! : )

A hologram is a 2 dimensional representation of a 3 dimensional interference pattern .

That CMB map you see drawn of the "observable " Universe is a hologram .

One of the characteristics of a hologram is that when you project light through it , it reconstructs the light in the original form of whatever caused the interference pattern in the first place .

We produce holograms by shining coherent laser light on an object from different directions to produce the interference patterns and hence the 2 dimensional hologram .

When we reproduce the original image , by again shining light through the 2 dimensional image , it reproduces the original image from the same direction as it was observed from but with the additional feature that if you move to the side (or even behind in the case of really good quality holograms) you see the side or the back of the object from the new observation point.

With the CMB as long as you look at it from the same "direction" as it was recorded from you will see the same image because it is a three dimensional interference pattern (rendered in 2 dimensions) caused by the omnidirectional impingement of the microwaves from every point in the 3 dimensional universe .And we always look at it from the same direction ie from the Earth - looking out into the hologram .

We can't ignore the fact that the CMB is a three dimensional interference pattern and is NOT a physical construct . It is a "light pattern" that we observe.

Because we observe the hologram always from the same direction (because we are looking out from one point (the Earth) it will always appear directionally the same to us .

The analogy of spinning in the dark with a torchbeam and saying we don't rotate because the torch beam is always in the same direction goes some way to making this understandable but unfortunately not all the way .

Holograms are interesting constructs !

[Silvertiger]

@Art:
So, are you basing the entire current cosmological principle on your guess that the anisotropies themselves are holograms? I think you have a couple of definitions confused:

i·so·trop·ic
ˌīsəˈträpik,ˌīsəˈtrōpik
adjective PHYSICS
(of an object or substance) having a physical property that has the same value when measured in different directions.
(of a property or phenomenon) not varying in magnitude according to the direction of measurement.

The isotropy of the CMB that was thought to constitute it is your hologram; the anisotropies are not - they establish direction. Hence, anisotropies do not appear the same from all vantage points. As an example, I'll use wood since in my previous post it was used as an example in the definition of anisotropic. If wood had no grain to see then how could one determine the direction of the grain to figure out the best way to split it?

Added Edit: And, remember COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer)? Launched in 1989, it showed the CMB to actually be quite anisotropic and inhomogeneous, which of course disproved the flat-curved-homogeneous ever-expanding-curved-balloon model (yes, the description is as preposterous as it is a mouthful) and spit in the face of the notion of a big bang...and both of those "theories" are just assumptions built upon assumptions, built upon even more unworkable assumptions, decided by the evolving politics of modern science of the day as to what is acceptable versus what the minds of men are simply unwilling to accept. As you go along, more lies must be spun to feed only one lie, of which math is the biggest culprit of deception. Math seems to justify anything these days...not observation. COBE prompted the subsequent launches of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) in 2001 and Planck in 2009 - and they all said the same exact thing: that there is a very organized and systematic distribution of microwaves in the universe, and that, moreover, generate specific lines in directions that align with Earth itself...the biggest case of x-marks-the-spot ever recorded.

Can you address the many experiments and other data scientifically?

@Ovyyus:
As far as your Mars question, the same experiments would yield the movement of Mars if conducted on Mars. (And these experiments SHOULD be done on a moving body in space. I don't care if it is a space station as long as it is moving and has either real or artificial gravity.) But here on Earth, nothing seems to go anywhere. At all. Not even a little. In fact, all the experiments actually did empirically prove the existence of an aether of some kind.

Einstein himself and his colleagues ignored the data of over 100 experiments conducted by several physicists over nearly a quarter century who performed their own interferometer tests, which had to be nullified to support Relativity, as each experiment independently verified the exact results of all the others which measured an actual aether substance that permeated space. For if they were truly accurate, then relativity was wrong, and they couldn't have THAT; for to reintroduce the aether after all that trouble would render relativity null and force all of science to concede that the Earth truly was at rest in space. Ironically, Michelson himself never supported relativity even though he was a heliocentrist. Funny how science embraced the Aether for centuries until it directly contradicted the Copernican Principle, isn't it? This is what happens in a complex web of lies. It always breaks down. More on these "complexities" later. :)

I'll go into further historical detail on the chronology of the ad-hoc chain of philosophical theories that arose in direct response to to the M-M experiment at a later time, and establish a never-ending cycle of contradictions and cases of the fallacy in reasoning known as "begging the question," or using an idea to, in effect, prove the same idea that was used to prove it.

[ovyyus]

As far as your Mars question, the same experiments would yield the movement of Mars if conducted on Mars.

Are you saying the same experiments conducted on Earth and on Mars would show Earth is stationary and Mars is moving?

[Silvertiger]

Yes. I would hope so. They have already used interferometers to measure spectra and atmospheric winds on Mars. Why not motion? (Mariner 9's interferometer was named Michelson [1972] lol. Its Nimbus predecessors were also Michelson interferometers.)

[Silvertiger]

More on the CMB for Art:

Further study of the CMB map yielded remarkable results. As the research teams divided the microwave distribution in the CMB by the strength of the signals coming from outer space, they found that the distribution could best be represented by polarity. In this case, dipoles (2 poles opposite each other, as in a magnet) and quadrupoles (4 poles or regions opposite each other). When the location of the dipole image was calculated, scientists found that it was aligned with the Earth's equinoxes (or equator). The radiation data revealed that the universe itself was divided perfectly in half: into a northern and a southern hemisphere, with respect to Earth's northern and southern hemispheres as they are divided at the equator. IOW, if a line was drawn connecting the center points of the two dipoles, and the horizontal line of that "axis" was extended into a plane that spanned the whole universe, that planar axis would intersect Earth directly at its equator. The implications of the data were, to say the least, very astounding to cosmologists. One of the astronomical teams from the University of Michigan commented in a 2004 peer-reviewed paper the following:

Physical correlation of the CMB map with the equinoxes is difficult to imagine, since the WMAP satellite has no knowledge of the inclination of the Earth's spin-axis.

Some scientists came back with the explanation that the dipoles only appeared because of the solar system's motion through the Milky Way galaxy. They posited that if such solar motion encounters cosmic dust along its route, it might create a polarity in the CMB such as the way in which rain drops produce a rainbow as light is refracted off the water droplets. Moreover, they also suggested that the dipole could be from a Doppler effect in our solar movement, and that our motion towards it would produce a blueshift, and our movement away from it would produce a redshift, thus forming a dipole. But further study revealed that attributing the existence of the dipoles to the motion of the solar system through the CMB did not match any of the empirical data. Indian physicist Rahul Kothari commented that the data...

...suggests a potential violation of the cosmological principle...that the Universe may be intrinsically anisotropic with the preferred axis approximately in the direction of the CMBR dipole.

Kothari's team wrote in their conclusion the following:

Hence the data is not consistent with the CMBR dipole. It clearly indicated the presence of an intrinsic dipole anisotropy which cannot be explained in terms of local motion.

This result was confirmed at the 4 to 5 sigma level by Kothari, and the team thus also concluded that:

...the anisotropy we observe may have a physical origin.

In another paper, in 2013 by Copi, Huterer, Schwarz, and Starkman, it was noted that:

The Doppler dipole is about two orders of magnitude larger than the expected cosmological CMB dipole.

This disproved the notion that the "alleged" motion of our solar system in the Milky Way was producing dipoles from the Doppler Effect, for, if we were, we would be moving way too fast for the cosmological principle to still be upheld. Therefore, the microwave polarity must originate within the composition of the universe itself. In a followup paper, the amplitude of the dipole was later confirmed to be...

...inconsistent with the assumption of a pure kinetic origin of the radio dipole at 99.6%CL [confidence level].

There are more papers from scientists and teams confirming the data establishing the dipoles as being inherent to the universe and not kinetic and inherent to motion of the solar system.
From yet another paper:

...the present anisotropies could not be caused by a motion of the solar system as it could not give rise to different anisotropies for different objects. Further, observer's motion cannot in any case explain the very difficult radio size distributions of quasars and radio galaxies in the two regions. There is certainly a cause for worry. Is there a breakdown of the Copernican Principle, as things seen in two regions of sky, divided purely by a coordinate system based on Earth's orientation in space, shows a very large anisotropy of source distribution? Why should the equinox points and the NCP have any bearing on the large scale distribution of matter in the universe?...It seems that the Copernican principle is in jeopardy.

Also, from the same data, if one were to draw a line radially from the sun to the Earth and extend that circle plane to the bounds of the universe, it would align perfectly with the quadrupoles and octopoles established in the CMB, an alignment that can be claimed by no other position in the universe! And before you try to say again that the CMB is isotropic, there is yet ANOTHER axis, a third axis plane, that intersects the Earth at its north and south celestial poles as the connecting points. I also forgot to mention that galaxies are aligned as well; more specifically their spiral handedness.

It's like they see it, but don't know how to believe it.

[ovyyus]

It's like they see it, but don't know how to believe it.

They're not paid to believe. I guess it must seem a massive leap backwards to believe we're at the centre of the universe... again :D