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

Miscellaneous news and views...

Moderator: scott

Post Reply
rlortie
Addict
Addict
Posts: 8475
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:20 pm
Location: Stanfield Or.

re: The Earth Doesn't Rotate or Move - No...seriously. It do

Post by rlortie »

Finally figured it out!: Bessler's wheel did not rotate, The castle revolved around it while the witnesses feet were kept on the floor by centrifugal force aka what ever Frank call's it!
User avatar
Silvertiger
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1059
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:12 pm
Location: Henderson, KY

Post by Silvertiger »

That would be an Ersatz wheel lol.
Art
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1019
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:55 pm
Location: Australia

re: The Earth Doesn't Rotate or Move - No...seriously. It do

Post by Art »

Hi Silvertiger :

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

------The anisotropies are supposedly recorded temperature variations from coldest to warmest in the microwave signal of 0.00005 Degrees Kelvin. They are the CMB !

Quote "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. "

--------Nothing appears the same from different vantage points .Interference patterns especially .

Quote "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 ? "

------I really have no trouble understanding the word anisotropic . Simple english - something that's not the same !

The analogy of the grain in wood is not really a suitable analogy here . What we are looking at is a pattern of electromagnetic wave interference in a "substrate" of space with gravitational and magnetic fields and heaven knows what else . Its hardly as straightforward as a grain in wood running in one direction .

I might suggest a better analogy woud be a block of transparent crystal such as peridot or chrysolite which has the property of birefringence or double refraction as well as different cleavage planes that refracts and reflects light sources in many different directions depending on the incident light beam , more in keeping with what is actually being observed.

With the CMB our only evidence on direction has to be extracted from electromagnetic wave interaction - not something that we recognise as being solidly physical .

Quote "Can you address the many experiments and other data scientifically ?"

--------Like you have done ? , - Probably not ! : )

Quote " 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."


--------There is one thing that the current orthodox Cosmologists seem to agree with each other on almost 100% from what I've read .It is that the CMB is undisputed proof of the Big Bang theory because the Big Bang theory predicts the Cosmic Microwave Background down to a very high degree of precision .

These are the people involved with the launching of the satellites , the recording of the data and its interpretation . The CMB is their baby !

Since everything involved with these operations is based on mathematics up to and including these CMB maps , how can anyone comment on the presence or absence of directional information in the data without acknowledging that it is 100% computerised mathematics ?

The CMB cannot be observed without sophisticated electronic computerised and attenuated (to factors of between 10,000 and 20,000) equipment ! You either have to accept the validity of the mathematics involved or forget the whole subject .

You can't site the fact that the CMB proves that the Earth is stationary if it doesn't . And the people involved at the coalface of the study are not saying that the CMB rotates around the Solar System and the Fixed Star background at a rate of one rotation every 24 hours like it would have to to meet the condition of not moving relative to the Earth 24/7 as you state !

The Earth is proven (by direct observation) to rotate once every 24 hours in relation to the Sun and the Fixed Star background , so therefore if the CMB is stationary over the surface of the Earth it must therefore be rotating around the Solar system and Fixed Star background once every 24 hours !

Show me that Scientific evidence supporting this one point and I'm converted ! : )
Have had the solution to Bessler's Wheel approximately monthly for over 30 years ! But next month is "The One" !
User avatar
Ed
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2049
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2004 7:13 pm
Contact:

Re: re: The Earth Doesn't Rotate or Move - No...seriously. I

Post by Ed »

ovyyus wrote: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
They've given up and have been seen in bars, holding up their hands asking people how many fingers they are holding up? That's right 10. Now, how many fingers would ten scientists be holding up?
User avatar
Silvertiger
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1059
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:12 pm
Location: Henderson, KY

Post by Silvertiger »

Wrong. Its pretty simple Art...it has never been proven empirically that the earth moves...at all. Period. The entire model is built on the assumption that it does. Why is this so hard to believe? Ask any physicist. Ernst Mach has never been challenged on this. I don't care how blue your face gets talking about it...you can never prove a motion exists through observation nor by experiment Art. The very people who mapped the CMB are the same ones who noticed these alignments and anisotropies, genius. Do I really have to go back through my posts and cite interviews, physicists, and published papers that all claim that the cosmological principle is in jeopardy from this data alone? Anisotropies by definition cannot be observed in the same way from two different points in space. Does that compute? You have hundreds of physicists saying that the only way this data is possible is if the earth is somehow at rest in one unique spot. And you have hundreds of experiments that show that the earth does not move. I'm starting to sound like a broken record. Who knows...maybe they're all stupid, every single one of them and only you are the one who truly knows...
Last edited by Silvertiger on Mon Feb 27, 2017 4:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Silvertiger
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1059
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:12 pm
Location: Henderson, KY

Re: re: The Earth Doesn't Rotate or Move - No...seriously. I

Post by Silvertiger »

Art wrote:The anisotropies are supposedly recorded temperature variations from coldest to warmest in the microwave signal of 0.00005 Degrees Kelvin. They are the CMB !
Umm...DUH. Thanks for the update...I'm glad that one of the oldest things in the universe hasn't changed...whew...O.o
Art wrote:Nothing appears the same from different vantage points. Interference patterns especially.
Once again...DUH.
Art wrote:I really have no trouble understanding the word anisotropic . Simple english - something that's not the same !
I'm not so sure. You seem to know the definition quite well. As far as understanding and applying...not so much. Or so it seems...
Art wrote:The analogy of the grain in wood is not really a suitable analogy here. What we are looking at is a pattern of electromagnetic wave interference in a "substrate" of space with gravitational and magnetic fields and heaven knows what else. Its hardly as straightforward as a grain in wood running in one direction.
Sure it is, Art. Although the grain of the would twists and curves and winds randomly, it does all of this in one particular direction. The CMB is no different. The temperature variations are the grain.
Art wrote:I might suggest a better analogy woud be a block of transparent crystal such as peridot or chrysolite which has the property of birefringence or double refraction as well as different cleavage planes that refracts and reflects light sources in many different directions depending on the incident light beam , more in keeping with what is actually being observed.
...yeah, all I got from that was cleavage from the diamond girl on x-men...
Art wrote:With the CMB our only evidence on direction has to be extracted from electromagnetic wave interaction - not something that we recognise as being solidly physical.
To the first part of that statement...NO, it doesn't...just temperature differences...that's it...it ain't complicated; and as to the second, you should be well aware that something doesn't have to be solid in order to see it.
Art wrote:Like you have done ? , - Probably not ! : )
Yes, I have invested many, many hours of my own time into research. It is also basically all I did while I was on vacation for nine days. (Slight tangent here, but why are all of your punctuations separated from your sentences by one space???)
Art wrote:There is one thing that the current orthodox Cosmologists seem to agree with each other on almost 100% from what I've read .It is that the CMB is undisputed proof of the Big Bang theory because the Big Bang theory predicts the Cosmic Microwave Background down to a very high degree of precision .
Really??? Do I have to go back in time for you? I wish you would read. I really do. Here we go...again: The Big Bang simply allows for the CMB; it doesn't necessitate it, nor is the CMB dependent upon a big bang. Once again, those are assumptions supported by ad-hoc formulae.
The foundation of modern cosmology relies on the so-called cosmological principle which states an homogeneous and isotropic distribution of matter in the universe on large scales. However, recent observations, such as the temperature anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, the motion of galaxies in the universe, the polarization of quasars and the acceleration of the cosmic expansion, indicate preferred directions in the sky. If these directions have a cosmological origin, the cosmological principle would be violated, and modern cosmology should be reconsidered.
- Paper, Preferred Axis in Cosmology, 5May2016
But when you look at the 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.
- Lawrence Krauss, Threoretical Physicist, Cosmologist, Director Origins Project, Arizona State University
...Dude...just go back one page and read...
Art wrote:These are the people involved with the launching of the satellites , the recording of the data and its interpretation . The CMB is their baby !
I commented on this in my previous post.
Art wrote:Since everything involved with these operations is based on mathematics up to and including these CMB maps , how can anyone comment on the presence or absence of directional information in the data without acknowledging that it is 100% computerised mathematics ?
Because different algorithms were used, as well as new software and programs and new instrumentation. They did this so that if that was indeed the case, then the rewrites would solve it...it didn't work. The map was the same...three times...three different ways of being measured and computed. They were very disappointed to say the least.
Art wrote:The CMB cannot be observed without sophisticated electronic computerised and attenuated (to factors of between 10,000 and 20,000) equipment ! You either have to accept the validity of the mathematics involved or forget the whole subject .
If that is the case then you yourself must dismiss all mathematics that you believe support the cosmological principle. Heck they were made up anyway!...Ad-HOC! On-the SPOT! Every TIME! Where do I begin? Should I begin with Aetherial Drag? Contraction of Length, originally postulated solely on the assumption of the existence of the Aether? The General Theory of Relativity? Special Relativity? Contraction of Length still used but now NOT based on Aether but still unchanged? The continuous modifications Einstein made to relativity ad-hoc-on-the-spot in response to a new idea of an inflated universe, and then back again to the original for no reason other than to satisfy the ever-changing philosophical theories on redshift? The constant modifications of the properties and variables of space, time, etc., in a constant effort to MAKE it work each time a Copernican conflict arose? Dark Matter? Dark Energy? String Theory? Where should I begin??? O.O

Where I come from Art, we don't make up equations to explain how a 19th century steam-powered locomotive could fly if we simply assumed that it could...that is philosophy.

I saw the train flying from a distance many a time...but several years later it was confirmed to be a mirage. However, I had already written out my theory, complete with the supporting mathematics that proved how the train might be able to fly, and had convinced others as well. I felt pretty good about my popularity; so I and the others involved just casually brushed this new data off to the side. Many others, these little disparaging scientific orthodoxical outsiders, began to claim our flying train principle to be false. But we ignored their experiments and their observations and their data and waved them away like flies in our face, and we wrote more stupid theories on top of it and more and more math so that everyone would eventually be so confounded and impressed that they eventually left us alone...for a time. But now they're back...dammit.
Art wrote:You can't site the fact that the CMB proves that the Earth is stationary if it doesn't . And the people involved at the coalface of the study are not saying that the CMB rotates around the Solar System and the Fixed Star background at a rate of one rotation every 24 hours like it would have to to meet the condition of not moving relative to the Earth 24/7 as you state!
I addressed this in my previous post.
Art wrote:The Earth is proven (by direct observation) to rotate once every 24 hours in relation to the Sun and the Fixed Star background...
Even though I addressed this in my previous post, I will address it again. NO. IT. ISN'T. Rotation is an assumption; orbit is an assumption; fixed starfield is an assumption - THAT is proven.
Art wrote:Show me that Scientific evidence supporting this one point and I'm converted ! : )
I already did. You just skipped over it and didn't read. Go back. And. Read. Please. These guys will explain it to you: Galileo, Newton, Mach, Einstein, Hawking, Krauss, etc....
Last edited by Silvertiger on Mon Feb 27, 2017 5:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Philosophy is the beginning of science; not the conclusion.
User avatar
Trevor
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2623
Joined: Sat Apr 20, 2013 11:42 am

re: The Earth Doesn't Rotate or Move - No...seriously. It do

Post by Trevor »

Silvertiger I would like to get involved in this fascinating debate but I need to focus on one problem at a time; its about brain overload, if you know the feeling.
It's a wrap!
User avatar
Silvertiger
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1059
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:12 pm
Location: Henderson, KY

Post by Silvertiger »

My brain doesn't get overloaded. It just simply goes in several directions at once. These directions are cosmically aligned with the ecliptic, equinox, and celestial pole axis planes of my mind. Therefore I know for a fact my head won't come unscrewed due to excess rotation like it does for others, hee hee... O.O
ovyyus
Addict
Addict
Posts: 6543
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 2:41 am

re: The Earth Doesn't Rotate or Move - No...seriously. It do

Post by ovyyus »

Ralph wrote:Finally figured it out!: Bessler's wheel did not rotate, The castle revolved around it while the witnesses feet were kept on the floor by centrifugal force aka what ever Frank call's it!
I guess everything becomes possible in a post-truth, post-trump, alternate-fact world :D
Art
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1019
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:55 pm
Location: Australia

re: The Earth Doesn't Rotate or Move - No...seriously. It do

Post by Art »

Silvertiger ,

Most of what you are talking about really does not make much sense to me because you do not adequately answer the core question here that has been put in my previous posts ie

"You can't site the fact that the CMB proves that the Earth is stationary if it doesn't . And the people involved at the coalface of the study are not saying that the CMB rotates around the Solar System and the Fixed Star background at a rate of one rotation every 24 hours like it would have to , to meet the condition of not moving relative to the Earth 24/7 as you state !

The Earth is proven (by direct observation) to rotate once every 24 hours in relation to the Sun and the Fixed Star background , so therefore if the CMB is stationary over the surface of the Earth it must therefore be rotating around the Solar system and Fixed Star background once every 24 hours !"

This involves direct observation combined with elementary logic !

We obviously differ in our reasoning processes ! : )

I'll take myself out of here and leave you in peace .
Have had the solution to Bessler's Wheel approximately monthly for over 30 years ! But next month is "The One" !
User avatar
Silvertiger
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1059
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:12 pm
Location: Henderson, KY

Post by Silvertiger »

Art, from your posts it is no argument to say that you are extremely competent. In light of that, don't you agree that these "direct observations" you're citing could describe both? Whether it be a moving earth or a moving starfield? And that based on Mach's Principle, one would never feel or know the difference? If you cannot agree on this, then the discussion should go no further as it would be pointless. Show me yours and I'll show you mine so to speak? I'm back to work now so it will take more time to prepare proper citations with sources of observational data in accord with what has been recorded. At least I have cited papers and physicists and data, which is more than you can say; you have to admit that. Proof must work both ways. You can't just say something arbitrarily and not attempt to back it up, based on the notion that it is commonplace knowledge and doesn't need to...that is circular reasoning. This type of reasoning is easy to overlook and is largely culpable for the existence of the current cosmological model and its supporting theories and math and should be avoided. To dismiss Mach's Principle outright is the same as admitting with prejudice that there is only one possible way to interpret what has been observed. Don't bug out yet! I'll get back to you. :)
Art
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1019
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:55 pm
Location: Australia

re: The Earth Doesn't Rotate or Move - No...seriously. It do

Post by Art »

Quote "don't you agree that these "direct observations" you're citing could describe both? Whether it be a moving earth or a moving starfield? And that based on Mach's Principle, one would never feel or know the difference?"

--------Yes I definitely agree with that . But for the purposes of the reasoning , it doesn't matter whether you say that the Earth rotates once every 24 hours in relation to the Sun/Fixed Star background or whether the Sun/Fixed Star background rotates around the Earth once every 24 hours . The observable fact is that the position of any point on the surface of the Earth traces a path of 360 degrees once every 24 hours in relation to the Sun/Fixed Star field.

Now if the CMB is stationary with a point on the surface of the Earth , then it too must rotate once every 24 hours in relation to the Sun/Fixed Star background . Or if you want to say it reversed :- the Sun/Fixed Star background must rotate once every 24 hours in relation to the CMB and the Earth .

The literature that I have read indicates that yes there is evidence that can be interpreted to say that the CMB may have fixed directions in space , but nowhere can I find any reference to data that indicates that the CMB rotates in relation to the Sun/Fixed Star field once every 24 hours that is required to satisfy the claim that the CMB is stationary with respect to the surface of the Earth 24/7 .

I can't quote sources for information that doesn't seem to be there . A double dilemma ! : )
Have had the solution to Bessler's Wheel approximately monthly for over 30 years ! But next month is "The One" !
User avatar
Silvertiger
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1059
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:12 pm
Location: Henderson, KY

Post by Silvertiger »

Ahhh. I see what you're saying now. Yeah I haven't found anything on that either. Seems important! I'll see what I can dig up on it. From what I have seen on it so far with the available info, the CMB alignments do seem to place us in a preferred location at the center of the universe, as well as the concentric dispersement of quasars and gamma ray bursters relative to our position...a concentricity that could not be observed from any other position, but yes, I haven't found data yet that correlates it to a rotation. That is a very good point. I'll look into it. However, it falls to me to point out that even if earth does rotate, the very notion that we are at the center violates the Copernican principle and this is what all these physicists have been saying since 2005. There is an overwhelming magnitude of consensus in the scientific community in this regard which is why it seems to be the hot topic. Rotation I gather must be an afterthought lol.
User avatar
eccentrically1
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3133
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm

Post by eccentrically1 »

The poles of the CMB are not in exact alignment. The dipole vector is at an angle of 14.1 degrees with the autumnal equinox. The quadrupole vector is at an angle to the equinox of 23.1°. The dipole vector to the ecliptic plane is 11.1°, etc. All together, the alignments lie within a 30° cone.
The chances are much greater that the CMB dipoles, quadropoles, and octopoles, etc. are in alignment with another body or system in the universe. Which doesn't mean that body would be the center of the universe, or that it doesn't move. Here are the latest pdf's on the CMB.
The math looks correct, 0.0,lol

https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/news/whatsnew_hist.cfm

Paper posted Feb. 13th 2017:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1507.02704.pdf
daanopperman
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1546
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 7:43 pm

re: The Earth Doesn't Rotate or Move - No...seriously. It do

Post by daanopperman »

Messier 31 is 2.537 million light years distant from earth , if it was to circumvent the earth , it would have to cover a distance of 7.9 + light years in 24 hrs .
Post Reply