geocentric theory: catholic propaganda?

Inimalist asks:

"Trans: Can you explain how, in a universe where general relativity exists, the Earth can be said to be motionless, when motion is relative, and any motion in the planets could relatively be seen as motion in the Earth?"

So, in order to say the earth is motionless, under GR, we simply select Earth as our stationary reference frame, and, by means of a simple coordinate transformation, we notice that all motions observed in a Sun-centered solar system model, can be easily-indeed effortlessly-reproduced in an Earth centered model.

This is, of course, exactly what Albert Einstein is trying so patiently to explain to you and the rest of your herd:

Albert Einstein simply won't stop his patient and charitable attempt to break through the cognitive barriers of inimalist and company:

"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS [coordinate system] could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves', or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest', would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS [coordinate systems]."

---"The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, New York, Simon and Schuster 1938, 1966 p.212

This, by the way, is precisely what NOAA in fact has done, in its navigational procedures for satellites upon which our global civilization depends.

That's right, inimalist. NOAA has selected a motionless, fixed-non-rotating-earth-centered frame for its GOES satellite operations.

They understand very well how to say that the Earth is motionless under GR.

And now you do too.

You're welcome.

"doesn't that make the idea of the Earth being the center of the universe meaningless?"

>>Since the GOES satellite function is based upon this specific earth-centered-earth-fixed coordinate transformation, I would venture to guess that the answer to your question is "no", wouldn't you?

"oh, and evidence?"

>>Always happy to provide evidence, inimalist, in a manner which clearly differentiates me from my opposition on this thread thus far......after all, the human intellect is capable of distinguishing between scientific argument and empty bluster. This is why your team is getting its a** kicked so shockingly on this thread so far.

I mean, think about it inimalist. If ever there ought to have been a lay-down, flat out slaughter, it ought to have been your posse against the poor little ol' geocentrist trans, here.

But you are and your herd are looking more and more like the Red Army after they rolled into Afghanistan.

Now pull up a chair and don't go anywhere, folks.

This is about to get interesting.

PROOF NOAA USES GEOCENTRIC FIXED-NON-ROTATING EARTH COORDINATE TRANSFORMATIONS FOR SATELLITE NAVIGATION

Letter addressed to Charles E. Liddick, US Department of Commerce, Office of Satellite Operations Washington DC 20233
Dated: November 22, 1989
From: Lee Rann, GOES/POLAR Navigation, Office of Satellite Operations at the NOAA Offices in the department of National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service

In response to the inquiry forwarded by Mr. Liddick from questioner Marshall Hall; "Is the present movement of GOES [Geostationary Satellite] planned and executed on the basis of a fixed earth or a rotating earth?', the answer returned by Lee Rann, the department head of GOES/POLAR Navigation, Office of Satellite Operations at NOAA was quite simple: "Fixed earth".

-----Marshall Hall, "The Earth Is Not Moving", Georgia Fair Education Foundation 1994, p.261, as cited in Sungenis, op cit, p.128

Now, the posse here is about to try a new tactic, having failed miserably to answer my scientific arguments.

Now they will try to bury all rational argumentation in bs. It's called the "howler monkey" tactic. The howlers try to chase off interlopers on "their turf" by screeching at the top of their yammering lungs, and flinging handfuls of excrement.

But I've got all the time, and patience, in the world.

And by the time I am done with y'all, the fair-minded observer is going to be pretty surprised to see that there is NO argument which can be raised from within the framework of General Relativity, for ANY proof of ANY kind for ANY absolute motion of the earth, either around the sun, or around its own axis.

Once this has been clearly, unambiguously established- and trust me, it will be (actually, for those who can read Einstein, it already has been), we will proceed to the much more interesting question of whether or not evidence exists, from orbital sensors not available at the time of the formulation of General Relativity by Einstein, which would provide NEW evidence for a geocentric, as opposed to an acentric, cosmos.

The answer to that question, by the way, is YES.

Howler monkeys be d****d.

the post I made immediately before this shows unequivocally that you are misusing Einstein's quote, yet you use it AGAIN in the same intellectually dishonest manner...

I also at this point will DIRECTLY question your understanding of the scientific method. This is not a history debate, nor is it a sociological debate. The opinions or writings of any individual are not important. What is important is that a theory explains things better than other competing theories (this is without getting into the idea of research programs from the Lakatos chapter you cited but never read).

Step 1: What is one single observation or empirical finding that cannot be explained through a heliocentric theory?

and, since you are so up to date on philosophy of science, why not explain why that type of evidence isn't enough to support your point, explain what type of evidence you need, then show how your theory of geocentrism provides this. It should be REALLY simple, especially if you have read the material you are sourcing. Which I categorically believe you haven't.

and to note:

Originally posted by Transfinitum
PROOF NOAA USES GEOCENTRIC FIXED-NON-ROTATING EARTH COORDINATE TRANSFORMATIONS FOR SATELLITE NAVIGATION

Letter addressed to Charles E. Liddick, US Department of Commerce, Office of Satellite Operations Washington DC 20233
Dated: November 22, 1989
From: Lee Rann, GOES/POLAR Navigation, Office of Satellite Operations at the NOAA Offices in the department of National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service

In response to the inquiry forwarded by Mr. Liddick from questioner Marshall Hall; "Is the present movement of GOES [Geostationary Satellite] planned and executed on the basis of a fixed earth or a rotating earth?', the answer returned by Lee Rann, the department head of GOES/POLAR Navigation, Office of Satellite Operations at NOAA was quite simple: "Fixed earth".

-----Marshall Hall, "The Earth Is Not Moving", Georgia Fair Education Foundation 1994, p.261, as cited in Sungenis, op cit, p.128

A google search for "Charles Liddick", "Charles E Liddick" or Charles Liddick return no immediate data about the man, so that alone tells you of how important they must have been (for instance, I am google-albe, due to my position in a research lab).

Second, http://www.fixedearth.com/, the source is CLEARLY biased. hence why I mentioned before that you only use books (where people can add editorial bias) and not journals (where peer review is important). Also, by following this link: http://www.texscience.org/news/chisum-bridges.htm you can see the connection between that web site, Marshall Hall, and the bigoted theocratic wing on the Republican party.

But, I guess neither of those really show that you shouldn't trust the work, as this clearly biased and inane man may make a true point. So, lets look at this: http://www.oso.noaa.gov/goes/

"Geostationary Satellites

GOES satellites provide the kind of continuous monitoring necessary for intensive data analysis. They circle the Earth in a geosynchronous orbit, which means they orbit the equatorial plane of the Earth at a speed matching the Earth's rotation. This allows them to hover continuously over one position on the surface. The geosynchronous plane is about 35,800 km (22,300 miles) above the Earth, high enough to allow the satellites a full-disc view of the Earth. Because they stay above a fixed spot on the surface, they provide a constant vigil for the atmospheric "triggers" for severe weather conditions such as tornadoes, flash floods, hail storms, and hurricanes. When these conditions develop the GOES satellites are able to monitor storm development and track their movements. "

so, why then might the planning and execution of GOES be based on fixed earth, if it even is, given that the only citation you use is a quote (re: you misquote) from a clearly biased source, as opposed to a moving earth?

Because the people at the 'office of satellite operations' keep them in GEOSYNCHRONOUS ORBIT! so, again with relativity (which you show such a deep understanding of) If 2 objects have the same movement, neither can be said to be moving relative to the other. So, to a satellite in geosynchronous orbit, the earth, relatively, would be stationary.

READ WHAT YOU CITE YOU IDIOT

Originally posted by inimalist
A google search for "Charles Liddick", "Charles E Liddick" or Charles Liddick return no immediate data about the man, so that alone tells you of how important they must have been (for instance, I am google-albe, due to my position in a research lab).

Similar results were found when searching "Lee Rann" or lee rann. It actually suggested "Lee Ryan" who is a british boy-band turned solo pop-star.

Lulz.

Good times, in.

👆

"Ohh Joy. A crackpot self proclaiming to be a knowledgeable opponent."

"Einstein's relativity allows all forms of reference frame: heliocentrism, geocentrism, Pluto-centrism, my finger-centrism to be valid theoretically."

>>BRAVO!! You have gotten it! Excellent! So you have just made my point, that each and every argument advanced by Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, et. al., against a geocentric universe, was in fact falsified by the postulates of general Relativity. Now that this has finally been established, we can move on to Round II: the NEW evidence from orbital sensors, not available to Einstein, showing evidence for a GEOCENTRIC, as opposed to acentric, cosmos.

I knew you could do it, big fella.........

"The rational way, just like what modern astronomers do, is to sift through all this and select the reference frame that produces the most number and most accurate predictions on the particular system of interest."

>>Exactamundo. This is why NOAA, for example, uses a fixed, non-rotating earth as its frame for calculating navigation on its GOES. This is important for later stages of our....exchange, so keep this in mind.

"The proven best way to do this in astronomy is to select the more or most the massive object in the system as the frame of reference because you wouldnt have to overcomplicate things by introducing weird ass fictitious forces to counter or compensate for gravity which is subject to an objects mass. In a planet-moon system like the earth and Moon, the planet, Earth, is the ideal reference frame. In a star-planet system like the Sun and earth, the sun is the ideal reference frame. In a galaxy-star system, the galactic center is the ideal reference."

>>>And in a universal system, the universal barycenter is the ideal reference frame, as we already begin to see from the physical derivation of the Euler, Coriolis and centrifugal forces. This is an objective advantage of the geocentric system. There are a very great many more, as we shall see.

quote: (post)
Originally posted by Transfinitum

Now, Sleep-and-Intelligence-Deprived has had seventeen pages and several hundred posts in which to grasp the simple principle of Relativity, which Albert Einstein has tried to assist him in coming to grasp, thus far alas to no avail:

Albert Einstein attempts, for the umpteenth time, to educate poor Sleep-and-Intelligence-Deprived:

The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS [coordinate system] could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves', or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest', would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS [coordinate systems]."

---"The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, New York, Simon and Schuster 1938, 1966 p.212

**Im gonna cut here because the rest is a bad application and demonstation of gyroscopic principles. Reading it will cost you 2 million dead brain cells.**

I think it is pretty clear what to make of a chap who dismisses valid citations from the physicist who founded General Relativity as a "bad application and demonstration of gyroscopic principles". The simple truth is, like a howler monkey, you can't understand and/or refute Einstein, and so you ignore him.

That is, indeed, cute.

I'll just go ahead and snip the rest of your nonsense, since turnabout is always fair play with a howler monkey.

Transfinitum, you really don't believe anything you write, do you? 😆

Trans earlier: >>I assume that would be ALBERT Einstein. The physicist. That would be the wrong dude to have cited, since good old Albert admitted he needed the ether back, to fix Special Relativity's problems. The ether is back in General Relativity, as Albert is about to tell you, below:

quote: (post)
Originally posted by Transfinitum

quote:
"In 1905 I was of the opinion that it was no longer allowed to speak about the ether in physics. This opinion, however, was too radical, as we will see later when we discuss the general theory of relativity. It does remain allowed, as always, to introduce a medium filling all space and to assume that the electromagnetic fields (and matter as well) are its states…..once again 'empty space' appears as endowed with physical properties, i.e., no longer as physically empty, as seemed to be the case according to special relativity. One can thus say that the ether is resurrected in the general theory of relativity…"

--Albert Einstein, "Grundgedanken und Methoden der Relatitivtatstheorie in ihrer Entwicklung dargestellt" Morgan Manuscript, EA 2070, as cited in Sungenis, „Galileo Was Wrong", CAI 2006, p136

So again, Sleep-and-Intelligence-Deprived. We see the hilarious extent of the gap which exists between what you imagine you know, and what is actually so.

Especially when it comes to having the faintest clue about ANYTHING pertaining to Albert Einstein…..

I suggest you catch up with the times. You would find aether or ether in the dust bin of discarded scientific theories.

"I suggest you double check on your physics instead of relying on shady characters like Sugenis (who iirc, was more of a theologian) to provide it for you."

>>It is Albert Einstein, not Robert Sungenis, who was quoted. I note with satisfaction that you would rather divert and obfuscate, than deal with the quote. This is highly indicative of the weakness of your position generally here.

" No need to conceive of aether theories when light (electromagnetic waves) travels in a vacuum"

>>Albert Einstein just told you that he was forced to dispense with the notion of a vacuum. Here, let's let him tell you again. Like the rest of your pack, you seem to have a terrible time dealing with Albert Einstein's actual WORDS, as opposed to your hilariously deluded notions of what you WISH he would have said:
Einstein tells Sleep Deprived that the ether has been reintroduced in General Relativity:

"In 1905 I was of the opinion that it was no longer allowed to speak about the ether in physics. This opinion, however, was too radical, as we will see later when we discuss the general theory of relativity. It does remain allowed, as always, to introduce a medium filling all space and to assume that the electromagnetic fields (and matter as well) are its states…..once again 'empty space' appears as endowed with physical properties, i.e., no longer as physically empty, as seemed to be the case according to special relativity. One can thus say that the ether is resurrected in the general theory of relativity…"

Please note, Sleepless:

"One can thus say that the ether is resurrected in the general theory of relativity…"

And once more for good measure......

"One can thus say that the ether is resurrected in the general theory of relativity…"

Transfinitum, I mean it's laughable. You are going to have a really bad time in college.

this is like a case study in sloppy academic work...

Trans: 2 Really simple, basic questions:

Can you, as in are you able to, describe they very basic principal of hypothesis testing?

Would you please?

Originally posted by inimalist
this is like a case study in sloppy academic work...

Can you imagine Transfinitum standing up in physics class and telling the professor the Earth does not spin? 😱

😆 I just want to be there...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Can you imagine Transfinitum standing up in physics class and telling the professor the Earth does not spin? 😱

😆 I just want to be there...

I could see, in like, astronomy 101, him asking some questions and the prof actually taking the time to go over the stuff, sort of like a how we know what we know exercise...

After 1 minute of his belligerent holier than thou attitude would be well more than the prof would accept, and he'd be laughed out of any room that wasn't a basic introductory class.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Can you imagine Transfinitum standing up in physics class and telling the professor the Earth does not spin? 😱

😆 I just want to be there...

Originally posted by chickenlover98
me 2. im in his school. god i hope im in his physics class in 12th grade. my bio teacher wont let him speak about evolution 😆 😆 😆

OMG, I'm a terrible person, I didn't realize trans was only 16....

Trans: Hey, sorry about the harshness, I was assuming you were a bit older. Its great that you are challenging what you see as authority view, I would always encourage that.

You clearly have some intellect, and you belong to a message board with many very knowledgeable people on it. I remember from high school just absolutely hating science, because nobody ever took the time to explain it to me. If you are interested, I know at least myself, and probably other members, would be more than happy to go over some basic things with you to help you develop better more logical and empirical arguments.

Not to betray a bias, but I feel that it is very unfortunate that you have been directed to material of "geocentrism" or "creationism" to fill your intellectual desires. All I will say is that there are better, far more mystifying ways of understanding the universe, and possibly, the authority you should be challenging is the one that is leading you to such limited ideas.

Ya, so I take back the harshness of what I said, but I echo the points against what you said. However, I want you to see them in a new light. Rather than as attacks against you or what you believe, see them as constructive ways to manipulate your argument to fall more into line with logic and science.

Originally posted by inimalist
OMG, I'm a terrible person, I didn't realize trans was only 16....

Trans: Hey, sorry about the harshness, I was assuming you were a bit older. Its great that you are challenging what you see as authority view, I would always encourage that.

You clearly have some intellect, and you belong to a message board with many very knowledgeable people on it. I remember from high school just absolutely hating science, because nobody ever took the time to explain it to me. If you are interested, I know at least myself, and probably other members, would be more than happy to go over some basic things with you to help you develop better more logical and empirical arguments.

Not to betray a bias, but I feel that it is very unfortunate that you have been directed to material of "geocentrism" or "creationism" to fill your intellectual desires. All I will say is that there are better, far more mystifying ways of understanding the universe, and possibly, the authority you should be challenging is the one that is leading you to such limited ideas.

Ya, so I take back the harshness of what I said, but I echo the points against what you said. However, I want you to see them in a new light. Rather than as attacks against you or what you believe, see them as constructive ways to manipulate your argument to fall more into line with logic and science.

Originally posted by inimalist
OMG, I'm a terrible person, I didn't realize trans was only 16....

Trans: Hey, sorry about the harshness, I was assuming you were a bit older. Its great that you are challenging what you see as authority view, I would always encourage that.

You clearly have some intellect, and you belong to a message board with many very knowledgeable people on it. I remember from high school just absolutely hating science, because nobody ever took the time to explain it to me. If you are interested, I know at least myself, and probably other members, would be more than happy to go over some basic things with you to help you develop better more logical and empirical arguments.

Not to betray a bias, but I feel that it is very unfortunate that you have been directed to material of "geocentrism" or "creationism" to fill your intellectual desires. All I will say is that there are better, far more mystifying ways of understanding the universe, and possibly, the authority you should be challenging is the one that is leading you to such limited ideas.

Ya, so I take back the harshness of what I said, but I echo the points against what you said. However, I want you to see them in a new light. Rather than as attacks against you or what you believe, see them as constructive ways to manipulate your argument to fall more into line with logic and science.

Wow.

You really do have a soul.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
dude....i dont think you should retract any of your comments for 2 reasons. one age should not mean less harshness, he clearly understands what he's saying and came to a logical conclusion in his mind. second he's making an ass of himself, although ive repeatedly told him to calm himself down. being 16 vs 20 doesnt matter. dont dumb down any of your arguments either

lol, I'm not retracting anything, just, you know, the "READ WHAT YOU CITE YOU IDIOT" could have been made more appropriate.

And really, its not 20 (23) vs 16, its individual formally trained in science vs smart high school kid. Its more that it isn't his fault for not knowing because nobody teaches this stuff.

I also find it highly unfortunate that his mind seems so closed by propoganda at such a young age...

"Let me see if i remember this right. Centrifugal force is the apparent force equal and opposite to the centripetal force, drawing a rotating body away from the center of rotation, caused by the inertia of the body"

>>You don't remember it right. The centrifugal force is only "apparent" for you, since it cannot be physically derived from within the postulates of Newtonian gravitational theories. As I have told you before, this shortcoming of the Newtonian system is corrected by the work of Hans Thirring, Albert Einstein, and Ernst Mach.

You really need to get up to speed here, Sleepy. After all, we have made progress since the seventeenth century in these matters.

I will let you read the quote again:

"Let K [the Universe] be a Galilean-Newtonian coordinate system [a system of three dimensions extending to the edge of the Universe] and let K' [the Earth] be a coordinate system rotating uniformly relative to K' [the universe]. Then centrifugal forces would be in effect for masses at rest in the K' coordinate system [Earth], while no such forces would be present for objects at rest in K [the universe]. Already Newton viewed this as proof that the rotation of K' [the Earth] had to be considered as 'absolute', and that K' [the Earth] could not then be treated as the 'resting' frame of K [the universe]. Yet, as E. Mach has shown, this argument is not sound. One not need view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of K' [the Earth]; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of K' [the Earth], whereby K' [the Earth] is treated as being at rest. If Newtonian mechanics disallow such a view, then this could very well be the foundation for the defects of that theory…."

---Albert Einstein, cited in Hans Thirring, "On The Effect of Rotating Distant Masses In Einstein's Theory of Gravitation", Physikalische Zeitschrift 19, 33, 1918

Now what is crucial to remember here is that Albert Einstein is telling you, Sleepy, that in a geocentric Universe the Coriolis, Euler, and centrifugal forces are physically derivable as the direct result of distant masses, and not a "fictitious" consequence of rotation of the local frame.

This famous quote is what Ernst Mach meant when he said "Mass there (in the distant rotating masses) governs inertia here". This will become important in regard to your comments below.

"Suppose i have a ball with a string atttached to it. If i twirl it around with my hand, the ball will revolve to it in a circular path because the force of the string (centripetal) pulls the ball towards my hand."

>>The real question for your crew is: why does your ball tug outward on the string when it is swung? This is precisely the same question Newton asked last time we met, when he noticed the water climbing up the wall of the rotating bucket. HINT: You have no physical explanation for this, because you have adopted the postulates of heliocentric Newtonian gravitation.

The mass(or inertia) of the ball (centrifugal) pushes out in the opposite direction away from my hand.

In your bucket example, the handle of the bucket is the centripetal force,
the mass of the water inside the bucket is the centrifugal; so far so good.

"But the centrifugal force is not the one causing the water's displacement and forcing it to form a concave surface, its air, exerting a centrifugal force of its own to the water."

I am afraid that is not possible, though I compliment you for recognizing the steadily closing jaws of the trap you have wandered into here, and trying quite a novel move to get out of it.

Alas, we cannot allow howler monkeys to go free at this stage of the expedition, and so we ask you to give your attention to the following:
http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?wo=2003106039&IA=WO2003106039&DISPLAY=CLAIMS

I really urge anyone who was even remotely bamboozled by Sleepy's little "air force" con to click on the link and notice a couple of little thingies that are...ummmm...how shall I put this........a bit of a problem for ol' Sleepy here.

Like, for example, the first paragraph of the patent application:

"CLAIMS What is claimed is: 1. A centrifuge apparatus, comprising: a rotatable centrifuge bowl having a radially outer wall inclined outwardly so that during centrifugation liquid in the bowl climbs the outer wall; and a vacuum sealed housing, containing the rotatable centrifuge bowl, so that a material of interest contained in the bowl, including said liquid, can be subjected to vacuum. "

Hmm. I think that there "vacuum", Sleepy, means there ain't none of that thar "air" of yours, to get the "liquid to climb the walls".

That sinking sound you hear is poor Sleepy's little heart, as he remembers his boisterous good-old-boy promise about doing some......lessee here...a** reaming, was how you put it, wasn't it, Seepy?

Now I guess the gentlemanly thing to do is just let Sleepy's little boo-boo here rest a while.

Poor fella.

It was a clever attempt.

But you see, Sleepy, making things up as you go along is never a good strategy, when you make the colossal mistake of engaging in debate with a knowledgeable opponent.

Cheers!

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, I'm not retracting anything, just, you know, the "READ WHAT YOU CITE YOU IDIOT" could have been made more appropriate.

And really, its not 20 (23) vs 16, its individual formally trained in science vs smart high school kid. Its more that it isn't his fault for not knowing because nobody teaches this stuff.

I also find it highly unfortunate that his mind seems so closed by propoganda at such a young age...

Originally posted by dadudemon
Wow.

You really do have a soul.