Originally posted by chickenlover98
my friend seems to think he has an "undefeatable fact" id personally LOVE for you to crush it when he posts it
I'd wish he'd just post it and get it over with. Its not like were all going to gasp and die by seeing some new piece of info. I bet he's typing up a reply to Templares right now so maybe you and I can prod him to post it tomorrow.
I am delighted to welcome back the indefatigable Sleepy, who has given us a wonderful opportunity to extend the expedition into important new areas which the lack of substantive opposition had nearly led me to conclude would be left unexplored-especially including the Sagnac effect. Thanks again, Sleepy!
"I suppose its too much to ask for a "knowledgeable poser" who is getting his "physics" from an unreliable, religiously slanted book like Galileo Was Wrong to grasp the concept of Einstein's relativity. "
>>As we have seen repeatedly in this debate, Sleepy, your hilariously incompetent notions of physics constitute conclusive proof that the authors of GWW leave you and your helpers prostrate in the dust. Who could ever forget your immortal blunder "you need something to pin the Sun to"!?
And please remember, Sleepy, that you were the one who explained to us all, out of your gigantic physics knowledge, that AIR is required to create centrifugal force!
Two words for ya, Big Fella: "Vacuum centrifuge" :-)
But I compliment you, Sleepy, for being the only one on your team with the cojones to keep coming back. And you are even beginning to cite scientific sources- even if you continue to misunderstand them so embarrassingly that it almost breaks my heart to have to point out your blunders over and over again.
Almost :-)
Let's get to it!
"Let me explain this to you again for the Nth time: Einstein's Relativity states that no preferred reference frame exists anywhere in the Universe."
>>Since I have posted the same fact at least thirty times, we can happily dispense with further repetitions.
"The laws of Physics could be applied on any frame and every frame of reference is VALID but NOT better than the others."
>>Perhaps it might have occurred to you to notice I have already posted this several dozen times.
"We use the frame of reference that is convenient for us. Earth artificial satellites and GPS use the Earth as its preferred reference frame because its more convenient, not mention its work is focused here on Earth"
>>Did you hear that, inimical? Perhaps you would like to google Sleepy here, since you had such a hard time accepting my citation of the NOAA practice of Earth Cenered Earth Fixed reference frames.
"This IS not proof that the Universe revolves around the Earth."
>>Now, that would seem to follow rather obviously from the "no preferred reference frame" thingy above. IF General Relativity is true, then there are, as we have repeatedly noted, no preferred reference frames.
"When launching interplanetary probes or designing a s Solar System-wide GPS like NASA is doing, we use the sun as our point of reference."
>>Actually, now that you mention it, "we" do not. It has been shown that the so called "solar system barycentric frame" employed by JPL is actually dependent upon an Earth Centered Inertial Frame correction for the Sagnac effect. This shocking fact was brought to light by ION researchers Ruyong Wang and Ronald R, Hatch, who wrote in the proceedings of the ION GPS 58th Annual Meeting/CIGTF 21st Guidance Symposium 2002, p. 500, that:
"NavCom Technology, Inc., has licensed software developed by the Jet Propulsion Lab (JPL) which, because of historical reasons, does the entire computation in the ECI frame. Because of some discrepancies between our standard eath-centered-earth fixed solution results and the JPL results, we investigated the input parameters to the solution very carefully. The measured and theoretical ranges in the two different frames agreed precisely, indicating that the Sagnac correction had been applied in each frame. As the discussion of the Sagnac effect indicates, the fundamental question regarding the speed of light is the following: Is the speed of light constant with respect to the observer (receiver) or is it constant with respect to the chosen ECI frame?"
Now listen up here, Sleepy, and get your adviser(s) on the phone, because this next little bit right here is going to require some....homework from your team :-)
Wang and Hatch drop the bomb:
"Clearly the GPS range equation indicates the speed of light is constant with respect to the chosen frame..."
In case your physics isn't quite up to understanding that, Sleepy, it means that the JPL "solar system barycenter frame" is actually corrected, to reflect the Sagnac effect in an Earth Centered frame. It also means that JPL puts a fix into their GPS software that makes the speed of light NON-RELATIVISTIC, because it is only constant with respect to the Earth Centered Inertial Frame Sagnac-effect correction.
Wang and Hatch drop the bigger bomb:
"The JPL equations, used to track signals from interplanetary space probes, verify that the speed of light is with respect to the chosen frame."
Let me translate for you again Sleepy. The JPL software that tracks INTERPLANETARY SPACE PROBES, incorporates a NON-RELATIVISTIC speed of light which is constant ONLY with respect to the chosen reference frame!
In case you haven't figured out what this means yet, it means that JPL corrects its interplanetary space navigation software for a non-isotropic speed of light, which is corrected according to the EARTH CENTERED INERTIAL FRAME Sagnac effect.
So, JPL has decided that it needs to insert a bit of a fix in the "no preferred reference frame" dogma, in order to get their GPS and deep space satellite navigation to work.
JPL needs a geocentric reference frame in order to make its GPS and space probes work!!!!
Thanks so much for bringing this up.......I am sure we will have occasion to go into this much much more deeply :-)
"This is NOT proof that the Universe revolves around the Sun. Apollo astronauts used a lunacentric frame of reference while they are in the Moon. When some advance civilization from an unknown planet in the Andromeda galaxy launches its artificial satellites, it will use its planet and NOT Earth as its reference frame. Like human egocentrism that makes them want to believe in a geocentric universe, the inhabitants of that planet would probably assume that its planet is the ONE TRUE center of the Universe."
>>It is most unfortunate for your argument, that JPL has declined to adopt it by the overwhelmingly convincing fact that JPL does not program either its GPS or deep space systems according to your assumptions. Instead, they calculate the entire shebang from within a Sagnac correction derived from an EARTH CENTERED (geocentrism) FRAME!
"Einstein's relativity is NOT PROOF that the Earth or any other object is the ONE TRUE center in the Universe."
>>Exactly. Einstein's argument is that the Universe can have no center, indeed it can have no "preferred" axis of any kind. We see, from all of the evidence posted, including the redshifts of galaxies, the periodic redshifts in gamma ray bursts and quasars, in Bl Lac and X-Ray sources, and now in the EARTH CENTERED reference frame correction for the INTERPLANETARY JPL software, that the basic assumption is CONTRARY TO OBSERVED FACT.
quote: (post)
Originally posted by Transfinitum*snip*
Einstein and Mach and Thirring showed that the Einstein equations work EQUALLY for an EARTH FIXED/UNIVERSE ROTATING FRAME, and a EARTH ROTATING/UNIVERSE FIXED FRAME----with one gigantic difference:
In the Earth fixed (geocentric) frame, we have an actual, physical source of the Coriolis, Euler, and centrifugal forces, which we DO NOT have in the Newtonian, heliocentric or Einsteinian, acentric frame.
In this precise sense, it is true to say that the Einstein equations tend to favor a geocentric universe.
>>The Coriolis and centrifugal forces DO NOT appear as a consequence of the distant rotating masses in a rotating-Earth model. If the Earth is rotating, then the rotating distant masses WILL NOT give rise to the Coriolis and centrifugal and Euler forces we actually do observe on Earth.
*snip*
"Bwahahaha. Your narrrow, limited grasp of physics is in full display here. Quick grab a real physics book, not GWW, or try researching on the Net. You will find there that the Coriolis effect, the centrifugal force etc. are ALL explainable by the Earth's ROTATION."
>>>Now try to follow this, Sleepy. I know this is hard for you, but try. OF COURSE all these forces CAN BE explained by EITHER rotation of the EARTH (Newtonian physics) OR by rotation of the distant masses (geocentrism). But they CANNOT arise in a situation where the Earth is BOTH 1) rotating on its axis and 2) at the barycenter of the distant rotating masses. I understand how difficult it is for you to grasp these distinctions, but it is really important that you do so, if you wish to stop making gargantuan blunders every time you post.I have stated thiis many times: I need to remember that I am dealing with a fella who actually thought the centrifugal force only worked in oxygen atmospheres.
The DIFFERENCE between the NON-BARYCENTRIC EARTH ROTATING (Newtonian) and BARYCENTRIC EARTH STATIONARY (geocentric) derivations of the forces is this: in the Newtonian model, there is NO DIRECT PHYSICAL EXPLANATION for the Coriolis, Euler, and centrifugal forces. They must be attributed tio a "fictitious" effect of acceleration, based upon an UNPROVEN (and UNPROVABLE) assumption- that any departure from straight-line motion involves an acceleration. In the Newtonian bucket experiment, there is NO ACCELERATION involved at all, with reference to the body in motion, or with respect to the parts of that body, since there is a time when the bucket, the handle, and the water are all rotating AT THE SAME SPEED, and yet the water rises up the side of the bucket. Why?
Standard textbook physics has no answer, other than to simply ASSUME (without proof) that any departure from "straight line" (with respect to what?) motion involves an "acceleration", and that the Euler, Coriolis and centrifugal forces are all therefore "fictitious", merely "apparent" forces, which exist only as appearances.
The geocentric model is SUPERIOR, in that it provides a PHYSICAL, non-"fictitious" derivation of the Coriolis, Euler, and centrifugal forces, and at the same time refutes all arguments that would claim the Earth could not have these forces unless it were rotating.
"In fact, its the best and the most widely accepted explanation. Having the Universe or those distant masses to rotate around the earth to explain the Coriolis and the centrifuagl forces is an unnecessary OVERCOMPLICATION."
>>That opinion would be rather difficult to defend, given the earlier appeal to Ockham's razor. The Newtonian explanation involves an UNPROVEABLE assumption- that any departure from straight-line (with respect to WHAT?) motion involves, BY DEFINITION, an "acceleration".
"The Coriolis effect and other forces also exists in Venus, Jupiter etc. becuase their rotation so why claim that the Coriolis effect on Earth to be caused differently?"
>>For exactly the same reason JPL has to introduce a Sagnac correction based on an Earth Centered Frame for its interplanetary space probe navigation to work. For the same reason that the Universe exhibits large-scale non-random periodic structures which are oriented to the Earth. Because the Earth is in fact the "preferred reference frame", and it is necessary therefore to be able to show how all of these forces can be derived with SUPERIOR physics, given an Earth which is NOT rotating.
This we have conclusively accomplished.
"Which is more complicated: assume the existence of a distance mass revolving around the Earth to account for the Coriolis effect here on Earth or do away with this revolving mass and have the Earth rotate instead?"
>>There is no difference whatsoever, within the assumptions of Relativity. However, we have seen that the Earth IS a preferred reference frame, with regard to the speed of light in the JPL deep space navigational system, with regard to the observed redshift quantizations of galaxies, gamma ray bursters, quasars, Bl Lac objects, and X-Ray sources, and, as we shall soon see, with regard to the most shocking evidence of geocentrism yet discovered in this universe-the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation.
quote: (post)
Originally posted by Transfinitum*snip*
>>But where in the world have I ever said it only applies on Earth? Nowhere. It was you, remember, who asserted it would only work where "air" could provide the "centrifugal force" against the water, which would kinda sorta seem to rule out Mars and Pluto, wouldn't it?
*snip*
[QUOTE] "You dont have to tell us that youre too dense to do background checks on the science youre using to explain geocentrism. We know youre not capable of that."
>>>Heh heh heh. You're a lot of fun, Sleepy. It's always nice to remember these little jabs of yours when catching you in hilarious blunders like the "air pressure centrifuge". And boy o boy o boy are you about to make a huge mistake by trying to go back onto that ground :-)
"The bucket in a rope and the ball in a rope illustration that i gave are correct demonstration of the centrifugal force"
>>>>ROTFLMAO! I give you this much, Sleepy. You ought to get the Nobel Prize for Chutzpah. You say the water rises because of the centrifugal force of the AIR(!!!!), and now you insult our intelligence by bald-facedly fibbing that this is a "correct" demonstration????????
"albeit in a simplified environment."
>>A "simplified" environment?? Sleepy, you claimed that centrifugal forces do not occur in vacuums. That was so ridiculously absurd that even a physics illiterate could click my link and understand that companies make things called "vacuum centrifuges".
Your credibility is utterly devastated when you come back after a blunder like that and try to claim that you were "correct".
"Unlike the bucket in Newton's bucket experiment where it is in an upright position spinning, the swinging bucket i envisioned is tilted sideways and lateral to the ground with air caught inside the bucket exerting an added pressure to tilt the surface of the water in an uneven shape."
>>Sleepy. Please. Stop. Please. It is horribly embarrassing. If you are going to swagger around getting into a physics debate at least first learn what the Newton Water Bucket Experiment IS, OK?
Due to my moral obligation to answer each and every one of Sleepy's points...no matter how absurd.....
TO BE CONTINUED
"Now youre the one confusing definitions."
>>If I were, you would still owe me about sixteen freebies. However, your objection here is a meaningless quibble. I suppose I shall <sigh> have to take the time to refute it anyway J
"I suggest looking up the definitions of Mach's principle"
>>But we have already established the definition of Mach's principle: "Mass there governs inertia here". I posted it already, remember? Is your point that my definition is wrong? Hmmm. No, that can't be, since your own favorite Wikipedia is just about to repeat my definition. So what's the quibble? Your entire point here is a complete waste of time.
quote: (post)
Originally posted by Transfinitum>>So what? The "Dirac sea" of allegedly "instantaneously appearing and disappearing" electron-positron pairs is different than the ether of Einstein, or the ether of Maxwell. The simple fact remains. Einstein attempted to formulate a physics in a vacuum, and failed. He acknowledged that he had to reincorporate the functions formerly attibuted to the ether into his "spacetime" in General Relativity, Subsequent developments in quantum theory have resulted in a complete abandonment of the vacuum. There is no such thing as a "vacuum", at the quantum level. So we see that again you have it precisely backwards. It is the vacuum which has been debunked in modern physics, not the ether.
>>He simply does not say what you wish he would say. His quote is quite plain, and your words are not an accurate reflection of his.
>LOL! If it is "empty", then it quite obviously cannot be "equipped with gravitational and electromagnetic fields", or anything else. This is why Albert Einstein has told you over and over again that the ether is reintroduced into general Relativity. The mere fact that you wish he would not have said so, is irrelevant. Although I appreciate how important it is for your argument to try and win this point, I must insist that what Einstein actually said, trumps what Sleepy wishes he would have meant :-)
>>LOL! Now let me get this straight. Einstein uses the word "ether". I quote him. You accuse me of generating confusion by misrepresenting Einstein, while at the same time saying he ought to have said something OTHER than what I accurately quote as having in fact SAID.
You then take this as evidence of my having a religious agenda in mind.
Logic, Sleepy, is not your strong suit, my friend :-)
*****************************************************************
"Oh if you insist:
". . . . Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."
--University of Leiden Address (April/May? 1920)He is not introducing back the classical ether, the medium for light or electromagnetic fields propagation as descibed in classical physics and in the Michelson-Morley experiment, he is introducing his own version of the ether, the gravitational ether,usually referred to as the spacetime.
Im gonna post a previous quote from Max Born, to make it clearer:
"Einstein in later years proposed calling empty space equipped with gravitational and electromagnetic fields the "ether", whereby, however, this word is not to denote a substance with its traditional attributes. Thus, in the "ether" there are to be no determinable points, and it is meaningless to speak of motion relative to the "ether." Such a use of the word "ether" is of course admissible, and when once it has been sanctioned by usage in this way, probably quite convenient.
From now on ether as a substance vanishes from theory."
-Max Born, Einstein's Theory of Relativity, 1962. Page 224.
>>Sleepy. Look. We are just going around in circles here. I already SAID that the Einstein ether is different than the Maxwell either, both of which are different from the quantum electropon "sea", and all the other "ethers" that are circulating in physics' attempt to work out a Grand Unified Theory. So why do you feel the need to take up another page and a half belaboring this point?
"At any rate, Einstein's theories are NOT the authority in dealing with electromagnetic fields (light) and its propagation, quantum mechanics is, and according to the current version, it DOESNT need an ether or any medium for it to travel."
>>But Sleepy, you have gotten it precisely backwards YET AGAIN. In quantum theory, it is the VACUUM which is definitively disproven, not the ether. Quantum indeterminacy REQUIRES that there can be no such thing as empty space, consequently there IS a definitive disproof of Special Relativity's "vacuum", just as Einstein and I told you a week and one hundred and fifty posts ago.
"Dirac' ether or (sea foam) meanwhile as currently understtod refers to quantum fluctuations (matter and anti-matter annihilation) and again has nothing to do about being the medium of propagation for light like the classical ether and in the Michelson-Morley experiment."
>>You are apparently unaware that the "current understanding" you refer to is certainly wrong, since matter and antimatter should, under the assumptions of Standard Theory, have been created in precisely equal amounts during the first picoseconds after the mythical "Big Bang". The simple fact that we are here today having this debate, shows beyond any shadow of a doubt that this was not the case. There is more matter in the Universe than there is antimatter, and hence the "Dirac sea" is much more likely to be a subsistent, electropon lattice, the components of which are brought into observation by the application of a suitable discharge of 1.022 MeV. This interpretation is perfectly consistent with observations, and is SUPERIOR to the absurd "matter is simultaneously created and annihilated" ruse which is, after all, invented specifically to avoid the obvious alternative that the electropon lattice behaves in a manner highly reminiscent of the dreaded ETHER in earlier theories.
"The meaning of ether has changed a lot historically and to attach Einstein's ether or Dirac's to the classical ether in physics is simply WRONG and deliberately MISLEADING. F*ck ven the classical physicists stole the name "ether" from alchemy and changed it to its classical physics meaning."
>>Now calm down Sleepy. I know that it really bothers you that quantum theory has definitively shown that your beloved vacuum is certainly false, and that my beloved ether is more viable than ever- much more so, given the absurdity of the alternative "instantaneous creation/annihilation" of matter.
As Robert Sungenis memorably puts it:
"Every time modern science tries to explain the present universe by relying on a process, the process fails to produce the universe they presently see. This is the perennial problem with the Big Bang Theory: every twist and turn concocted to answer the anomalies it confronts invariably violates "the most fundamental laws of physics", So either the new theories are wrong, or the "fundamental laws of physics" are wrong, or quite likely both are wrong.We can safely say, however, that whenever a theory is based on the idea that matter and energy can be created out of thin air, then Middle Age alchemists and bloodletters never seem to be very far away."
---Robert Sungenis, "Galileo Was Wrong" Vol. 1, op cit p.255
quote: (post)
Originally posted by Transfinitum*snip*
If one is a Newtonian, one interprets the bucket experiment to prove the existence of "absolute space". If one is a Relativist, one denies "absolute space", and cannot provide any physical cause for the centriful or Coriolis forces AT ALL. If one is a geocentrist, then one can dispense both with "absolute space", and provide a PHYSICAL CAUSE for the effects of the experiment.
I would certainly say the geocentric position is...how shall we say...not harmed by the comparison :-)
***************************************************************Once again YOU are laboring under the assumption that the centrifugal and Coriolis effect in Earth could ONLY be described by "the massive rotating matter shell" the quote that you misquoted and misunderstood.
>>Sleepy, you just aren't keeping up here. Go back and read my post earlier. Obviously the forces can arise in either reference frame. The point is whether they can arise if the Earth is motionless at the universal barycenter. The answer is: YES. In this case, we also have a reference frame which is PREFERRED, at the universal barycenter, which provides an answer to the question of why all OTHER examples of Euler, Coriolis, and centrifugal forces, elsewhere in the Universe, arise. The answer: the forces arise in relation, not to the absolute space of Newton, but to the absolute reference frame: Earth.
quote: (post)
Originally posted by Transfinitum>>Notice this little bunny-hop here: "inertia is implicit in the geodesic equation of motion". Now, a moment's reflection will show that real physical forces are not "implicit" in mathematical representations of them. Can you show us, please, Sleepy, exactly how this "motion is implicit" in a geodetic equation?
I am sure it will be fascinating to watch you try.
It is like saying that the motion of the Earth is "implicit" in the formula F=ma.
All one is really saying in such a case is "I hope I can wave a magic wand of mathematics at you and get you to stop asking me to provide a PHYSICAL (as opposed to a mathematical) CAUSE for this ACTUAL FORCE here that is ACTUALLY (not merely mathematically) pushing WATER (not merely the geodetic in my equation) up the sides of my bucket.
It is precisely because geocentrist physics can provide a PHYSICAL REASON for that CAUSE, while heliocentrism and acentrism CANNOT, that the geocentric explanation of the experiment is superior.
*****************************************************************"Now youre confusing geodesic (a geometric concept) with geodetic (an earth science). Oh noes! it starts with the prefix geo-, it must be proof of geocentrism!"
>>Sleepy, the word "geodetic" was a mistype. The word was correctly typed below this mistype, and since I was referring to your earlier post, it isn't hard to figure that out. I suggest we get back to the issue at hand, eh?
"Anyway, what "inertia is implicit in the geodesic equation of motion" means, in simplified terms, is based on the relationship that spacetime guides mass how to move itself"
>>Umm, pardon me, I was asking you to explain the EQUATION OF GEODESIC MOTION you referred to. You had indicated that "inertia was implicit in the equation of geodesic motion". Please:
1.Post this equation
2. Show us exactly which term is the "implicit inertia", and how this term expresses, "implicitly" the actual inertial motions you claim it does.
"and mass guides spacetime how to curve itself"
Sleepy, you are not entitled to any more fairy tales. You have claimed an "equation of geodesic motion". Now either post this equation, and show us which term equates to the inertial force, or else we will have no choice to conclude that once again you have posted somebody else's material, without bothering to attribute it, or what is much worse, without bothering even to understand it.
In other words, you are BLUFFING AGAIN.
"and the fact that all objects, even the stationary ones, are in constant motion through spacetime, mainly because of the time part of spacetiem, and are following paths (the geodesic) of least resistance in spacetime."
>>Sleepy, what is resisting these objects moving in spacetime? What force is resisting these objects, so that they follow a path of "least resistance"? Space is supposed to be empty, remember? No ether? No "resistance"? Perhaps you can include the term for "spacetime resistance" when you post your "equation of geodesic motion" for us?
Now stop trying to snow us here Sleepy and post the equation, post the term corresponding to "implicit inertia", and post the term corresponding to "spacetime resistance to objects in motion" or else ADMIT YOU ARE JUST BLUFFING.
I wonder what kind of odds I could get on the "just bluffing" option?
LOL!__________________
Originally posted by chickenlover98
my friend seems to think he has an "undefeatable fact" id personally LOVE for you to crush it when he posts it
when he posts it, please bring it to people's attention
its rather unfair to expect anyone to read through his long posts, where he only responds to himself, and uses quite insulting rhetoric to boot...
also makes me wonder why he didn't lead with the good stuff... Takes him 25 pages to make a point? Not to be dismissive mr. Lover, but you can probably assume that whatever it is that 'your friend' thinks is convincing, is, best case scenario, misinformation.
Originally posted by inimalistgood questions and fair points, however he is talking to templares.
when he posts it, please bring it to people's attentionits rather unfair to expect anyone to read through his long posts, where he only responds to himself, and uses quite insulting rhetoric to boot...
also makes me wonder why he didn't lead with the good stuff... Takes him 25 pages to make a point? Not to be dismissive mr. Lover, but you can probably assume that whatever it is that 'your friend' thinks is convincing, is, best case scenario, misinformation.
"Im too lazy to make my own research thats why i use Wikipedia (and its footnotes), especially on things like this so-called proofs for geocentrism that are NOT proofs at all. Its a f*cking waste of time."
>>This is precisely why you are failing so miserably to refute my arguments, Sleepy. You drastically underestimate the nature of the challenge you face, and consistently demonstrate an inability to meet it, first by plagiarizing from and then by openly relying upon, as your primary source, the notoriously unreliable Wikipedia. If the matter is in dispute, then Wikipedia is nothing more or less than a source of anonymous opinions, often enough containing outright distortions of fact, as in the claims of your Wiki regarding scientific studies of the non-random, periodic distributions of galaxies, quasars, GRB's, Bl Lac objects, and X-Ray sources.
In this case, it happens that I have been in contact with one of the original authors of the redshift/geocentrism Wikis Sleepy posted as his "support" against the numerous evidences of Earth-oriented periodicity in galaxies, quasars, gamma ray bursts, Bl Lac and X-Ray sources. This contributor's comments were very illuminating.
Buckle up, Sleepy. This one is going to be a bit rough for you. After today, if you wish to continue this debate, you will have to stop being "too lazy to do (your) own research", because your Wikipedia source is under challenge:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism
This article may contain improper references to self published sources. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V#SELF)
Please help improve this article by removing unreliable sources. A self-published source may only be cited as a primary source in an article about the author or source itself and not as an authority.(April 2008)
This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2008)
……
"Since you've been to Wikipedia, maybe you shouldve gone to their redshift quantization (aka redshift periodicity, preferred redshifts). If you've read the article, you'll see that redshift quantization is a thing of the past brought about by poor data samplings and inferior equipment. The articles you quote were circa 1970-80's. Newer observations disprove your so called geocentric proof."
>>Quite to the contrary. As we shall see, the newest observations are utterly devastating to your position. We will examine this one step at a time……
"In 2002, Hawkins et al. found no evidence for a redshift quantization in the 2dF survey" and found using Napier's own guidelines for testing redshift periodicity that none, in fact, could be detected in the sample:"Given that there are almost eight times as many data points in this sample as in the previous analysis by Burbidge & Napier (2001), we must conclude that the previous detection of a periodic signal arose from the combination of noise and the effects of the window function."
- E. Hawkins, S.J. Maddox, M.R. Merrifield, No Periodicities in 2dF Redshift Survey Data Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 336 (2002) L13
>>Again, you simply don't understand what the issue is here. Burbidge and Napier are arguing for a non-cosmological DISTANCE for quasars, and Hawkins is attempting to refute THIS. Nothing to do with the Varshni paper on the GEOCENTRIC implications of the "concentric shells centered on Earth". This is clearly shown by the fact that Hawkins, et al, specifically STATE that they have selected only a tiny fraction of QUASAR/GALAXY PAIRS for their study.
This issue is thoroughly covered By Sungenis and Bennett in "Galileo Was Wrong":
"This study was specifically designed to test Arp's theory that various galaxies and quasars occupy the same vicinity; the former producing the latter when material from the galaxy is ejected…….. Out of 250,000 galaxies and 30,000 quasars, the Hawkins team limited their study to 1647 quasars, the quasar pairs for the purpose of ‘quality control.’ Of these pairs they state:'No periodicity leaps off the page, but since the effect is likely to be quite subtle, one would not necessarily expect to be able to pick it out from the raw data, so it is important to carry out a rigorous statistical analysis.'[2]
This, of course, opens the door for disagreements over the statistical data. At this point, opposing sides point the finger at each other. The Hawkins team determines that: ‘one can manipulate the data in order to specify ones own more optimal window – a procedure that statisticians whimsically refer to as 'carpentry,’ and they conclude that ‘…the previous detection of a periodic signal arose from the combination of noise and the effects of the window [statistical] function.’[3]
Followers of the Arp team see it quite differently. Geoffrey Burbidge asserts that the entire work of the Hawkins team ‘is a real piece of dishonesty,’ since Burbidge's colleague, William Napier, had already pointed out a serious statistical flaw in Hawkins' analysis before he published his paper."
>>Let us pause here to note that the Wikipedia source FAILS to cite the RESPONSE, by Napier and Burbidge, which absolutely devastates the entire Hawkings "statistical analysis".
How?
Why, the same way scientists always demolish "statistical analysis."
With hard, observational FACTS.
Again, quoting Sungenis and Bennett:
"Napier subsequently submitted a rebuttal to the Royal Astronomical Society alerting the society to Hawkins' flaw, as well as citing a recent Hubble photograph showing that one of the pairs studied by Hawkins had a luminous filament that physically connected the galaxy to the quasar!"[4]
>>The citation OMITTED from the based Wikipedia article is:
[4] William Napier and Geoffrey Burbidge, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 2003, 342, pp. 601-604.
Sungenis and Bennet conclude:
"Although Hawkins asserts that he and his team 'attempted to carry out this analysis without prejudice,' Burbidge concludes that the resistance of Hawkins and other Big Bang theorists is due to the "sociological problem associated with the need to believe" that redshifts are related to distances.[5]
Burbidge has a lot on his side. As of January 2005, his research led to the discovery of a quasar situated almost at the very center of a spiral galaxy, NCG 7319.[6] Obviously, this phenomenon cannot be dismissed by ‘statistical analysis,’ unless opponents attempt to argue that the galaxy's core is transparent and allows us to see the quasar as if one is looking through a peephole, an argument that no one seems willing to adopt.
In regard to the geocentric question, the battle between the Big Bang theorists and the followers of Halton Arp leaves geocentrism, at worst, in a neutral position and, at best, drawing support from both sides of the aisle. On the one hand, [B] Big Bang theorists are more or less caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place since, as Arp points out, they have created the same "Copernican dilemma" that we saw earlier with the evidence from gamma-ray bursters. As Arp states in critique of the Big Bang theory: ‘For supposed recession velocities of quasars, to measure equal steps in all directions in the sky means we are at the center of a series of explosions. This is an anti-Copernican embarrassment.’[7] In other words, regardless whether quasars are at cosmological distances, the fact that all the quasars are moving away from us at the same speed (as measured by the redshift-distance relation) means that Earth is precisely in the center of the dispersion. " [B]
---"Galileo Was Wrong", op cit, Vol 1
In 2005, Tang and Zhang:".. used the publicly available data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and 2dF QSO redshift survey to test the hypothesis that QSOs are ejected from active galaxies with periodic noncosmological redshifts. For two different intrinsic redshift models, [..] and find there is no evidence for a periodicity at the predicted frequency in log(1+z), or at any other frequency. " - Tang, Su Min; Zhang, Shuang Nan, "Critical Examinations of QSO Redshift Periodicities and Associations with Galaxies in Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data", in The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 633, Issue 1, pp. 41-51 (2005) "
>> Again, two different issues. The Tang and Zhang studies are, like Hawkins, strictly examining the quasar/galaxy pairings proposed by Arp, NOT the "concentric shells" (geocentric) evidence published by Varshni (and never refuted to this day in any scientific paper).
"A 2006 historical review of study of the redshift periodicity of galaxies by Bajan, et al, concludes that "in our opinion the existence of redshift periodicity among galaxies is not well established."
- Bajan, K.; Flin, P.; Godlowski, W.; Pervushin, V. P., "On the investigations of galaxy redshift periodicity
>>Now we see a real example of why Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
Dr. Sungenis addresses the findings of the Bajan paper which Wiikipedia elected NOT to include:
"First, in the abstract, the authors admit: ‘We conclude that galaxy redshift periodization is an effect which can really exist’ (p. 16). Obviously, then, they admit it is not from the imagination or prejudice of their opponents…..Later in the article, Bajan, et al, show the various possibilities of how to analyze the data. Their chief complaint against people like Tifft, et al, is that they didn't get a big enough sample in order to make their conclusions. Yet, even when they examine a bigger sample, Bajan et al, admit that periodization, although not as prominent as Tifft believed, is still a legitimate interpretation of the data.
First they admit the following:
‘We applied the power spectrum analysis using the Hann function as a weighting together with the jackknife error estimation. We perform the detailed analysis of this approach. The distribution of galaxy redshift seems to be nonrandom" (p. 22). Well, if it's ‘nonrandom’ that means it has a distribution pattern to it, whether weak or strong makes no difference.
They then say: ‘For galactocentric reduction at the 2sigma confidence level the peaks around 73 and 24 km/sec are observed’ (p. 23). Well, that's about the same peak levels that Tifft observed as late as 1996, which Bajan admits on page 21 was ‘72 and 36 km/sec’!
From this Bajan concludes: ‘…the probability that they are coming from nonrandom distribution is 95%’! Well, that speaks pretty highly of quantized distribution patterns, doesn't it?"
---Dr. Robert Sungenis, private email response to question about the Wikipedia citation, April 11, 2008 (thanks Doc!)
So, contrary to the Wikipedia entry, Bajan, et al, have not discredited periodization or solved the problem, by their own admission.
"In 2006, Martin Bell and D. McDiarmid, reported: "Six Peaks Visible in the Redshift Distribution of 46,400 SDSS Quasars Agree with the Preferred Redshifts Predicted by the Decreasing Intrinsic Redshift Model".[26]
>>Umm, in case you didn't catch that, Sleepy, the title means they HAVE found evidence of PREFERRED REDSHIFTS predicted by the Burbidge/Napier/Arp model.
"The pair acknowledged that selection effects were already reported to cause the most prominent of the peaks[6]. Nevertheless, these peaks were included in their analysis anyway with Bell and McDiarmid questioning whether selection effects could account for the periodicity, but not including any analysis of this beyond cursory cross-survey comparisons in the discussion section of their paper.
>>The above is a grotesquely self-serving distortion of the actual paper referenced, and is a perfect example of the kind of bias that has led to the Wiki being challenged. Here is what the paper actually SAYS:
"Six Peaks that fall within the redshift window below z = 4, are visible. "
>>Peaks= NON RANDOM distributions in the data points.
"Their positions agree with the preferred redshift values predicted by the decreasing intrinsic redshift (DIR) model, even though this model was derived using completely independent evidence."
>>In other words, the model proposed by Burbidge, Napier, et al, correctly PREDICTED the values of non-random distribution, even though that model did not have access to the SDSS (Sloan Digital Sky Survey).
" A power spectrum analysis of the full dataset confirms the presence of a single, significant power peak at the expected redshift period. Power peaks with the predicted period are also obtained when the upper and lower halves of the redshift distribution are examined separately. The periodicity detected is in linear z, as opposed to log(1+z). Because the peaks in the SDSS quasar redshift distribution agree well with the preferred redshifts predicted by the intrinsic redshift relation, we conclude that this relation, and the peaks in the redshift distribution, likely both have the same origin, and this may be intrinsic redshifts, or a common selection effect. However, because of the way the intrinsic redshift relation was determined it seems unlikely that one selection effect could have been responsible for both. "
So we see that the paper is specifically contradicting your position, even though the Wikipedia dishonestly attempts to twist its findings as evidence AGAINST the very NON-RANDOM distributions the paper reports!!!
"There is a brief response to this paper in a comment in section 5 of Schneider et al. (2007) where they note that all "periodic" structure disappears after the previously known selection effects are accounted for."
How many times have i said that geocentrist dredge up old theories and old scientific problems, conveniently forgetting the latest advancements, just to prop up their retarded theory?"
>>>Well, Sleepy, you have said a lot of things in our debate. What you have certainly not DONE, is refute one iota of the evidence reported from Varshni, from Katz, or from Bell, all of which specifically refute you, and all of which stand to this day in the peer-reviewed scientific literature as scientific evidence of a universe that is NOT in keeping with the "isotropic and homogeneous" predictions of Standard Theory, but is EXACTLY inkeeping with the predictions of geocentrism.
NEXT: Sleepy blunders again, this time on gamma ray bursts: he says gamma ray bursts are not as energetic as quasars!!!
"Now a couple of things:
- There is no such thing "as little shells of gamma ray sources" because, as noted above, there is no such thing as redshift quantization."
>>But we have seen you fail utterly to support this assertion, and Katz' concentric shells of gamma ray bursters remain staring you in the face---the Earth remains directly at the center of the gamma ray distribution, just as we started off this thread by reporting. This is completely consistent with the geocentric theory, and utterly inconsistent with the "acentric" assumptions of Standard Theory, since your "cosmological expansion" assumption still leaves the EARTH at the center of your EXPANSION!
"- I dont know what Trans mean when he say "specific, precisely coordinated moments" but gamma rays emanate from seemingly random places in deep space and at random times.
- Gamma ray Burst are caused only by supernova-level or hypernova events. They are NOT "putting out energies far in excess of thousands of Milky Way Galaxies." Youre confusing quasars with GRB's. Just search Wikipedia and you'll get a gist."
>>> You really need to expand your horizons beyond Wikipoodia. Here, for example, we have Penn State University to assist you in coming to understand these things better:
"Even at those distances they appear so bright that their energy output during its brief peak period has to be larger than that of any other type of source, of the order of a solar rest-mass if isotropic, or some percent of that if collimated. This energy output rate is comparable to burning up the entire mass-energy of the sun in a few tens of seconds, or to emit over that same period of time as much energy as our entire Milky Way does in a hundred years."
"I suggest again that you double check your proofs or whatever you are writing outside GWW and other geocentric books, oh esteemed "Knowledgeable Poser". You just might learn something."
>>OK Sleepy. As usual, you make up in determination what you lack in knowledge, and I am honestly grateful to you for raising these issues. It allows me to bring up so much more evidence than I would otherwise have been able to J
"It has been a real pleasure in a slapstick comedy kind of way to debate this issue with you. "
>>I couldn't imagine putting it more appropriately, chum.
NEXT: THE SMOKING GUN! THE MOST ASTONISHING NEW OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE GOR GEOCENTRISM--THE COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND
Cheers!
Originally posted by AngryManatee
Hmm... I'm curious, how does the geocentrist theory explain our sun's slightly shaky motion? It has been shown that our sun, and also any other star with orbiting bodies around it, does oscillate slightly in its postition due to the gravity feilds of the planets around it. Now seeing as how this is one of the methods of figuring out whether far away stars have orbiting bodies around them (by observing them and seeing if they wiggle slighty in their position over a period of time), what makes you think that we are the center of the universe when it is apparent that these other planets are orbiting around their parent stars and causing these slight oscillations, just like with our sun?
The sun's "slightly shaky motion" can be attributed to the geocentric system just as viably as the heliocentric one. In the geocentric system the planets in the solar system (excluding earth) are still revolving around the sun (less massive objects revolve around more massive objects etc.)
There is only one exception:
The earth occupies a privileged position at the barycenter of all the masses in the universe.
Because of this, the sun and other stars would STILL WOBBLE according to the same forces to which the phenomenon is attributed under Standard Theory. Why would we believe the Earth is in a privileged position? I have covered many of these reasons over the course of the last couple of weeks. If you have any questions about any of these evidences, I would be happy to try and address them.
I should mention that perhaps the most powerful observational evidence will be included in a post I am preparing this weekend.