Originally posted by Transfinitum
Pssst! Hey! Everybody! That loveable goofball Sleepy is back, and boy is he about to remind us of how charming he can be when he makes elementary blunders, and thinks he has "caught" 'ol trans in the process!Seriously, though, I gotta say I have twenty times more respect for Sleepy than some of the other supposedly "highly knowledgeable" folks I have debated on this thread- he has actually been the only substantive debater on the facts. He does his homework (even if he makes incredible blunders) but so what? He is at least willing to research, debate, and he keeps coming back for more, which makes for a better debate all around.
But first, we have another candidate for All Time Best Blunder By Sleepy In A Debate, and this one is a doozy, ladies and gentlemen!
Now buckle up Sleepy. This is for your own good now, ya hear?
>>>Please, please, please, everybody click and read the link. Here, let me share with you a couple of…errrr….THERMONUCLEAR BOMBS dropped on Standard Theory just in the abstract and first few paragraphs:
>>Now does everybody remember Sleepy going on and on about how the speed of light was a constant in a vacuum? And how Einstein proved this in Special Relativity, now and forevermore, world without end, Amen? And how trans was just a gosh durn idjit because he wasn't smart enough to grasp this?
And now. Ladies and gentlemen. The Sleepy Monster Blunder Machine is getting cranked up again!:
>>>Now, gentle reader, please notice that Sleepy IMMEDIATELY POSTS- RIGHT AFTER TELLING US THAT THE STUDY DOES NOT MENTION INTERPLANETARY PROBES:
>>ROTFLMAO! I mean, only Sleepy could actually not notice a stupendous, obvious, Mount Everest sized blunder like this.
ROTFLMAO!!!
Sleepy, I honestly couldn't make you up. I wouldn't have the sand to invent a character as endearingly incompetent as you are. I am actually sitting here laughing with tears coming out of my eyes, you really ARE better than cable!
TO BE CONTINUED….
One, the study DOES NOT deal with deep space/interplanetary probes at all. It is concerned with GPS.
Second, the quote:"The JPL equations, used to track signals from interplanetary space probes, verify that the speed of light is with respect to the chosen frame."
is actually a MISQUOTE by our Knowledgeable Poser.
The actual quote (the entire paragraph) reads like so:
The JPL equations [10], used to track signals from
interplanetary space probes, verify that the speed of light
is with respect to the chosen frame. In the JPL equations,
the chosen frame is the solar system barycentric frame.
The motion of receivers during the signal transit time from
earth to probe and from probe to earth is taken into
account. Even the motion of the earth around the
moon/earth center of mass is taken into account. Clearly,
the JPL equations treat the speed of light as constant with
respect to the frame—not as constant with respect to the
receivers. In the GPS nomenclature, the one-way Sagnac
effect must be accounted for on all signal paths.
Lying and misquoting people. Not in good style, *******.
chickenlover, can you see after reading his post and what was actually said how dishonest Trans arguments, he lies and misquotes and goes endlessly on about his own lies. I hope me pointing out his deceitful posting style will help you on your way of stopping to swing from his balls. It would be better.
Originally posted by Bardock42im not on his dick dude im just his friend. and btw he admitted to me that he did accidentally misquote. hes going to apologize me thinks.
What he actually said is this, you halfwit:Lying and misquoting people. Not in good style, *******.
chickenlover, can you see after reading his post and what was actually said how dishonest Trans arguments, he lies and misquotes and goes endlessly on about his own lies. I hope me pointing out his deceitful posting style will help you on your way of stopping to swing from his balls. It would be better.
Originally posted by Templares
"The JPL equations [10], used to track signals from
interplanetary space probes,
Originally posted by Templares
verify that the speed of light is with respect to the chosen frame.
Originally posted by Templares
In the JPL equations, the chosen frame is the solar system barycentric frame.
"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."
So, let's review.
1.The INTERPLANETARY space probe navigation computations are done in the EARTH CENTERED INERTIAL frame.
2. This ECI frame includes a Sagnac Effect correction. This little correction is the 800 pound gorilla hidden in the JPL code, since it involves the tiny little bitty little fact that the THEORY OF RELATIVITY IS ABANDONED IN THE COMPUTATION .
3. This entire computation is then COORDINATE SHIFTED, in a SECOND COMPUTATION, to a "solar system barycentric frame", where NO "RECEIVER" HAS EVER BEEN LOCATED IN THE HISTORY OF THE HUMAN RACE.
Wasn't the whole point of the heliocentric system to be "simpler" than the geocentric one? Strike one, my friend.
Originally posted by Templares
The motion of receivers during the signal transit time from earth to probe and from probe to earth is taken into account. Even the motion of the earth around the moon/earth center of mass is taken into account. Clearly, The JPL equations treat the speed of light as constant with respect to the frame—not as constant with respect to the receivers. In the GPS nomenclature, the one-way Sagnac effect must be accounted for on all signal paths.What do we learn from the stuff that was omitted out, one is that NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory uses the solar system's barycenter (usually expressed between the Sun and Jupiter) and NOT the Earth to track our inter planetary space/ deep space probes.
>> But it has not, as shown above. You simply didn't understand what the authors had already told you- "the entire computation is done in the ECI frame".
Originally posted by Templares
Two, the JPL and the two authors of the study are NOT supporting a geocentric solar system since they believe that the Earth is in motion within the Earth/Moon barycentre, much less a geocentric universe.
Originally posted by Templares
Yet another example of geocentrists misquoting,misinterpreting and being deceitful with the truth.
>>On the contrary, yet another opportunity to improve your science knowledge, Sleepy.
You're welcome!
Originally posted by Templares
Here is a sample of NASA using a heliocentric reference frame (Heliographic Inertial Coordinate System (HGI) or the Heliographic (rotating) Coordinate System (HG)) when using deep space probes:
http://cohoweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/helios/
TO BE CONTINUED
***************************************
the calculations done by space probes reaching the outskirts of the solar system are not done reletive to earth's frame of reference. also, i think the very FIRST experiment confirming lightspeed to be constant irrespective of the reference frame is infact the experiment which proves all your essertians wrong. light incoming at 90 degrees to the equater AND 180 degress to the equater had its speed measured multiple times. yet in all the original experiments, the speed was the same and the speed of the rotation of earth was NOT added or subtracted from the speed of the light. and if you only knew a bit about the history of science, you wud know that these observations were the ones that led to people trying to find a reasoning behind the sonsitancy of the speed of light irrespective of reference frames. how can you account for the consistancy of these measurements if the entire universe revolves around the earth? now please, stop this your idiocincricies. atleast you werent insulting before, im sad to see that you have changed that.
Originally posted by leonheartmmactually hes less insulting now than he was b4
the calculations done by space probes reaching the outskirts of the solar system are not done reletive to earth's frame of reference. also, i think the very FIRST experiment confirming lightspeed to be constant irrespective of the reference frame is infact the experiment which proves all your essertians wrong. light incoming at 90 degrees to the equater AND 180 degress to the equater had its speed measured multiple times. yet in all the original experiments, the speed was the same and the speed of the rotation of earth was NOT added or subtracted from the speed of the light. and if you only knew a bit about the history of science, you wud know that these observations were the ones that led to people trying to find a reasoning behind the sonsitancy of the speed of light irrespective of reference frames. how can you account for the consistancy of these measurements if the entire universe revolves around the earth? now please, stop this your idiocincricies. atleast you werent insulting before, im sad to see that you have changed that.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Also, Transfinitum could you please describe to me the orbit of Mars. Does it go around the sun or around the Earth or around both the sun and Earth?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We currently have two rovers on Mars and an orbiter circling around the planet. People at NASA believe that the Earth goes around the Sun, just like all of the other planets.
I trust you don't think JPL and NASA actually believe the Unvierse works the way ECI suggests. They use general Relativity as the basis for the coordinate shifts. What they DON'T tell you, is that the softweare they actually use, involves a CORRECTION to the propagation times of signals, such that the speed of light is treated NOT as a constant in all frames (Relativity), but instead as a constant ONLY with respect to the (Earth-located) receiver.
This is a profoundly shocking piece of information, which ought to give every open minded individual a real pause, before they reject the claims of geocentrism.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
From Mars, we have to find the Earth in order to send information back home. We know were Earth is because we have a mathematical model of the solar system. If the model is incorrect, as you have said, then we would not find Earth. Why have we not had any problems?
>>The problem here is that you have not yet grasped what a coordinate shift is. It is the foundational precept of relativity, that any motion observed in a heliocentric model, can be EXACTLY reproduced in a geocentric model.
This is why JPL can use an Earth Centered Inertial Frame for ALL of its deep space calculations.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We also have at least two probes that are on the outer edge of the solar system. Why have they not shown us how you are right? Could it be because you are wrong?
>>Actually, the two probes prove, again, that something is wrong with present-day theories. Notice here:
"Pioneer 10, launched in 1972....seems to be defying the laws of gravity. [I]t has been slowing down, as if the gravitational pull on it from the sun is growing progressively stronger the farther away it gets....Pioneer 10 is not the only spacecraft acting strangely. Pioneer 11, launched in 1973, also slowed down as it pulled away from the sun, right until NASA lost contact with it in 1995."
---"Nailing Down Gravity", Discover, October, 2003, p.36
Here is a link that deals with the acceleration anomalies of NASA's deep space probes:
Originally posted by leonheartmm
you forgot the fact that the gps system accurately{both for the sattelite's motions and the motion of the object or person} compensates for any time dilation caused my movement of the object, hence making your entire experiment useless.
>>Hey you forgot to read the article, which goes into some very compelling detail to show you that the speed of light is NOT CONSTANT with respect to the motions of the object/persons, but instead with respect to the receiver.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
>>In the GS all the planets orbit the Sun with Keplerian orbits, while the Sun orbits the Earth. This results in precisely the same motions in the sky as seen from Earth, as does the heliocentric system.
No, it would mean that Mars would pass in front of the sun, and it does not do that.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
>>People at NASA believe in General Relativity, which allows them to understand that there is no physical difference whatsoever between the heliocentric and geocentric systems I have described above. They talk about how it is "easier" to use this or that reference frame depending on circumstances, but that's a lot of bunk, as we have just found out that even the interplanetary navigation computations are done in an ECI (Earth Centered Inertial Frame), which involves the Earth orbiting the Sun without rotating, while the Universe rotates around both every twenty four hours.
General Relativity does not support your ideas.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
I trust you don't think JPL and NASA actually believe the Unvierse works the way ECI suggests. They use general Relativity as the basis for the coordinate shifts. What they DON'T tell you, is that the softweare they actually use, involves a CORRECTION to the propagation times of signals, such that the speed of light is treated NOT as a constant in all frames (Relativity), but instead as a constant ONLY with respect to the (Earth-located) receiver.
You are not answering my questions.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
This is a profoundly shocking piece of information, which ought to give every open minded individual a real pause, before they reject the claims of geocentrism.
Geocentrism was disproved hundreds of years ago and is not used by scientists today.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
>>The problem here is that you have not yet grasped what a coordinate shift is. It is the foundational precept of relativity, that any motion observed in a heliocentric model, can be EXACTLY reproduced in a geocentric model.
🙄
Originally posted by Transfinitum
This is why JPL can use an Earth Centered Inertial Frame for ALL of its deep space calculations.
What? 😆
Originally posted by Transfinitum
>>Actually, the two probes prove, again, that something is wrong with present-day theories. Notice here:---"Nailing Down Gravity", Discover, October, 2003, p.36
Here is a link that deals with the acceleration anomalies of NASA's deep space probes:
Most likely it is a full leek.
You should go to the Conspiracy forum. I think you would be much happier.
Originally posted by Templares
In short, Napier and Burbridge are just sour-graping on Hawkins et. al.. Too bad the instructions they gave didnt show the results they wanted to see.
>>To the contrary. Napiers response shows that the Hawkins study was a "piece of real dishonesty". Not that any of this matters, as far as the topic of geocentrism is concerned. But the point is worth pursuing, since PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of a quasar-galaxy connection has been provided, and the "mainstream" is prepared to simply ignore this physical evidence in favor of their "statistical analysis".
Typical.
It is indicative of a crumbling academic monolith, committed to circling the wagons and shouting down all challengers.
I love it. This "circle the wagons" mentality is strong evidence that the Standard Theory can no longer be maintained by consensus, and hence must now be maintained by good old fashioned coercion.
As Max Planck put it:
"Science progresses funeral by funeral".
Originally posted by Templares
There is also this No Quantized Redshifts article by Alan MacRobert from the December (2002?) issue of Sky & Telescope:
"A leading version of the hypothesis, advanced by Halton Arp, Geoffrey Burbidge, and William Napier, is that quasars seen near a foreground galaxy show a particular periodicity in their redshifts with respect to the galaxy. At Napier's urging, Edward Hawkins and two colleagues at the University of Nottingham, England, recently sifted through the massive new 2dF redshift surveys of galaxies and quasars to test this idea. These surveys provide, "by far the largest and most homogeneous sample for such a study," writes Hawkins in the October 11th Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. All parties agreed on the procedures for the test.Among the 1,647 galaxy-quasar pairs, no sign of any quantized redshifts appears.
>> Geocentrism is unaffected by the question of whether quasars are emitted by galaxies, which is the only hypothesis being examined in all of these citations of yours . But strictly as a matter of interest, the subsequent studies refute Hawkings, et al, as we see here:
"As for the articles by Tang & Zhang (2005) and Bell & McDiarmid (2006), neither of these show that periodization of redshift is fallacious. In fact, they show just the opposite. Bell & McDiarmid state that even Tang & Zhang "found that there is a significant periodicity with period near 0.7 in redshift in the full sample containing over 46,000 redshifts" ("Six Peaks Visible in the Redshift Distribution of 46,400 SDSS Quasars Agree with the Preferred Redshifts Predicted by the Decreasing Intrinsic Redshift Model," 2006, p. 4).
Incidentally, the "Preferred Redshifts Predicted by the Decreasing Intrinsic Redshift Model" (or DIR) refers to the model of redshift periodicity advanced by Halton Arp, Geoffrey Burbidge, William Napier, and Karlsson, et al, the very astronomers that Tang & Zhang had hoped they could refute. But Bell and McDiarmid are showing that their independent results actually confirm Arp's et al. periodicity in six significant places.
Bell and McDiarmid also show that at higher levels, Tang & Zhang's data analysis was faulty. They write: 'There is no clear evidence for a power peak near a frequency of 1.6 in the lower half of the redshift data….' Since Tang and Zhang (2005) made no effort to remove the overwhelming effects of the strong low-frequency components when they examined the lower half of the redshift data, they would not have been able to detect this feature. But this should not be surprising since these authors also failed to detect a significant power peak near deltaZ = 0.62 in the high redshift sample, even though one is clearly visible" (p. 6).
They find fault with Tang & Zhang in another area. They write: "Also, Tang and Zhang (2005) report no evidence for a periodicity in the quasar redshift distribution obtained in the 2QZ survey….However, if the peaks are real, their absence in the 2QZ distribution must still be explained. Tang and Zhang (2005) explained this result by arguing that the 2QZ sample is more complete, and therefore free of selection effects. But this is a meaningless argument" (p. 9).
In one place, Bell and McDiarmid say that Tang & Zhang's data could very well be interpreted to support the very theory of Arp and Burbidge they are trying to debunk. They write: "The Tang and Zhang (2005) analysis could thus have missed, or miss-identified, many of the parent galaxies, which could explain why the pairs they found differed little from what would be expected for a random distribution….Although Tang and Zhang (2005) concluded that QSOs are not ejected from active galaxies, it seems unlikely that the pair-finding technique they used could lead to a conclusion whose significance can approach that already obtained by others (Arp, the Burbidges, etc.) whose parent galaxy claims have been simultaneously backed up by other independent observations" (p. 10).
Confirming previous redshift studies, Bell and McDiarmid add: "Here we have examined data sample containing (a) the entire SDSS redshift distribution with 46,400 sources….All three showed evidence for the period predicted by equation 1. It is also worth noting that a fourth source sample containing 574 quasar redshifts used by Karlsson (1971, 1977) was examined previously (Bell 2002c; Bell and Comeau 2003b) and it was found that the peaks in that distribution also correlated well with the preferred redshifts predicted by equation 1" (p. 10). In other words, this massive study of 46,400 quasars confirmed, not denied, the previous studies done by Arp, Napier, Karlsson, et al.
Not only do Bell and McDiarmid demote the Tang and Zhang study to a mass of anomalies, they further state that Tang & Zhang cannot claim, as they did in their 2005 paper, that the DIR pattern of redshifts is the result of "selection effects" rather than real effects. They write: "As a result it is very unlikely that a common selection effect could have been involved. This may rule out selection effects as the common origin of the peaks in the SDSS redshift distribution and the preferred values predicted by equation 1" (p. 10).
In their concluding statement they say: "We conclude that it is real, and is due either to the preferred redshifts predicted in the DIR model, or to selection effects. However, because of the way the intrinsic redshift relation was determined it seems unlikely that one selection effect could have been responsible for both" (p. 10). In other words, Bell and McDiarmid are concluding in favor of Arp, Napier, Karlsson, et al., and not in favor of Tang & Zhang and other Big Bang theorists."
---Robert A. Sungenis, PhD, private email of material from upcoming Third Edition of "Galileo Was Wrong" (thanks again, Doc!)
Originally posted by Templares
Halton Arp, Geoffrey Burbidge, and William Napier and all those fringe astronomers you geocentrists cite are a bunch of sore losers (although, i dont think they are geocentrists).
>>They are not geocentrists. But, it is sure interesting to watch them get treated as if they were, for daring to challenge the Big Science gravy trtain, isn't it?
Originally posted by Templares
So yes, Hawkins et, al. shows NO redshift quantization and disproves your so-called geocentric proof.
>>And as we see Hawkings, as well as Tang and Zhang, are refuted by Bell and Diamond.
Originally posted by Templares
quote: (post)
Originally posted by Transfinitumquote:
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).
Oh please! You just dont have anything to debunk Tang and Zhang's study from that twisted source of yours GWW.
>>Actually, as we have seen, Tang and Zhang are substantively refuted by Bell above.
Anyway, since the Arp model of quasars ejected from galaxies, while interesting, is not related directly to this thread's subject, I am hopeful we can move back to more relevant issues.
Cheers!
TO BE CONTINUED
******************************************
Originally posted by Shakyamunisonno offense seeing as we are friends, but all of your posts thus far havent added 1 thing to this thread. he actually is using science, and your questions are unscientific. i could disprove your questions personally by reading his evidence, they pose no real challenge. sorry to break it to you 🙁
No, it would mean that Mars would pass in front of the sun, and it does not do that.General Relativity does not support your ideas.
You are not answering my questions.
Geocentrism was disproved hundreds of years ago and is not used by scientists today.
🙄
What? 😆
Most likely it is a full leek.
You should go to the Conspiracy forum. I think you would be much happier.
Originally posted by chickenlover98
no offense seeing as we are friends, but all of your posts thus far havent added 1 thing to this thread. he actually is using science, and your questions are unscientific. i could disprove your questions personally by reading his evidence, they pose no real challenge. sorry to break it to you 🙁
You are assuming that he is using science; he is not. He is using techno babble that has no real meaning. The questions that I am asking are the type of questions that will show that he is not using science.
If what he says is true, then Mars would pass in front of the sun. This one simple fact destroys his entire house of cards.
chickenlover98 let me give you an example:
Science does not use the lack of information as a form of information to draw a conclusion from.
"Actually, the two probes prove, again, that something is wrong with present-day theories. Notice here:"
We have two probes is space, Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11. They are not were we think they should be. Your friend, here, has drawn a conclusion based on a lack of evidence. This is not a scientific approach. His conclusion is only one of a countless possible conclusions that lack of evidence can lead a person. He says that the anomaly is caused by a fundamental misunderstanding of the solar system. This conclusion places way too much weight of the lack of information and ignores a multitude of possibilities that are less extreme. You could say that little green dragons are moving the space craft and be just as plausible as your friends conclusion.
Theoretical proposals
The inability to explain the Pioneer anomaly with conventional forces has led to several theoretical proposals. One is that the deceleration is due to the gravitational attraction of "dark matter" - the invisible matter that astronomers think is responsible for the excess gravity that appears to affect objects on galactic scales.Other explanations involve modifying Einstein's general theory of relativity, which many theorists think is necessary in order to merge gravity with quantum mechanics. Some of these theories suggest that gravity might attract a little harder than expected at large distances or small accelerations, so the concept of dark matter may not even be necessary.
Meanwhile, there are a number of attempts to go beyond the Standard Model of particle physics. String theory and/or supersymmetry, for example, involve higher dimensions of space that introduce new degrees of freedom and possible violations of space-time symmetries such as Lorentz symmetry. This could result in very weak forces that act on the scale of the solar system, although different theories make different predictions of the precise corrections to the spacecraft trajectories.
Some of these theoretical proposals have recently been given support by experimental results. For example, we now know that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, and some researchers have detected possible variations in the values of the fundamental constants (see "Dark energy" and "Are the laws of nature changing with time?"😉. However, no current proposal can explain the Pioneer anomaly. It is therefore vital to test our understanding of gravity more precisely, which is best carried out in the isolation and apparent weightlessness of space.
We have argued that it is time to settle the Pioneer issue with a new deep-space mission that will test for, and decide on, the origin of the anomaly (Class. Quantum Grav. 21 4005-4023). Any result would be of major significance. If the anomaly is a manifestation of new or unexpected physics, it would be of fundamental importance. But even if it turns out to be due to an unknown systematic mechanism, understanding the anomaly could help engineers build more stable and less noisy spacecraft that can be navigated more precisely for the benefit of deep-space experiments.
Originally posted by Shakyamunisonare we not on first name terms anymore 😕
chickenlover98 let me give you an example:Science does not use the lack of information as a form of information to draw a conclusion from.
"Actually, the two probes prove, again, that something is wrong with present-day theories. Notice here:"
We have two probes is space, Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11. They are not were we think they should be. Your friend, here, has drawn a conclusion based on a lack of evidence. This is not a scientific approach. His conclusion is only one of a countless possible conclusions that lack of evidence can lead a person. He says that the anomaly is caused by a fundamental misunderstanding of the solar system. This conclusion places way too much weight of the lack of information and ignores a multitude of possibilities that are less extreme. You could say that little green dragons are moving the space craft and be just as plausible as your friends conclusion.