Originally posted by Shakyamunison
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.
>> Look. You guys raised pioneer 10 and pioneer 11 as examples that everything was "hunky-dory" in Standard Theory land. I merely pointed out that your example is an unfortunate one for you to have chosen. Whether or not it is "dark matter", some new form of gravity, or invisible elephants sucking with their trunks; i cannot say. However it is quite clear that the spacecraft are not where they are supposed to be according to the assumptions of our dear friends at JPL. This is not bad news, but good news, it means perhaps that we are about to learn something.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
>> Look. You guys raised pioneer 10 and pioneer 11 as examples that everything was "hunky-dory" in Standard Theory land. I merely pointed out that your example is an unfortunate one for you to have chosen. Whether or not it is "dark matter", some new form of gravity, or invisible elephants sucking with their trunks; i cannot say. However it is quite clear that the spacecraft are not where they are supposed to be according to the assumptions of our dear friends at JPL. This is not bad news, but good news, it means perhaps that we are about to learn something.
I agree 100%, but that something maybe as simple as refining the math that is involved with our calculation of gravity. You don't have to jump off a cliff to see the view. Until we know what is causing the problem, everything is just speculation.
Just because I don't believe in the Geocentric theory, does not mean I thing we have it all figured out. We have not been able to come up with a grand unification theory. If you really want to put your intellect to the challenge, put gravity and quantum mechanics together so they agree. However, that would require a lot of formal education, and you may have to put your ideas aside.
Originally posted by chickenlover98You didn't read anything inimalist said, did you?
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 🙁
He's not using science. He is using scientific babble to cloud the weak minded's thoughts.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
>>Now you did get that, right Sleepy? INTERPLANETARY!>>And what would the "chosen frame" be? As we are about to see, that "chosen frame" can only be "chosen" AFTER the entire computation has already been done in the EARTH-Centered-Inertial (ECI) frame.
>> Unfortunately for you, Sleepy, you misunderstand the entire point once again. Again from the Ruyong Wang and Ronald Hatch study:
. Now when you read that the "chosen" frame is the solar system barycentric frame, what this means is that the Earth Centered Inertial frame computations are translated by a coordinate shift to the solar system barycentric frame. But- and here is the really shocking thing- the Sagnac effect- which shows the speed of light to be constant only with respect to the receiver (the receiver WHERE? On Earth, of course)- is buried in the code, and none of us would have had a HINT of this if it weren't for these two GPS engineers getrting hold of the JPL source code and cracking this SHOCKER wide open!
Allow me to repeat, since the import is apparently not quite sinking in here. [B] All of the calculations are done in the Earth-Centered-Inertial frameSo, 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.
>> 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".
>>Sleepy, did you not know what the ECI frame was? I assume you don't mean to imply that JPL thinks the Earth is going around the Sun without rotating, while the Universe rotates around both every twenty four hours, do you? Ah, a beginner's mistake. The inherent problem with JPL using the ECI frame for interstellar satellites, though, is that it VIOLATES ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF RELATIVITY; namely that of the the speed of light as a CONSTANT in EVERY reference frame. When a Sagnac-correction is applied to deep-space probes, we acknowledge that THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS NOT A CONSTANT, for we calculate it from the position of the Earth.
>>On the contrary, yet another opportunity to improve your science knowledge, Sleepy.
You're welcome!
>>Sleepy, what was the purpose of a Heliocentric universe in the first place? It was an attempt to try to simplify the observed motions in the universe. Well in this particular case, the Heliographic reference frame serves tho OPPOSITE purpose, for NASA must convert calculations from the ECI to the Heliographic frame, thus applying a Sagnac-Correction; but still through all of this NASA is using the EARTH-CENTERED INERTIAL FRAME and merely performing superfluous transformations.
TO BE CONTINUED
*************************************** [/B]
<Nelson>
Ha-ha.
</Nelson>
Nothing to say about you being caught misquoting and lying to us again?
First off, there is no such thing as a helicentric universe
Second, JPL uses the Solar System's barycenter as a frame reference to track interplanetary probes and the coordinates are only converted to an Earth based reference frame, an additional computation, for the benefit of the researchers at JPL who have their instruments on the Earth and not at the Solar System's barycenter. If the scientist's satellite dishes were in Mars or Pluto, they'd be converting the Solar system barycentric coordinates to an Ares or Pluto Centric frame.
Your argument is like a British blockhead using the Greenwich meridian as proof that London is the center of the Earth's surface.
Originally posted by chickenlover98
i did. perhaps you didnt read far enough to find that im in disagreement with him
??
which part in particular?
The part where one requires positive empirical evidence or the part where novel predictions are required? Or was it the one where hypothesis testing requires defining a falsifiable hypothesis?
now if only transfinitum changed his view to subtract the idea that the universe REVOLVED around the earth{as oppose to the earth revolving around its axis}, then he would find that no1 can completely disprove that notion based on reletivity{even without his technobabble}. however, a revolving earth is not a feature i suppose of geocentry in the strict sense in which he takes it and that utterly destroyes his argument. he has not given any real explanations based on the queries i posted before that havent been debunked. now, this silliness has gone on long enough.
Originally posted by inimalistthe part where "post-hocing" isnt allowed. technically all science can be qualified as "post-hoc"
??which part in particular?
The part where one requires positive empirical evidence or the part where novel predictions are required? Or was it the one where hypothesis testing requires defining a falsifiable hypothesis?
Originally posted by leonheartmmpm me what you want him to debunk. ill relay it to him. he'll argue it. he hates when people feel sleighted
now if only transfinitum changed his view to subtract the idea that the universe REVOLVED around the earth{as oppose to the earth revolving around its axis}, then he would find that no1 can completely disprove that notion based on reletivity{even without his technobabble}. however, a revolving earth is not a feature i suppose of geocentry in the strict sense in which he takes it and that utterly destroyes his argument. he has not given any real explanations based on the queries i posted before that havent been debunked. now, this silliness has gone on long enough.
Originally posted by Bardock42100% sure. i tend to hate christians because theyre either so ill informed or ignorant that they cant make their own choices, or because theyre so stuck to their convictions they wont change. lighten up bud 😛
Are you sure you aren't a fundamentalist Christian sent out to make atheists look stupid?
Originally posted by Templares
Nothing to say about you being caught misquoting and lying to us again?
>>The only lying going on here, Sleepy, is you evincing your readiness to descend to that tactic in order to bs your way out of the bear trap you have stepped into here.
There was no misquote. The quote was perfectly accurate, the ellipsis was included, and your hilarious failure to grasp the meaning of ECI frame was just number seventy seven on the List of All Time Memorable Sleepy Mega Blunders.
Listen, pal, I can appreciate how tough it is for you to have to accept that JPL has just been shown to do all its interplanetary satellite navigation computations in an Earth Centered Inertial Frame, with Sagnac corrections making the Earth based receiver the preferred reference frame for all these computations, in DIRECT contradiction of Relativity Theory.
But there it is.
Originally posted by Templares
First off, there is no such thing as a helicentric universe
>>Well, at least we agree on that :-)
Originally posted by Templares
Second, JPL uses the Solar System's barycenter as a frame reference to track interplanetary probes and the coordinates are only converted to an Earth based reference frame, an additional computation, for the benefit of the researchers at JPL who have their instruments on the Earth and not at the Solar System's barycenter.
>>I would be tempted to simply conclude that you are a liar, if I had not had so many evidences in this thread of your stupendous ability to blunder. Let's give you the benefit of the doubt here, that you are simply blundering again.
Here again, Sleepy, is the direct quote from the scientists themselves:
"....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, Sleepy, we see that the ENTIRE (that is, the WHOLE, the COMPLETE, the TOTALITY OF) the computation is NOT done, as you said, in the solar frame. Instead, it is done in the EARTH BASED frame.
Now it is my pleasure to debate issues, but when my adversary is reduced to either:
a) a pathetic inability to read the simple words of the sources cited OR,
b) bald facedly lying,
then intellectual honesty requires that we take a "time out", and determine which is which.
So, Sleepy, I will now ask you to please acknowledge that you have read and understood the quote above, and that you now grasp that the entire computation for interplanetary space probe navigation is done by JPL in the EARTH CENTERED INERTIAL FRAME.
If you do not respond, and if you do not signify that yes, you do now understand that the entire computation for interplanetary space probe navigation is done by JPL in the EARTH CENTERED INERTIAL FRAME , then it will be necessary to point out that further debate with you on this question would be superfluous.
The debate would have been settled, in such a case, on incontestibly clear grounds.
I await your response.