geocentric theory: catholic propaganda?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What about my question?

If you can disprove this then you would win the Nobel Prize in Physics.

HINT: If it was that easy, don't you think it would have been done already?

Originally posted by Transfinitum
>> At a certain point I cannot be held responsible for the inability of someone to grasp a point that I have reiterated throughout this entire debate: Relativity is based upon the assumption that any motion observed in the sky can be [B] EQUALLY and COMPLETELY described from either a heliocentric or geocentric reference frame.

If you can disprove this then you would win the Nobel Prize in Physics.

HINT: If it was that easy, don't you think it would have been done already? [/B]

Relativity is NOT based upon the assumption that any motion observed in the sky can be EQUALLY and COMPLETELY described from either a heliocentric or geocentric reference frame.

You seem to not even know what Relativity is. The orbit of Mars is not long enough to go around the sun and the Earth if the sun is going around the Earth, therefore it must at some point cross in front of the Sun from the Earth's point of view. Why has that never happened? Please answer this question without the attitude.

Special relativity

Special relativity (SR) (also known as the special theory of relativity (STR)) is the physical theory of measurement in inertial frames of reference proposed in 1905 by Albert Einstein (after considerable contributions of Hendrik Lorentz and Henri Poincaré) in the paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".[1] It generalizes Galileo's principle of relativity — that all uniform motion is relative, and that there is no absolute and well-defined state of rest (no privileged reference frames) — from mechanics to all the laws of physics, including both the laws of mechanics and of electrodynamics, whatever they may be. In addition, special relativity incorporates the principle that the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers regardless of the state of motion of the source.[2]

This theory has a wide range of consequences which have been experimentally verified. Special relativity overthrows Newtonian notions of absolute space and time by stating that time and space are perceived differently by observers in different states of motion. It yields the equivalence of matter and energy, as expressed in the mass-energy equivalence formula E = mc2, where c is the speed of light in a vacuum. The predictions of special relativity agree well with Newtonian mechanics in their common realm of applicability, specifically in experiments in which all velocities are small compared to the speed of light.

The theory is termed "special" because it applies the principle of relativity only to inertial frames. Einstein developed general relativity to apply the principle generally, that is, to any frame, and that theory includes the effects of gravity. Strictly, special relativity cannot be applied in accelerating frames or in gravitational fields.

Special relativity reveals that c is not just the velocity of a certain phenomenon, namely the propagation of electromagnetic radiation (light)—but rather a fundamental feature of the way space and time are unified as spacetime. A consequence of this is that it is impossible for any particle that has mass to be accelerated to the speed of light.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

Relativity states "there is no absolute and well-defined state of rest". That means the Earth is not at rest and not an absolute point. Relativity contradicts your assertion that the Earth is the center of anything sense there is no absolute center in Relativity.

Now please answer my question without using Relativity incorrectly.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
the calculations done by space probes reaching the outskirts of the solar system are not done reletive to earth's frame of reference.

The crucial quote:

"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 earth-centered earth-fixed solution results and the JPL results, we investigated the input parameters to the solution very carefully. The measured and theoretical ranges computed in the two different frames agreed precisely, indicating that the Sagnac correction had been applied in each frame.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
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.

Originally posted by leonheartmm 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.

>>Not so. The MM results reported fringe displacements "certainly less than one twentieth" the EXPECTED result (expected why? because the experimenters ASSUMED the Earth was moving around the Sun at app. 30km/s). Therefore, there were two consistent logical conclusions which could be be drawn from the experiment:
1. The lack of predicted fringe shifts meant the Earth was apparently at rest in space; OR
2. It would be necessary to reinvent physics from the ground up, so as to explain the lack of fringe displacements by dispensing with the "ether" which had formed the basis of Maxwell's equations.

Needless to say, it was the second option which was chosen-"Special Relativity", with its supposed "vacuum" of "empty space" in which the speed of light was constant in all reference frames.

It is important to note, however, that the common textbook statement that MM reported a "null result" is FALSE. The experimenters did NOT report a "null result", only one very much less than predicted.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
and if you only knew a bit about the history of science,

>>Friend, I can absolutely promise you, if you want to get into the history of the interferometer experiments, I can give you the years, locations, experimenters, reported results, and scientific publication citations on every major one from 1887 to 2003. Can you? No? I didn't think so. So please, let's stick to what we can prove, OK?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
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.

>>We see, first of all, that your "knowledge of the history of science" is so faulty, that you falsely allege Michelson and Morley to have reported NO fringe displacements, when they actually reported:

"The expected deviation of the interference fringes from the zero should have been 0.40 of a fringe- the maximum displacement was 0.02 and the average much less than 0.01- and then not in the right place. As displacement is proportional to squares of the relative velocities it follows that if the ether does slip past [the Earth], the relative velocity is less than one sixth the Earth's velocity".

--Letter dated August 17, 1887, from Albert Michelson to Lord Rayleigh, cited in Livingston, "The Master of Light: A Biography of Albert A. Michelson", Charles Scribner, 1973, p.130

Originally posted by leonheartmm
how can you account for the consistancy of these measurements if the entire universe revolves around the earth?

>>Your question is meaningless. How would you account for the consistency of these measurements if the Earth was rotating? There is no difference in terms of the effects these motions would have. What we DO know, is that the experiments consistently show a real, but much smaller than expected, fringe displacement. Therefore SOMETHING is causing the fringe shifts. We also know that Einstein's attempt to build a physics on a "vacuum" in Special Relativity failed, and that all subsequent discoveries at the quantum level have abolished any notion of "empty space" as a medium of electromagnetic propagation.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
now please, stop this your idiocincricies. atleast you werent insulting before, im sad to see that you have changed that.

>>>Can I help it if you got your physics out of some stupid textbook? Go read the experiments in the words of the experimenters. It will keep you from being idiosyncratic.
__________________

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Relativity is NOT based upon the assumption that any motion observed in the sky can be EQUALLY and COMPLETELY described from either a heliocentric or geocentric reference frame.

"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

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You seem to not even know what Relativity is.

>>Either that, or else Albert Einstein and I do know what relativity is, while you don't. Btw, this is in fact the case, as we can immediately see from your insistence that you have disproved Relativity, by claiming that Mars' orbit is somehow "not big enough" to accomodate the coordinate shift Einstein just told you could be used "with equal justification"- that is, a coordinate shift from a fixed Sun to a fixed Earth.

Now stop, close your eyes, and think this through. Construct in your mind a Solar system, where the planets orbit around the Sun. Now draw a circle,with the Earth as center and the line from the Earth to the sun as radius. Move the Sun-centered solar system about the circumference of this circle. Notice that EACH AND EVERY MOTION visible from Earth in the original, Sun centered model, is EXACTLY REPRODUCED in the new, Earth centered model.

If you can't visualize this, go here and look at the diagram on page 60:
http://books.google.com/books?id=9AGiOEO53MYC&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=neo+Tychonic+system&source=web&ots=OWsXz4uvVw&sig=U_Ha8JEve8yBB1SHY4Ed20DrgMw&hl=en#PPA60,M1

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The orbit of Mars is not long enough to go around the sun and the Earth if the sun is going around the Earth, therefore it must at some point cross in front of the Sun from the Earth's point of view. Why has that never happened? Please answer this question without the attitude.

When you have grasped this, we can move on. Until you do, we can go no further,.

Good luck.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
>>Relativity is, precisely, based on this assumption. Now, we can either believe you, or we can believe the originator of Relativity, Albert Einstein. With all due respect, I would suggest we believe Einstein:

So, now you are Einstein? 😆

Originally posted by Transfinitum
---"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

>>Either that, or else Albert Einstein and I do know what relativity is, while you don't. Btw, this is in fact the case, as we can immediately see from your insistence that you have disproved Relativity, by claiming that Mars' orbit is somehow "not big enough" to accomodate the coordinate shift Einstein just told you could be used "with equal justification"- that is, a coordinate shift from a fixed Sun to a fixed Earth.

Have you been talking to Albert Einstein again? I have no disagreement with Albert Einstein or Relativity. You are ignoring the question. You can’t have it both ways, and just saying coordinate shift does not convince me of anything. Both the sun and the Earth are NOT FIXED.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Now stop, close your eyes, and think this through. Construct in your mind a Solar system, where the planets orbit around the Sun. Now draw a circle,with the Earth as center and the line from the Earth to the sun as radius. Move the Sun-centered solar system about the circumference of this circle. Notice that EACH AND EVERY MOTION visible from Earth in the original, Sun centered model, is EXACTLY REPRODUCED in the new, Earth centered model.

It is not the same. In your models planets would not have a retrograde in their path across the sky. This is because the Earth would never pass the other planets because it is not moving. However, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune all have retrogrades (times when they move backward in the sky). This is caused by the fact that the Earth has a shorter orbit around the sun and will pass the planets in question.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
If you can't visualize this, go here and look at the diagram on page 60:
http://books.google.com/books?id=9AGiOEO53MYC&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=neo+Tychonic+system&source=web&ots=OWsXz4uvVw&sig=U_Ha8JEve8yBB1SHY4Ed20DrgMw&hl=en#PPA60,M1

😐

Originally posted by Transfinitum
>>Pardon the "attitude", but this has been exhaustively, repeatedly and conclusively answered multiple times throughout this thread. We have long since shown that Relativity guarantees that ALL arguments against geocentrism based on a supposed "impossibility" of explaining the planetary motions are COMPLETELY FALSIFIED.

When you have grasped this, we can move on. Until you do, we can go no further,.

Good luck.

You have failed to convince anyone with the exception of yourself. Please consider the possibility that you are wrong.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
>>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.

>>Well, at least we agree on that :-)

>>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:

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 [B] 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. [/B]

Providing another misquote is not really gonna help you convince people here with your arguments or much less with your credibility, oh Knowledgeable Poser. Here is the link again: http://www.aliceinphysics.com/introduce/ion.pdf . The Navcom quote is on page 5.

GPS, Sagnac Effect, and Ashby Claims
At this point we want to consider a number of claims that
Ashby [4] has recently made in regard to GPS and the
Sagnac effect. We address three specific comments which
Ashby made and respond to each below.

. . . .

(3)The final claim by Ashby, which we contest, is: “Of
course if one works entirely in the nonrotating (sic)
ECI frame there is no Sagnac effect.” The only way
this claim can be true is if we adopt the definition
sophistry of the prior claim. But we have even more
convincing data that Ashby’s claim is false. 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 earth-centered earth-fixed solution
results and the JPL results, we investigated the input
parameters to the solution very carefully. The
measured and theoretical ranges computed in the two
different frames agreed precisely, indicating that the
Sagnac correction had been applied in each frame.

The quote you cite again has nothing to do with inter-planetary probes but with GPS. Of course JPL uses software based on Earth-based coordinates (ECI) to track GPS because unlike deep space probes which goes into an interplanetary jaunt, its job area is limited to only here on Earth (ie. provide pinpoint locations here on Earth). I do hope you know the difference between a GPS satellite and a deep space probe like the Voyager probes or am i asking too much.

The fact that your using an Earth-based GPS study like Wang and Hutch's, "Conducting a Crucial Experiment of the Constancy of the Speed of Light Using GPS" - Comments on Ashby’s “Relativity and the Global Positioning System” to prove that inter-planetary probes uses geocentric coordinates is just plain stupid. Youre citing the wrong reference to substantiate your argument. The study cites one instance where interplanetary probes are discussed, in fact on the same page further along, and on that one instance, it disproves your claim:

"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."

I'll just reiterate what i said earlier, based on the study from the quotes you cite come from, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory uses the solar system's barycenter and NOT the Earth to track our inter planetary space/ deep space probes. Also. 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 center of mass and NOT stationary, much less a geocentric universe.

And remember, im still waiting for that MEGATON Cosmic Microwave background proof. Judging from your previous proofs, its just going to be another futile misquote. But thats not gonna stop you, im sure.

Jeers.

oh my GOD. trans just proved to all of us that reletivity is WRONG and the speed of light in empty space is NOT constant irrespective of the frame of reference. hmmmm, i wonder what weve been doing for the last 70 years...............................

Originally posted by leonheartmm
oh my GOD. trans just proved to all of us that reletivity is WRONG and the speed of light in empty space is NOT constant irrespective of the frame of reference. hmmmm, i wonder what weve been doing for the last 70 years...............................

Also gravity is not real. I have no idea why I am still sitting on this chair.

*floats away*

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Also gravity is not real. I have no idea why I am still sitting on this chair.

*floats away*

The truth has arrived: The way all those far off galaxies and nebulas and other astronomical bodies are able to exceed the speed of light to orbit around the earth is by implementation of invisible carousels!!! This is science 💃 !!!! The carousels are not subject to the laws of physics, and are thus able to exceed the speed of light, taking their celestial tourists on a journey around the tilt-a-earth!!! Yes... YEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSS ¯\(ºдಠ )/¯ !!!!!!!!

Originally posted by AngryManatee
The truth has arrived: The way all those far off galaxies and nebulas and other astronomical bodies are able to exceed the speed of light to orbit around the earth is by implementation of invisible carousels!!! This is science 💃 !!!! The carousels are not subject to the laws of physics, and are thus able to exceed the speed of light, taking their celestial tourists on a journey around the tilt-a-earth!!! Yes... YEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSS ¯\(ºдಠ )/¯ !!!!!!!!

Magic rules! 💃

Originally posted by Templares
quote: (post)
Originally posted by Transfinitum
>>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.

>>Well, at least we agree on that :-)

>>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:

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.

**************************************************************
Providing another misquote is not really gonna help you convince people here with your arguments or much less with your credibility, oh Knowledgeable Poser.

FIRST LIE BY SLEEPY: Accusation of misquote, without posting any evidence of a misquote,

Originally posted by Templares
Here is the link again: http://www.aliceinphysics.com/introduce/ion.pdf . The Navcom quote is on page 5.

>>Notice that Sleepy is about to post from the same link I showed him in the first place, from which I have accurately quoted throughout this debate.

Originally posted by Templares
GPS, Sagnac Effect, and Ashby Claims
At this point we want to consider a number of claims that
Ashby [4] has recently made in regard to GPS and the
Sagnac effect. We address three specific comments which
Ashby made and respond to each below.

. . . .

(3)The final claim by Ashby, which we contest, is: "Of
course if one works entirely in the nonrotating (sic)
ECI frame there is no Sagnac effect." The only way
this claim can be true is if we adopt the definition
sophistry of the prior claim. But we have even more
convincing data that Ashby's claim is false. 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 earth-centered earth-fixed solution
results and the JPL results, we investigated the input
parameters to the solution very carefully. The
measured and theoretical ranges computed in the two
different frames agreed precisely, indicating that the
Sagnac correction had been applied in each frame.

>>Note that the bolded portion of this quote is precisely that point which Sleepy is willing rather to lie, slander, and obfuscate, than to honestly address.

Originally posted by Templares
The quote you cite again has nothing to do with inter-planetary probes but with GPS.

As has previously been posted, the authors are addressing BOTH interplanetary and GPS, as they themselves tell us, ONE PARAGRAPH below the end of Sleepy's citation above:

"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."

Originally posted by Templares
Of course JPL uses software based on Earth-based coordinates (ECI) to track GPS

"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 we see that Sleepy is simply willing to lie, brazenly, in hopes that he can confuse the simple-minded sufficiently to prevent them from grasping the catastrophic truth, which is this:

1. The ENTIRE computation in the JPL software- both GPS and interplanetary- is done IN THE ECI (Earth Centered Inertial) frame.
2. SUBSEQUENT computations (footnote 10 references a scientific paper which provides an exhaustive list of these) are employed to SHIFT the computation to a solar system frame, ONLY in the case of INTERPLANETARY probes.
3. BOTH sets of computations involve a SAGNAC correction which is ONLY with regard to an EARTH BASED receiver, in explicit contradiction to the established assumptions of Relativity.

As I have said before, honesty is important in scientific debate, and Sleepy, you are simply not being honest here. It is a terrible and frightening thing, to see a person willing to twist and lie, in order to escape the necessity of honestly addressing the facts which might present serious difficulties for his position.

I had earlier said that I had much more respect for you than some of the other participants in this debate, since you had at least shown a willingness to do research and engage on the eivdence.

I must sadly amend that observation, since there is nothing at all worse than bald-faced dishonesty in a scientific debate.

We have seen, so far, two specific instances of Sleepy posting what I cannot find any way to ascribe merely to his previously well-established ignorance. These two instances are, very sadly, lies.

Originally posted by Templares
because unlike deep space probes which goes into an interplanetary jaunt, its job area is limited to only here on Earth (ie. provide pinpoint locations here on Earth). I do hope you know the difference between a GPS satellite and a deep space probe like the Voyager probes or am i asking too much.

"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."

Originally posted by Templares
The fact that your using an Earth-based GPS study like Wang and Hutch's, "Conducting a Crucial Experiment of the Constancy of the Speed of Light Using GPS" - Comments on Ashby's "Relativity and the Global Positioning System"

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.

Originally posted by Templares
to prove that inter-planetary probes uses geocentric coordinates is just plain stupid.

>>Take it up with the authors of the study, who, as far as I can tell, are far less stupid than you are, and a whole bunch more honest:

"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.

Originally posted by Templares
Youre citing the wrong reference to substantiate your argument. The study cites one instance where interplanetary probes are discussed, in fact on the same page further along, and on that one instance, it disproves your claim:

"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."

>>Since we have already established that all computations are done in the ECI frame, INCLUDING INTERPLANETARY SPACE PROBES, one wonders why you don't see what a monumental idiot you make of yourself by posting the very evidence which contradicts your argument above.

Originally posted by Templares
I'll just reiterate what i said earlier, based on the study from the quotes you cite come from, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory uses the solar system's barycenter and NOT the Earth to track our inter planetary space/ deep space probes.
This is merely a reiteration of the second lie above, which has been adequately demonstrated to be such, and further repetition is unnecessary.

Also. 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 center of mass and NOT stationary, much less a geocentric universe.

Shame on you.

Originally posted by Templares
And remember, im still waiting for that MEGATON Cosmic Microwave background proof. Judging from your previous proofs, its just going to be another futile misquote. But thats not gonna stop you, im sure.

Jeers.

Good job Templares 👆

Originally posted by chickenlover98
the part where "post-hocing" isnt allowed. technically all science can be qualified as "post-hoc"

science has to be predictive

http://jove.geol.niu.edu/faculty/stoddard/JAVA/ptolemy.html

I wanted to try and find an animation of the Tychonic geocentric system to assist you in understanding why Einstein and I disagree with you.
If you click the link above, select "Tycho Brahe" on the "model" tab, and play with the various speeds, you will see:

1. The very same coordinate transformation Einstein and I already asked you to perform- (the Earth becomes the co-ordinate transformed center, and the sun along with all the planets, orbits the Earth)- that very same co-ordinate transformation will be performed in front of your eyes.
2. The retrograde orbital motions of Mars as seen from the stationary Earth will be performed in front of your eyes (obviously, since the entire system is merely the result of a simple coordinate shift) .
3. The similar retrograde of Venus will, predictably enough, likewise be observed.
4. While you will not be able to see it, this model would still give you something to crow about if you were really, really smart. You could claim that the phases of Venus would not be observed, and YOU WOULD BE RIGHT! That is because the orbits for all the systems in this model are circular (non-Keplerian).
5. The transformation of the orbits from circular to Keplerian would yield the phases of Venus. This is what is known as the "neo-Tychonic", or modern geocentric, system.
6. As Einstein and I have already told you a very great number of times, this neo-Tychonian system is entirely EQUIVALENT to the Keplerian heliocetnric system, in that BOTH systems are derivable from the other by means of a simple coordinate transformation, and are hence EQUALLY JUSTIFIED under the basic premise of the Theory of Relativity.

This constitutes a formal, complete, and total refutation of each and every argument against geocentrism that was advanced by Galileo. In other words, the model you have just observed in front of your eyes, constitutes scientific proof that Galileo was wrong in each and all of his arguments claiming the impossibility of geocentrism.

Now if you have a desire to courteously acknowledge that your objection has been completely answered, I would very much appreciate it,

If not, then that's OK too, I would not be at all surprised.

I believe all objections have been honorably answered, and unless something else is forthcoming, it is probably time to proceed to the CMB evidence and conclusion of this most interesting debate.

why the long posts? Can't we take them one part and then another?

Originally posted by Deja~vu
why the long posts? Can't we take them one part and then another?

That is what happens to people who are possessed by Einstein. 😂

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is what happens to people who are possessed by Einstein. 😂

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is what happens to people who are possessed by Einstein. 😂

He is hard to talk to after tea though...........babbles along with time/space thingies............good though.

Anywhoo, I had to take some speed just to keep up with him. 😂

He's a terrible looser at "Go Fish"