geocentric theory: catholic propaganda?

And what does Hartnett find? Well, first of all, let's see what Sleepy's crew WISHES he would have found:

Originally posted by Templares
"Anyway, the quantization scale for redshifts which you claim as proof of a geocentric universe, has continued to SHRINK as more data has become available."

>>False. Hartnett's study is the largest and most complete, based upon the most recent release of the SDSS. He states, in diametric opposition to your claim above:

"The results indicate that quasars have preferred
periodic redshifts with redshift intervals of 0.258, 0.312, 0.44, 0.63, and 1.1.
Within their standard errors these intervals are integer multiples 4, 5, 7, 10 and
20 of 0.062."

Originally posted by Templares
"The initial value was 72.46 km/s. Further observations brought this down to 36.2 km/s, 8.05 km/s and finally 2.68 km/s. Scaled against the speed of light, this suggests a quantization in z of roughly 0.00001, which is slightly above (or even
below) the precision for many common redshifts measurements."

>>False again. The Hartnett paper states:

"Strong peaks in N(z) at z 1.2 and 1.8 are visible in fig. 1. These are both approximate
integer multiples of 0.62, which is an intrinsic redshift constant in Bell's (Bell 2002b)
decreasing intrinsic redshift model (DIR). And note the strong N(z) peak at z 0.24. The
latter is approximately 4 × 0.062. The former two peaks occur at approximately 20 and 30 times 0.062. The redshift periods z of Table I correspond to approximately 0.062n where n = 4, 5, 7, 10 and 20, within the standard errors from their Gaussian fits. One could speculate that this implies an intrinsic redshift (Bell 2002c). If this is the case it means that the peaks in the redshift power spectra found here represent certain combinations of integer multiples of this fundamental redshift."

Originally posted by Templares
"The most likely explanation for the original measurements is the presence of large scale structure. Galaxies are not randomly distributed throughout the universe. Instead they are clustered in clusters, "walls" and "filaments" thanks to their mutual gravitational attraction."

>>Baloney. First of all, the "large-scale structures" are impossible to explain given the lack of matter observed to exist in the Universe. Under current gravitational theories, we have to introduce a Universe consisting of 96% "cold dark matter"--a substance never seen, measured, or otherwise brought under the observation of actual scientific instruments- to explain these "large scale structures" within the assumptions of "Standard Theory" (eg "Big bang"😉.

It is highly indicative of the massive crisis afflicting Standard Theory, that it must invent 96% of the mass of the Universe in the form of an unseen, unmeasured, and unverified form of "matter", in order to save their gravitational equations.

But as for the geocentrist, Hartnett's study is devastating confirmation of the same GEOCENTRIC universe which has been repeatedly reported in the scientific literature ever since Hubble started looking at redshifts everywhere he pointed his telescope back in the 1930's.

But all of this evidence is merely the jabs and body punches of the geocentric argument.

The knockout blow comes with the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background and its shocking orientation toward US, at the CENTER of the Universe.

This new evidence signals the death knell for Standard Theory, and the shocking vindication of the assumptions of geocentrism.

STAY TUNED...................

Why won't my station change? sadwalk

Originally posted by AngryManatee
Why won't my station change? sadwalk

😕

I want to thank the forum for the invitation to examine the question of geocentrism.

I have addressed and completely refuted each and all of the following arguments advanced against geocentrism in this thread:

1. Foucault pendulum (Coriolis, Euler and centrifugal forces)
2. Smaller object must always rotate around larger
3. Retrograde motions of inner planets
4. Phases of Venus
5. Solar parallax
6. Stellar parallax

The principle upon which these arguments have been refuted, is likewise adequate to the refutation of every similar argument advanced, whether by Galileo or his successors, against geocentrism, from the beginning of the Copernican controversies of the 17th century down to the present day

This principle has become generally known as "Relativity".

I have further established that the Theory of Relativity was itself devised and promulgated specifically to answer the failure of all terrestrial experiments to measure a motion of the Earth, either translational (around the Sun) or diurnal (around its own axis). The shocking failure of the 1881 and 1887 Michelson-Morley interferometer experiments to provide proof of these assumed motions resulted in science facing a choice between two possible explanations:
1. The Earth was in fact motionless in space, OR
2. The "scientific consensus" in physics up until 1900 had been based on a faulty assumption (that is, that light waves required a medium, or "ether", in which to propagate) and that Maxwell's famous third equation, expressing forces dependent upon absolute velocity, would have to be subsumed in a scheme where, all motion being relative, matter instead would shrink, and clocks would run at different rates in order to mathematically accommodate electric and magnetic phenomena of bodies in relative motion.

We have seen that option "2" was chosen by Einstein, and an entirely new physics, "Relativity", was developed.

The foundational assumptions of Relativity include:
1. The assertion that the speed of light is constant in all reference frames (that is to say, there is no preferred reference frame, no preferred axis, no preferred direction or orientation of any kind whatsoever, anywhere in the Universe);
2. The necessary deduction from "1" above that the Universe must be not merely ISOTROPIC (look the same in all directions) but must also be HOMOGENEOUS (look the same in all directions no matter where one might be located in it).

It has been shown that assumption #1 above is directly challenged, first off, by the revelation that JPL's software for the navigational control of both GPS and deep space probes includes a correction for the Sagnac effect, such that the speed of light is treated as constant NOT with regard to all reference frames, but instead with regard ONLY to the frame in which the receiver is located (Earth) . This fact alone ought to give the most serious pause to any person familiar with the universally-taught "dogma" that "there are no preferred reference frames"- in point of fact, the only real-world application we have ever been able to employ to physically test this foundational postulate of Relativity in space indicates that the postulate is not in fact true, and instead Earth is a preferred reference frame!

It has also been shown that, from the very beginning of deep-space observations in the 1930's by Edwin Hubble, right up to and including the most recent observations of spacecraft-based sensors, the Universe has presented us with repeated evidences, of violations of the predictions of these two foundational principles of Relativity.

1. All galaxies are redshifted with respect to Earth- that is, under the assumptions of Standard Theory, they are all moving away from an apparent central point- Earth. Additionally, these galaxies are redshifted so as to appear organized in a series of periodic concentric spherical shells with Earth at the center of the distribution.
2. Gamma ray burst sources are also redshifted so as to appear organized in a series of periodic concentric spherical shells with Earth at the center of the distribution.
3. Quasars are also redshifted so as to appear organized in a series of periodic concentric spherical shells with Earth at the center of the distribution.
4. X Ray sources are also redshifted so as to appear organized in a series of periodic concentric spherical shells with Earth at the center of the distribution.
5. Bl Lac objects are also redshifted so as to appear organized in a series of periodic concentric spherical shells with Earth at the center of the distribution.

We have seen an extensive series of attempts by one correspondent in this debate to challenge the three decades' worth of scientific studies reporting quantization in quasar redshifts, but the most recent and complete survey, by Harken in February of 2008, has resoundingly re-affirmed the case first made by Varshni in 1972: quasars are arranged by redshift in a regular, periodic series of concentric shells with Earth at the center of the distribution.

The same correspondent has objected that the apparent centrality of Earth with regard to gamma ray redshifts is merely a result of an everywhere-expanding Universe, combined with a supposed "early Universe" time-frame for gamma ray burst sources. This argument fails to address the periodicity observed in the other objects listed above , since they are not alleged to all belong to the "earliest stage" of universal "expansion".

Any proof that the Universe possesses a "center", however, would refute the argument that gamma ray sources are not oriented with respect to Earth, since, in such a case, the observed periodicity would only be with respect to Earth, and not with respect to all locations as would be the case in an "acentric, homogeneous" Universe.

We now call attention to the fact that, among the most astounding of the very latest theoretical physics publications addressing shocking geocentric implications of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is the peer reviewed, published and refereed mathematical proof that this Universe does in fact, possess a center . This proof, dated February 2, 2008, has been published by physicist Yukio Tomozawa of the University of Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics:

The cmb Dipole and Existence of a Center for Expansion of the Universe
Yukio Tomozawa
Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics
Randall Laboratory of Physics, University of Michigan and
Ann Arbor, MI. 48109-1040, USA
(Dated: February 2, 2008)

Abstract
It is shown that the observed cmb dipole implies the existence of a center for the expansion of the universe, and that it can be explained by a combination of peculiar velocity and Hubble flow.

Quoting from Theorem 2 of the Proof:

The observation of the cmb dipole excludes the possibility of a cosmology without center. Thus, there has to be a center for the expansion of the universe , since a cmb dipole has been observed for the solar system[1]"

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0710/0710.5321v1.pdf

The above referenced proof constitutes a complete refutation of the objections raised in this debate concerning the geocentric orientation of gamma ray burst objects, and therefore we arrive at the end of this first part of our summation by reiterating that we have proven, in direct contradiction to Standard Theory, and in complete agreement with geocentrism:

1. All galaxies are redshifted with respect to Earth- that is, according to Standard Theory, they are all moving away from a central point- Earth. Additionally, these galaxies are redshifted so as to appear organized in a series of periodic concentric spherical shells with Earth at the center of the distribution.
2. Gamma ray burst sources are also redshifted so as to appear organized in a series of periodic concentric spherical shells with Earth at the center of the distribution.
3. Quasars are also redshifted so as to appear organized in a series of periodic concentric spherical shells with Earth at the center of the distribution.
4. X Ray sources are also redshifted so as to appear organized in a series of periodic concentric spherical shells with Earth at the center of the distribution.
5. Bl Lac objects are also redshifted so as to appear organized in a series of periodic concentric spherical shells with Earth at the center of the distribution.

The discovery of the cosmic microwave background was initially hailed as confirmation of predictions of the Big Bang cosmological model. Subsequent observations have proven so devastating to that model, that it is fair to say that all of Standard Theory cosmological physics is in crisis as a result of these most recent observations from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP).

We have already seen that the existence of a dipole alignment in the cmb constitutes the death knell for the "a-centric, homogeneous" Universe which has been suggested in an attempt to explain away the repeated evidence that objects including galaxies, quasars, gamma ray bursters, X-ray sources, and Bl Lac objects are all distributed in non-random, concentric series' of spherical shells, with Earth at the center of the distribution.

Subsequent discoveries of a quadrupole and octopole alignment in the cmb have so shocked physicists, that these geocentrically-oriented alignments in the cmb have been dubbed the "Axis of Evil" in a steadily-increasing number of (increasingly freaked-out) cosmological studies in the recent scientific literature.

I will avoid the temptation to simply overkill with the literally dozens upon dozens of citations. I will return and cite them by the boatload should it become necessary, but I doubt that it will.

I will begin with only one, which is so devastating in its implications that anyone possessed of a basic degree of fair-mindedness will be able to see that the heretofore "crazy" notion that we inhabit a Universe with a specific center, one which is oriented specifically toward Earth, and in which Earth must now be acknowledged from scientifically irrefutable observations, to be either at, or at least very near that center, is no longer "crazy", but is instead the present best scientific explanation for the most highly advanced scientific observations made to date by the human species.

Submitted on July 25, 2007, the following study by physicist Michael J. Longo of the University of Michigan deals with his stunning observation that galaxies possess, rather like electrons and amino acids in organisms, a "handedness", or predominant asymmetrical orientation along a preferred axis of spin. In the course of explaining his newest discovery in violation of the assumptions of a "homogeneous, a-centric" universe, Longo lets loose with one of the most open and provocative paragraphs yet published about the implications of the shocking "Axis of Evil" WMAP has shown extends across the entire Universe, and which is oriented with respect to EARTH:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0707/0707.3793.pdf

"The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) studied the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation (G. Hinshaw et al. 2006). Their results for the angular power spectra have been analyzed by Schwarz et al. (2004) and many others. Schwarz et al. show that: (1) the quadrupole plane and the three octopole planes are aligned, (2) three of these are orthogonal to the ecliptic, (3) the normals to these planes are aligned with the direction of the cosmological dipole and with the equinoxes. The respective probabilities that these alignments could happen by chance are 0.1%, 0.9%, and 0.4%. This alignment is considered to be so bizarre that it has been referred to as "the axis of evil" (AE) by K. Land and J. Magueijo (2005) . Their nominal AE is at (l, b) ≈ (–100°, 60°), corresponding to (RA, ä) = (173°, 4°). The alignment with the ecliptic and equinoxes is especially problematic because this would suggest a serious bias in the WMAP data that is related to the direction of the Earth's spin axis, which is highly unlikely . "

Highly unlikely? I believe the word that many of my fellow participants in this debate have been predisposed toward using was……..ummm, let me see if I remember now…..oh yes.

"Retarded", wasn't it?

It is certainly "retarded" to believe, after all, that the cmb, supposedly the remnant of the Big Bang of 14 billion years ago, is oriented with respect to the Earth, which supposedly didn't even come into existence until 9 billion years later, as a random little pebble orbiting a random little sun in a random little backwater Galaxy, isn't it?

Well, I suppose it might be possible to consider it "retarded" to believe that- until WMAP went up and reported back.

But the simple fact is, WMAP DID go up and WMAP DID report back, and the results are in. IT IS THERE RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR FACES, and I submit that it is retarded to refuse to acknowledge scientific facts, when they contradict our precious notions of "what everyone knows to be true", or of "what everyone knows is retarded".

Longo continues:

[QUOTE] "The approximate agreement of the spin alignment axis with the WMAP quadrupole/ octopole axes reinforces the finding of an asymmetry in spiral galaxy handedness and suggests that this special axis spans the universe . The fact that the spin asymmetry appears to be independent of redshift suggests that it is not connected to local structure. On the other hand, the spiral galaxy handedness represents a unique and completely independent confirmation that the AE [Axis of Evil] is not an artifact in the WMAP data due to foreground contamination ."

So we can either deal with the fact that WMAP has blown standard Big Bang Relativistic cosmology into tiny little smithereens, and perhaps even have the integrity to acknowledge that the geocentrist position is the only one which effortlessly accomodates such astonishingly "unlikely" alignments , OR we can attempt to refute these astounding facts.

We'll take a pause here to give everyone a chance to let this paper sink in.

Perhaps we are done.

Perhaps merely almost done.

But ain't it great to find out about something really, really big, maybe five or ten years before they get around to breaking the news to the peanut gallery?

Edit

wait where did he refute the idea that smaller objects must always orbit around the larger? Not to mention, that's not entirely accurate. Smaller objects orbiting around larger objects exert their own gravitational influence on the larger body.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
wait where did he refute the idea that smaller objects must always orbit around the larger? Not to mention, that's not entirely accurate. Smaller objects orbiting around larger objects exert their own gravitational influence on the larger body.

I think it does not matter to him. He has won the argument inside of his own head. At this point we are merely confusing him with facts.

I suggest that no one post in this thread any more. 😄

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I suggest that no one post in this thread any more. 😄

Considering the caliber of argumentation in your post here, that may not be too bad of an idea 🙂.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Considering the caliber of argumentation in your post here, that may not be too bad of an idea 🙂.

This is a debate forum not a blog. Do you see the difference?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
This is a debate forum not a blog. Do you see the difference?

P.S. Just in case you can't, I promise to remember when seeing you post on this thread in the future, that you are merely blogging in the wrong location by mistake.

Carry on.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
One difference between a debate and a blog is that in a debate the participants are assumed to be competent to address the issues. You are welcome to attempt such a response by addressing the issues in my last two substantive posts.

P.S. Just in case you can't, I promise to remember when seeing you post on this thread in the future, that you are merely blogging in the wrong location by mistake.

Carry on.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
wait where did he refute the idea that smaller objects must always orbit around the larger? Not to mention, that's not entirely accurate. Smaller objects orbiting around larger objects exert their own gravitational influence on the larger body.

You could never answer my first few questions, and others. You have been shown how you are wrong again and again by other people more knowledgeable then I. Just go back and read everything that Templares or AngryManatee has posted.

I see no reason to continue. All you do is show how arrogant you are. Just look at how you handled what I said about debate and blogs. You don't show that you even understood what I said. All you did was try and turn it into an attack.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
wait where did he refute the idea that smaller objects must always orbit around the larger? Not to mention, that's not entirely accurate. Smaller objects orbiting around larger objects exert their own gravitational influence on the larger body.

I feel it necessary to emphasize that "small" and "large" refers to the mass of the object, not necessarily the size.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You could never answer my first few questions, and others. You have been shown how you are wrong again and again by other people more knowledgeable then I. Just go back and read everything that Templares or AngryManatee has posted.

I see no reason to continue. All you do is show how arrogant you are. Just look at how you handled what I said about debate and blogs. You don't show that you even understood what I said. All you did was try and turn it into an attack.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
If you feel that any point in this debate went unanswered by me, please feel free to repost. After all its always easier to deal with something the second time around 🙂 . As for AngryManatee, tell him to look up the word barycenter on this thread and he will have his answer.

Then explain to me the orbit of Mars.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
If you feel that any point in this debate went unanswered by me, please feel free to repost. After all its always easier to deal with something the second time around 🙂 . As for AngryManatee, tell him to look up the word barycenter on this thread and he will have his answer.

I prefer the astronomical defintion awesome I've seen your use of the term barycenter, which is the center at which mass rotates about (hence the small oscillations of our sun from all the little planets orbiting around it). Another question, how would you explain changes in the earth's naturally ocurring microseismic oscillations due to such natural events as earthquakes, hurricanes, etc. etc.? Is that the earth's motion changing or the entire universe's motion changing due to events taking place on earth?

To further elaborate: The only way the earth would be at the barycenter would be if everything in the universe perfectly orbited about the point at which the earth is located which would be the center of rotational equilibrium. Only problem with this is the differing rates of rotation of the other planets, so you would have to explain how the earth is able to maintain a perfectly stationary position at the barycenter while all the planets are rotating about the sun at different rates and hence causing differing amounts of gravitational influence from constantly changing vectors (based on your geocentric model).

Always a pleasure to hear from AngryManatee, who had the best argument against geocentrism in part one of this debate (though it was an oldie, it was a goodie), and is about to come up with potentially a real hum-dinger a couple of paragraphs below. But let's take this one step at time.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
I prefer the astronomical defintion awesome I've seen your use of the term barycenter, which is the center at which mass rotates about
(hence the small oscillations of our sun from all the little planets orbiting around it).

>>The analogy is inexact, since the Sun itself is both rotating about its own axis and in translational motion (either around the Earth in the geocentric model. or around a galactic barycenter which in turn is in motion toward the so-called Great Attractor in Standard Theory). If the Sun were at the universal barycenter, then it could neither rotate, nor translate, as shown earlier in the citations from Hans Thirring's paper "On the Effects of Distant Rotating Masses" and from Misner's "Gravitation". Hence, all the forces of a rotating Universe work in concert to keep an object at the universal barycenter from being moved. The same principle is seen in a gyroscope, which continues to rotate about a stationary barycenter no matter if we disturb the rotation of the gyroscope or add mass at some point on its circumference. The barycenter remains unmoved, and as we have previously posted, Thirring's equations show that an object at the universal barycenter could not rotate. The fact that the Sun has an empirically measured rotation about its axis proves that it cannot be at the universal barycenter.

Since no such empirical measurement of a rotation of the Earth about its axis has ever been made, the example does not affect the geocentric argument.

Now this next part might get interesting, unless you have simply gone fishing over at BAUT, which is the only other place I have encountered this particular gambit.....if you actually have some solid scientific citation to back this up, we might have a real hum dinger on our hands here.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
Another question, how would you explain changes in the earth's naturally ocurring microseismic oscillations due to such natural events as earthquakes,

>>Earthquakes are not assumed to be, so far as I know, a consequence of Earth's rotation about its axis or its translational motion about the Sun. However, if it were to be alleged that such forces were responsible, and the physics could be developed to support this, then of course the same forces could be derived from the Thirring equations, under the principle of Relativity, for a rotating universe and a stationary Earth.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
hurricanes, etc. etc.? Is that the earth's motion changing or the entire universe's motion changing due to events taking place on earth?

>>Now here is were things might get fascinating. Am I to understand that you are able to provide a scientific citation and evidence of a measurement of the Earth's rotation about its axis being affected by hurricanes?

If you can provide this, I would be fascinated to look at it very carefully indeed, since, needless to say, should such evidence stand up, it would constitute a very great difficulty for the geocentrist hypothesis, as far as I can see- indeed, the first one we would have encountered in this entire debate.

Now let me say that I saw this allegation on another website, and no scientific citation was ever produced.

Obviously, I would need to assess the evidence, and so I ask you to post it if you have it.

Assuming you can come up with some, let me say first off that, if hurricanes (which rotate in one direction) affect the Earth's rotation, then obviously typhoons (which rotate in the opposite direction) would have to affect it oppositely. I assume your source would address this.

Secondly, and most intriguingly-- while I can grasp the basic idea of, say, rotating a bicycle wheel, and then blowing highly compressed air opposite its direction of rotation to slow it down, what I DON'T immediately see, is what force would be responsible for speeding the wheel back up after the air gets turned off, if you see what I mean........in other words, if a hurricane or typhoon changes the Earth's rotational velocity, what force changes it back after the hurricane or typhoon dissipates, and why is it always returned to a constant rotational velocity?

Very much looking forward to whatever you have to substantiate this further.

Thanks for raising this.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
To further elaborate: The only way the earth would be at the barycenter would be if everything in the universe perfectly orbited about the point at which the earth is located which would be the center of rotational equilibrium. Only problem with this is the differing rates of rotation of the other planets, so you would have to explain how the earth is able to maintain a perfectly stationary position at the barycenter while all the planets are rotating about the sun at different rates and hence causing differing amounts of gravitational influence from constantly changing vectors (based on your geocentric model).

>>No problem at all. Since the universal barycenter is defined as the point at which the sum total of gravitational forces of all the masses of the universe are mutually balanced, that is to say, it is the center of all the masses of the rotating universe, then the sum total of all those forces is zero at the barycenter, and the planetary vectors have no effect on the barycentric Earth.

Looking forward to your hurricane citations.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then explain to me the orbit of Mars.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
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.

Done.