Originally posted by Transfinitum
I would be a little more careful about who you go about calling an idiot here, chum. You see, I have already posted the following paper by Einstein eight times on this thread, and it would have helped you avoid the embarrassment of bungling this question if you had taken the time to read the citation before making a horse's ass of yourself above..Albert Einstein refutes our pseudo-scientific bungler yet again:
---Albert Einstein, cited in Hans Thirring, "On The Effect of Rotating Distant Masses In Einstein's Theory of Gravitation", Physikalische Zeitschrift 19, 33, 1918
Now, if you were simply ignorant- as after all most people in fact are- about the actual content of Einstein's Theory of Relativity, that would be one thing. But people like you, who attack without knowledge, and slander without truth, are very useful examples of a characteristically modern perversion of a true scientific outlook. You could have bothered to read the thread, and could have taken the time to read Einstein's quote, and so avoided the embarrassment of showing yourself to be completely unequipped to address these questions.
But you couldn't be bothered.
It is altogether clear to me that you are unqualified to fruitfully address these questions, unless and until you read the thread up to the point where you so hilariously plopped yourself into the middle of it, and managed to bring foot-in-mouth disease to a whole new level.
Until such time as you acknowledge that you were wrong on the specific point addressed above, I see no point in treating you as anything other than a source of occasional comic relief.
Here's hoping, by the way, that you will take this lesson as an opportunity to tighten up your arguments and bring something substantive to this debate, because all the others have taken their best shot and departed the contest.
I would love to have the debate continue, but only if you stop being stupid.
Cheers!
oh my GOD, are you seriously retarted or so ignorant as to interpret the massive amounts of defeats, insults and asswhooping youve been getting from practically every1 on this as to say "because all the others have taken their best shot and departed the contest" .
lol.
also, knowing science at least well enough to refer to two different frames of reference with two DIFFERENT sets of symbols instead of K' is is sumthing every1 should know. i dont know where you are getting your SUPPOSED facts and papers from but einstien wudnt write papers with such gross errors in them. oh no wait, youve alreayd been PROVEN to have been changing statements from papers before and not giving context to begin with so why am i even trying mr. zealot.
as to the paper, i will reply to it not as i wud reply to enstien but as i reply to you, since your track record with authetic sources and reference is terrible. realitivity disallows Faster than light speed travel, hence no such FORCES can be emenating from the stars or other celestial objects as very specifically gravitons{which is the only real force which can act over such lon distances} can not reach earth in time to cause such centrifugal affects from occuring. also, celestial bodies are very haphazardly distributed and wouldnt provide the adequately uniform natureof the centrifugal affect, but the single biggest trump to your pigheaded proposal comes from the fact that the resistance between the oceans and the earth's movement isreducing its rotational speed by a specified amount which has been calculated. this would not exist EVER if the earth was stationary and there is no silly argument you can put here because the oceans are ALSO part of the earth and this phenomenon would be impossible if the earth was stationary. AGAIN. reletivity deals with points and their reletive motion. take , lets say, a single grain of dust on earth and assume that its OWN rotational movement doesnt matter. then track its motion on earth {not considering the rest of the matter on earth as being PART of this speck or having faces etc. } and then make the rest of the earth trasnparent, now you will start to get a feal for what reletivity ACTUALLY is, the reletive motion o point sources. faces and directions dont MATTER in reletivity silly man. go read your college textbooks again instead of confusing your overly zealot mind with more complex things. only COORDINATES matter. and coordinates have no direction . you may as well be facing one way or turning or spinning. if your a POINT it doesnt matter since you a are zero dimension. only the distance you TRAVERSE and the direction in which you traverse matters. you cud be looking in the direction of the motion or directly away from it and as a point, that would make ZERO difference to your significance. circular motion is basically multiple small instances of linear motion with constant direction changes which result in it perceptually seeming circular. infact nothing is circular completely {which is the reason why pi has infinite decimal places in mathematics} and space is not continuous by has fundamental least distances at subatopmic levels.
also refrain from trying to use offensive or insulting language when you lack actual evidence or logic to back up your already refuted claims. there is a reason why the overwhelmingly vast majority of the world doesnt beleive in geocentrism.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
oh my GOD, are you seriously retarted or so ignorant as to interpret the massive amounts of defeats, insults and asswhooping youve been getting from practically every1 on this as to say "because all the others have taken their best shot and departed the contest" .lol.
>>Friend, the simple truth is that none of Sleepy's- or anybody else's- points against my position have stood up. As we are about to see, neither do yours. It is very easy to go back and read all of the arguments that have been advanced against geocentrism, and read the responses I have posted from scientific citations and sources. Anyone who is honestly interested in the truth can find it. Anyone, like you, who would rather defeat an opponent, than discover the truth, is to be pitied. But it really doesn't matter to me. I was invited, I came, I gave my responses, and everyone can draw their own conclusions.
As the great Ogden Nash once said:
"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinions still".
Originally posted by leonheartmm
also, knowing science at least well enough to refer to two different frames of reference with two DIFFERENT sets of symbols instead of K' is is sumthing every1 should know.
>>Take it up with Einstein, since he is the one who chose to use the symbols. It is worth noting how you, allegedly the defender of "mainstream science", seem to spend most of your time arguing against Einstein in this thread. OK by me, but rather...er....illogical as far as your case is concerned. But then, logic is certainly not your strong suit, is it? :-)
Originally posted by leonheartmm
i dont know where you are getting your SUPPOSED facts and papers from
>>Actually, you know exactly where I am getting my cited and sourced facts and papers from. That is because I always provide the citations, so that the less dishonest among us can check. Unlike you, I would be delighted to be proven wrong in any substantive aspect of my understanding, since this would result in me becoming better informed. However, this forum is clearly not likely to provide me with a correspondent capable of doing so.
Although Sleepy, bless his heart, certainly tried. And the more time I spend with you, the more impressed I am with him :-)
Originally posted by leonheartmm
but einstien wudnt write papers with such gross errors in them.
>>>Heh heh heh. I guess we could call this the "don't bother me with the facts, I will decide what Einstein did and didn't say" gambit. :-) Anyway, the quote is sourced and cited, anyone can see for themselves that you are a blundering fool here.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
oh no wait, youve alreayd been PROVEN to have been changing statements from papers before and not giving context to begin with so why am i even trying mr. zealot.
>>This is simply false. My sources are accurately cited. When ellipses or interpolations are employed, they are clearly indicated. It is a great blessing to have a clear conscience, and not to be in a position where one must lie, deceive, and slander in order to defend one's "position", as you are forced to do here.
You honestly have my sympathy.
I hope you become less dishonest.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
as to the paper, i will reply to it not as i wud reply to enstien but as i reply to you, since your track record with authetic sources and reference is terrible.
>> You have never even provided a single scientific citation to support your claims, and you dare allege falsehood in mine? Prove it, you ignoble fraud.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
realitivity disallows Faster than light speed travel,
>>This has already been refuted by my earlier citation of Einstein himself. You blithely ignored this citation, and therefore I will post it for the benefit of those less dishonest than you. Also, so that those reading this can learn the difference between scientific argument supported by accurate citations, and ignorant blundering.
"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions of the theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity . A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position.... the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g., of light) ."
Albert Einstein, "Relativity, the Special and the General Theory" authorized translation by Robert W. Lawson, Three Rivers Press, New York, 1961, p. 85
Originally posted by leonheartmm
hence no such FORCES can be emenating from the stars or other celestial objects as very specifically gravitons
>>Please understand that no such thing as a "graviton" has ever been found, observed, measured, or shown to exist. A "graviton", you poor thing, is a hypothesis, a guess, a supposition. Until it is experimentally verified to exist, it is not to be advanced in a scientific debate as if it were empirically established.
But then again, only honest people would care about that distinction.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
{which is the only real force which can act over such lon distances}
>>So the only "real force" that can act over "long distances" consists in "gravitons", which have never been experimentally observed to actually exist? Tell you what, chum. When you can post a peer reviewed scientific citation that refers to the observed existence of these "gravitons", I will give you a hearing. Until then you are a waste of my time, capiche?
Originally posted by leonheartmm
can not reach earth in time to cause such centrifugal affects from occuring.
>> Alas for you, my dilettante friend, REAL physicists know better. Among them, is Albert Einstein:
"Yet, as E. Mach has shown, this argument is not sound. One not need view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of K' [the Earth]; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of K' [the Earth], whereby K' [the Earth] is treated as being at rest. If Newtonian mechanics disallow such a view, then this could very well be the foundation for the defects of that theory…. "
---Albert Einstein, cited in Hans Thirring, "On The Effect of Rotating Distant Masses In Einstein's Theory of Gravitation", Physikalische Zeitschrift 19, 33, 1918
Originally posted by leonheartmm
also, celestial bodies are very haphazardly distributed
>>Celestial bodies, as has been exhaustively documented in this thread, are oriented with respect to Earth. Specifically, as any reader of this thread knows, the scientific literature confirms that:
1. Quasars
2. Gamma Ray burst sources
3. Bl Lac objects
4. X Ray sources
5. Galaxies
are ALL distributed in concentric spherical shells centered upon Earth.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
and wouldnt provide the adequately uniform nature of the centrifugal affect,
>>It is the overall center of mass of a rotating system, and not the distribution of the objects within that system, which determines the barycenter.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
but the single biggest trump to your pigheaded proposal comes from the fact that the resistance between the oceans and the earth's movement isreducing its rotational speed by a specified amount which has been calculated. this would not exist EVER if the earth was stationary and there is no silly argument you can put here because the oceans are ALSO part of the earth and this phenomenon would be impossible if the earth was stationary.
>>Now let me make a suggestion here, chum. Another poster started down this particular path and I will say to you what I said to him: POST THE REFERENCE. Let me see this alleged "resistance between the Earth's oceans and the earth's movement reducing its rotational speed". I would be very impressed with you if, unlike the earlier fellow, you actually bothered to provide some EVIDENCE for this, since it might lead to a very interesting new dimension in the discussion.
I would be so surprised- happily surprised,- if you would actually do your homework for once, instead of rattling off your illiterate botch-jobs.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
AGAIN. reletivity deals with points and their reletive motion.
>> Points have no physical existence, and how surprised your physics professor would be to learn that his cherished Relativity has no relevance to actual objects in the actual Universe! Can you not seed what a laughable joke you are? We can refer to a "point" at the center of the Earth, and derive our Einsteinian equations from that point, in such a way that all of the equations are perfectly satisfied, with that Earth at the center of a rotating universe. If we could not do this, then there would be no "Relativity" in the first place, as Einstein has already told you.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
take , lets say, a single grain of dust on earth and assume that its OWN rotational movement doesnt matter.
>>Why should we "assume" that?
Originally posted by leonheartmm
then track its motion on earth {not considering the rest of the matter on earth as being PART of this speck or having faces etc.
>>Why should we "not consider the rest"? Since the dust is, obviously, PART of the Earth, why should we sit back and simply allow you to wave your ignorant illiterate hand and say "presto change-o! I hereby declare the dust not to matter, and you will pay no attention to it from now on!"
Originally posted by leonheartmm
and then make the rest of the earth trasnparent,
>>Make the rest of the earth "transparent"? Good heavens, man, you have confused physics with a Wizard of Oz movie you saw once when you were running too high of a fever. Stop "ignoring", "not considering", "assuming", and "making transparent" everything which might present a problem for your hilariously incompetent notions of physics.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
now you will start to get a feal for what reletivity ACTUALLY is,
>>>Heh heh heh. What Relativity actually is, is something you are not prepared to even begin to understand, since you presently imagine, hilariously, that cetntrifugal forces could not arise at the Earth's equator from the effects of distant rotating masses, even though Einstein himself, the ORIGINATOR of Relativity's fireld equations, has told you over and over again that they can!
Originally posted by leonheartmm
the reletive motion o point sources. faces and directions dont MATTER in reletivity silly man
>>Actually, they do, silly man. As has been exhaustively established in this thread, the GPS system PROVES that relative motion with respect to the ECI frame DOES matter, since, as the investigators have already told you twenty five times:
"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 ."
Originally posted by leonheartmm
go read your college textbooks again instead of confusing your overly zealot mind with more complex things.
>>But this is exactly your problem. You read textbooks, which blithely assert that the speed of light is constant regardless of relative motion. I, on the other hand, read experiments, from investigators who actually USE physics to control GPS and deep space satellites, and they report that the speed of light is NOT constant except with respect to one, specific reference frame- that is, Earth.
You can continue to chant your litanies of textbook-programming, but I will simply have to point out to you that the guys who have to keep the satellites working properly have already pulled the covers off the dirty little secret- your textbooks, chum, are WRONG.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
only COORDINATES matter. and coordinates have no direction .
>>Sorry, chum. The position of the receiver at the time of reception of the signal matters, for the GPS, and therefore your above statement only gets you a passing grade on a physics test. If you were responsible for keeping the GPS working, you would be crashing airplanes.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
you may as well be facing one way or turning or spinning. if your a POINT it doesnt matter since you a are zero dimension.
>>Note that neither airplanes nor GPS satellites are zero dimension, which is perhaps one reason why they don't behave the way your textbooks insist they ought to.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
only the distance you TRAVERSE and the direction in which you traverse matters.
>>Distance in relation to what???: Direction in relation to what???
Originally posted by leonheartmm you cud be looking in the direction of the motion or directly away from it and as a point, that would make ZERO difference to your significance.
>>So what????
Originally posted by leonheartmm circular motion is basically multiple small instances of linear motion with constant direction changes
Originally posted by leonheartmm
which result in it perceptually seeming circular.
Your assumptions are certainly failing to survive their collision with observed reality, chum.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
infact nothing is circular completely {which is the reason why pi has infinite decimal places in mathematics} and space is not continuous by has fundamental least distances at subatopmic levels.
>>>Which is why the polygon never becomes a circle, and why space cannot be continuous- even though Relativity DEPENDS upon the idea of a continuum for its equations to work.
But then again, you are the sort of fellow who only cares what the textbooks say- even if the GYPS systems SHOW YOU that the textbooks are WRONG!
Originally posted by leonheartmm
also refrain from trying to use offensive or insulting language when you lack actual evidence or logic to back up your already refuted claims. there is a reason why the overwhelmingly vast majority of the world doesnt beleive in geocentrism.
>>You have refuted nothing, and what you have proven here is that you don't understand Relativity in the first place.
Anyway, thanks for sharing.
NOTE TO ALL:
Thanks to all for your participation! As a direct result of this debate, I have been able to get in touch with the authors of "Galileo Was Wrong", and, since I am a film maker, I have been asked to prepare a documentary script/treatment about geocentrism, from the viewpoint of a high school student asked by his teacher to write a paper on the "proofs" of heliocentrism!
So thanks again one and all and especially to Sleepy and his handlers, who fought very well, and gave me the opportunity to consult directly with Dr. Sungenis and Bennett, and opened the door to this great opportunity!
God bless one and all!
Quia surrexit Dominus vere, alleluia!
Originally posted by leonheartmmhat last sentence is definitely right 😆
^lol, thats like a zealot being happy at having the cchance to meet jimmy swagat. utterly disgusting but morbidly humerous. il;l post a reply to this pile of crap when i feal more motivated. your ability to run in circles and bullshit is endless little boy.
geocentrism
Hello, all, and excuse me for jumping in this discussion at this late point.
Transfinitum has been doing an admirable job, but I thought I would add a few points.
The key to understand is that science has been trying to prove heliocentrism (or some similar form such as "barycentric solar system acentrism"😉. In the early 19th century, Francois Arago ran some experiments using prisms and light from the stars. The conclusion was that light from the stars (the easiest colimated light that could be found before lasers) was not effected by the [presupposed] motion of the earth. This did cause some confusion, as it was expected to. Since the earth was presupposed to be moving through a fixed aether there should be differences in velocity in different directions (i.e. in teh direction of motion and perpendicular to it).
Augustin Fresnel came along and proposed that the aether is "dragged". This seemed to settle the problem, so life went on, but a proof for heliocentrism was not found. Nevertheless, a disaster was averted (the earth did not have to taken as stationary).
in the mid-19th century Armand Fizeau ran some interesting experiments with light and tubes with water moving through them at high speeds (much less than light speed). His results further bolstered Fresnel's conclusions.
in 1871, George Airy performed experiments with telescopes that showed that the aether was not dragged. Airy was a famous scientist with the Royal society, and this caused waves throughout the scientific community.
In the 1880s Michelson and Michelson Morley performed their famous interferometric experiments which were designed to resolve the difficulty in measuring the movement of the [presupposed] motion of the earth. Thety failed! They did not detect anywhere near 30 km expected for the speed of the earth around the sun. They had sent a split beam of light in two directions- one with the presupposed motion and one perpendicular to it. They joined with very little intereference, meaning they were travelling at the same speed. The quotes that came out of this were amazing ("...it is as though the earth were standing still...", etc.).
But Fitzgerald and Lorentz had an explanation to save the day: You see, the interferometer arm that pointed in the direction of the earth's [presupposed] motion just happened to shrink just enough (due to the motion) to "mask" the reading. Of course scientists laughed an jeered at this explanation at first, but once they realized that it was the only one available, they accepted it, and Einstein installed it into special relativity(SR). Einstein also jettisoned the aether. Note that this presumption is tautological. One can never prove the arm shrank because any experiment designed to measure the shrinkage would also fail (since the ruler used to measure the shrinkage also shrinks).
So, now, with SR, matter shrinks in the direction of motion, time dialtes, and mass increases. All unverifiable, but, apparently better than even considering the possibility that the earth is stationary.
Off course SR had its limitations, so Einstein invented general relativity (GR). Here matter shrinks, time dilates, mass increases, space warps, the aether exists (but is not ponderable), and ironically, geocentrism once again becomes possible!
The big bang theory operates un GR. Under big bang, matter shrinks, time dilates, mass increases, space warps, the aether exists (but is not ponderable), the universe is full of undetectable dark matter and dark energy, the universe grew from an infintessimal point, and the universe is a 4-D toroid or hypercube.
Here is a chart illustrating this "development" of reltaivity (or is it retreat from what the eye behold?).
geocentrism dot com
The Development of Relativity
(I cannot post links yet)
Originally posted by Shakyamunisonu have no idea, NO idea how much i wish u were right. but you do have to hand it to trans for defending HIMSELFand his theory for THIRTY PAGES. im sry but that is a feat worth of some credit.
Come on, he starts by complementing himself. 😆
and if your the second geocentrist to enter a debate such as this, of course youd congradulate someone else whos been soloing multiple people.
i know for a fact that isnt trans. trans told me AND he says the guy knows more about relativity. + diff writing style
Originally posted by chickenlover98
u have no idea, NO idea how much i wish u were right. but you do have to hand it to trans for defending HIMSELFand his theory for THIRTY PAGES. im sry but that is a feat worth of some credit.and if your the second geocentrist to enter a debate such as this, of course youd congradulate someone else whos been soloing multiple people.
i know for a fact that isnt trans. trans told me AND he says the guy knows more about relativity. + diff writing style
😆 Trans has not done well. All he has done is ignore facts, and insult people.
My god, I can't believe this stupid debate is still going. For the billionth time, general relativity does not posit a stationary Earth at the center of a geocentric universe. Under general relativity the universe has no true center. An immobile Earth and a rotating universe violates special relativity, requiring transitions for objects between subluminal and superluminal speeds. I don't see why anyone would really feel the need for the universe to be geocentric other than a) they need to feel loved or b) Jesus says they have to.
But for those deluded individuals who want to believe in a geocentric universe that's nice, just accept it's craptastic pseudoscience. What a spectacular waste of time for all parties involved.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
My god, I can't believe this stupid debate is still going.
>>It actually hasn't been much of a debate since Sleepy's withdrawal. At least Sleepy and his handlers understood that intellectual integrity in scientific debate means:
1. Providing scientific sources to support one's claims
2. Responding specifically to one's opponents legitimate scientific citations.
Now it is true that Sleepy's attempts to respond to my citations were unsuccessful, since more recent papers refuted his assertions. But he was one hundred times less dishonest than the pathetic substitutes, such as yourself, who have attempted to step into the gap since. You (and they) are apparently not equipped intellectually to understand that one is obligated to read, understand, and respond to one's opponent, if one wishes to honorably prevail in debate.
Your post is about to provide us with an object lesson in how not to display intellectual integrity in scientific debate.
If I were a heliocentrist, I would be increasingly uneasy to witness the progressively more obvious catastrophe which has befallen the heliocentric position in this debate.
Perhaps someone with some intelligence and some scientific integrity might show up and try to salvage what is presently a pretty conclusive smackdown for the geocentrists.
Based on this post, it certainly won't be you who answers the call :-)
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
For the billionth time, general relativity does not posit a stationary Earth at the center of a geocentric universe.
>>For the billionth time, General Relativity posits that it were impossible to say whether the Earth is rotating, or the Universe is rotating. In fact, General Relativity goes so far as to insist, that there is no physical difference between the two statements. Your illiterate botch job above will now be refuted, honorably, by the accurate citation of the actual founder of relativity, Albert Einstein. If a reader of this debate wishes to know which side is winning, he might begin by noticing that it is the geocentrists who quote Einstein, whilst the (remaining) heliocentrists quote the rumblings of their upset stomachs.
Vive la difference!
"Yet, as E. Mach has shown, this argument is not sound. One not need view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of K' [the Earth]; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of K' [the Earth], whereby K' [the Earth] is treated as being at rest. If Newtonian mechanics disallow such a view, then this could very well be the foundation for the defects of that theory…."
---Albert Einstein, cited in Hans Thirring, "On The Effect of Rotating Distant Masses In Einstein's Theory of Gravitation", Physikalische Zeitschrift 19, 33, 1918
So, my friend. There it is, in black and white. Now you can continue to insist, like some witch doctor secure in the assurance that his fetish bag renders him invulnerable, that you are not required to honestly and truthfully respond to Einstein's devastating refutation of your botched claim above.
But always remember that the thread remains here, for anyone with an honest and objective mind to review. You are going to assist them in distinguishing between the relative intellectual integrity of our arguments.
And that is precisely how science advances, btw. What "everybody knows" is shown, slowly and patiently, to be at odds with known facts. Eventually, the defenders of "what everybody knows", are reduced to banging their shoe on the desk like Krushchev, insisting that "we will bury you".
History has not been kind to such pathetic excuses for "arguments", my friend.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Under general relativity the universe has no true center.
>>We now know General Relativity to have been in error in this assertion. The discovery of the CMB dipole is conclusive proof that our universe does, in fact, have a center, and the astrophysicists are now busily trying to determine where it might be. Present estimates place it within 99.5% agreement with the geocentrist position: Earth.
The relevant paper, which is presented on ArXiv as a mathematical proof, has been cited numerous times. Read it and weep, chum, and in future be good enough to do your bloody homework before posting:
http://arxiv..org/PS_cache/astro-ph/...1/0701151v5.pdf
Some choice excerpts:
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..........Proof.
III. An object that moves with peculiar velocity vp is at rest with respect to an object at a distance of vp/H0, where H0 is the Hubble constant, which does not have a cmb dipole by the Lemma. Therefore, an object with a peculiar velocity should not have a cmd dipole.
All three proofs give the same result. Another way to look at this theorem is that the equivalent speed of a cmb emitter is close to that of light and speed of light is identical for moving frames. We have reached the important conclusion that in a cosmology without center there is no cmb dipole. As a corollary, we state a theorem.
Theorem 2
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].
So I have now remedied it for you yet again.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
An immobile Earth and a rotating universe violates special relativity, requiring transitions for objects between subluminal and superluminal speeds.
>>But you poor fellow, if you had merely read one or two posts back, you would have saved yourself the embarrasment of having Einstein contradict you once again. But first, let me ask you-who should we believe here? You, or the senior lecturer in physics at Exeter University, and author of the internationally distributed scientific text "An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity"?
"If gravitational fields are present the velocity either material bodies or of light can achieve any numerical value whatever depending on the strength of the gravitational field."
Rosser, op cit, p.460
And just in case you needed some more evidence of the catastrophic difference between your understanding of Relativity, and Relativity, here is Albert Einstein to straighten you out further on the question:
"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions of the theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position.....the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g., of light)."
Albert Einstein, "Relativity, the Special and the General Theory" authorized translation by Robert W. Lawson, Three Rivers Press, New York, 1961, p. 85
So, here we have another interesting example of the heliocentrists insisting that relativity means one thing, when Einstein and leading physicists assure us it means quite another.
And most disturbing of all, I am sure, for the casual reader, is that it is always the geocentrists who actually quote Einstein, and never the heliocentrists who stupidly blunder about contradicting him!
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I don't see why anyone would really feel the need for the universe to be geocentric other than a) they need to feel loved or b) Jesus says they have to.
>>It certainly is not surprising that you should not see something. There are a great many things which are quite easy to see, which you have proven very conclusively that you do not see. Why, therefore, should we be surprised to have you admit to another?
But one reason to "feel" the "need" to become a geocentrist would be, if the evidence led one to that conclusion.
Since evidence is not your strong suit, I can understand why such a thing would never occur to you.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
But for those deluded individuals who want to believe in a geocentric universe that's nice, just accept it's craptastic pseudoscience. What a spectacular waste of time for all parties involved.
>>I suggest a new shoe :-)
not only are trans' insults bordering on expulsion/suspension, he points to extremely complicated much debunked evidence in a ploy to confuse posters. really trans, seeing as you are already a phd in physics, would you mind creating a probability equation for a crowd of 10 on earth simultaneously finding themselves on sasturn due to quantum phenomenon? {much of your points have been debunked and proven to be lies, you support general reletivity when singular out of context statements and wild generalisations help your argument and say it is in error when it doesnt support you, relying on debunked evidence like distance of gamma ray bursts etc, if you really beleive you are right while 99% of the scientific community, or probably even more, is wrong, than thats your perogitive, just dont fill this message board with it}
Originally posted by leonheartmmhe refuses to acknowledge hes wrong in insulting people. i have repeatedly asked him to apologize.
not only are trans' insults bordering on expulsion/suspension, he points to extremely complicated much debunked evidence in a ploy to confuse posters. really trans, seeing as you are already a phd in physics, would you mind creating a probability equation for a crowd of 10 on earth simultaneously finding themselves on sasturn due to quantum phenomenon? {much of your points have been debunked and proven to be lies, you support general reletivity when singular out of context statements and wild generalisations help your argument and say it is in error when it doesnt support you, relying on debunked evidence like distance of gamma ray bursts etc, if you really beleive you are right while 99% of the scientific community, or probably even more, is wrong, than thats your perogitive, just dont fill this message board with it}