the speed of SPACE EXPANSION is a vagueterm, it may be explosion or implosion.
1. Redshift is NOT exclusively an indication of recessionary velocity (Halton Arp makes an extremely persuasive case for this option, see ) http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm
2. The Earth is at the center of an expanding Universe, OR
3. The Universe is expanding so rapidly that its expansion exceeds the speed of light.
Take your pick.
If you pick #1 or #2, you will be sneered at by folks who imagine that scientific truthfulness is somehow determined by majority vote.
But that, obviously, does nothing whatever to prove #3.
A moment's reflection will serve to establish that every single scientific discovery in all of human history began life as a "crazy insane nutcase theory" that every scientist in the world rejected- except one.
the argument doesnt hold because expansion is only really talked about inTERMS of space. the phenomenon described by me takes place INSIDE space.
If you accept redshift=velocity, then you have no basis at all to object to superluminal velocities of objects carried along by "space" (whatever that might be).
things have only been THEORISED tomove faster than light in gravity field.
however, do consider, thet it may not really happen as any real bending inspace itself wont matter to observers actually INSIDE this very space.
also, simply put, if the earth is not rotating thanevery galaxy cluster/nebula/quaysar and every other stellar object even billions of light years away is rotating in
their orbit every 24 hours. now do the math, circumference = 2 pi x radius.
2 pi is around 6.2 and radius is say 1 billion light years. so the circumfernce{distance travelled in a day is 6.2 billion
light years. {it wud take light in a vacume 6.2 billion light years to travel this distance. 1 light year is around ten
trillion kilometres i think} and this celestial body travels this distance in only 24 hours. that is mcuh much much
much faster than the speed of light. so reletivity actually proves you wrong here my friend.
From "An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity", William Geraint Vaughan Rosser, London, Butterworths, 1964, p.460 (the author was senior lecturer in Physics at Exeter University):
"Relative to the stationary roundabout" (NOTE: Earth in the geocentric system) "the distant stars would have...linear velocities exceeding 3 x 10^8 m/sec, the terrestrial value of the velocity of light. At first sight this appears to be a contradiction....that the velocities of all material bodies must be less than "c" [the speed of light]. However, the restriction u < c =3 x 10^8 m/sec is restricted to the theory of Special Relativity. According to the General Theory, it is possible to to choose local reference frames in which, over a limited volume of space, there is no gravitational field, and relative to such a reference frame the velocity of light is equal to c.....If gravitational fields are present the velocities of either matierial bodies or of light can assume any numerical value depending on the strength of the gravitational field."
it is the EARTH rotating not the entire Universe around it.
furthermore, if you wanna talk about gravitic field of such high intensities anddistances. than you have to assume{through tthe uniform orbits of all celestial bodies as u say, orbitting the earth}
that the earth is the point cetre of this gravity.
yet no such gravitic field is noticed around this region specifically. ifthere were, it wud be the single most massive blackhole is existance with an even horizon beyond human
comprehension.
furthermore, no such gravitic field which wud indicate the space stretch allowing for such high speed motion is ever detected in the areas of space where these objects are seen.
if indeed there were, light wud be sufficiently bended or lensed or red shifted for physycists to notice a considerable anomoly{ofcourse at the speeds we are talking anout, the gravitic field wuld be so strong infact that there wud be near zero probability of photons to escape from it, since it wud lie at almost the edge of the even horizons of super blackholes.
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, my friend. If you guys can claim motion of matter greater than "c", you certainly have no grounds at all to insist that geocentrism can't.
and its odd for sum perosn who can quote such extensive knowledge of physics to be unable to understand this contradiction
einstien was WRONG in that specific citation about the ether as he was wrong when he said "god does not play with dice" concerning the theory of quantum mechanics.
you shud realise that a lot of time has passed since the days of einstien. reletivity took away the concept of absolute space and absolute time, hence, no ether. the idea of ether, as traditionally percieved has been debunked at the basic level.
Subsequent discoveries have completely discredited the notion of a "vacuum" in space. All mainstream physicists now accept the argument given by Stephen Hawking in "A Briefer History of Time":
"[T]he uncertainty principle means that even "empty" space is filled with pairs of virtual particles and antiparticles.......if empty space were really completely empty- it would mean that all fields, such as the gravitational and electromagnetic fields, would have to be exactly zero." (pp 122-123)
In direct contradiction to your assertion, the notion of a "vacuum" is what has been debunked, and the "ether" is very much alive, whether one calls it a
"quantum space-time foam", or a "Dirac sea", it is still precisely what the ether has always been- the physical structure filling all of space.
on more point i forgot to add in the above quoted reply was the fact that to exactly compensate for the faster than light velocities, you wud need such precise MOVING points of super gravity placed numerously and exactly in the places mentioned for the stars that physics itself wud disprove such a dynamic combination forever working for all obects in space.
Physics can accomodate both models.
it wud be like saying, that god makes everything happen in the world but when infact you try to observe what is happening, he immedietly changes the arrangement of things as to make it look like physical forces were resoinsible for it and then changes it back when you rent looking.
The solar system is 'flat' enough that Special Relativity applies. A geocentric universe, and consequently geocentric solar system, requires that a body as close as Pluto have constant FTL motion (varying FTL motion due to it's orbit).
And as much as you jibber jabber about General Relativity, in so far as I've read of, it doesn't support a geocentric universe at all, it supports an acentric universe - as any frame of reference can be taken and the equations of motion in the universe will still be accurate.
But have fun with your the Universe revolves around you crackpottery - I have no intention of trying to sway your warped world view. 🙂
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
And as much as you jibber jabber about General Relativity, in so far as I've read of, it doesn't support a geocentric universe at all,
The ultimate desecration of science...when people have a theory that doesn't make any sense to anybody including themselves, they resort to quantum physics.
Originally posted by TransfinitumSHUT UP. ITS BEEN PROVEN, TRANSFINITUM! WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS! 😠 😠 😠 😠 😠 😠 😠 😠 😠 😠
Your understanding of this might be vague. This is shown by your claim that space "might be expanding or imploding". Wrong. Standard Model cosmology insists that the Universe is expanding. There is no evidence whatever that it is imploding. If you claim that redshift is a function of recessionary velocity and distance, then observational evidence requires to assert that space itself is expanding. Think about it. If everywhere we look we see redshifts, then EITHER:1. Redshift is NOT exclusively an indication of recessionary velocity (Halton Arp makes an extremely persuasive case for this option, see ) http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm
2. The Earth is at the center of an expanding Universe, OR
3. The Universe is expanding so rapidly that its expansion exceeds the speed of light.
Take your pick.
If you pick #1 or #2, you will be sneered at by folks who imagine that scientific truthfulness is somehow determined by majority vote.
But that, obviously, does nothing whatever to prove #3.
A moment's reflection will serve to establish that every single scientific discovery in all of human history began life as a "crazy insane nutcase theory" that every scientist in the world rejected- except one.
Sorry, but you are simply wrong. The observed redshifts of the most distance objects cannot be squared with the limit of the speed of light. Period. Therefore, you must either, with Arp, reject the notion that redshift equals velocity, or else you must say that space is expanding faster than the speed of light and carrying the objects along with it.
If you accept redshift=velocity, then you have no basis at all to object to superluminal velocities of objects carried along by "space" (whatever that might be).
Just as things are only THEORIZED to be unable to move faster than light in a vacuum.
But you must realize that space is only THEORIZED to "bend". What is "bending", if space is truly a vacuum? If space is not a vacuum, then you have an ether. In either case, not a shred of evidence has yet been put forward to falsify the geocentric hypothesis.
You are, again, simply wrong. Relativity explicity insists that objects can exceed to any numerical value whatsoever the velocity of light in the presence of gravitational fields.
From "An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity", William Geraint Vaughan Rosser, London, Butterworths, 1964, p.460 (the author was senior lecturer in Physics at Exeter University):
"Relative to the stationary roundabout" (NOTE: Earth in the geocentric system) "the distant stars would have...linear velocities exceeding 3 x 10^8 m/sec, the terrestrial value of the velocity of light. At first sight this appears to be a contradiction....that the velocities of all material bodies must be less than "c" [the speed of light]. However, the restriction u < c =3 x 10^8 m/sec is restricted to the theory of Special Relativity. According to the General Theory, it is possible to to choose local reference frames in which, over a limited volume of space, there is no gravitational field, and relative to such a reference frame the velocity of light is equal to c.....If gravitational fields are present the velocities of either matierial bodies or of light can assume any numerical value depending on the strength of the gravitational field."
You have no proof for this position whatsoever, and if you insist upon it, then you simultaneously insist that General Relativity is wrong. You must now prove both propositions. Good luck.
Sorry, wrong again. It is the center of MASS, not the center of GRAVITY, that the Earth occupies in the geocentric Universe. It is extremely important to learn the difference. The gyroscope does not rotate around the center of gravity, obviously, but instead the center of mass.
See above. You have unfortunately become confused as to the difference between center of mass and center of gravity.
It is not gravity which expands space. Gravity is a function of matter, which obviously does not exist outside of space. Therefore it is not gravity which is expanding space in the Standard Theory.
But you see this is precisely the problem for your team. We DO observe redshifts, at distances which are assumed to be so great, that the objects must be moving greater than the speed of light. In order to account for this observation, the current consensus is required to borrow a page from the "Big Bang" creation myth, where "inflation" allows space to expand to the volume of the solar system in less than a second. This, obviously, invloves a massive violation of the speed of light, but is accepted anyway, with the argument that "space" is somehow exempt from the constraint.
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, my friend. If you guys can claim motion of matter greater than "c", you certainly have no grounds at all to insist that geocentrism can't.
I have shown that the only contradiction here, is your defense of a Standard Theory which insists that objects can and do move faster than the speed of light, while simultaneously calling me "ridiculous" for agreeing with you. That is indeed a contradiction, but it is one which affects your position, not mine.
Fascinating. So some anonymous dude in a chat room decides he will tell us when Einstein is right and when Einstein is wrong, without being bothered with the pesky details of demonstrating just how and on what evidence he makes these claims.You are quite wrong here. Einstein DID take away the concept of the ether, in Special Relativity. He was required to put it back, in the LATER General Theory, as he himself specifically told you in the quote I provided.
Subsequent discoveries have completely discredited the notion of a "vacuum" in space. All mainstream physicists now accept the argument given by Stephen Hawking in "A Briefer History of Time":
"[T]he uncertainty principle means that even "empty" space is filled with pairs of virtual particles and antiparticles.......if empty space were really completely empty- it would mean that all fields, such as the gravitational and electromagnetic fields, would have to be exactly zero." (pp 122-123)
In direct contradiction to your assertion, the notion of a "vacuum" is what has been debunked, and the "ether" is very much alive, whether one calls it a
"quantum space-time foam", or a "Dirac sea", it is still precisely what the ether has always been- the physical structure filling all of space.
Here, after you've convinced everyone that the universe revolves around the Earth, you can convince us that the Earth is also flat.
Originally posted by Templares
Please do explain as to why a more massive sun would orbit the Earth, according to your crock geocentric view of the solar system.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
Is this serious? I have shown in multiple posts that it is not always the less massive body revolving around the more massive one. Read any of my above posts keyword, barycenter.
Well, that does not agree with Newtonian Laws of Gravity. That means your ideas are WRONG!.
Originally posted by Robtard
Here, after you've convinced everyone that the universe revolves around the Earth, you can convince us that the Earth is also flat.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
A flat Earth is not in the Geocentric model (I personally beleive the Earth is round). You try to make me seem like some crazy person when in reality, I have more evidence for my claims than you do.
He is not trying to make it seem like you are crazy, you have already done that. 😆
Originally posted by Transfinitum
A flat Earth is not in the Geocentric model (I personally beleive the Earth is round). You try to make me seem like some crazy person when in reality, I have more evidence for my claims than you do.
You do a perfect job of making yourself seem like some "crazy" person with your "the universe revolves around the Earth" rants, I really can't take the credit. I haven't made any claims, but the other posters have destroyed all your points.
Your understanding of this might be vague. This is shown by your claim that space "might be expanding or imploding". Wrong. Standard Model cosmology insists that the Universe is expanding. There is no evidence whatever that it is imploding. If you claim that redshift is a function of recessionary velocity and distance, then observational evidence requires to assert that space itself is expanding. Think about it. If everywhere we look we see redshifts, then EITHER:1. Redshift is NOT exclusively an indication of recessionary velocity (Halton Arp makes an extremely persuasive case for this option, see ) http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm
2. The Earth is at the center of an expanding Universe, OR
3. The Universe is expanding so rapidly that its expansion exceeds the speed of light.
Take your pick.
If you pick #1 or #2, you will be sneered at by folks who imagine that scientific truthfulness is somehow determined by majority vote.
But that, obviously, does nothing whatever to prove #3.
A moment's reflection will serve to establish that every single scientific discovery in all of human history began life as a "crazy insane nutcase theory" that every scientist in the world rejected- except one.
untrue, it states that the universe is expanding from OUR POINT OF VIEW. the actual space can either be increasing or simply, the mass/force particles inside the universes, decreasing in size. basic reletivity. furthermore, most theorised interactions of the beginning of universes from singularities and string interactions state that the universe creates its own space{which is why strings dont expand inside the space of other universes} which means IMPLODE not EXPLODE. it has been said thousands of times that the big bang in not an explosion in the traditional sence as it does not expand IN SPACE. u cud just as well say that it is an infinitely small point{0 distances inside it} which implodes and creates negetive space from a point of view of an outside observer.
red shifts are merely a functions of photons working agains expansion from THEIR POINT OF VIEW. it is reletive, it can be said to be exploding or imploding. the expansion of space may indeed exceed the speed of light, but at its basis, speed =distance/time. space/time does not expand IN already created space, so you cant really call that SPEED of expansion, just reletive speed of expansion. the speed of light limit exists only for objects already INSIDE space. the earth is not at the centre of the expanding universe, all things are moving away from all other things, not specifically away from the earth as a centre, that is the vastly accepted model in science right now.
as for the last claim, its simply wrong.
Sorry, but you are simply wrong. The observed redshifts of the most distance objects cannot be squared with the limit of the speed of light. Period. Therefore, you must either, with Arp, reject the notion that redshift equals velocity, or else you must say that space is expanding faster than the speed of light and carrying the objects along with it.If you accept redshift=velocity, then you have no basis at all to object to superluminal velocities of objects carried along by "space" (whatever that might be).
arguing aimlessly again. you dont understand what i am saying. lets say the universe has an event horizon which is the limit of space-time fabric{beyong which u can either not travel or will just be transported back to another point inside the fabric} and the universe is EXPANDING. now, what exactly does EXPANDING imply? it means spreading in SPACE. however, defined space is already all INSIDE this event horizon, so how can IT be expanding??? the answer is rather simple, either contents inside it are contracting, OR it is expanding in higher dimensions. either way, it can not be called EXPANSION in the regular sense nor can you compare this phenomenon of expansion{and hence its SPEED which also allows travel in DEFINED SPACE} with the speed of things already INSIDE this space{i.e all force carrying particles and existing particles of spins which give them mass qualities} . INSIDE this space nothing can go beyond lightspeed, no information can be transmitted at or beyond lightspeed. it has never been observed and has only been hypothesised in super gravitational fields. which again is open for critique as it can be noticed that this sort of SUPER LUMINAL SPEED will only be observed by beings outside the actual fabric of 3d space but may not be observed for beings which are part of the fabric.
Just as things are only THEORIZED to be unable to move faster than light in a vacuum.
sorry, i meant HYPOTHESISED. the above theory though has always been proven by observations and never disproven. not to mention that practical proof is obtained again and again by experiments and in reletavistic applications like fission and fusion.
But you must realize that space is only THEORIZED to "bend". What is "bending", if space is truly a vacuum? If space is not a vacuum, then you have an ether. In either case, not a shred of evidence has yet been put forward to falsify the geocentric hypothesis.
lmao, you post false claims. almost EVREY1 in the scientific community disagrees with the geocentric model, often quoting it as the prime example of relegious dogmatism being disproven by science. fabrics and ether are not the same. bending has little to do with UNMOVEABLE FRAMES OF REFERENCE{which is the definition of ether} . space is context and dimensions. it exists seperately and bends seperately for seperate observers. it is not uniform for observers with different velocities, hence, becoming a reletive as opposed to ultimate frame of reference. cant beleive u missed that in all your higher physics studies. sumthing as simple as a brief history of time by stephen hawkins might have done the trick of explaining to even a simple laman how the ether was taken out by einstien.
You are, again, simply wrong. Relativity explicity insists that objects can exceed to any numerical value whatsoever the velocity of light in the presence of gravitational fields.From "An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity", William Geraint Vaughan Rosser, London, Butterworths, 1964, p.460 (the author was senior lecturer in Physics at Exeter University):
"Relative to the stationary roundabout" (NOTE: Earth in the geocentric system) "the distant stars would have...linear velocities exceeding 3 x 10^8 m/sec, the terrestrial value of the velocity of light. At first sight this appears to be a contradiction....that the velocities of all material bodies must be less than "c" [the speed of light]. However, the restriction u < c =3 x 10^8 m/sec is restricted to the theory of Special Relativity. According to the General Theory, it is possible to to choose local reference frames in which, over a limited volume of space, there is no gravitational field, and relative to such a reference frame the velocity of light is equal to c.....If gravitational fields are present the velocities of either matierial bodies or of light can assume any numerical value depending on the strength of the gravitational field."
yes yes yes, i have already heard your insinuation about gravitic fields present. let me debunk your wishful thinking here. {you are obviously taking very specfic and limited phrases and arguments to try and make a ridiculous model. remeber, even the devil can quote selectively from scriptures. basically, what i am saying is, you dont even close to understand the thing as a whole and it is showing} {and let me also say that unknown colledge professors which are writing ways to relevistically rationalise arguments for geocentrism in the early 60s is cause in itself for scepticism} . for what are suggesting to hold true{even though the observed faster than light dragging of objects in super strong gravity fields is only a hypothesis} there would have to be a very very specific arrangement of gravitic fields at any given time in a very complex way to compensate for the varying velocities and orbits of all bodies in the universe around the earth. furthermore, these gravitational anomolies{because they have to specifically cater to each celestial body and also not influence gravitically, all the other billions of celestial bodies around } would also have to MOVE WITH each individual celestial body at exactly the same beyond lightspeed speed that the object is supposed to posess {which is impossible as that in itself wud require another gravitic field anomoly tailor made for the initial anomoly and the second anomoly would also require a third anomoly to keep up with the second anomoly and it wud turn into eternal regression. and this isnt even counting that the anomoly is a blackhole, which it really shud be seeing as to the high field strengths required. im sure you understand the implications of DRAGGING blackholes at post luminous velocities}. which is impossible, and the chances of it again not affecting the orbit of other anomolies or celestial objects are non existant. as there is o such thing as GRAVITATIONAL SHIELDING and you cant have unidirectional gravity either. basically, you require trancending fingers of god to accomplish what you naively suggested in the above example. {each guiding each celestial body}. another thing is that such high numbers of anomolies would cause serious bending of space time an screw up any and all observations of incoming light from the universe to the point that the sky wud look like a trick mirror and nothing wud be able to be discerned about the properties of the universe, assuming any light can escape these fields to begin with. i suppose then that no light from the universe wud ever reach earth.