Relativity is wrong...

Sure whatever floats your boat. Your model of a universe rapidly rotating the Earth has no mathematical basis. None of the physics or last 500 years of scien supports this notion.Again you did not answer WHY DO WE OBSERVE THE SAME AFFECTS (I.E. POLAR NIGHT/POLAR DAY) OF THE SUN AND STARS ON OTHER PLANETS (I.E. MARS). THESE AFFECTS CANNOT OCCUR SIMULTANEOUSLY ON TWO DIFFERENT PLANETS IF ONE PLANET IS ORBITING THE OTHER AND NOT BOTH ORBITING THE SUN. I and many others on this board have read your posts. We just don't agree with your illogical assumptions, inconclusive and patchwork explanations of said "evidence", and your deliberate skewing and outright fabrication of evidence to support your position.Repeating previous posts do nothing to support your position. This is a two-edged sword that works both ways. The question is whose interpretation fits best with observed phenomena. You are out-numbered several million of scientists and hundreds of years of physics and astronomy to a few of nut-cases and non-peer reviewed, non-published internet blogs and posts. Your model makes no sense. The model of the Sun spiraling in and out closer and further away to the Earth (to create the seasons?) and up and down the axis of the Earth (to create the phenomena of the Midnight Sun and Polar Night) of does not match up with predictions of solar eclipses. If so please show me the exact math behind your predictions (and yes I can show you the math behind the predictions of solar eclipses based on the heliocentric model).Also, using your logical that the entire universe is orbiting around the Earth. However a geocentric model provides no rhyme or reason why these same stars are moving in a geocentrically unpredicted manner such as:a. in independent circles (geocentricism: unknown cause / non-geocentric universe: stellar abberation)
b. 180 day shift of position of nearby stars in comparison to background stars (geocentricism: unknown cause / non-geocentric universe: stellar abberation)
c. doppler affect of nearby stars and planets (geocentricism: unknown cause / non-geocentric universe: movement of Earth in a circular orbit towards and away from said objects)
d. 4 minute a day difference between sidreal and solar day (geocentricism: unknown cause / non-geocentric universe: movement of Earth in a circular orbit around the sun)Just a few of the evidence I have previously given.You have provided NO explanations for above phenomena. All you have done is repeat your matra that the universe revolves around the Earth with celestial objects careening about in wild trajectories with no explanation why.Again why should we believe anything you say when you have not given one shred of evidence WHY your model behaves the way it does.

---

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

For me, something very close to this is the key question. Someone living on some other planet such as Mars or Jupiter would make the precisely equivalent observations of the heavens as we do here on Earth. What is it about the Earth that places it at the center of the universe, and not Mars or Jupiter or a planet orbiting some other star, perhaps in another galaxy?In other words, it is one thing to argue the possibility that the universe has a fixed and stationary center about which the rest of the universe rotates. It is quite another to argue that the Earth occupies the privileged location at that center.--Percy

quote:

---

Based on your own argument, that couldn’t be your starting assumption though, could it? Using your own logic, your starting assumption would have to be based on what you observe — the other planet is fixed and at the centre of a rotating universe, which includes planet earth orbiting both the sun and your new-found home.

---

Could be. But you asked me, what it would look like if geocentrism were true, and we left Earth and went to another planet. Well, that is how it would look, and why.

quote:

---

Rotating universe? Centrifugal force? I forgot to ask; in your hypothesis, what is the shape of the universe — spherical, cylindrical or something more exotic?

---

It's a 3D sphere. Like a giant round ball.

quote:

---

Nope. Geocentrism was the starting point assumption. It was seen as the most logical assumption based on exactly what you said: we don't feel movement. The problems became the fact that we started collecting observations that made the geocentric model untenable. Sure, you can finagle things to make it come out, but the math gets very complicated, convoluted, and begs the question, "Why would nature be so grossly complex and arbitrary here?"

---

That's true. The Ptolomaeic model wasw not good enough to explain all the observable facts. That is why we had to replace it. And we did. With the Tychonic model that explains everything. And the question: "Why would nature be so grossly complex and arbitrary here?" is not a scientific, but a philosophical one.And also, when I said the starting logical assumption, I meant now, and today, for heliocentrists, it is that the world is actually moving.

quote:

---

Copernicus came along and, by the relatively large conceptual leap of putting the sun at the center, made the math a lot easier, made the complexity come way down, and made the universe seem far less arbitrary. Observations continued, and it became rather obvious that the sun wasn't the center of everything afterall, it was becoming more complex and unnecessarily arbitrary as we looked farther and farther out. It was then discovered, through a less revolutionary leap, that the sun was also moving through space around the center of our galaxy and that there are many such galaxies out there that are moving in various directions. Finally, along came a guy named Einstein who basically said that there is no "special place" in the galaxy. Making the arbitrariness that had plagued previous models completely obsolete.

---

The only thing Copernicus did was to copy Ibn-Al Shatir's geocentric model and place the Sun in teh center. That is all.Furthermore, you make a lot of assertations. Where is the evidence that the Sun is actually moving and orbiting anythin else than Earth? How do you know other galaxies are orbiting anything else, than what we see them orbiting, and that is Earth. And as for Einstein, he was wrong. The only reason he developed the theory of relativity was because the MM experiment showed that the Earth is not moving. Not becasue it came naturally to him.Also if you are going to talk about the simplicity. There is no dark matter, dark energy, black holes, extremely big universe, and all them unobservable stuff in the geocentric model. All this are just ad hoc assumptions which were never observed, yet are needed to make the acentric universe work.

quote:

---

So, the starting assumption, especially when you look at a newborn child, up through their early school years, is that the Earth stays put and the sun rises. We then make observations that give rise to doubts about that simplistic idea when it becomes obvious that what we thought was simple turns out to be almost impossible to work out when we take into account all the observations made over the course of centuries.

---

I know that for a child that is the logical starting assumption, but not for people who do believe that the Earth is moving in the first place.

quote:

---

What you're advocating is, let's either dismiss those observations as misinterpreted, or go back to an unnecessarily complex mathematical model of the universe that retains our special place without any reason to do so.

---

You are just making assertations. I'm not advocating that. You are the one who has a MUCH more convulated and complex model. There are no observations a geocentric model can't explain.

quote:

---

The fact remains, we can model the Universe with any point as an arbitrary center, but picking points thusly makes the math complex and convoluted. When we remove that bias, the math falls into place elegantly and in a relatively simple manner. Considering all that, doesn't it make sense to at least act as if there is no center, if only to make mathematicians' lives easier? Why are you so biased against mathematicians that you would want them to spend days working on a trajectory that assumes the Earth is the center when they can hammer one out before lunch if we assume the sun is the center of the solar system?

---

But this is simply not true. Acentric universe is much bigger and is governed by general relativity. It has dark energy, dark matter, curved space, black holes, 15 billion ly diameter, etc. It's much more complex than the simple small geocentric universe.

quote:

---

So, the train moves, you don't feel movement, and you have no way of knowing. You then exit the train and you are in a completely different place from where ypou started. You have three possiblilities:

​

1) The train moved, despite your inner ear being fooled by incredibly smooth movement and no outside references.

​

2) The Earth moved under the train, all the animals, plants, people, stars and everything decided for no real reason that they wanted to move under you in random and different directions.

​

3) The Earth completely rearranged itself, not moving per se, but just reshaping.

---

You forgot that we can't "exit the train" in our case. Do you, or do you not understand that? The only way to really know what is moving is to exit the universe. We can't do that.

quote:

---

You're advocating for number 2, when the easiest assumption based on the evidence is 1.

---

You are again blind to your assumption. There are no evidence that show the Earth is moving. How many times do I have to say that? All the evidence you have is INTERPRETATION from the starting assumption that the Earth is actually moving! Can you not understand that? Everything we observe can be explained with both acentric and geocentric model. Evidence is the same for everyone.

quote:

---

Your example also falls apart when we give the options of windows. Since we can see out into the universe, we can see things moving. We see the telegraph poles flying past, the tracks sliding under us. and the more distant objects moving slower, but still noticably, past the window.

---

But in your example, we already know we are moving. We can't know that in case of the Earth, because we would have to exit the universe to be sure!

quote:

---

You have provided no force that will keep the Earth at the centre of the universe regardless of other competing forces without also resulting in other masses clumping together at the centre of the shell. Why is the Earth the only body that is forced to the centre?

---

For the BILLIONTH time, it's called the Lense-Thirring effect. Please, learn to use your memory.The reason the Earth stays at the center is becasue it IS in the cenetr. There is no force that is going to push it out because it is in the center of the forces that are pushing it righ into the center.

quote:

---

If Newton's second law applies and Newton's law of gravitation applies then there are numerous forces that would disrupt the Earth from it's static position at the centre of the universe unless you can show that an equal but oppoiste force is always present at all times. This you have not done.

---

On teh contrarry, the paper i showed you explained just that. It clearly said that the universe would work with Newton's laws of motion. It is only you who is not accepting that.

quote:

---

Only if you assume that the Earth is fixed by duc tape and turtles at the centre of the universe.

---

No, nothing like that was mentioned int he paper. If you have nothing more to say than please stop wasting my time.

quote:

---

I have proposed no alternative model. I have simply exposed the assumptions and flaws in yours.

---

For someone who has no model of his own, you sure are confident that my is wrong. I suggest you do more reading than just finding flaws in my model.

quote:

---

Sure whatever floats your boat. Your model of a universe rapidly rotating the Earth has no mathematical basis. None of the physics or last 500 years of scien supports this notion.

---

Where have you been for the last 30 pages of this topic? It's not my fault you refuse to accept what I present.

quote:

---

Again you did not answer WHY DO WE OBSERVE THE SAME AFFECTS (I.E. POLAR NIGHT/POLAR DAY) OF THE SUN AND STARS ON OTHER PLANETS (I.E. MARS). THESE AFFECTS CANNOT OCCUR SIMULTANEOUSLY ON TWO DIFFERENT PLANETS IF ONE PLANET IS ORBITING THE OTHER AND NOT BOTH ORBITING THE SUN.

---

You didn't explain why it can not happen. I want you to first explain in detail why this can't happen.

quote:

---

I and many others on this board have read your posts. We just don't agree with your illogical assumptions, inconclusive and patchwork explanations of said "evidence", and your deliberate skewing and outright fabrication of evidence to support your position.

​

Repeating previous posts do nothing to support your position.

---

I'm waiting. Show me just one of my evidences that is illogical. Let's start witht he MM experiment. Why exactly can we not expalin this experiment as showing that the Earth is not moving?

quote:

---

This is a two-edged sword that works both ways. The question is whose interpretation fits best with observed phenomena. You are out-numbered several million of scientists and hundreds of years of physics and astronomy to a few of nut-cases and non-peer reviewed, non-published internet blogs and posts.

---

But at least I don't make logical fallacies. You just made an argument from authority. I don't care if the majority says otherwise. If we all, and always agreed witht he majority, than we would never had scientific revolutions in the first place. You do realize that that means that Earth should stay as the center of the universe because Galileo and Copernicus were outnumbered?

quote:

---

Your model makes no sense. The model of the Sun spiraling in and out closer and further away to the Earth (to create the seasons?) and up and down the axis of the Earth (to create the phenomena of the Midnight Sun and Polar Night) of does not match up with predictions of solar eclipses. If so please show me the exact math behind your predictions (and yes I can show you the math behind the predictions of solar eclipses based on the heliocentric model).

---

If that is so, than why was the Ptolomaeic model used to predic eclipses for houndreds of years? It worked just fine. And no, I have no such math, but, the Ptoloameic model was used and that means it was just fine for all the naked eye observations.

quote:

---

a. in independent circles (geocentricism: unknown cause / non-geocentric universe: stellar abberation)
b. 180 day shift of position of nearby stars in comparison to background stars (geocentricism: unknown cause / non-geocentric universe: stellar abberation)
c. doppler affect of nearby stars and planets (geocentricism: unknown cause / non-geocentric universe: movement of Earth in a circular orbit towards and away from said objects)
d. 4 minute a day difference between sidreal and solar day (geocentricism: unknown cause / non-geocentric universe: movement of Earth in a circular orbit around the sun)

---

1.) Stellar aberration is not the explanation, but the observation. You obviously don't know the first thing about this subject. Why are you even trying to discuss this with me?2.) Again, stellar aberration is not the explanation, it's the observation. This observation has got to be explained. You are so indoctrinated that you don't even understand the difference betwween an assumption and a fact.3.) Geocentric answer is that doppler effect can be casue by light passing through different mediums on it's way to Earth. I actually explained that few posts ago. It was a link that explained how light is passing through H2 and is causeing the effect. You either chose to forget it or not understand it.4.) The explanation is obvious. The Sun is rotating at different speed than the stars are relative to Earth. The difference is 4 minutes.

quote:

---

You have provided NO explanations for above phenomena. All you have done is repeat your matra that the universe revolves around the Earth with celestial objects careening about in wild trajectories with no explanation why.

​

Again why should we believe anything you say when you have not given one shred of evidence WHY your model behaves the way it does.

---

What do you mean by "why" my model behaves the way it does? If the universe is rotating that is what we are supposed to se. We are seeing thwe same thing just as if the Earth was rotating relative to distant stars.

I have suggested previously that I believe the origin of the idea is the bible, as there is certainly nothing in science that would lead one to conclude that the earth is the center of the universe.I even started a thread with this as the prime question. SO denies his inspiration is the bible, and he points to science instead. However, as we have seen, science would not lead one to a geocentric conclusion without a good deal of non-scientific input or an a priori belief.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

And I guess the fault of everyone else here who thinks your full of shit and cannot even back up your own model logically. I asked the question first. Stop turning this shit around. If you propose a model it has to fit the observations we see not the other way around. How can polar night/day occur on the Earth and Mars if the Earth is not rotating around the Sun.I am not going to let you weasel your way out of this. I will keep asking the question until Admin kicks me off. I am tired of you weaseling your way out of ligitimate scientific questions with stupid, idiotic, illogical quips that do NOTHING to further the discussion. ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION!When you answer that one I have about 500 more questions to ask for you to substantiate your geocentric model.

---

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

I explained this at the beginning, see post Message 41. In the summary of the experiment Michelson himself gave a rotational speed of the Earth. Yes, this experiment was later repeated and the results refined with better instrumentation giving a more accurate rotational speed of 30 km/s. Is that good enough for you? You are chulk full of logical fallacies. I just grow tired of pointing out every single one.BTW, this is NOT a logical fallacy since the sources I am referring to are experts in their field as defined in this definition of the logical fallacy of "appealing to authority": Wikipedia further states Please show me where I said or implied this authority is infallible? My assertion is based on the proponderounce of evidence by said authorities not just because they are experts in their field.Besides, are you not sourcing your information from other sources as well? Than we would all fall under this two-edged sword of "appeal to authority". No, this is only a fallacy if the person you are appealing to is not a legitimate expert of the field in question and you are disregarding any other evidence just because of the assumed authority's opinion.

---

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Of course you can perfectly describe the motion of the entire Universe - Moon, Sun, Solar System, Milky Way, and the rest - as revolving around a static Earth. The motions are hideous, the mathematics unspeakable and we have no explanative framework for why ANY of this occurs. But, it can be done. This is what SO insists we should do.However, when Aldrin and Armstrong stood on the Moon, they observed exactly the same situation. They could have insisted that the Moon is static, and the rest of the Universe is revolving around it. We would again have a hideous set of unexplained motions and mathematics. The problem is, this motion is entirely contradicted by the original motion as dictated by a static Earth. So which is correct? Why do we choose the Earth over the Moon?Now, if we apply the modern understanding of the Universe, we obtain an infinitely simpler set of motions, predictive mathematics, and an explanative framework of extraordinary capability comprised of modern relativity and cosmology.So, which do I choose? Earth centric, Moon centric, or the modern understanding? Or, to paraphrase, how f'in stupid do you think I am??? Edited by cavediver, : too many 'd's in hideous makes hideous look hiddeous

And that's where I disagree with you. Ask a two year old if the Earth moves or the sun does. I would bet, with very few exceptions, the kid will say the sun moves. So, for everyone, the starting assumption is that the sun moves, as it appears to. We learn, though, that appearances can be deceiving. The first step in that direction comes when we learn object permanence, and continues through the rest of our lives as we get fooled by optical illusions, conclusions jumped to in haste, and even well-spun falsehoods. Well, we can see the motion of the galaxy we're in, and calculate the speed of it's rotation and its center of rotation, and we can see that our sun is staying relatively in the same spot with relation to the other stars in our galactic neighborhood, so I guess the assumption is that if object A is moving around something else, and we're staying with object A, then we're moving too. I know this is high level thinking, but I hope you can stay with me here. Well, let's see. We measure the redshift of stars in other galaxies. The stars on one side appear to be moving toward us, and the stars on the other side appear to be moving away from us. This implies a rotational motion. That one's easy. Regardless of how he came up with the theory, it works exeptionally well to be "wrong." We base all of our science in space and physics off his theory, and we end up with the correct answers...pretty good for a wrong shot in the dark, huh? Dark matter and dark energy I'll grant you, we only see their effects, we don't see them directly, but there has to be "something" causing those effects. Black holes we can see indirectly, since there are big drain in space shooting out large amounts of energy along a rotational axis...in other words, black holes. The big universe is exactly what we see, how does your irrational geocentric model deal with the vast distances observed and calculated idrectly using geometry, the correlation between these direct calculations and redshift/luminosity, and the extrapolation that redshift/luminosity for certain objects doesn't change based on location. You now have to account for an eccentric motion of a massive sun, the precariously balanced forces holding the earth at the center without pushing everything else in the center despite the fact that the mass on one side of the earth noticeably changes in relation to the other side, and now why things are drastically different in different areas in order to keep the universe small. You've got a lot of ad hoc assumptions and explanations yourself. Find me one person who believes the Earth is moving "in the first place" and not someone who has been taught it based on evidence. And there are no observations a Venus-centric model or a Mars-centric or an Alpha Centauri-centric model can't explain either. The problem comes in trying to figure out which model is more likely and has the fewest assumptions about it. The acentric model (as you call it) has the fewest assumptions. It has smooth motions of straight lines unless acted on by an outside force, and then smooth arcs (unless actual impact happens). You have wacky motions with no apparent cause.All the other things you bring up are not assumptions, they are consequences or possible solutions to observed phenomena. Your model has the exact same thing, there is an observed phenomenon and you have to come up with an explanation for it. The thing is, you haven't provided any for us, you've only asserted "they exist and if we want to know, here are a bunch of links that might show you if you want to take a long time filtering through it all, because I obviously haven't." Is your train the Earth? If so, we can and do exit the Earth, and we can see outside. If the train is the universe, then I'm not claiming the universe is moving, only that it's expanding. This is assumed because I see the wall of the train getting farther away. The evidence is more easily explained by my model and requires far fewer assumptions, regardless of what you claim. You have assumptions up the wazoo that you're apparently not seeing, and for which there is no evidence. I agree that we can model the universe and come up with explanations using both models...as well as with any other model we could conceive of. The question comes down to logic, simplicity and ease of use. That's not true. Do you have to leave the Earth to see if a train is moving or can you use the features of the Earth to see it? We can use the features of the universe we are in to see our movement.

This should have been message 2 in this thread. - Oni

Yeah, I do feel a bit stupid

Actually I have read up on the Lense-Thirring effect. The question is have you?Frame-dragging - WikipediaIf you think that this magically provides a solution to all your problems with regard to maintaining equilibrium despite multiple continually changing forces acting on the Earth then you are wrong. If you think this explains why the Earth sits resolutely at the centre of your imaginary universe unmoved by any of these forces then you are also wrong.Try again. Maybe read up on the Lense-Thirring effect yourself and then tell us exactly how you think this is the answer to these problems?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I asked the question first. Stop turning this shit around. If you propose a model it has to fit the observations we see not the other way around. How can polar night/day occur on the Earth and Mars if the Earth is not rotating around the Sun.

​

I am not going to let you weasel your way out of this. I will keep asking the question until Admin kicks me off. I am tired of you weaseling your way out of ligitimate scientific questions with stupid, idiotic, illogical quips that do NOTHING to further the discussion. ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION!

​

When you answer that one I have about 500 more questions to ask for you to substantiate your geocentric model.

---

You have to elaborate your question a little bit becasue I do not see the point of it. What exactly am I supposed to explain here? Which observation is it that is not possible in teh geocentric model yet it appears in acentric one?

quote:

---

I explained this at the beginning, see post Message 41. In the summary of the experiment Michelson himself gave a rotational speed of the Earth. Yes, this experiment was later repeated and the results refined with better instrumentation giving a more accurate rotational speed of 30 km/s. Is that good enough for you?

---

No, it's not good enough. Simply because all the MM-type experiments perforemd without the relativistic addition give the speed at about 8 km/s. When you re interpret the MM experiment with relativistic additions, you can even get a number of 369 +/- 123 km/s, as Cahill did. Which is a pretty insane number.Error 400 (Bad Request)!!1http://www.mountainman.com.au/...rley+cahill+pdf&hl=hr&gl=hrThe point is. The later MG experiment was perfect. It assumed the 24 h rotation of the Earth (or the aether) and measured it perfectly within the limits of measurement error. All this was done without assuming relativity was true. The predicted avalue was 0.236 +/- 0.002, and the observed value was 0.230 +/- 0.005. This lands perficty witht heir calculations. If the aether is rotating once per day, that is 24h a day around the Earth, without invoking relativity, we have the right method, and the right numbers.Now, you tell me, why the hell should we interpret the MM with relativity in mind, just so we could have the number that shows the Earth to be in motion? There is no reason to do so, since the original MM method has shown to be the codrrect one. The speed of aether is about 8 km/s passing the Earth.

quote:

---

You are chulk full of logical fallacies. I just grow tired of pointing out every single one.

​

BTW, this is NOT a logical fallacy since the sources I am referring to are experts in their field as defined in this definition of the logical fallacy of "appealing to authority":

---

I'm also quoting experts. But I'm not saying that since majority says so, it's supposed to be true. That is alogical fallacy.

quote:

---

Please show me where I said or implied this authority is infallible? My assertion is based on the proponderounce of evidence by said authorities not just because they are experts in their field.

​

Besides, are you not sourcing your information from other sources as well? Than we would all fall under this two-edged sword of "appeal to authority". No, this is only a fallacy if the person you are appealing to is not a legitimate expert of the field in question and you are disregarding any other evidence just because of the assumed authority's opinion.

---

I do not care who you cite, or how many people agree. What matters is the evidence. You said that since almost all scientists agree that the Earth is moving, than that means it is moving. This is a logical fallacy. Majority opinion does not equal truth.