The rise of Machian physics: gravity, intertia, and geocentrism

[Fletcher]

There's the rub ST .. 'atheistism' (or atheists) and another sub-group of scientists called agnostics don't necessarily 'believe' in a divine being, the ultimate architect of intelligent design for the cosmos.

They however do follow the scientific principle doctrine, or a process of observation and hypothesis formation, within statistical confidence levels. The same as the religious scientists do, without the extra overlay.

You may think it a different type of religious dogma but we are all searching for credible logical answers. We are influenced by what we are taught to believe.

If you think earth is a non-rotating, stationary, mother ship center of the universe about which all else rotates fill ur boots. And invoke whatever deity and mechanism you chose to explain it.


"The question still stands .. where are the big brains and theoretical physicists putting ST's different sources of informed opinion into one tested and coherent ideology that competes with the expanding balloon metaphor and big bang model, where earth is the geocentric center of the universe ?"

[agor95]

For Your Information

https://www.iers.org/IERS/EN/Science/Ea ... ation.html

Regards

[ovyyus]

I think we have a long history of arranging observations to fit a belief.

[WaltzCee]

I've always noticed you're a nice and kind soul, ovyyus.

[WaltzCee]

When you consider the big bang and one of its artifacts, CBR (Cosmic Background
Radiation) in light of an expanding universe, it is useful to examine CBR thru the lens of the
Doppler effect. Eons ago in a more compressed universe CBR was more compressed and
at a higher frequency.

Most know as a train is approaching you and leaning on its horn the pitch is higher than it is
when it passes you and the space between you & the train is expanding.

As I understand it if you extrapolate CBR back in time to the singularity its frequency shifts
up the electromagnetic spectrum to visible light. An incredibly powerful light.

A glorious powerful light that could only be caused by . . . . wait for it

[Silvertiger]

Fletcher, there are also those who do not believe in an intelligent design who have followed the scientific method to its conclusion and found the earth to be at the center of a spherical universe. I quoted some of them in the first post, directly from their observations and research. Like I said, name one experiment that proves the motion of the earth. All the experiments ever conducted prove that the earth has no motion. The sole purpose of Planck was to disprove what they were seeing through COBE and WMAP...they failed, and thus were forced to admit geocentrism, even though they are not happy about it. Most were just dumbfounded and confused by it all.

Agor, the same applies to that website. Those measurements are based on the assumption that the earth moves. Remember...the tail is wagging the dog.

The balloon model requires things that don't exist, and even then it cannot satisfy the observations such a spiral handedness and the even CONCENTRIC distribution of stars, quasars, and gamma ray busters, just to name a few. In review, the things that don't exist are dark matter, dark energy, the Lorentz Transform, and flat space. None of those crucial things have ever been observed, detected, measured, nor experimented with for those very reasons.

Geocentrism requires NONE of those, and fits EVERY single piece of data without the need for ad-hoc theories that claim validity for things that don't exist.

[ovyyus]

...that could only be caused by...

Another classic :D

[WaltzCee]

:) as are you.

way before Christ was a corporal and long before Moses was knee high to a grasshopper at
the first baseball game (in the big inning):

Let there be light, and there was light.

Einstein explained an equivalency between mass and energy. Stating the obvious, light is
energy.

[Silvertiger]

Here is a classic example of, quite simply, man's stubborn refusal to believe in science when the conclusion leads to something not desired, such as intelligent design. That would make us all accountable for how we choose to live our lives, and Edwin couldn't tolerate that...literally.

Edwin Hubble’s “Intolerable� Observation:

Throughout the 1930's and 40's, Edwin Hubble conducted observations of the heavens through his 100-inch telescope at Mount Wilson, California. The problem for him, however, was that he kept seeing evidence that the earth was at the center of the universe, and he just simply could not accept the evidence that he himself discovered.

As he examined the light coming from stars and galaxies, Hubble concluded that the spectrum of light, particularly the shift toward the red end of the spectrum, clearly indicated Earth’s central position in the universe. Since Hubble was an avowed Copernican, he dismissed the geocentric evidence and countered with the following obstinate alternative:

…Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth.…This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility...the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs...such a favored position is intolerable…Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position…must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape.

- The Observational Approach to Cosmology, 1937, pp. 50, 51, 58-59

Wow. Spatial curvature - he KNEW it was a lie, but he did it anyway, and blatantly admitted it. You see, Hubble interpreted the redshift of galaxies as caused by their velocities away from a central Earth, and this made him furious, as we see in his writing.

Although he admits it cannot be disproved, an Earth-centered universe is not only “unwelcome� but “must be avoided at all costs� and, in fact, it is a “horror� that is “intolerable.� Notice also that Hubble candidly admits that “space curvature� was invented (by Einstein) in order to escape the geocentric implications from the evidence in his telescope of Earth’s centrality. Let’s look at his sentence again: “Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position…must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape.�

THEN, he gives specific directions on the how the universe must be regarded from that point on:

…there must be no favored location in the universe [i.e., no central Earth], no center, no boundary; all must see the universe alike. And, in order to ensure this situation, the cosmologist postulates spatial isotropy and spatial homogeneity...

- The Observational Approach to Cosmology, 1937, p. 63

I mean, come on. Hubble didn’t want an isotropic landscape in any way, shape, or form. No way, Jose. That would be bad...very bad. He knew the implications of the observations, i.e., that Earth would be in the center of the isotropy. So Hubble simply eliminated Earth from the center by “restoring homogeneity,� i.e., taking away the hill from which the observations are made and making the entire landscape look the same.

Hubble just needed one more adjustment to make his no-Earth-in-the-center universe complete. Since his telescope did, indeed, show a unilateral movement away from Earth in any direction he looked, he had to remove any notion that the Earth was somehow in the center of this movement. Thus he added “spatial curvature� and placed the Earth on the rim of the curvature, far away from the center...and poof, voila, the expanding balloon model popped out like a rabbit out of a hat...amazing!

All the matter in the universe would be on the surface of the curved space and expanding outward. Even though this concept is counterintuitive, it was the only lie that...erm, I mean...solution, that Hubble and his likeminded colleagues could come up with on the fly to remove Earth from the center. It still survives today as the ONLY explanation for the Copernican Principle.

Is anyone seeing the theme of the LCDM now?

[Fletcher]

Fletcher, there are also those who do not believe in an intelligent design who have followed the scientific method to its conclusion and found the earth to be at the center of a spherical universe ...

No doubt there are some that fit your prescription. I'll take your word for it.

I can't claim to know the science and math in detail of every instance you give to have an informed opinion above general knowledge level. But I trust that the professionals and process has peer review before acceptance albeit tacit initially. When people get over their fears and a large number in the specialist fields you quote support your contentions openly I guess I'll have to become woke.

Trouble is I have to simplify for my simple brain.

And it goes like this. Frames of reference (FOR) can get you unstuck. Closer to home we all know the arguments for calculating velocity of an object (and its energy). We know that baseline vector can change depending on your FOR. The participant riding along with a moving object or whether you are first removed such as an external observer 100 meters away. Then we have the perspective of out it space watching as earths zips by (er-hmm), then out in the solar system etc etc etc. The inertial reference frame where the observer is not undergoing acceleration. Doesn't happen except for an exact center of the universe IINM.

So in your instances how can I be sure of the inertial reference frame used is the right one at the right time. If the geocentric view fulfills all you say then the logical inertial FOR would be zero (earth). And the other theories must not be the true inertial FOR. Since it's above my pay-grade I'll have to defer to the majority which at the moment do not support your world/universe view and earth geo-universe intelligent design. And I will still believe in Conservation of Momentum as a Law and Axiom. When and if they do and it gains traction then I might have to wake up and read about it and try to understand the detail and evidence.

[Silvertiger]

Ok. Here's something simple: once more, find one, just ONE experiment conducted that showed movement of the earth. Start there. Simple.

However, try to avoid inertial force experiments when hunting for rotation. Those are based on relativity (i.e., centrifugal, coriolis, and euler effects) and can be refuted by Mach's Principle alone. That means no flushing toilets, no hurricanes, no sniper analogies, no Foucault pendulums, etc. lol. Experiments of this kind only show a relative rotation (locally), and thus support both a heliocentric model and a geocentric model, as well as LCDM on local scales. (The reason I say to avoid these is for the sake of simplicity, that way you don't have to invoke the need for fictitious dark matter when larger scales come into play as they must for LCDM only, for without it, experiments of this nature prove a rotating universe with earth at the center.) All you want to concentrate on at this point is westward motion around the sun.

I will write a chapter in a new topic based on experiments and the scientific method; how observations lead to hypotheses and testing by experimentation and then conclusions. It will be comprehensive, but by no means exhaustive, since there were literally thousands of experiments conducted with the goal of proving that the earth experiences SOME kind of motion, including rotation - but they all failed, and showed that the earth does not budge from its spot. Every single one. And, of course, if the earth doesn't move, then it MUST occupy the one place in the universe that allows this to be the case.

By the way, in 2005 about 1 in 5 (20%) Americans believed that the sun goes round the earth. In 2014 that number was recorded to have increased to about 1 in 4 (26%). Funny how this happened right after Planck returned. It could just be a coincidence. I didn't do much digging on that...just a wiki search and put two and two together. Either way, it is very interesting to see that number increase at all. That's saying something. That's nearly 20 million more than in 2005. Very impressive lol. ;)

[ovyyus]

If you were observing and measuring the cosmos from the surface of Mars would you arrive at the same geocentric conclusion? Would Mars be the centre of the universe for a geocentric Martian?

[Fletcher]

1 in 4 you say. That is impressive. Sun goes around the earth !

Can't think of an actual experiment atm. But I can think of a thought experiment.

I take off in my space ship for a rendezvous with Pluto. I arrive in near proximity 9 1/2 years later without aging one iota and set-up my special camera pointing back at earth.

Pluto is on my left as is the Sun with the earth straight ahead line of sight. My special camera allows me to see the earths surface clearly at this distance. It takes 5 hours at the speed of light for the picture to reach me, so I'm looking back in time on earth 5 hours.

I watch it intensely for 24 earth hours and earth 'appears' to rotate one whole turn about its axis. Pluto and the Sun stay in their relative position to me. I notice that the astronomical background of stars relative positioning to me has effectively not altered at all in this 24 hour period.

I conclude that the earth is stationary in space, not revolving, or moving in any way. It is me and my Solar System, and all the other galaxies I can see that is turning around earth ! Which it does in 24 earth hours !

Go figure ! 1 in 4 you say !

ETA : cross posts with Oyvvus.

[raj]

AS a member of MANKIND, I believe in the concept of GOD, BUT I am not convinced that GOD exist.

GOD exists under different names in different parts of planet earth as long
as mankind exists.

When last member of mankind disappear in the void, there will be no believer in in the concept of GOD.

GOD will disappear with mankind.

THE concept of GOD under different names in different parts of our world is the WISDOM fruit with different names by WISE humans of their time, to propose systems of social justice for mankind, and the concepts of GOD were evoke to give force to their separate proposals under different religious names through the ages.

[agor95]

Hi Raj

Well that sums it up. However were people believe life exists on other planets.
Then they may believe in GOD is more likely Goddess 'SHE'.

After all the creator are normally Matriarchal.

All the Best