Featured Heliocentricity: Behind the Times

Wondering if you can read. Cautious

 

The Sagnac experiment has been analyzed for two Postulates, I* and III*. In 1905 Einstein proposed Postulate I: the velocity of light is a constant c irrespective of the velocity of the source or the receiver. In 1907 he found it necessary to limit this postulate to Postulate I* which restricts the previous statement to nonrotating coordinate systems. In 1956 Moon and Spencer proposed Postulate III that the velocity of light is a constant with respect to the source. In 1990 it was found by Moon, Spencer, and Moon that in order to explain the Michelson-Gale experiment, this postulate must be modified to Postulate III* which likewise is restricted to nonrotating coordinate systems.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.172.7180&rep=rep1&type=pdf

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/SagnacRel/SagnacandRel.html

 

Nuff said. I'm simply reporting what the scientists are saying. That it raises questions based on your own assumptions and fragmented knowledge doesn't mean I have to argue the points.

Aaron: Scientists are saying A.

Women and Children: Unless you can defend their statements, we won't believe they said A.

Aaron: Ask the scientists.

 

Contrary to the assertion of Special Relativity, the speed of light is not always constant relative to a moving observer. The Global Positioning System (GPS) shows that the speed of light in the Earth Centered Inertial (ECI) non-rotating frame remains at c relative to the frame,but not relative to an observer or receiver moving in that frame. When a GPS receiver changes its translation speed relative to the ECI frame, the speed of light measured relative to the receiver changes.
https://www.ion.org/publications/abstract.cfm?articleID=981

I should add that the angry mob with pitchforks and torches demanding that I defend the statements of scientists that I have posted is turning up some real, non-theoretical, experimentally verified gems.

 

Apologies. I should have said, "Angry mob with torches and pitchforks."

Aaron: Scientists say heliocentric and geocentric models can be equally justified.

Angry Mob with Torches and Pitch Forks: Kill the beast!

Aaron: I'm not the beast, I'm just telling you what they said.

Angry Mob with Torches and Pitch Forks: Recant, heretic, or be burned at the stake!

 

yeah. I usually vet the sites, but I was rushed. I also am expected to support the statements of the scientists I've posted. It's an arbitrary and unjustified expectation, but, my assumption was, that if this is truly the case, cursory internet searches should turn up some stuff, and that is what is happening.

For all their assumed knowledge, the Angry Mob with Torches and Pitch Forks might be seeing that their reliance on their defacto positions are not as sure a bulwark as they thought.

 

The OP bears repeating:

Einstein's theory of general relativity adds further to the debate. It asserts that it is impossible for a human observer to determine whether any material body is in a state of absolute rest (i.e., immobile in space). It claims that only motion of two material bodies relative to one another can be physically detected. According to this theory the geocentric and heliocentric viewpoints are equally valid representations of reality, and it makes no sense whatsoever scientifically to speak of one as being true and the other false.

. . .

Relativity is the theory which is accepted as the correct one by the great majority of scientists at present. However, many science teachers and textbooks are not aware of this, and it is not uncommon to find heliocentricity taught as the progressive and "obviously true" theory even today.

http://www.icr.org/article/geocentricity-creation/
​

Note: Aaron isn't saying they're equally valid representations of reality. They are saying it.

AMTP (Angry Mob with Torches and Pitchforks): Kill the beast!

 

I'm not sure what you want me to say. According to the conclusion, in the general theory the speed of light is not constant. Now I've run across evidence suggesting that the special theory is wrong.