Heliocentricity: Behind the Times

[Rob_BW]

I haven't read the rest of the thread, but I just want to point out that centrifugal force does not exist. It is simply inertia misunderstood.

Then what on earth were those Iranians doing with all of those centrifuges?

 

[Aaron]

Names of the scientists and a clear statement of the mechanism for causing that which most scientists attribute to Earth's rotation.

Either put up or shut up!

Wondering if you can read. Cautious

 

[revmwc]

Joshua 10:12-13 states that the Sun stood still and the moon also for nearly a whole day, would that not mean a geocentric model would be aligned with the Bible. Then the sun was moved backwards 10 degrees to prove a promise from God to King Hezzikiah. Would not also that prove. Geocentricity?

 

[TCassidy]

Wondering if you can read. Cautious

Yes, I can read, and as soon as you post the names and the mechanism for causing that which most scientists attribute to Earth's rotation I promise I will read them.

 

[Aaron]

Also, nothing can (following this model), travel faster than the speed of light. Everything breaks when you consider going past the speed of light.

See this equation, which is modeling how distance is distorted as you approach the speed of light.

L = L_0*(sqrt(1-v^2/c^2))

It's called the lorenze transform, and it explains how the distance between objects at the speed of light approaches zero


c = speed of light

v = your velocity, as you approach the speed of light

L = distance

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

 

[Aaron]

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.

 

[Rob_BW]

Lol, we're women and children now?

Roflmao

 

[TCassidy]

Lol, we're women and children now?

Roflmao

If course. If you can't win the argument, demean your opponents.

 

[Sapper Woody]

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.

No. It's:

Aaron: Scientists are saying A.

Me: No, they're actually saying B.

Aaron: You're women and children.

Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk

 

[FrigidDev]

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

www.conspiracyoflight.com, "The search for new physics".

Hmm.

Here, read this. Especially the conclusion if you're impatient.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html

I'll admit that I have to research more about this, but from what I've read, you seem to be in the minority. Posting from websites like "conspiracy of flight"....

 

[FrigidDev]

no disrespect, just read that article please.

 

[Aaron]

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.

 

[Aaron]

Lol, we're women and children now?

Roflmao

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!

 

[Aaron]

www.conspiracyoflight.com, "The search for new physics".

Hmm.

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.

 

[Aaron]

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!

 

[Rob_BW]

That's not what anyone is arguing about.

 

[Sapper Woody]

Firstly, you're ignoring my post. Secondly, you're failing to define reality. If by reality you are talking only about a coordinate system as it relates to our position in the universe, I agree. But, if you mean it as anything other than that, I completely disagree.

Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk

 

[FrigidDev]

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.

Can you please respond to the rest of my post?

Thanks bro.

 

[InTheLight]

The OP bears repeating:
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.

Yet we know from direct observation that the heliocentric view is the correct one, at least when speaking of the "local" solar system. So I'm still failing to see why you keep banging on and on about this.

​

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!

You're the messenger. You keep bringing this up. You're the one posting on BB. Therefore, you will get the rebuttals.

 

[Aaron]

Can you please respond to the rest of my post?

Thanks bro.

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.