SMOKING GUN

  • 359 Replies
  • 8637 Views
SMOKING GUN
« on: March 21, 2019, 07:16:50 AM »
There is no appreciable change in the relative rotation between space and Earth. It is always 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds.
This is precisely why the geocentric system is more stable for us earthlings, whereas Venus has changed its rotation by 6 minutes over the years it has been studied.

MARS :

In terms of their sidereal rotation (time it takes for the planet to complete a single rotation on its axis) Earth and Mars are again in the same boat. While Earth takes precisely 23h 56m and 4 s to complete a single sidereal rotation (0.997 Earth days), Mars does the same in about 24 hours and 40 minutes.

SOURCE : https://www.universetoday.com/22603/mars-compared-to-earth/

MERCURY :

Sidereal rotation period = 58.646 d (1407.5 h)

One of the weirdest facts about Mercury :

Mercury's axial tilt is almost zero, with the best measured value as low as 0.027 degrees.This is significantly smaller than that of Jupiter, which has the second smallest axial tilt of all planets at 3.1 degrees. This means that to an observer at Mercury's poles, the center of the Sun never rises more than 2.1 arcminutes above the horizon.

SATURN :

In January 2019, astronomers reported that a day ( SIDEREAL rotational period!!! ) on the planet Saturn has been determined to be  10h 33m 38s (+ 1m 52s/- 1m 19s), based on studies of the planet's C Ring.


The visible features on Saturn rotate at different rates depending on latitude and multiple rotation periods have been assigned to various regions (as in Jupiter's case).

Astronomers use three different systems for specifying the rotation rate of Saturn. System I has a period of 10 hr 14 min 00 sec (844.3°/d) and encompasses the Equatorial Zone, the South Equatorial Belt and the North Equatorial Belt. The polar regions are considered to have rotation rates similar to System I. All other Saturnian latitudes, excluding the north and south polar regions, are indicated as System II and have been assigned a rotation period of 10 hr 38 min 25.4 sec (810.76°/d). System III refers to Saturn's internal rotation rate. Based on radio emissions from the planet detected by Voyager 1 and Voyager 2,[73] System III has a rotation period of 10 hr 39 min 22.4 sec (810.8°/d). System III has largely superseded System II.

A precise value for the rotation period of the interior remains elusive. While approaching Saturn in 2004, Cassini found that the radio rotation period of Saturn had increased appreciably, to approximately 10 hr 45 min 45 sec (± 36 sec). The latest estimate of Saturn's rotation (as an indicated rotation rate for Saturn as a whole) based on a compilation of various measurements from the Cassini, Voyager and Pioneer probes was reported in September 2007 is 10 hr 32 min 35 sec.

THE SUN :

Obliquity   7.25°
(to the ecliptic)
67.23°
(to the galactic plane)

Right ascension
of North pole   286.13°
19 h 4 min 30 s

Declination
of North pole   +63.87°
63° 52' North

Sidereal rotation period
(at equator) 25.05 d
(at 16° latitude) 25.38 d
25 d 9 h 7 min 12 s
(at poles)34.4 d

Rotation velocity
(at equator)   7.189×103 km/h

SOURCE : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun


In March 2007, it was found that the variation of radio emissions from the planet did not match Saturn's rotation rate. This variance may be caused by geyser activity on Saturn's moon Enceladus. The water vapor emitted into Saturn's orbit by this activity becomes charged and creates a drag upon Saturn's magnetic field, slowing its rotation slightly relative to the rotation of the planet.

NOW THE QUESTION :

Geokinetics is not the best way to understand the physics. In fact, the geocentric
system makes more sense. For example, in the geokinetic system, the Earth has to rotate
exactly 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds to keep sidereal time. How can it do so when so
many  inertial  forces  (e.g., earthquakes,  tsunamis,  volcanoes, etc.) are  impeding  its  rotation?

Venus, which does rotate, has slowed its rate by 6 minutes in the last few years. 
Likewise,  in  the geokinetic system, the Earth has  to revolve around the sun exactly  in 365.25
days. How does it do so in the face of the inertial forces it undergoes internally, as well as the
cosmic forces and planetary perturbations it incurs externally? Geocentrism has a much better
explanation. The sidereal rate can stay exactly as it is due to the tremendous momentum that
a massive rotating universe will produce. Like a giant  flywheel,  the universe keeps  turning at
the same rate year after year, and nothing is able to slow it down. (Later we will address the
claims that the Earth has slowed its rotation). As for Newton and Einstein, geocentrism can use
both a rotating Earth in a fixed universe or a fixed Earth in a rotating universe, if desired, since
all we need to do is invert the equations, as Einstein himself did.

READ MORE IN THE FOLLOWING POST...
« Last Edit: March 21, 2019, 09:11:45 AM by cikljamas »

Re: Happy Equinox
« Reply #1 on: March 21, 2019, 07:18:18 AM »
As I noted earlier, there is no appreciable change in the relative rotation between
space and Earth.  It  is always 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds. This is precisely why the
geocentric system is more stable for us earthlings, whereas Venus has changed its rotation by
6 minutes over the years it has been studied.
   
Invariably,  when  major  earthquakes  or  tsunamis  occur  we  are  inundated  with  newspaper
articles declaring that the Earth, as a result of the force coming from these catastrophes, was
slowed  in  its  rotation  rate  and/or  its  axis moved.  The  rotation rate is said to decrease by
microseconds and the axial tilt by inches. The 2011 tsunami that hit Japan produced numerous
articles. This one is from the New York Times:
 
The magnitude-8.9 earthquake  that struck northern  Japan on Friday not only violently shook
the ground and generated a devastating tsunami, it also moved the coastline and changed the
balance of the planet.

...Meanwhile,  NASA  scientists  calculated  that  the  redistribution  of mass  by  the  earthquake
might have shortened the day by a couple of millionths of a second and tilted the Earth’s axis
slightly. On a  larger  scale,  the unbuckling and  shifting moved  the planet’s mass, on average,
closer to its center, and just as a figure skater who spins faster when drawing the arms closer,
the Earth’s rotation speeds up.

Richard S. Gross, a scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, calculated that the length of the day
was shortened by 1.8 millionths of a second. 

The earthquake  also  shifted  the  so-called  figure  axis of  the  Earth, which is the axis that the
Earth’s mass is balanced around. Dr. Gross said his calculations indicated a shift of 6.5 inches in
where the figure axis intersects the surface of the planet. That figure axis is near, but does not
quite align with, the rotational axis that the Earth spins around.
 
Earlier  great  earthquakes  also  changed  the  axis  and  shortened  the  day.  The magnitude-8.8
earthquake in Chile last year shortened the day by 1.26 millionths of a second and moved the
axis by about  three  inches, while  the Sumatra earthquake  in 2004  shortened  the day by 6.8
millionths of a second, Dr. Gross said.

From the Jet Propulsion Laboratory report, Gross and Chao added more:

Dr. Richard Gross of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., and Dr. Benjamin Fong
Chao, of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., said all earthquakes have some
affect on Earth’s rotation. It’s just they are usually barely noticeable.
 
“Any worldly event that involves the movement of mass affects the  Earth’s  rotation,  from
seasonal  weather  down  to  driving  a  car,”  Chao  said.  Gross  and  Chao  have  been  routinely
calculating earthquakes’ effects  in changing the Earth’s rotation  in both  length-of-day as well
as changes in Earth’s gravitational field. They also study changes in polar motion that is shifting
the North Pole. The “mean North pole” was shifted by about 2.5  centimeters  (1  inch)  in  the
direction of 145 degrees East Longitude. This shift east is continuing a long-term seismic trend
identified in previous studies.

All  of  this  sounds  very  technical  and  convincing,  but we  shall  go  through  it  line  by  line  to
determine  its  validity.  First,  if we  add  up  all  the  earthquakes  occurring  on  an  annual  basis,
there  are  on  average  1,450,000  per  year.  About  90%  are  in  the  2 – 2.9 Rictor scale range;
about 9% in the 3 to 3.9 range; and the rest between the 4 to 9.

 Let’s say for the sake of argument about 25,000 significant earthquakes occur per year that affect
the Earth’s rotation and figure axis the way Dr. Gross claims. Let’s say we take the estimates back
10,000 years to 8000 BC.  That means 250 million noticeable earthquakes occurred  since 8000 BC. 

Let’s also assume,  based  on  present  data,  that  Earth’s  rotation  changes  by 0.5 microseconds for
significant earthquakes. This means the Earth would have changed its rotation by 125 seconds
or  2.08 minutes  since  8000  BC.  If we  go  beyond  8000  BC  to  108,000  BC, we  now  have  the
rotation  of  the  Earth  decreased  by  20.8 minutes, which  yields  a  rotation  of  23  hours,  36.2
minutes.  If we use 1 million years,  it  lessens the rotation by about 200 minutes.  If 10 million:
2000  minutes.  If  100  million:  20,000  minutes.  If  200  million,  then  40,000  minutes,  which
means  the  Earth  would  have  been  rotating  in  about  12  hours.  Anything  beyond  86,400
minutes, the Earth will rotate once every second or less. If we use 4.5 billion years  (which  is
the  time modern science  says  the Earth has been  in existence),  the Earth would be spinning
about 10 times every second.

All in all, we must look in retrospect at this issue. Not only is there no proof from the VLBI that
the Earth is rotating, recorded history has shown that there is no evidence of any appreciable
difference  between  solar  time  and  sidereal  time.  If  the  theory were  correct  that  the  Earth
changes its rotation rate every time there is a cataclysmic disturbance on its surface, we would
have seen the difference over time. Moreover, we would have seen the effects in the weather,
the jet stream, biological rhythms, and just about anything that is dependent on the precision
of a sidereal day.
 
Conversely, the geocentric cosmos has a very stable system that keeps the sidereal clock from
changing. There is no fragile Earth that changes its rate for every bump it encounters. Rather,
the geocentric cosmos incorporates a whole universe that is rotating around the Earth. Due to
the extreme mass of the universe, the tremendous inertia with which it completes its sidereal
cycle can neither be increased or decreased. Like a giant flywheel, once pushed the geocentric
universe will continue to rotate evenly, ad  infinitum. In fact, to move the Earth from its fixed
position,  one would  have  to move  the  universe  itself. Due  to  the  dense  constitution  of  the
universe,  the  force of any potential axis-changing or  rotation-changing disturbance on Earth
(e.g., earthquakes) will be transferred and spread out to the entire universe. As such, the force
dissipates so much that it has less of an effect than throwing a small stone into the ocean.

Dr. Robert Sungenis
« Last Edit: March 21, 2019, 07:20:55 AM by cikljamas »

Re: Happy Equinox
« Reply #2 on: March 21, 2019, 07:28:07 AM »
I’m curious what the geocentric explanation is for sidereal rotation.

Isn’t it quite the coincidence that the stars rotate around us in 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds, while the sun rotates around us in 24 hours (on average), exactly the right ratio to account for one earth orbit around the sun?

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #3 on: March 21, 2019, 09:40:20 AM »
Did you know that officials of the Holy Office of the Catholic Church in both 1616 and 1633
condemned as heretical the concept of heliocentrism the belief that the Earth revolves around the Sun
and the condemnation was officially approved by two popes and sent to all the bishops and
universities of Europe to require the obedience of all members of Catholic Christendom?

Did you know that all the proposed proofs for a heliocentric universe have been discredited by
improved knowledge in physics?

Did you know that there have been dozens of experiments performed to detect for a movement of the earth around
the Sun, but all of them have been unsuccessful?

Did you know that Catholic Church has NEVER (TO THIS DAY!!!) officially rescinded it's condemnation against heliocentrism or its traditional belief in geocentrism?

Did you know that the Church Fathers in absolute consensus held that Scripture thought the Sun revolved
around the motionless Earth and they rejected the heliocentrism?

ACCOMPANYING VIDEO :


Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #4 on: March 21, 2019, 10:23:00 AM »
How can your Heliocentric Model even work ?

The Distance to the Sun changes over the Course of a Year by around 7 million km
that would mean that either the Sun orbits once a Year (The Heliocentric Model requires it to complete one Orbit per Day) or that immense Forces Act upon it to change it's Orbit

same Thing with all the other Planets we can observe

where do these Forces come from ?
why are they affecting everything except Earth ?

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #5 on: March 21, 2019, 10:34:45 AM »
Did you know that officials of the Holy Office of the Catholic Church in both 1616 and 1633
condemned as heretical the concept of heliocentrism the belief that the Earth revolves around the Sun
and the condemnation was officially approved by two popes and sent to all the bishops and
universities of Europe to require the obedience of all members of Catholic Christendom?

An appeal to Catholic authority isn't going to carry much weight with me, I'm afriad.

Quote
Did you know that all the proposed proofs for a heliocentric universe have been discredited by
improved knowledge in physics?

No, I didn't, and I don't believe this either.

Quote
Did you know that there have been dozens of experiments performed to detect for a movement of the earth around the Sun, but all of them have been unsuccessful?

Maybe you need to look harder?

Quote
Did you know that Catholic Church has NEVER (TO THIS DAY!!!) officially rescinded it's condemnation against heliocentrism or its traditional belief in geocentrism?

Did you know that the Church Fathers in absolute consensus held that Scripture thought the Sun revolved
around the motionless Earth and they rejected the heliocentrism?

I still don't care.

As for a couple of earlier points:

Quote
In terms of their sidereal rotation (time it takes for the planet to complete a single rotation on its axis) Earth and Mars are again in the same boat. While Earth takes precisely 23h 56m and 4 s to complete a single sidereal rotation (0.997 Earth days), Mars does the same in about 24 hours and 40 minutes.

This is taking the point out of context.  It's clearly saying that a Mars day is similar in length to an Earth day, not that Mars' day varies around that length.  Stating a more precise time for one not the other is arguably a little sloppy on the author's part, but doesn't actually mean anything.  More precise numbers are available, including this, from the same source:

https://www.universetoday.com/14889/mars-rotation/

Quote
Venus, which does rotate, has slowed its rate by 6 minutes in the last few years.

Venus also rotates in the "wrong" direction, and is nearly tidally locked to the sun.  I'm no expert, and this is beyond my pay grade, but it could be that the slowing of Venus is the process of it becoming tidally locked. I believe some scientists have suggested that the very thick atmosphere, combined with close proximity to the sun is the cause, but as I understand it, the jury is still out.

I'll grant you, this is an interesting point and an example of current science not being able to explain everything.

Any comment on my question?

« Last Edit: March 21, 2019, 10:36:47 AM by Unconvinced »

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #6 on: March 21, 2019, 10:41:55 AM »
How can your Heliocentric Model even work ?

The Distance to the Sun changes over the Course of a Year by around 7 million km
that would mean that either the Sun orbits once a Year (The Heliocentric Model requires it to complete one Orbit per Day) or that immense Forces Act upon it to change it's Orbit

same Thing with all the other Planets we can observe

where do these Forces come from ?
why are they affecting everything except Earth ?

Not a problem.  See Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion.

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #7 on: March 21, 2019, 11:24:39 AM »
There is no appreciable change in the relative rotation between space and Earth. It is always 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds.
This is precisely why the geocentric system is more stable for us earthlings, whereas Venus has changed its rotation by 6 minutes over the years it has been studied.

MARS :

In terms of their sidereal rotation (time it takes for the planet to complete a single rotation on its axis) Earth and Mars are again in the same boat. While Earth takes precisely 23h 56m and 4 s to complete a single sidereal rotation (0.997 Earth days), Mars does the same in about 24 hours and 40 minutes.

In the previous paragraph you said the earth's rotation period was "[Earth's rotation period] is always 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds." now you say it's "precisely 23h 56m and 4 s" [emphasis yours]. Both are wrong.

Earth's rotation period is slowing by an average by about 2 ms per century, mostly due to tidal effects, so "always" in your first assertion isn't correct. The second period, which you assert is "precise" is less precise than the first.

The upshot is that earth's rotation period is more stable than Venus' rotation period, but that's about it. Venus has the longest period of rotation of the known planets, and its rotation is retrograde (opposite direction as the orbits of the planets), so it's kind of an odd case. As far as I know, no one is sure why Venus' rotation is 1) so slow, 2) retrograde, or 3) so variable; although there are hypotheses, none have been adequately tested.

Quote
NOW THE QUESTION :

Geokinetics is not the best way to understand the physics. In fact, the geocentric
system makes more sense. For example, in the geokinetic system, the Earth has to rotate
exactly 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds to keep sidereal time. How can it do so when so
many  inertial  forces  (e.g., earthquakes,  tsunamis,  volcanoes, etc.) are  impeding  its  rotation?


Despite your insistence, "exactly" is not correct. That's an approximate time.

Those things you mention do affect the rotation period of the earth by small but measurable amounts, as you not in the followup. The changes are small because the mass of earth is so much greater than the mass of the atmosphere, oceans, and even tectonic plates, so earth's moment of inertia is changed by only a tiny amount by their motion relative to the earth as a whole.

Quote
Venus, which does rotate, has slowed its rate by 6 minutes in the last few years. 
Likewise,  in  the geokinetic system, the Earth has  to revolve around the sun exactly  in 365.25
days. [It's not exactly that ; if it were, we'd still use the Julian calendar] How does it do so in the face of the inertial forces it undergoes internally, as well as the cosmic forces and planetary perturbations it incurs externally? Geocentrism has a much better
explanation. The sidereal rate can stay exactly as it is due to the tremendous momentum that
a massive rotating universe will produce. Like a giant  flywheel,  the universe keeps  turning at
the same rate year after year, and nothing is able to slow it down. (Later we will address the
claims that the Earth has slowed its rotation). [I can't wait!] As for Newton and Einstein, geocentrism can use
both a rotating Earth in a fixed universe or a fixed Earth in a rotating universe, if desired, since
all we need to do is invert the equations, as Einstein himself did.

Nope. The earth rotating in a non-rotating (inertial) universe, and the universe rotating around a non-rotating (inertial) earth may have some similarities, but they are quite different in many measurable ways. Guess what: several independent techniques all point to a rotating earth as the simplest explanation.

As I noted earlier, there is no appreciable change in the relative rotation between
space and Earth.  It  is always 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds. This is precisely why the
geocentric system is more stable for us earthlings, whereas Venus has changed its rotation by
6 minutes over the years it has been studied.


"No appreciable change" over a few human lifetimes is not the same as "no change at all". This is especially true when dealing with cosmic or even geologic time scales. You haven't defined "appreciable", anyway.

Quote
Invariably,  when  major  earthquakes  or  tsunamis  occur  we  are  inundated  with  newspaper
articles declaring that the Earth, as a result of the force coming from these catastrophes, was
slowed  in  its  rotation  rate  and/or  its  axis moved.  The  rotation rate is said to decrease by
microseconds and the axial tilt by inches. The 2011 tsunami that hit Japan produced numerous
articles. This one is from the New York Times:
 
The magnitude-8.9 earthquake  that struck northern  Japan on Friday not only violently shook
the ground and generated a devastating tsunami, it also moved the coastline and changed the
balance of the planet.

...Meanwhile,  NASA  scientists  calculated  that  the  redistribution  of mass  by  the  earthquake
might have shortened the day by a couple of millionths of a second and tilted the Earth’s axis
slightly. On a  larger  scale,  the unbuckling and  shifting moved  the planet’s mass, on average,
closer to its center, and just as a figure skater who spins faster when drawing the arms closer,
the Earth’s rotation speeds up.

Richard S. Gross, a scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, calculated that the length of the day
was shortened by 1.8 millionths of a second. 

...

Earlier  great  earthquakes  also  changed  the  axis  and  shortened  the  day.  The magnitude-8.8
earthquake in Chile last year shortened the day by 1.26 millionths of a second and moved the
axis by about  three  inches, while  the Sumatra earthquake  in 2004  shortened  the day by 6.8
millionths of a second, Dr. Gross said.

See... I told you!

Quote
All  of  this  sounds  very  technical  and  convincing,  but we  shall  go  through  it  line  by  line  to
determine  its  validity.  First,  if we  add  up  all  the  earthquakes  occurring  on  an  annual  basis,
there  are  on  average  1,450,000  per  year.  About  90%  are  in  the  2 – 2.9 [Richter] scale range;
about 9% in the 3 to 3.9 range; and the rest between the 4 to 9.

Let’s say for the sake of argument about 25,000 significant earthquakes occur per year that affect
the Earth’s rotation and figure axis the way Dr. Gross claims. Let’s say we take the estimates back
10,000 years to 8000 BC.  That means 250 million noticeable earthquakes occurred  since 8000 BC. 

Let’s also assume,  based  on  present  data,  that  Earth’s  rotation  changes  by 0.5 microseconds for
significant earthquakes. This means the Earth would have changed its rotation by 125 seconds
or  2.08 minutes  since  8000  BC. 

Your mistake is that you assume that all these earthquakes change the rotation of earth in the same direction. There is no rational reason to assume that. Some earthquakes may make earth's rotation speed up a tiny amount, others cause it to slow. The net will most likely be close to zero over the period of several years, not to mention thousands or millions of years.

Quote
All in all, we must look in retrospect at this issue. Not only is there no proof from the VLBI that
the Earth is rotating, recorded history has shown that there is no evidence of any appreciable
difference  between  solar  time  and  sidereal  time. 

This is not true.

Quote
If  the  theory were  correct  that  the  Earth
changes its rotation rate every time there is a cataclysmic disturbance on its surface, we would
have seen the difference over time. Moreover, we would have seen the effects in the weather,
the jet stream, biological rhythms, and just about anything that is dependent on the precision
of a sidereal day.

Astrometry is about the only thing which is dependent on the length of the sidereal day to the level of precision you're talking about.

Quote

Conversely, the geocentric cosmos has a very stable system that keeps the sidereal clock from
changing.

Since the geocentric universe doesn't exist, you can imagine any properties for it that you want. The fact remains that the length of the sidereal day does change (a tiny amount over several lifetimes, but it is changing). According to your edict, that means that the universe either 1) isn't geocentric or 2) the length of a sidereal day can change in a geocentric universe.

Quote
There is no fragile Earth that changes its rate for every bump it encounters. Rather,
the geocentric cosmos incorporates a whole universe that is rotating around the Earth. Due to
the extreme mass of the universe, the tremendous inertia with which it completes its sidereal
cycle can neither be increased or decreased. Like a giant flywheel, once pushed the geocentric
universe will continue to rotate evenly, ad  infinitum. In fact, to move the Earth from its fixed
position,  one would  have  to move  the  universe  itself. Due  to  the  dense  constitution  of  the
universe,  the  force of any potential axis-changing or  rotation-changing disturbance on Earth
(e.g., earthquakes) will be transferred and spread out to the entire universe. As such, the force
dissipates so much that it has less of an effect than throwing a small stone into the ocean.

Well, since the length of the sidereal day is not constant, we can write that off.

Quote
Dr. Robert Sungenis

Who?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #8 on: March 21, 2019, 01:02:08 PM »
Quote
Dr. Robert Sungenis
Who?

“In the United States Albert Michelson and Edward Morley had performed an experiment which confronted scientists with an appalling choice. Designed to show the existence of the ether...it had yielded a "null result," leaving science with the alternatives of tossing aside the key which had helped to explain the phenomena of electricity, magnetism, and light or of deciding that the earth was not in fact moving at all.”

“This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation...which presupposes that the Earth moves.” Physicist, Albert Michelson

“The data [of Michelson-Morley] were almost unbelievable... There was only one other possible conclusion to draw — that the Earth was at rest.” Physicist, Bernard Jaffe

“There was just one alternative; the earth’s true velocity through space might happen to have been nil.” Physicist, Arthur Eddington

“...to the question whether or not the motion of the Earth in space can be made perceptible in terrestrial experiments. We have already remarked...that all attempts of this nature led to a negative result. Before the theory of relativity was put forward, it was difficult to become reconciled to this negative result.” Physicist, Albert Einstein

 Since  Einstein  chose  as  his  foundation  that  the  Earth  was  translating around the sun at 30 kms and thus postulated the ether  did  not  exist,  the  results  of  MMX  were  considered  “null”  and  all subsequent theorizing, including Special and General Relativity, was built on the assumption that the Earth was moving. Thus, Einstein  could  safely  develop  his  Special  Relativity  theory  with the accepted premise that space was a vacuum that did not possess any ponderable substance (i.e., ether). That Relativity theory was  the  direct  result  of  MMX  was  admitted  by  Einstein  in  a  speech  honoring  Michelson

“I  have  come  among  men  who  for many years have been true comrades with me in my labors. You, my  honored  Dr.  Michelson,  began  with  this  work  when  I  was  only a little youngster, hardly three feet high. It was you who led the physicists into new paths, and through your marvelous experimental work paved the way for the development of the Theory of  Relativity.  You  uncovered  an  insidious  defect  in  the  ether  theory  of  light,  as  it  then  existed,  and  stimulated  the  ideas  of  H.  A.  Lorentz  and  Fitzgerald,  out  of  which  the  Special  Theory  of  Relativity  developed.  Without  your  work  this  theory  would  today be scarcely more than an interesting speculation; it was your verifications which first set the theory on a real basis.”

The realities of the scientific results, however, are quite different  than  what  was  assumed  by  Einstein  and  his  colleagues.  The  fact is, the MMX did measure an ether drift. It just didn’t measure a  drift  that  would  be  expected  if  the  Earth  were  moving  around  the  sun  at  30kms;  rather,  it  measured  a  drift  that  was  less  than  one-twentieth  of  30kms.

In 1905, Einstein added time dilation to length contraction because it was required to fit his theory, not because he “discovered”  it. It has since been applied  to everything under  the sun so  that  the Einstein advocates can claim that everything works by SRT. So let’s assume that the GPS satellites are in an inertial frame. The fact is, the light beams traveling east-to-west are faster by 50ns than the beams traveling west-to-east. But according to SRT, there should beno difference of the two beams since both are in an inertial frame.  (And if they are not in an inertial frame, then SRT cannot be applied). So, in order to hide this discrepancy to save SRT, the GPS computers are preprogrammed with a Sagnac correction so that it appears that the east bound beam is going the same speed as the westbound beam, and voila! SRT is “proved.”

EINSTEIN SAID THAT IF THERE WAS ANY ETHER IN SPACE, THEN HIS THEORY IS NULLIFIED. HE SAID : If Michelson-Morley is wrong, then Relativity is wrong.  (Einstein ; The Life and Times, p. 107.) So, Einstein simply dismissed the fractional ether drift of MMX as a mere artifact. But the sad fact is, scientifically speaking, artifacts would not have appeared in all the dozens of interferometer experiments performed over the next 80 years.

In 1921, Einstein wrote to a friend that *if "the Miller experiments" produced positive results *"the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards."*

Miller's experiments produced consistently positive results.

“Michelson and Morley found shifts in the  interference fringes, but they were very
much smaller
than the size of the effect expected from the known orbital motion of the Earth” Physicist, John D. Norton

“We can’t feel our motion through space, nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.” Historian, Lincoln Barnett, foreword by Albert Einstein
 
“Since the time of Copernicus we have known that the Earth rotates on its axis and moves around the sun. Even this simple idea, so clear to everyone, was not left untouched by the advance of science.” Albert Einstein

“Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest…” Physicist, Henrick Lorentz

“A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth’s movement. The results were always negative.” Physicist, Henri Poincaré

“There is no planetary observation by which we on Earth can prove that the Earth is moving in an orbit around the sun.” Physicist, I. Bernard Cohen

“The failure of the many attempts to measure terrestrially any effects of the earth’s motion…” Physicist, Wolfgang Pauli

Edwin Hubble was the first to see the centrally located earth. In his 1937 book The Observational Approach to Cosmology, he expresses his deepest concerns about the fact that the red shift of galaxies was isotropic in whatever direction of the sky he looked, concluding: 

"...Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analoguus, 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. Therfore 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."
Edwin Hubble (The Observational Approach to Cosmology 193, pp 40,41,48-49)

“In the effort to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment…the thought was advanced that the Earth might be stationary….Such an idea was not considered seriously, since it would mean in effect that our Earth occupied the omnipotent position in the universe, with all the other heavenly bodies paying homage by revolving around it.” Physicist, Arthur S. Otis

“….The easiest explanation was that the earth was fixed in the ether and that everything else in the universe moved with respect to the earth and the ether….Such an idea was not considered seriously, since it would mean in effect that our earth occupied the omnipotent position in the universe, with all the other heavenly bodies paying homage by moving around it.” Physicist, James Coleman

“This ‘null’ result was one of the great puzzles of physics at the end of the nineteenth century. One possibility was that...v would be zero and no fringe shift would be expected. But this implies that the earth  is somehow a preferred object; only with respect to the earth would the speed of light be c as predicted by Maxwell’s equations. This is tantamount to assuming that the earth is the central body of the universe.”
Physicist, Douglas C. Giancoli

“So which is real, the Ptolemaic or Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true….one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.” Physicist, Stephen Hawking

“…the Earth-centered system…is in reality absolutely identical with the system of Copernicus and all computation of the places of the planets are the same for the two systems.” Astronomer, J. L. E. Dryer

“…it is very important to acknowledge that the Copernican theory offers a very exact calculation of the apparent movements of the planets…even though it must be conceded that, from the modern standpoint  practically identical results could be obtained by means of a somewhat revised Ptolemaic system….It makes no sense, accordingly, to speak of a difference in truth between Copernicus and Ptolemy: both conceptions are equally permissible descriptions. What has been considered as the greatest discovery of occidental wisdom, as opposed to that of antiquity, is questioned as to its truth value.” Physicist, Hans Reichenbach
 
“…I tell my classes that had Galileo confronted the Church in Einstein’s day, he would have lost the argument for better reasons. You may use my name if you wish.” Mathematician, Carl E. Wulfman

“There is no planetary observation by which we on Earth can prove that the Earth is moving in an orbit around the sun. Thus all Galileo’s discoveries with the telescope can be accommodated to the system invented by Tycho Brahe just before Galileo began his observations of the heavens. In this Tychonic system, the planets…move in orbits around the sun, while the sun moves in an orbit around the Earth in a year.
Furthermore, the daily rotation of the heavens is communicated to the sun and planets, so that the Earth itself neither rotates nor  revolves in an orbit.” Physicist, I Bernard Cohen

“Tycho Brahe proposed a dualistic scheme, with the Sun going around the Earth but with all other planets going around the Sun, and in making this proposal he thought he was offering something radically different from Copernicus. And in rejecting Tycho’s scheme, Kepler obviously thought so too. Yet in principle there is no difference.” Astronomer, Fred Hoyle

"I don't think [CMB maps] don't point toward a geocentric universe" - Max Tegmarck 2011

"Red shift in the spectra of quasars leads to yet another paradoxical result: namely, that the Earth is the center of the Universe." - Y.P. Varshni in Astrophysics and Space Science

"Earth is indeed the center of the universe." - Y.P. Varshni in Astrophysics and Space Science

“Thus, even now, three and a half centuries after Galileo’s condemnation by the Inquisition, it is still remarkably difficult to say categorically whether the earth moves...” Physicist, Julian Barbour

"We have[...] certainty regarding the stability of the Earth, situated in the center, and the motion of the sun around the Earth." - Galileo Galilei in letter to Francesco Rinuccini, March 29th, 1641

FRAME IT AND DISPLAY IT!!!



« Last Edit: March 21, 2019, 01:03:43 PM by cikljamas »

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #9 on: March 21, 2019, 01:19:15 PM »
There is no appreciable change in the relative rotation between space and Earth. It is always 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds.
Wow, how amazing.
It is almost like it is a rotating body operating under the laws of physics, especially conservation of angular momentum.

Guess what? Which one is moving has basically no impact.

whereas Venus has changed its rotation by 6 minutes over the years it has been studied.
Citation?
Note: Make sure it isn't simply a case of not measuring it accurately enough before.
After all, you say 6 minutes, but I would say 0.002%.
To compare that to Earth, that would be 0.6 seconds.
Also note that if we are just looking at tiny changes, then Earth's rotation rate does change.
For example, the Earthquake near Japan shortened the day by 1.8 us.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/03/110316-japan-earthquake-shortened-days-earth-axis-spin-nasa-science/

precisely
in about
And this is just nitpicking. They aren't saying Mars is any less precise than Earth, just that they don't have the precise number.

The visible features on Saturn rotate at different rates depending on latitude and multiple rotation periods have been assigned to various regions (as in Jupiter's case).
It is a gas giant. It is somewhat similar to winds on Earth.

NOW THE QUESTION :
How can it do so when so many  inertial  forces  (e.g., earthquakes,  tsunamis,  volcanoes, etc.) are  impeding  its  rotation?
Do you have your own question, or just crap you copied from elsewhere?
Why not just do the easy thing.
Say something like:

"I can't be bothered actually thinking about reality and understanding it to come up with my own arguments, so here is a pile of crap which means I'm right: https://www.theprinciplemovie.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Carter-responds-Sungenis-responds.pdf"


Just how do you think Earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes are impeding its rotation?
They change it.
It is similar to a figure skater spinning around.
If they stretch out their arms they slow down, if they hold them in tight they speed up.
It is merely a result of conservation of angular momentum.
The changes from these events are quite small.

Likewise,  in  the geokinetic system, the Earth has  to revolve around the sun exactly  in 365.25 days.
No it doesn't.

Geocentrism has a much better explanation.
Geocentrism has no explanation.
It cannot explain how Earth remains magically fixed in place forever.
It also can't explain why we can measure the rotation of Earth so well with things like laser ring gyroscopes and Foucault's pendulum.
It has no justification for why the sun and stars move relative to Earth other, clearly showing they aren't simply stuck to some giant sphere.
It has no justification for the observed and measured parallax of stars.

Did you know that officials of the Holy Office of the Catholic Church
Do you know sane people who care about the truth of Earth don't give a damn about what the Church thinks?
If you need to appeal to religious BS you have no case.

Did you know that all the proposed proofs for a heliocentric universe have been discredited by
improved knowledge in physics?
Did you know you not liking something doesn't disprove it?
The mountains of evidence for Earth's motion has not been disproven by anything. It has just been wilfully ignored by those who wish to remain in the dark ages.

Did you know that there have been dozens of experiments performed to detect for a movement of the earth around
the Sun, but all of them have been unsuccessful?
No. Did you know there have been plenty which have succeeded and that the ones which failed were actually designed to test Earth's motion relative to the aether, which does't exist and thus were flawed from the start?
Did you know every experiment which has been capable of detecting Earth's motion around the sun has successfully detected it and not a single experiment has refuted it?
“This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation...which presupposes that the Earth moves.” Physicist, Albert Michelson
Quit with your pathetic, dishonest quote mining.
You have had this pointed out to you before. You doing it again is just you outright lying to everyone.

If you want to go down that route, here is one of your profits admitting:
Quote
Geokinetics is ... the best way to understand the physics.

I will skip the rest of your dishonest crap.
Was that the purpose of your smoking gun? To show you have no integrity at all and that you are willing to blatantly lie about everything to pretend your position is best?

*

rabinoz

  • 19974
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #10 on: March 21, 2019, 03:53:55 PM »
NOW THE QUESTION :

Geokinetics is not the best way to understand the physics. In fact, the geocentric system makes more sense. For example, in the geokinetic system, the Earth has to rotate exactly 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds to keep sidereal time.
No, it does NOT!

Quote from: cikljamas
How can it do so when so many inertial forces (e.g., earthquakes,  tsunamis,  volcanoes, etc.) are impeding its rotation?
Now, Mr Cikljamas, before you panic would YOU please calculate the likely effect of all these "earthquakes,  tsunamis,  volcanoes, etc." and many more, such as the melting of the North Polar and Greenland ice-caps.

If YOU cannot do that, at least read up and learn something for your self.

But the easy answer to How can it do so . . . . . . ? is that The Earth does NOT rotate in exactly 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds and even sidereal time is not precise.

Here go and read a kiddies' version of some of the causes:
         Live SciencePlanet Earth, Planet Earth Wobbles As It Spins, and Now Scientists Know Why.
And read in here one way these "wobbles" are being measured:
        Analysis of 90 days operation of the gyroscopeGINGERINO.

So you have no case, bye!



Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #11 on: March 22, 2019, 04:26:48 AM »
How can your Heliocentric Model even work ?

The Distance to the Sun changes over the Course of a Year by around 7 million km
that would mean that either the Sun orbits once a Year (The Heliocentric Model requires it to complete one Orbit per Day) or that immense Forces Act upon it to change it's Orbit

same Thing with all the other Planets we can observe

where do these Forces come from ?
why are they affecting everything except Earth ?

Not a problem.  See Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion.
That's not how it works
You see in the Geocentric Model the Sun goes around the Earth in one Day
but it changes it's Distance over the Course of a Year
Kepler's Laws would require an (quite large) Force acting upon these Objects to allow them to change their Orbit around Earth so they match our Observations
so why does this Force act upon Stars and Planet but doesn't spin up/accelerate Earth ?
why is is that this hypothetical Force needed for a Geocentric Model is completely different for every Object ?
it doesn't change with Mass/Distance or anything else.

Where does this Force come from ?
Why doesn't it affect us ?
Why is it apparently random ?

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #12 on: March 22, 2019, 05:36:52 AM »
There is no appreciable change in the relative rotation between space and Earth. It is always 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds.
This is precisely why the geocentric system is more stable for us earthlings, whereas Venus has changed its rotation by 6 minutes over the years it has been studied.

MARS :

In terms of their sidereal rotation (time it takes for the planet to complete a single rotation on its axis) Earth and Mars are again in the same boat. While Earth takes precisely 23h 56m and 4 s to complete a single sidereal rotation (0.997 Earth days), Mars does the same in about 24 hours and 40 minutes.

In the previous paragraph you said the earth's rotation period was "[Earth's rotation period] is always 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds." now you say it's "precisely 23h 56m and 4 s" [emphasis yours]. Both are wrong.

Earth's rotation period is slowing by an average by about 2 ms per century, mostly due to tidal effects, so "always" in your first assertion isn't correct. The second period, which you assert is "precise" is less precise than the first.

Irregular variations in the Earth's rotation due to small changes in the moment of inertia.
The effect is cumulative but unpredictable.
Relative to 1972, the effect was -.005 seconds in 1871.


According to the quote above it is rather 5 ms per century, not 2 ms per century.

However, if we used this rate (5 ms per century) the earth's rotational period should have been slowed down in the last 1500 years for 0,075 seconds.

The great Indian mathematican and astronomer Aryabhata, 470-540 CE, calculated the sidereal rotation (the rotation of the earth referenced the fixed stars) as 23 hours 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds. This value is very close to the modern value of 23:56:4.091.

The first thing which strikes you as odd (to say the least) is this :

Maybe astronomers were able to measure sidereal time in 1871 with such accuracy (measuring in ms), i don't know, but we can be all absolutely positive that Aryabhata in 500th AD wasn't able to measure time with such accuracy (in ms), so we have to presume that in his time (1500 years ago), sidereal time was practically identical to our modern sidereal time.

Now, 0,005 (per century) * 20 = 0,1 sec. (When Christ was born = 0 AD)
0,005 * 100 (8000 BC) = 0,5 sec
0,005 * 1000 (80 000 BC) = 5 sec
0,005 * 10000 (800 000 BC) = 50 sec
0,005 * 100000 (8 000 000 BC) = 500 sec = 8min, 20 sec
0,005 * 1 000 000 (80 000 000 BC) = 5000 sec = 83 min, 20 sec
0,005 * 10 000 000 (800 000 000 BC) = 50 000 sec = 833 min, 20 sec

So, 800 000 000 years ago, sidereal time was 603 minutes long, instead of 1436 minutes?
603/60 = 10,05 hours

But, no, Alpha has an explanation :

All  of  this  sounds  very  technical  and  convincing,  but we  shall  go  through  it  line  by  line  to
determine  its  validity.  First,  if we  add  up  all  the  earthquakes  occurring  on  an  annual  basis,
there  are  on  average  1,450,000  per  year.  About  90%  are  in  the  2 – 2.9 [Richter] scale range;
about 9% in the 3 to 3.9 range; and the rest between the 4 to 9.

Let’s say for the sake of argument about 25,000 significant earthquakes occur per year that affect
the Earth’s rotation and figure axis the way Dr. Gross claims. Let’s say we take the estimates back
10,000 years to 8000 BC.  That means 250 million noticeable earthquakes occurred  since 8000 BC. 

Let’s also assume,  based  on  present  data,  that  Earth’s  rotation  changes  by 0.5 microseconds for
significant earthquakes. This means the Earth would have changed its rotation by 125 seconds
or  2.08 minutes  since  8000  BC. 

Your mistake is that you assume that all these earthquakes change the rotation of earth in the same direction. There is no rational reason to assume that. Some earthquakes may make earth's rotation speed up a tiny amount, others cause it to slow. The net will most likely be close to zero over the period of several years, not to mention thousands or millions of years.

Not to mention thousands or millions of years? What is that supposed to mean? What a perverse logic...lol...So, according to Alpha, by adding more years and centuries, sidereal time becomes even closer to zero???

Typical Alpha2Omega way of "reasoning"!!!

Congratulations!!!

EDIT : The Cambrian explosion or Cambrian radiation was an event approximately 541 million years ago in the Cambrian period when most major animal phyla appeared in the fossil record. It lasted for about 20 million years and resulted in the divergence of most modern metazoan phyla. The event was accompanied by major diversification of other organisms.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2019, 05:56:50 AM by cikljamas »

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #13 on: March 22, 2019, 05:46:18 AM »
How can your Heliocentric Model even work ?

The Distance to the Sun changes over the Course of a Year by around 7 million km
that would mean that either the Sun orbits once a Year (The Heliocentric Model requires it to complete one Orbit per Day) or that immense Forces Act upon it to change it's Orbit

same Thing with all the other Planets we can observe

where do these Forces come from ?
why are they affecting everything except Earth ?

Not a problem.  See Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion.
That's not how it works
You see in the Geocentric Model the Sun goes around the Earth in one Day
but it changes it's Distance over the Course of a Year
Kepler's Laws would require an (quite large) Force acting upon these Objects to allow them to change their Orbit around Earth so they match our Observations
so why does this Force act upon Stars and Planet but doesn't spin up/accelerate Earth ?
why is is that this hypothetical Force needed for a Geocentric Model is completely different for every Object ?
it doesn't change with Mass/Distance or anything else.

Where does this Force come from ?
Why doesn't it affect us ?
Why is it apparently random ?

Kepler starts playing around with  the  idea  that you can circumscribe a sphere around
one  of  these  solids,  and  inscribe  a  sphere  inside  one  of  these  solids--just  as  we
circumscribed  a  circle  around  a  regular  plane  figure,  and  inscribed  a  circle within  a
regular plane figure.  But, hold on, there are only five regular solids, which means that
if you start at the outside with a sphere, and then you put in a solid, and then you put a
sphere  inside  that,  and  then  a  solid  inside  that  sphere,  and  then  a  sphere  inside  that
solid, and you do  that with  the five solids, you wind up with six spheres.  Fives solids
can  determine  the  number  and  the  sizes  of  six  spheres,  by  mutual  inscription  and
circumscription.  And, there are six planets and only five perfect solids!
 
Kepler played with this idea, trying to fit such a pattern of 6 spheres and the 5 perfect
solids, for years and years, doing an awful lot of mind boggling solid geometry, finding
which  one  should  be  placed  where,  in  order  that  the  circumscribed  and  inscribed
spheres  should  mimic  the  relative  distances  of  the  planets  from  the  sun--relative
distances  determinable  by  means  of  Copernicus’  theory  (one  of  the  harmonies 
indicated  in Chapter 8).   The  answer was yes, you can produce a  solution,  if you are
Kepler,  and  the  accuracy  of  the  fit  is  95%,  that  is,  given  the  data  he  had  on  relative
orbital sizes his model had roughly a 5% error factor.  (fig. 3)

So  let's make  this  clear: Kepler  thinks he has  the  reason why God  created only  five
perfect solids;  it’s because He was going to create only 6 planets, and He was going to
lay down  the blue print by spacing out  the distances of  the orbits, using this technique
of inscribing and circumscribing spheres (containing the orbits) nested within the series
of five perfect solids.   
 
Do not think that Kepler thought these spheres or solids were up in the heavens, this is
the blueprint; there is nothing to prevent the blueprint being a 3-dimensional model, as
in figure 3.  This is something like the blue print God used when he decided to make 6
(and  only  6)  planets  and  to  put  them  at  specific  relative  distances  from  the  sun;  the
objects  in  the diagram are not  in  the heavens--only  the  six planets and  their variously
sized orbits are there--this stuff is on paper in Kepler's study--and stuff like that was in
God’s mind...and now they are in Kepler’s mind!  When very simple and elegant results
come  out  of  your  researches,  Kepler  believes  that  you  have  found  the  truth  --  the
blueprint.   5% error  is good enough -- after all he’s got 100% accuracy on the number
of planets!  And 95% accurate on the distances--this, then, is the Divine blueprint, and
God obviously  is a Copernican!  (Until, of course, somebody  finds another planet--but
that will not happen for another 180 years--not a bad run.)

Kepler’s  model  was  dismissed  a  long  time  before  that--but  that  was  only  because
Natural  Philosophies  changed,  the  dominant  metaphysics  of  the  sciences  changed.

The  same metaphysics and the same scrupulousness produced all these results, the ones we think
are  absurd,  and  the ones  still  in  the  text books.   Kepler was working within his own
Natural Philosophical and metaphysical background and he produced that to us bizarre
insight, but  to him crucial  insight  that God’s blueprint really had been  the Copernican
one, because there exist only 5 perfect solids and 5 perfect solids space out 6 planetary
orbits only.

The  first  law governs  the shape of  the orbit and  the  location of  the sun.   The second
law governs  the  speed of  the planet  from  instant  to  instant as  it  traverses  that ellipse,
and if you think about it, the speed of that planet is changing from moment to moment.   
 
So, with  the  two  laws we  have  the  shape  of  the orbit  in  space,  and  speed  along  the
orbit in space.  A God’s eye view--not a Ptolemaic or Copernican theoretical model for
generating angular position only.  It is meant as a true representation of the shape of the
orbit in space and of the real (shifting) velocity of the planet over time--a representation
that is simple and elegant, hence in Platonic metaphysical perspective, true.

In 1609 these laws were bizarre.  Why ellipses? Why the sun at one focus? They seem
mystical.   The  areas  law  is  even more peculiar  and  counter-intuitive.   How does  this
happen? How do planets obey such a strange rule of motion?   
 
This,  then,  is Kepler’s version of Copernicanism.  It does not bear much resemblance
to Copernicus’ version of Copernicanism.  In fact it is unlike anything in the tradition of
theoretical astronomy going back  through  to Ptolemy and back  to  the school of Plato. 
This  is  because  the  (combinations  of)  circles  have  disappeared,  replaced  by  what
purports  to  be  a  physically  true  representation  of  the  shape  and  dynamics  of  orbital
motion.   Nor  does  this  bear much  relation  to Newton’s  version  of Copernicanism  to
come--although  some Whig  historians  of  science  have  always  seen Kepler’s work  as
just a step away from that of Newton.

Now the big question.  How did he get these laws?  Notice I avoid the term ‘discover’. 
Laws of nature are not there to be discovered--they are ‘constructed’ and imposed’--just
like  the  theories  we  have  been  studying.   We  do  not  have  the  time  to  trace  these
pathways  of  ‘construction’  in  detail,  but  we  shall  canvass  some  pertinent  hints  and
glimpses of how the job was done.

Here is a hint about how he found the first law:  The second law was first, and first law
was  second, and,  the  second  law  (which was  first) was not discovered,  it was stated--
stipulated  in view of his metaphysical  commitments  and  aims.   From  the  second  law
(which was  first)  as  a  stipulation,  he  stumbled  and  bumbled  his way  to  the  first  law
(which was second).   So,  the second  law  is an excrescence of his metaphysics and  the
first law follows in step, on its basis.

But  there  is a problem--it  is difficult  to work mathematically with  this  law  that force
(and  speed)  vary  inversely  with  distance  from  the  sun.    So  he  makes  up  a
mathematically  simpler,  more  useable  approximation  to  it.    You  guessed  it,  this
pragmatic simplification of the force law idea is the law of areas.  Kepler uses the area
law, which  is  just barely mathematically workable,  if you don’t have calculus and are
willing to put in a lot of time calculating and breaking things up into very tiny sectors,
for  practical  purposes  of  calculating.    But  in  strict  mathematical  terms  it  is  not  a
rigorously acceptable approximation of  the  first  idea--yet he uses  it.   The areas  law  in
mathematical  terms  is  illegitimate  simplification--Kepler  knew  that  but  he  was  a
physical scientist, not just a mathematician.   
 
So  the Second Law  is a stipulation--a mathematical simplification of  the first  idea of
the planet moving  force,  itself a metaphysically conditioned construct  related  to other
theory-laden  ‘facts’.   He  didn’t  ‘discover’  any  fact  of  nature  here.   He  had  to make
decisions  about  concepts  which  depended  upon  his  metaphysics,  his  earlier
metaphysically shaped ‘facts’ about  the sun, and based upon  the direction and aims of
his course of  research.   That  is how  the second  law was  intellectually constructed and
put to work.

Take  a  figure  like  Galileo,  a  contemporary  of  Kepler  and  one  of  the  few  other
convinced Copernicans.  Does he embrace this work and integrate it with his own?  Not
at all.  He largely ignores Kepler.  It is as though he is embarrassed by the extreme neo-
Platonism and harmony-mongering of his ‘ally’.   In addition he does not seem to have
understood, or have wanted to understand Kepler’s astronomy of non-circular motions.
 
What did professional astronomers do?   Well  those who  took Kepler at all  seriously
tried to de-nature his results--as had been done early on with Copernicus.  Most of these
workers were not Copernican anyway.    If  they were  impressed by anything  it was  the
elliptical  shape of  the orbits.   This was worth knowing, because  for  the  first  time one
could  imagine  the  actual  orbit  in  space.    So,  and  this  will  not  surprise  you,  they
continued  to  use  deferents  and  epicycles  to model  and  predict  the motions,  but  they
adjusted  the machinery  so  that  the  path  traced  out would  be  an  ellipse. So much  for
Kepler’s new idea of a causal, celestial physics!

So the great vision is torn to pieces, not taken up whole by anyone.  The only person to
bring  it back  together  again  to  any degree  is Newton  in  the  later 17th century, not  in
Kepler’s version, but  in his own particular way,  so  that his version  is not  identical  to
Kepler’s.

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #14 on: March 22, 2019, 06:10:48 AM »
Any comment on my question?

Sidereal days compared to solar days on other planets

Of the eight solar planets, all but Venus and Uranus have prograde rotation—that is, they rotate more than once per year in the same direction as they orbit the Sun, so the Sun rises in the east. Venus and Uranus, however, have retrograde rotation. For prograde rotation, the formula relating the lengths of the sidereal and solar days is:

    number of sidereal days per orbital period = 1 + number of solar days per orbital period

or, equivalently:

    length of solar day = length of sidereal day/1 − length of sidereal day/orbital period.

On the other hand, the formula in the case of retrograde rotation is:

    number of sidereal days per orbital period = −1 + number of solar days per orbital period

or, equivalently:

    length of solar day = length of sidereal day/1 + length of sidereal day/orbital period.

All the solar planets more distant from the Sun than Earth are similar to Earth in that, since they experience many rotations per revolution around the Sun, there is only a small difference between the length of the sidereal day and that of the solar day – the ratio of the former to the latter never being less than Earth's ratio of 0.997. But the situation is quite different for Mercury and Venus. Mercury's sidereal day is about two-thirds of its orbital period, so by the prograde formula its solar day lasts for two revolutions around the Sun – three times as long as its sidereal day. Venus rotates retrograde with a sidereal day lasting about 243.0 Earth days, or about 1.08 times its orbital period of 224.7 Earth days; hence by the retrograde formula its solar day is about 116.8 Earth days, and it has about 1.9 solar days per orbital period.

By convention, rotation periods of planets are given in sidereal terms unless otherwise specified.

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #15 on: March 22, 2019, 09:36:59 AM »
The average length of a Martian sidereal day is 24 h 37 m 22.663 s (88,642.663 seconds based on SI units).
The source of a citation above : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timekeeping_on_Mars

Question : Can anyone find (anywhere) such phrase ("the average") within the text that pertains Earth's sidereal time???

Since Earth's sidereal time is a constant, it would be nonsensical to use such phrase in the context of a text which deals with Earth's "rotational" period, wouldn't it?

Feel free to supply us with a phrase like this :

The average length of Earth's sidereal day is ....

So, we have to conclude that Martian sidereal time is not a constant (as it is the case with Earth's sidereal time)!!!
« Last Edit: March 22, 2019, 09:43:42 AM by cikljamas »

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #16 on: March 22, 2019, 10:12:02 AM »
The average length of a Martian sidereal day is 24 h 37 m 22.663 s (88,642.663 seconds based on SI units).
The source of a citation above : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timekeeping_on_Mars

Question : Can anyone find (anywhere) such phrase ("the average") within the text that pertains Earth's sidereal time???

Since Earth's sidereal time is a constant, it would be nonsensical to use such phrase in the context of a text which deals with Earth's "rotational" period, wouldn't it?

Feel free to supply us with a phrase like this :

The average length of Earth's sidereal day is ....

So, we have to conclude that Martian sidereal time is not a constant (as it is the case with Earth's sidereal time)!!!


Earth's sidereal day is not constant.



from

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Measurement-of-the-Earth's-rotation%3A-720-BC-to-AD-Stephenson-Morrison/2d3cc830044c6bfeac9871103a9e2f1e8d6e3beb

It varies by milliseconds.

Additional data is available at

https://www.iers.org/IERS/EN/Science/EarthRotation/EarthRotation.html

When it matters to the precision of the measurement, one would state the average and variance.

When it doesn't, one wouldn't.

Also remember that reports of either Earth's or Mars' sidereal day may or may not include averages caused by unavoidable measurement errors.

Parsing a Wikipedia entry and drawing a conclusion based on whether or not the word "average" is used in an entry is not a credible argument.

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #17 on: March 22, 2019, 11:20:58 AM »
There is no appreciable change in the relative rotation between space and Earth. It is always 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds.
This is precisely why the geocentric system is more stable for us earthlings, whereas Venus has changed its rotation by 6 minutes over the years it has been studied.
<snip>
<snip>
Irregular variations in the Earth's rotation due to small changes in the moment of inertia.
The effect is cumulative but unpredictable.
Relative to 1972, the effect was -.005 seconds in 1871.


According to the quote above it is rather 5 ms per century, not 2 ms per century.

Did you notice the words irregular and unpredictable in that statement ?

Quote
However, if we used this rate (5 ms per century) the earth's rotational period should have been slowed down in the last 1500 years for 0,075 seconds.

OK.

Quote
The great Indian mathematican and astronomer Aryabhata, 470-540 CE, calculated the sidereal rotation (the rotation of the earth referenced the fixed stars) as 23 hours 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds. This value is very close to the modern value of 23:56:4.091.

The first thing which strikes you as odd (to say the least) is this :

Maybe astronomers were able to measure sidereal time in 1871 with such accuracy (measuring in ms), i don't know, but we can be all absolutely positive that Aryabhata in 500th AD wasn't able to measure time with such accuracy (in ms), so we have to presume that in his time (1500 years ago), sidereal time was practically identical to our modern sidereal time.

Wherever that quote is from (you don't say), it sounds specious.  To the precision that time could be reckoned 1500 years ago (hint: it was not that high) the length of the sidereal day was, for practical purposes, the same as it is now. Knowing the length of a day with precision on the order of small fractions of a second would not be possible.

Quote
Now, 0,005 (per century) * 20 = 0,1 sec. (When Christ was born = 0 AD)
...
0,005 * 10 000 000 (800 000 000 BC) = 50 000 sec = 833 min, 20 sec

So, 800 000 000 years ago, sidereal time was 603 minutes long, instead of 1436 minutes?
603/60 = 10,05 hours

Long linear extrapolation of an approximate value (that isn't even exactly linear) is not particularly reliable. Nonetheless, earth's rotation period in late Precambrian time was indeed quite a bit shorter than today's.

I'm not quite sure what your point is here. Are you now agreeing that your earlier assertion was incorrect?

There is no appreciable change in the relative rotation between space and Earth. It is always 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds.

Quote
But, no, Alpha has an explanation :

Let’s say for the sake of argument about 25,000 significant earthquakes occur per year that affect
the Earth’s rotation and figure axis the way Dr. Gross claims. Let’s say we take the estimates back
10,000 years to 8000 BC.  That means 250 million noticeable earthquakes occurred  since 8000 BC. 

Let’s also assume,  based  on  present  data,  that  Earth’s  rotation  changes  by 0.5 microseconds for
significant earthquakes. This means the Earth would have changed its rotation by 125 seconds
or  2.08 minutes  since  8000  BC. 

Your mistake is that you assume that all these earthquakes change the rotation of earth in the same direction. There is no rational reason to assume that. Some earthquakes may make earth's rotation speed up a tiny amount, others cause it to slow. The net will most likely be close to zero over the period of several years, not to mention thousands or millions of years.

Not to mention thousands or millions of years? What is that supposed to mean?

It means that random variations scattered around zero summed over more instances will stay close to zero because unusually long runs of increases or decreases tend to even out. Longer time span, more instances.

Quote
So, according to Alpha, by adding more years and centuries, sidereal time becomes even closer to zero???

Not in general. The variations that are caused by earthquakes and other random ephemeral processes like weather don't tend to become large over long periods of time.

The change in length of the day due to tidal forces are not random, so that effect does accumulate significantly with time.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #18 on: March 22, 2019, 02:12:22 PM »
How can your Heliocentric Model even work ?

The Distance to the Sun changes over the Course of a Year by around 7 million km
that would mean that either the Sun orbits once a Year (The Heliocentric Model requires it to complete one Orbit per Day) or that immense Forces Act upon it to change it's Orbit

same Thing with all the other Planets we can observe

where do these Forces come from ?
why are they affecting everything except Earth ?

Not a problem.  See Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion.
That's not how it works
You see in the Geocentric Model the Sun goes around the Earth in one Day
but it changes it's Distance over the Course of a Year
Kepler's Laws would require an (quite large) Force acting upon these Objects to allow them to change their Orbit around Earth so they match our Observations
so why does this Force act upon Stars and Planet but doesn't spin up/accelerate Earth ?
why is is that this hypothetical Force needed for a Geocentric Model is completely different for every Object ?
it doesn't change with Mass/Distance or anything else.

Where does this Force come from ?
Why doesn't it affect us ?
Why is it apparently random ?
I think the issue is that you said heliocentric when you meant geocentric.

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #19 on: March 22, 2019, 02:19:31 PM »
How can your Heliocentric Model even work ?

The Distance to the Sun changes over the Course of a Year by around 7 million km
that would mean that either the Sun orbits once a Year (The Heliocentric Model requires it to complete one Orbit per Day) or that immense Forces Act upon it to change it's Orbit

same Thing with all the other Planets we can observe

where do these Forces come from ?
why are they affecting everything except Earth ?

Not a problem.  See Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion.
That's not how it works
You see in the Geocentric Model the Sun goes around the Earth in one Day
but it changes it's Distance over the Course of a Year
Kepler's Laws would require an (quite large) Force acting upon these Objects to allow them to change their Orbit around Earth so they match our Observations
so why does this Force act upon Stars and Planet but doesn't spin up/accelerate Earth ?
why is is that this hypothetical Force needed for a Geocentric Model is completely different for every Object ?
it doesn't change with Mass/Distance or anything else.

Where does this Force come from ?
Why doesn't it affect us ?
Why is it apparently random ?
I think the issue is that you said heliocentric when you meant geocentric.

yes sorry I didn't notice it earlier

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #20 on: March 22, 2019, 02:42:06 PM »
According to the quote above it is rather 5 ms per century, not 2 ms per century.
Glad you can admit that it isn't exact and thus your argument is void.

Aryabhata in 500th AD wasn't able to measure time with such accuracy (in ms), so we have to presume that in his time (1500 years ago), sidereal time was practically identical to our modern sidereal time.
No. That is the exact opposite of how logical thought works.
As we have no reason to think he can measure it to such accuracy it is stupidity to assume it was practically identical. Instead we can conclude that it was roughly the same.

So, 800 000 000 years ago, sidereal time was 603 minutes long, instead of 1436 minutes?
No. That is assuming the exact same change has been happening throughout Earth's history.
Yet there is no reason to assume that at all.
If you are dealing with causes such as changes in the moment of inertia rather than the angular momentum you would expect a roughly random distribution.

Not to mention thousands or millions of years? What is that supposed to mean?
It is similar to flipping a coin.
If you only flip it once, you will have 100% turn out one side.
As you flip it more and more it will average out and get closer and closer to 50% each side.
The same applies here.
Over a short period you may have a build up of some events shifting Earth's moment of inertia to slow it down, but over a longer time these variations will average out to produce no overall change.

Question : Can anyone find (anywhere) such phrase ("the average") within the text that pertains Earth's sidereal time???
Yes. Directly following it, where it says the corresponding times for Earth, indicating they are averages for Earth.
Also note that that text doesn't match the reference which instead says:
Quote
A Mars solar day has a mean period of 24 hours 39 minutes 35.244 seconds, and is customarily referred to as a "sol" in order to distinguish this from the roughly 3% shorter solar day on Earth. The Mars sidereal day, as measured with respect to the fixed stars, is 24h 37m 22.663s, as compared with 23h 56m 04.0905s for Earth.

Since Earth's sidereal time is a constant
You have already admitted it isn't. Contradicting that now just shows your dishonesty.

*

rabinoz

  • 19974
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #21 on: March 22, 2019, 03:29:01 PM »
The average length of a Martian sidereal day is 24 h 37 m 22.663 s (88,642.663 seconds based on SI units).
The source of a citation above : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timekeeping_on_Mars

Question : Can anyone find (anywhere) such phrase ("the average") within the text that pertains Earth's sidereal time???
Who cares?

Quote from: cikljamas
Since Earth's sidereal time is a constant, it would be nonsensical to use such phrase in the context of a text which deals with Earth's "rotational" period, wouldn't it?
But the Earth's sidereal time is a NOT constant and you have never given ANY real evidence that it is.
That has been revealed over the long period by Slowing of Earth's Spin Revealed in Ancient Astronomers' Tablets
and over a shorter period by the need to add leap seconds because our definition if the second was based on the best value for the length of a day in 1900 and by 1972 that length of a day had increased quite measurably.
Have a look at: A Very Short History of the Leap Second.

Now, you might say that the second is (one solar day)/86,400 but
        (one solar day) = (one sidereal day) x (solar days in year + 1)/(solar days in year) and there are 365.24219 (solar) days in a tropical year.

And now more precise measurements have shown that there are short term variations in the Earth's sidereal time - a wobble

Quote from: cikljamas
Feel free to supply us with a phrase like this :

The average length of Earth's sidereal day is ....

So, we have to conclude that Martian sidereal time is not a constant (as it is the case with Earth's sidereal time)!!!
No, as has been shown conclusively the Earth's sidereal time is not precisely constant because the day has long been known to have gradually lengthening.

Again, you have no case!

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #22 on: March 23, 2019, 03:44:40 AM »
Any comment on my question?

Sidereal days compared to solar days on other planets

Of the eight solar planets, all but Venus and Uranus have prograde rotation—that is, they rotate more than once per year in the same direction as they orbit the Sun, so the Sun rises in the east. Venus and Uranus, however, have retrograde rotation. For prograde rotation, the formula relating the lengths of the sidereal and solar days is:

    number of sidereal days per orbital period = 1 + number of solar days per orbital period

or, equivalently:

    length of solar day = length of sidereal day/1 − length of sidereal day/orbital period.

On the other hand, the formula in the case of retrograde rotation is:

    number of sidereal days per orbital period = −1 + number of solar days per orbital period

or, equivalently:

    length of solar day = length of sidereal day/1 + length of sidereal day/orbital period.

All the solar planets more distant from the Sun than Earth are similar to Earth in that, since they experience many rotations per revolution around the Sun, there is only a small difference between the length of the sidereal day and that of the solar day – the ratio of the former to the latter never being less than Earth's ratio of 0.997. But the situation is quite different for Mercury and Venus. Mercury's sidereal day is about two-thirds of its orbital period, so by the prograde formula its solar day lasts for two revolutions around the Sun – three times as long as its sidereal day. Venus rotates retrograde with a sidereal day lasting about 243.0 Earth days, or about 1.08 times its orbital period of 224.7 Earth days; hence by the retrograde formula its solar day is about 116.8 Earth days, and it has about 1.9 solar days per orbital period.

By convention, rotation periods of planets are given in sidereal terms unless otherwise specified.

Yes, and under the heliocentric model the reason there’s exactly one more (or fewer) sidereal days in a year is due to doing one full orbit of the sun.

But that’s not the case with the geocentric model, at least not for Earth.

So the question was how does the geocentric model explain this exact ratio between stars orbiting the Earth and the Sun orbiting the Earth?

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #23 on: March 23, 2019, 05:01:30 AM »



Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #24 on: March 23, 2019, 07:42:42 AM »
<scans of pages from two publications; one looks more than a century old, the other, unattributed, looks somewhat newer>

What's that supposed to show?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #25 on: March 23, 2019, 08:32:52 AM »
<scans of pages from two publications; one looks more than a century old, the other, unattributed, looks somewhat newer>

What's that supposed to show?

What is your interpretation of the highlighted passage above (where "considerable error" phrase appears)???

In addition :

Isn't it interesting that the orientation of Mars' axis is not aligned (doesn't point towards the sun) with it's perihelion/aphelion unlike in the case of Earth's axis orientation???


Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #26 on: March 23, 2019, 12:39:16 PM »


Isn't it interesting that the orientation of Mars' axis is not aligned (doesn't point towards the sun) with it's perihelion/aphelion unlike in the case of Earth's axis orientation???



What do you mean?

Earth’s axis aligns with the sun at certain times of the year, solstices and equinoxes, just like Mars’.  Mars has seasons too.

I’m not aware of any correlation between planets’ perihelion/aphelion and axial tilt.

Still nothing to say about how the geocentric model explains the ratio between a mean solar day and a sidereal day, I take it?

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #27 on: March 23, 2019, 01:15:08 PM »
[copy pasted crap removed]
You still aren't getting any closer to providing any smoking gun.
You have serious flaws with all your claims.
Earth's sidereal day isn't exact and you have shown absolutely no problem with the mainstream model.

Isn't it interesting that the orientation of Mars' axis is not aligned (doesn't point towards the sun) with it's perihelion/aphelion unlike in the case of Earth's axis orientation???
You are trying to present a 2D view of a 3D system as if it should mean something.
Earth's axis isn't aligned either.
The closest you could get to an alignment is Uranus with an axial tilt of ~97 degrees.

Your picture isn't even accurate. You just drew in extra crap to pretend it works wonderfully for Earth.

If what you are focusing on is the closeness to the solstice and perihelion/aphelion, then Earth doesn't match either, it is just close.
There is also no line of reasoning from that which should magically conclude Earth is the centre of the universe.
So once again you are just spouting pure nonsense.

So is your smoking gun just showing that you have no case?

Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #28 on: March 23, 2019, 01:50:52 PM »
Jack, how would you interpret the highlighted passage above (where "a considerable error" phrase appears)?
I am almost sure that no one can measure Mars' sidereal rotation with naked eyes. So, what Richard A. Proctor is talking about, what do you think?

Secondly, how about Milankovitch Cycles : http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm
How could he possibly know anything (with any degree of certainty) about realness of his imaginary Cycles???

It would be interesting to see the differences (in relation to certain consequences) between geocentric and heliocentric interpretation of Precession of Equinoxes. It seems to me that in geocentric universe such Precession would be more elastic (flexible) than in heliocentric universe, because in geocentric universe motion of the stars is independent of motion of the sun, which is not the case in heliocentric universe within which motion of the earth (wobbling on it's axis) among motionless stars and around motionless sun produces the same (simultaneous) effect on both (stars and sun). So, it would be much more likely to see swapping equinoxes and solstices (along earth's orbit) in heliocentric universe (due to wobbling on earth's axis), than in geocentric universe in which Precession shouldn't/shouldn't have produce such swapping.

I believe that there is a very good reason for slower motion of the sun (longer northern summer) during northern summer (in relation to southern summer), and that there is a very good reason for equal length of equinoxes. So equal length of equinoxes could be preserved (within geocentric universe) even if Precession of Equinoxes occurred (in future), or had such phenomena occurred in some ancient past.

*

rabinoz

  • 19974
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: SMOKING GUN
« Reply #29 on: March 23, 2019, 02:03:06 PM »
<< Irrelevant to the rotational period of the earth. >>
There I can SHOUT too!

Your whole "SMOKING GUN" is based on this:
There is no appreciable change in the relative rotation between space and Earth. It is always 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds.
But as has been pointed out TO YOU numerous times your claim that the sidereal day is NOT always exactly 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds." IS FALSE.

There is no "SMOKING GUN"!