Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9049 total)
71 online now:
AZPaul3 (1 member, 70 visitors)
Newest Member: Wes johnson
Upcoming Birthdays: Coragyps
Post Volume: Total: 887,675 Year: 5,321/14,102 Month: 242/677 Week: 47/54 Day: 0/4 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Galileo Was Wrong, Okay?
Suzanne Romano
Member (Idle past 2206 days)
Posts: 58
Joined: 06-17-2015


Message 1 of 54 (761292)
06-30-2015 12:23 PM


http://gwwdvd.com/

Galileo Was Wrong: A Scientific Documentary on Geocentrism

A Review by Harry Hamlin Ricker III, MS, former engineer for Johns Hopkins Applied Physics

Galileo Was Wrong, A Scientific Documentary On Geocentrism, produced by CAI Publishing INC., is a science series that presents its audience with something other than the usual scientific theories we are "supposed to" believe in. This film covers important topics in modern physics and cosmology, using the most up to date research to document the most important scientific discoveries of our lifetime. It is an astonishingly good film, the best that I have seen of its kind. It has such a high positive educational value that it ought to be introduced as part of the curriculum in every advanced high school and college introductory physics course. It would also be suitable for classes like physics for liberal arts, astronomy, and cosmology. Every college in America should expose its students to this film, because of its unique educational value. And, since it is far superior to the NOVA and Discovery science programs, it should also be aired on PBS, BBC, and other television networks.

The documentary is the creation of writer and executive producer Robert Sungenis, co-producer Keith Jones, and their small team of really talented people. Though working on a shoestring budget, they produced an amazingly professional and astoundingly beautiful film. Austin Sungenis, Robert's son, wrote the original music score. Keith, with input from Robert, created the graphics and animations, which give the film its credibility. Certainly the animations are the most important part of the film, as they help make a lot of the difficult scientific concepts understandable to the viewer.

The film coherently presents its thesis that the modern geocentric model of the universe is the correct one. The geocentric model is based on natural philosophy, informed by theology, and places the earth in the center of the universe. The earth is stationary and immobile; while the sun, planets, stars of our galaxy and other galaxies, and quasars revolve around it. This cosmological model is supposed to have been discredited by Galileo's discovery of the four moons of Jupiter, which revolve around that planet. Hence follows the name of the film, Galileo Was Wrong. But that title is somewhat misleading, in that the film is not about Galileo or his proof that the earth moved through space in its annual revolution around the sun. This 4.5 hour documentary goes far beyond the Galileo case. It is a detailed, valid, and compellingly scientific demonstration that the earth is stationary in space at the center of the universe.

Now this is a pretty astounding claim; and it is tempting to dismiss it as not worthy of being discussed or investigated. However, the evidentiary basis of the film is accurate scientific data. The documentary should be viewed, and its arguments for geocentrism digested and carefully analyzed, by anyone who is interested in investigating real factual science. This film would be considered unworthy of investigation only by those who prefer to blindly and unquestioningly accept the established beliefs currently being taught in schools.

This review gives scores in the following subject areas on a scale of 1 to 10: Educational Value-10, Scientific facts-10, Scientific Merit-9, Historical Accuracy-9, Technical Proficiency-10, Entertainment Value-9, Speculation-8.

The reader should take notice that these are very high ratings, and that is because this writer thinks this is an outstanding scientific documentary film.

Here is the breakdown . . .


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Suzanne Romano, posted 06-30-2015 12:39 PM Suzanne Romano has responded
 Message 3 by AdminPhat, posted 06-30-2015 12:42 PM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded

  
Suzanne Romano
Member (Idle past 2206 days)
Posts: 58
Joined: 06-17-2015


Message 2 of 54 (761293)
06-30-2015 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Suzanne Romano
06-30-2015 12:23 PM


RICKER REVIEW CONT:
Technical Proficiency: Score 10: The film opens with a stunning montage of astronomical scenes accompanied by an amazing musical score. I was mesmerized watching and listening to this introductory sequence. Though it is longer than most sequences of this type, I could have watched it for a very long time, over and over again. It was that compelling, as just pure sight and sound entertainment. The film uses standard documentary practice, presenting graphics and voice over narration. In particular the film sequences of Einstein were very interesting to me. I would have liked to have viewed more film sequences with voice over. There was a lot of use of animated graphics to depict the geocentric and heliocentric cosmological models. These are very high quality and made the concepts discussed by the narrator much easier to understand. There were some amazing graphics in which original letters were displayed and passages cited in narration. Other places scientific documents were shown on screen while the narrator cited the underlined or highlighted passages. This gave a positive impression of authenticity. These cited passages were in themselves very important to an understanding of the history of science. They pulled many discordant facts together to present the story in its historical context. The audio was good quality and the video was flawless, with the exception that in some places there appeared to be a DVD malfunction that lasted briefly. Overall this is a very high quality video production.

Educational Value: Score 10: GWW has a high factual content. It provides an overview of scientific objectives to be accomplished; it applies the scientific method in a dramatic way; and it demonstrates the means by which science achieves its goals. The film provides a thorough and complete discussion of the history, scientific experiments, theories, and interpretations of data used in the past. It shows how science grows by incorporating new discoveries and new interpretations. The experimental evidence is described in detail and the facts that the experiments support are fully analyzed.

Entertainment Value: Score 9: I gave the film a 9 rating for entertainment value. This is a high rating, because I was entertained for 4.5 hours. The film kept me interested despite the fact that I was familiar with most of the topics being covered. I cannot give a score of 10 for entertainment value, however, because the film was marred by being somewhat tedious and overly long. There were a lot of drawn out narration sequences and that tended to cause my mind to wander and daydream. This is not easily fixed in a film that covers so much ground. Fortunately the presentation is divided into self-contained chapters that can be viewed in different sessions.

Scientific Facts: Score 10: In this category, the film is outstanding, and something not to be dismissed. The documentary is carefully researched and it is meticulous in presenting the technical details. This is enhanced by the graphics that aid the viewer in understanding complex descriptions of experimental results. The film covers a lot of material, and does not cut corners in giving the scientific facts, which are based on the most current research. Interpretations of experimental data accord with fully established scientific principles - they are not made up or misinterpreted. The educational level assumed for the audience is fairly advanced. The film is intellectually challenging, but the presentation of complex scientific material is done well, so that the viewer can grasp it with the aid of the animations and graphics. Information is marshaled and presented in relevant order.

Scientific Merit: Score 9: This rating is subjective and reflects this reviewer's personal opinions on what constitutes good science. I gave the film a rating of 9 because I was not quite satisfied that the interpretation of some of the data was exactly correct. To be clear about this, the difference between the facts and the interpretation is basically what is most important in science. The film does a really good job of presenting the facts from the philosophical perspective of building a cosmological model based on geocentrism. Scientific merit in my view refers to the overall quality of the conclusions based upon the presented facts of the case. There were some, but not many places where the film was obscure or ambiguous or perhaps I should say unconvincing. The really strong point of the film that justifies recommending that it be shown to students is its high educational value and the fact that it is actually doing real science. Students are shown exactly how a scientific argument is constructed and demonstrated, using empirical facts to make the case. Overall, the film received a 9 rating because the arguments were based upon sound logical reasoning, with factual evidence in support, and were mostly convincing.

Historical Accuracy: Score 9: I gave this rating because I did not think all of the facts were correct in every instance. That means there were some places where I thought there was a slight error. These instances involve complicated technical details and were not significant with regard to the overall accuracy of the film. The film was not perfect but very close.

Speculation: Score 8: A higher rating would imply little speculation. The rating given relates mainly to the area where the film discusses a geocentric cosmological model. The film's conclusions, that the geocentric model is the correct one, are based on the evidence that was presented - results of experiments and observational investigations. Since there is little scientific discussion of geocentric cosmology in the scientific literature, this model is just the producer's interpretation of the facts. Because the geocentric model has not been discussed much in the scientific community, there is an element of speculation in the model. But I think it is not a model born out of fantasy, or unbridled speculation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Suzanne Romano, posted 06-30-2015 12:23 PM Suzanne Romano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Suzanne Romano, posted 06-30-2015 12:45 PM Suzanne Romano has responded

  
Suzanne Romano
Member (Idle past 2206 days)
Posts: 58
Joined: 06-17-2015


Message 4 of 54 (761295)
06-30-2015 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Suzanne Romano
06-30-2015 12:39 PM


RICKER REVIEW CONT:
The thesis of the film is that the most current scientific research does not support the heliocentric model that is accepted as correct by the scientific community. There are a lot of experiments that contradict or falsify the motion of the earth revolving around the sun. The most famous is the Michelson-Morley experiment, which, along with others, is discussed in detail in the film. Discussion of the experiments is one of the best parts of the film because the evidence is presented in a clear, logical manner, and in historical order. There is an extensive discussion in the film of various attempts to remove the discrepancy between the experimental facts and the heliocentric model, the special relativity theory being the greatest of those attempts. The film establishes that the experimental data forms the foundation of the relativity theories of Einstein, his special relativity theory being a direct response to the results of these experiments; and explains that Einstein's theory attempts to remove the experimental fact that the earth is not measured to be moving at the required velocity according to the heliocentric model. The evidence is presented in a compelling way, and the explanations of the experimental data are understandable. This section of the film is important and needs to be presented and explained in every modern physics course. The film treats the evidence as fundamental physics, and explains it in a manner that is clear and precise. This is why this film needs to be viewed by a wide audience.

In this reviewer's judgment the arguments presented for the geocentric model are convincing. Geocentrism is not a new or alien idea. The idea that all motion is relative, and that this is an obvious fact, is proclaimed by all the current physics textbooks. Even Galileo used a relativity of motion argument to justify his claim that the earth moves around the sun, which creates an inherent difficulty in deciding for heliocentrism versus geocentrism. The fact is that the relativity principle obviates the heliocentric model just as much as it supports that model. The argument is basically a two edged sword. The relativity argument cuts both ways. It can be used to argue for the moving earth, but then just as well against the moving earth. If all motion is relative, then the reference coordinate system is only a convention.

The current convention is that the earth moves, but it doesn't have to be the only way to view the earth. We can view the earth as at rest and the universe moving around it. Unfortunately, the heliocentric argument is perpetuated in spite of a great contradiction in science's own view of itself. Science has staked itself upon a “know-it-all" view that there is only one correct truth; and has simultaneously decreed that all truth is relative. The "know-it-all" view demands a concept of absolute truth and the idea that science deals in absolute truth in an absolute universe of facts. Unfortunately, this idea is contradicted by the theory of relativity that science uses to justify its claims. In the relativity view of reality, all truth is relative. Hence there is a logical contradiction in the philosophy of science.

The next difficulty for science has to do with the claim regarding the center of the universe. In the geocentric system, the earth is at rest in the center of the universe. Galileo advanced that the sun was the center and the earth moved around the sun. Yet the claims of heliocentrism sowed the seeds of its own destruction, even as the moving earth it proposed appeared to destroy the geocentric system. For the earth could not be at the center, if it moved around the sun in a finite bounded universe. The Copernican principle, the current dogma of science, clams that the universe is not finite and bounded, and does not have a center. But if the universe is infinite and unbounded and has no center, then neither geocentrism nor heliocentrism is valid. This difficulty has not been clearly understood in current science dogma. The Copernican principle concludes incorrectly that all locations in space are equally unimportant. We live on the earth, and that makes the earth a special place. From our perspective, we are at the center of the universe.

The conflict between science and religion can be expressed in the following way: Theology and Philosophy, both of which deal with human existence, find intolerable the idea that we humans are insignificant and therefore not special. On the other hand scientific materialism seeks to minimize the importance of human existence. We are just an accident and so nothing special in that view. From the viewpoint that human existence is special, the idea that the earth is not the center of the universe is absurd, particularly since all the evidence certainly points to that conclusion. What is not understood in this debate, is that, in a universe where the principle of relativity rules and there is no definite center, the argument of geocentrism versus heliocentrism is largely a waste of time. Mathematics tells us that we can pick any point in space to be the center, since there is no privileged mathematically defined center. That follows if the space is infinite and unbounded. What is remarkable about the film Galileo Was Wrong is that the scientific evidence is pushing science towards the geocentric viewpoint. That is something that believers in heliocentrism are resisting. The problem for science is that there are inconsistencies within the heliocentric system of thought, and these need to be corrected. Adopting geocentrism is a simple way to fix the problems. The film is a step towards accomplishing this.

To conclude, this is a science documentary that ought to be required viewing in schools and universities around the world. It is an educationally rich film that demonstrates what science is about, how science is done, and the implications of science in our culture. This is the best educational science documentary film that I have ever seen and I recommend that anyone who has an interest in physical science, astronomy, cosmology, and theology view this film.

Reviewed 6/19/2015

kc3mx@yahoo.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Suzanne Romano, posted 06-30-2015 12:39 PM Suzanne Romano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Suzanne Romano, posted 06-30-2015 12:46 PM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 06-30-2015 1:03 PM Suzanne Romano has responded
 Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-30-2015 4:02 PM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded
 Message 44 by RAZD, posted 07-01-2015 8:42 AM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded

  
Suzanne Romano
Member (Idle past 2206 days)
Posts: 58
Joined: 06-17-2015


Message 5 of 54 (761296)
06-30-2015 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Suzanne Romano
06-30-2015 12:45 PM


RICKER BIO
Harry Hamlin Ricker III is a retired electrical engineer who writes commentaries on physical science, science history, impact of science on society and the philosophy of science. He has a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from Virginia Tech and a Masters Degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of New Hampshire. He has worked for Illinois Institute Of Technology Research Institute, Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory, and Communications Satellite Corporation. He has been an amateur astronomer for nearly 50 years and was leader of the Natural Philosophy Alliance relativity interest group for five years. He lives in Newport News, VA.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Suzanne Romano, posted 06-30-2015 12:45 PM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Percy, posted 06-30-2015 1:18 PM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded
 Message 12 by ringo, posted 06-30-2015 1:23 PM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded
 Message 28 by Diomedes, posted 06-30-2015 4:16 PM Suzanne Romano has responded

  
Suzanne Romano
Member (Idle past 2206 days)
Posts: 58
Joined: 06-17-2015


Message 9 of 54 (761304)
06-30-2015 1:07 PM


SYNOPSIS SCENE II
Scene 2 - From Galileo to Einstein

This scene documents the disparity between the claims of modern science and scientific realities. The science establishment asserts that many and varied proofs exist for an Earth that moves in space, spins on its axis, and revolves around the sun. These assertions are branded as truths, and taught in schools and universities. They are taken for granted by the vast majority of scientists and laymen. But in reality no one in all of human history - not Copernicus, not Galileo, not Kepler, not Newton, not Einstein, not Hawking - has ever proven that the Earth moves. And though many prominent and celebrated scientists, including Einstein and Hawking, freely admit that heliocentrism is nothing more than their preferred model of cosmology and their philosophical preference, the science establishment marches on with its unproven claims, and actually covers up the fact that it has no proof for its cherished cosmological perspective.

In this scene, Galileo is given credit for his authentic contributions to science, including his discoveries of the phases of Venus and Jupiter's moons. However, as is clearly pointed out, despite his assertions, Galileo never produced any real scientific evidence that the Earth moves. In his time, sophisticated scientific instruments did not exist; and what he considered viable proofs would today be summarily dismissed out of hand. Ironically, and unknown to many, Galileo formally abjured his adherence to the teachings of Copernicus a year before his death. His explicit renunciation of heliocentrism is preserved in a 1641 letter to his colleague, Francesco Rinuccini. The contents of the letter, and Rinuccini's attempt to erase Galileo's signature, are presented in detail.

Scene 2, From Galileo To Einstein, aptly prepares viewers for the subsequent presentation of experimental results and scientific facts, by clearing away the mental cobwebs of preconceptions. Modern science can boast that it has possession of precision instruments not available to Galileo; but the fact is that four hundred years later, there still exits not even a shred of scientific evidence in favor of heliocentrism. As the following presentation will demonstrate, Galileo is really nothing more than the purveyor of a myth - a myth, nevertheless, of great proportions, a myth, which has taken hold of the best minds in academia and in the populace.


Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by MrHambre, posted 06-30-2015 1:12 PM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded
 Message 13 by AdminPhat, posted 06-30-2015 1:37 PM Suzanne Romano has responded
 Message 14 by Suzanne Romano, posted 06-30-2015 2:08 PM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded

  
Suzanne Romano
Member (Idle past 2206 days)
Posts: 58
Joined: 06-17-2015


Message 14 of 54 (761317)
06-30-2015 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Suzanne Romano
06-30-2015 1:07 PM


SYNOPSIS SCENE III
Scene III: From Ptolemy to Galileo

[Note: Scene III contains numerous graphic animations that enable the viewer to visualize the models and concepts discussed.]

From Ptolemy to Galileo presents the history of Cosmology through the looking glass of various astronomical models built upon measurement and observation, no less than upon philosophical viewpoint. As today, the ancient Greeks had two rival models of the Cosmos, one heliocentric and the other geocentric. The heliocentric model first appeared in the school of Pythagorus (6th century BC), and was further developed by Aristarchus (3rd century BC). Proponents of the geocentric model included Aristotle and Hipparchus. Nicolaus Copernicus, who published his first cosmological work around 1510, is often given credit for being the originator of the heliocentric model; in fact he did no more than resurrect the ancient pythagorean systems.

Heliocentric though it was, the Copernican model was based upon the Aristotelian axiom that circular movement is the most perfect; and it thus attributed to the planets uniform circular orbits. Though in following the ancients Copernicus placed Mercury and Venus in the correct positions relative to the Sun, he failed to get his model to work, because the planets do not revolve in perfect circles. Some mechanism was needed to account for the variabilities of motion observed in the planetary courses, and Copernicus chose to use epicycles, an artifice already employed in the geocentric model. The epicycle adds smaller circular orbits to the larger originals, in an effort to account for non-uniform planetary motion. The employment of this technique neither produced accurate representations - and therefore did nothing to improve Aristarchus' model - nor did it simplify the prevailing Ptolemaic system, which also used epicycles, but in a geocentric context. That system, developed by Claudius Ptolemy in the 2nd century AD, had been the reigning cosmological model for more than a millennium. Both systems suffered from inaccuracies, but the Copernican model suffered more - it had to employ 14 more epicycles than its Ptolemaic rival.

What were the problems with the Ptolemaic system? One was that Mercury and Venus were placed in the wrong position relative to the Sun. Galileo detected this problem when he observed the phases of Venus through his telescope. Another problem was that presented by the axiom for circular motion. To compensate for this difficulty, he invented two geometric devices, the previously mentioned epicycle, and the Equant. The Equant - one of the greatest achievements of astronomical science - is a geometric construct that creates non-uniform, variable speed orbits for planets that match their observed movements. Ptolemy’s Equant-based orbits were the forerunners of the elliptical orbits used by Johannes Kepler in his attempt to rehabilitate the Copernican model. Later, Tycho Brahe, the famous Danish astronomer, modified the geocentric model of the Cosmos by incorporating parts of the Copernican system. In the Tychonic model, the planets revolve around the Sun, and the Sun revolves around a fixed Earth, which occupies the center of the whole system. Mercury and Venus are in their correct positions vís a vís the Sun. Though Tycho did not employ ellipses, his model can be constructed with them. This modification was, in fact, added to Tycho’s system by Giovanni Riccioli in 1665.

Johannes Kepler, an avowed heliocentrist and an employee of Brahe, for reasons more philosophical than scientific, refused to promote Tycho’s new geocentric model after the astronomer's death. He had no scruples, however, when he took possession of Brahe's voluminous recordings of planetary movements painstakingly compiled over a period of 40 years. Using measurements which Tycho intended to use in support of his geocentric model, Kepler tried to resuscitate the Copernican system. He discarded circular orbits and replaced them with ellipses, which served the same purpose as Ptolemy's Equant, allowing planets to travel at non-uniform speeds. In fact, Kepler’s ellipses and Ptolemy’s Equant are so similar that they can be superimposed.

Ultimately these models are geometrically and mathematically equivalent inverses of each other. Scene III concludes with a quote from well-known physicist George F. R. Ellis that sums up the implications: "I can construct [for] you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds . . . What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Suzanne Romano, posted 06-30-2015 1:07 PM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded

  
Suzanne Romano
Member (Idle past 2206 days)
Posts: 58
Joined: 06-17-2015


Message 15 of 54 (761318)
06-30-2015 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by AdminPhat
06-30-2015 1:37 PM


Re: SYNOPSIS SCENE II
AdminPhat wrote:

quote:
Suzanne, I promoted your topic on the expectation that you would defend these views in your own words.

Please refrain from bare cut & pastes with no explanations in your own words and your own thoughts. This is how we learn.


Thank you, AdmiPhat. I just read your response to my response to Cat Sci on The Principle thread.

Since the synopses are my own words and my own research, may I continue to post them here? As I said, I am happy to go real time as well as post what I am currently writing.

In other forums I participate in, I write articles, post them, and then defend them. I presume that I may do the same here.

I will wait to post another synopsis. Please let me know if I may continue.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Reset signature


{Too spammy video promotion banner/link replaced with this message - Adminnemooseus)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by AdminPhat, posted 06-30-2015 1:37 PM AdminPhat has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by JonF, posted 06-30-2015 2:31 PM Suzanne Romano has responded

  
Suzanne Romano
Member (Idle past 2206 days)
Posts: 58
Joined: 06-17-2015


Message 18 of 54 (761329)
06-30-2015 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by PaulK
06-30-2015 1:03 PM


PaulK:

quote:
There's a big problem with that argument. Only inertial reference frames are equivalent. You can't treat an accelerating reference frame in the same way.

"Accelerating reference frame" is a presupposition, and not a fact.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Reset signature


{Too spammy video promotion banner/link replaced with this message - Adminnemooseus)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 06-30-2015 1:03 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by PaulK, posted 06-30-2015 3:09 PM Suzanne Romano has responded
 Message 29 by JonF, posted 06-30-2015 4:19 PM Suzanne Romano has responded

  
Suzanne Romano
Member (Idle past 2206 days)
Posts: 58
Joined: 06-17-2015


Message 20 of 54 (761341)
06-30-2015 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by PaulK
06-30-2015 3:09 PM


I did address Newtonian mechanics in my synopses, but I am not allowed to post them here.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Reset signature


{Too spammy video promotion banner/link replaced with this message - Adminnemooseus)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by PaulK, posted 06-30-2015 3:09 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by PaulK, posted 06-30-2015 3:32 PM Suzanne Romano has responded

  
Suzanne Romano
Member (Idle past 2206 days)
Posts: 58
Joined: 06-17-2015


Message 21 of 54 (761343)
06-30-2015 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by JonF
06-30-2015 2:31 PM


Re: SYNOPSIS SCENE II
JonF:

quote:
None of your synopses contain any evidence.

Of course they do, but I was cut off at the knees before I could post the evidence. I have only been able to post introductory analysis thus far.

My request for permission to post my own work product has been ignored.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Reset signature


{Too spammy video promotion banner/link replaced with this message - Adminnemooseus)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by JonF, posted 06-30-2015 2:31 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by JonF, posted 06-30-2015 4:15 PM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded
 Message 38 by AdminPhat, posted 06-30-2015 9:34 PM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded

  
Suzanne Romano
Member (Idle past 2206 days)
Posts: 58
Joined: 06-17-2015


Message 23 of 54 (761345)
06-30-2015 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by PaulK
06-30-2015 3:09 PM


PaulK:

quote:
You think that circular motion is possible without acceleration ?

My research thus far indicates that the idea of circular orbits for the Sun and the Earth in the copernican model have been ruled out. Stellar aberration in stars close to the north pole appear from Earth to be making little circles, but that is all I am aware of.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Reset signature


{Too spammy video promotion banner/link replaced with this message - Adminnemooseus)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by PaulK, posted 06-30-2015 3:09 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by PaulK, posted 06-30-2015 3:41 PM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded

  
Suzanne Romano
Member (Idle past 2206 days)
Posts: 58
Joined: 06-17-2015


Message 24 of 54 (761346)
06-30-2015 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by PaulK
06-30-2015 3:32 PM


PaulK:

quote:
Do you maintain that the Earth can orbit the sun without accelerating ?

I maintain that the Earth is not moving, and therefore not accelerating.

I request permission to post my work product that deals with Newtonian mechanics.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Reset signature


{Too spammy video promotion banner/link replaced with this message - Adminnemooseus)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by PaulK, posted 06-30-2015 3:32 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Suzanne Romano
Member (Idle past 2206 days)
Posts: 58
Joined: 06-17-2015


Message 30 of 54 (761355)
06-30-2015 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Diomedes
06-30-2015 4:16 PM


RICKER BIO
There is such a thing as an expert witness.

In court, the appeal to authority is a valid maneuver when backed up by real expertise.

Of course this man is not setting himself up as an expert, though he is certainly affirming he has the competence to judge a science documentary about physics. The man is doing what every other author does: provide some biographical information to the public to orient them to his point of view.

Yes there does exist the logical fallacy you cite, and yes it is perfectly appropriate to list one's credentials when publishing an article.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Reset signature


{Too spammy video promotion banner/link replaced with this message - Adminnemooseus)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Diomedes, posted 06-30-2015 4:16 PM Diomedes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Diomedes, posted 06-30-2015 8:18 PM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded

  
Suzanne Romano
Member (Idle past 2206 days)
Posts: 58
Joined: 06-17-2015


Message 32 of 54 (761358)
06-30-2015 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by JonF
06-30-2015 4:19 PM


JonF:
quote:
Accelerating reference frames not a fact? Never spun a top or threw a Frisbee?

Accelerating frames exist and can be detected by those in them in many ways.

Let's get specific. Foucalt pendulum. Explained in your own words. Go!


1. Tops and Frisbees move; wherefore they may be included in a class of accelerating objects. The Earth does not move; wherefore it cannot be categorized as an accelerating reference frame.

2. The following are my words based on my research:

Newton represents a second generation of heliocentrists striving to break out of the inverse identity stalemate between the rival geocentric and heliocentric systems. In 1687 Newton published a book entitled Principia Mathematica, in which he set forth three postulated laws of motion which could be applied to the movement of celestial bodies like the Sun and the Earth in a cosmological model. These laws of motion were accepted by the scientific establishment as the ironclad proof of the heliocentric thesis. Newton's laws were predicated on a philosophical presumption he called Absolute Space - an intellectual abstraction needed to make his laws demonstrable. In Absolute Space, nothing moves and nothing contributes any force; and this becomes the backdrop for the motion of the bodies being measured. The only things moving in a Newtonian demonstration are the bodies plugged into a mathematical formula, for example the Earth and the Sun. Wherefore Newton's equations for measuring motion have a limited utility; they only work in closed systems in which a limited number of bodies are present. For example, his equation for determining force (FORCE = mass X acceleration) can be demonstrated in a laboratory, but falls apart on large (universal) scales; and his equation for gravitation is also limited by being a closed system in which the forces produced by two isolated bodies are determined to account for the entirety of the observed motion (FORCE OF GRAVITY = the mass of the first body TIMES the mass of the second body DIVIDED BY the square of the distance between them).

Newton's theory of gravitation applied to a cosmological model had both the Sun and Earth in motion and exerting force. The force of the Sun's gravity pulls the Earth toward itself; while the Earth, by its own circular motion, produces an equal and opposite acceleration away from the Sun. According to the theory, these contrapuntal forces maintain the Earth in a safe-distance orbit around the Sun. The Sun, however, was hypothesized to be itself revolving around a center of gravity or center of mass, which is not a geometric center. [The center of gravity is the point at which the entire weight of a body may be considered as concentrated so that if supported at this point the body would remain in equilibrium in any position: Merriam Webster definition.] Newton taught that both the Earth and the Sun were revolving around the same center of mass, and that, the center being so close to the Sun, the Earth could be deemed to be revolving around the Sun for practical purposes, even if this is not strictly the case. The postulate that the Earth and the Sun shared a center of gravity was hailed as the clinching argument for heliocentrism in the cosmological debate.

Fatally, Newton completely left the stars, and their modalities, out of his equations. Whether they exerted force or contributed in any way to the theorized movements of the Earth and Sun, could not be answered within the philosophical context of Absolute Space. Technological advances in the mid-19th century, however, caused a profusion of speculation on the nature and operations of the stars. Enter physicist Ernst Mach, who reasoned that if the huge mass of the Sun had a great force of gravity, then it followed that the combined masses of the stars had a corresponding force of gravity; and this force must influence other bodies in the universe. Contrary to Newton, Mach argued that no place or object in our own solar system escapes the force of the stars. Newton proposed that the relative motion of the Earth and the Sun occurred in an Absolute Space absolutely devoid of force and motion; on the other hand Mach held that the backdrop of space is filled with bodies, motion, and gravitational force. To Newton's Absolute Space, Mach opposed his own concept of Absolute Gravity, which is based on the theoretical principle that matter (in this case the combined matter of the stars) produces gravitational force. This "force field," and not an empty, immobile, fixed space, is, he argued, the correct context within which to measure any terrestrial or celestial movement. According to Mach, the influence of the stars is everywhere experienced on Earth, for example in such things as centrifugal force-employing amusement park rides, and in the motion of other vehicles. Essentially whenever a terrestrial body changes direction or accelerates, it is subject to the gravitational force or tension caused by the combined masses of the celestial bodies.

The consequences of Mach's Absolute Gravity model were unfavorable for Newtonian physics and the heliocentric cosmology; for Mach concluded that identical forces would be created in either of two cases. In the first case, the Earth rotates in a fixed star field; and in the second case, the star field rotates around a fixed Earth. Both systems would produce identical forces. There are fundamental differences in the postulates of Newton and Mach, and the implications inherent in this divergence are problematic for Newton's laws. Newton's "enlightened" ideas were upheld as the "objective proof" for the heliocentric model, and the "evidence" that put the heliocentrism versus geocentrism debate to rest. But Mach's theories rocked the boat; and his contribution to science reopened the debate. If there was no difference between a rotating Earth in a fixed star field as opposed to a rotating star field around a fixed Earth, how could we determine which was the reality?

Furthermore, if one had the notion, it is also possible to use Newton’s laws of motion in support of a geocentric model of the cosmos: simply have the whole starfield rotating around one central point, namely the Earth. According to Newton’s laws, if the stars were rotating around a fixed Earth, the Earth would act as the center of mass for the entire universe. The ultimate implication is this: Using the laws of physics as postulated by either Newton or Mach, the whole universe can rotate around a motionless Earth. Both Newtonian and Machian mechanics can be used to build a geocentric model of the universe.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Reset signature


{Too spammy video promotion banner/link replaced with this message - Adminnemooseus)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by JonF, posted 06-30-2015 4:19 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Suzanne Romano, posted 06-30-2015 4:42 PM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded
 Message 41 by JonF, posted 07-01-2015 8:22 AM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded

  
Suzanne Romano
Member (Idle past 2206 days)
Posts: 58
Joined: 06-17-2015


Message 33 of 54 (761359)
06-30-2015 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Suzanne Romano
06-30-2015 4:41 PM


JonF:
quote:
Accelerating reference frames not a fact? Never spun a top or threw a Frisbee?

Accelerating frames exist and can be detected by those in them in many ways.

Let's get specific. Foucalt pendulum. Explained in your own words. Go!


The following are my words based on my research:

Stellar Parallax: Stellar parallax is the observation from the Earth of a shift in the position of a nearby star. Over the course of a year, the star appears to change its location vís a vís a fixed, more distant background star. Stellar parallax was detected by Fredrich Bessell in 1838. Prior to this discovery, the scientific consensus was that if stellar parallax could be observed from Earth, heliocentrism would have its conclusive proof, since an Earth revolving around the Sun would produce this phenomenon. In response to the discovery, the geocentric model was simply recalibrated, so that the star field previously aligned with the Earth is now aligned with the Sun (with both Sun and star field rotating around the Earth). This realignment results in the star field being offset from the Earth by 1 astronomical unit; so that the Earth is not the geometric center, but rather the center of mass for the entire universe. In the realigned geocentric model, the same exact stellar parallax is produced. Thus the two rival systems remain theoretically equivalent.

Stellar Aberration: Stellar aberration is a celestial phenomenon observed from the Earth involving a single star. It is an apparent motion or star trail that can have a circular, linear, or elliptical shape, depending on the star's location in relation to the Earth. The occurrence of stellar aberration was first observed by James Bradley in 1725. A star located near the north celestial pole appeared to move in a small circle over the course of a year. Heliocentrists argue that the Earth’s motion around the Sun accounts for the appearance of this circular track. In fact the recalibrated Tychonic model, in which the stars are aligned with the Sun, provides just as valid an explanation. The star field, offset by 1 astronomical unit, rotates around the Earth, causing the star to make the exact same circular trail. Thus the two rival systems remain theoretically equivalent.

Foucault Pendulum: Anyone who has visited a science museum is familiar with the exhibit wherein a giant pendulum swings back and forth inside a circular perimeter and changes direction almost imperceptibly over a span of time - as if the floor beneath it was slowly turning. The heliocentric explanation for this observed directional change is the rotation of the Earth on its axis beneath the pendulum. The geocentric explanation is that the Earth does not rotate on its axis; rather the universe rotates around the earth once per day. This diurnal rotation of the universe will produce three kinds of dynamic force: Centrifugal, Coriolis, and Euler. The directional changes observed in the pendulum mainly result from the Coriolis force. As Mach demonstrated, this force can be created either by a rotating Earth in a fixed star field, or by the star field rotating around a fixed Earth. Thus the Foucault Pendulum does not constitute proof that the Earth is rotating on its axis, nor does it prove the heliocentric thesis. Rather the two rival systems remain theoretically equivalent.

Bulge of the Earth: Modern science reports that the Earth’s equatorial circumference is slightly larger than its circumference around the north and south poles, so that a slight bulge appears at the equator. Heliocentrists claim that the equatorial bulge is the result of centrifugal force caused by the Earth’s rotation. However, as it is not possible to determine whether the centrifugal force results from a rotating Earth in a fixed star field or a star field rotating around a fixed earth, the two rival systems remain theoretically equivalent.

Retrograde Motion: Over the course of several months, Mars, as viewed from Earth, appears to make an S-shape in its orbit, as if it were reversing its course. The heliocentrist model posits that the Earth moves faster around the Sun than Mars and actually overtakes it at certain times of the year. At these times the angle from which we view Mars from Earth abruptly reverses, creating the illusion that the planet reverses course. But the same retrograde motion of Mars will be seen from the Earth if the Earth is fixed and the Sun and Mars revolve around it. The two systems are inverses of one another and, therefore, theoretically equivalent.

Starlight Experiment I of Dominique Arago: This experiment was based on four presuppositions. The first, that, as the Earth revolves around the Sun, it comes closer to and then farther away from a given star. The second, that, as the focus of a camera must be adjusted if the subject moves closer or farther away, so the focus of a telescope must be adjusted incrementally when viewing the given star over the course of a year, to account for changes in distance. The third presupposition, that the speed of light from the star is fixed. And the fourth, that the star is many light years away from Earth. In accordance with these suppositions, Arago hypothesized that the telescope would need to be refocused when the Earth was receding from the star. However the results did not confirm the hypothesis: There was no need to adjust the focus any time during the year. The heliocentrist interpretation of the experimental results would locate the star so far away that its light would be unaffected by the changes in distance caused by an orbiting Earth. The geocentrist explanation is that there is very little relative linear movement between a non-moving Earth and a given star, so that there is no need to adjust focus.

Starlight Experiment II of Dominique Arago: This experiment was intended to test the results of the former, and is based on the following presuppositions: First that the speed of light depends upon the medium through which the light passes. For example, when passing through glass or water, light travels slower. Secondly that the space between the Sun and the Earth is not empty but rather filled with a rarified material substance called aether, through which medium light passes at a uniform speed. Arago hypothesized that, because the Earth was revolving around the Sun, it was moving against the aether, and this movement would impede or slow down the speed of a light beam pointed in the same direction, as if the light were passing through glass or water. Arago's experimental procedure consisted in pointing a light beam through glass in two directions, one the direction of the Earth's supposed movement along its orbital path, and two the opposite direction. Arago expected the speed of light to be impeded or slowed by the presence of the aether in the orbital direction. The experimental results, however, falsified the hypothesis. Whether the light beam was pointed in the direction of the Earth’s supposed movement around the Sun or in the opposite direction of that movement, there was no effect on the speed of the light. It remained uniform. Further testing revealed that a light beam pointed toward or away from the Earth’s presumed orbit had the same refraction in glass as the refraction of starlight in glass. In whatever way Arago tested for the incidence of light, it always pointed to a non-moving Earth, at rest in the aether. Arago's experiment is the first confirmed scientific proof that the Earth does not move. Prior to this experiment, the science had to call the geocentric and heliocentric systems theoretically equivalent. With this experiment dawned a new chapter in the debate; the scales were now tipped in favor of a non-moving Earth.

Fresnel Aether Drag Hypothesis: This theory is Augustin Fresnel's attempt to provide a heliocentric explanation for Arago’s outcomes. It should be noted at the outset that, contrary to the demonstrable, observable, repeatable results of Arago's experiment, the Fresnel hypothesis remains an exercise in speculation without any direct empirical evidence to support it. The presuppositions for this hypothesis are as follows: First that aether permeates all substances, including the magnifying glass of a telescope. Secondly that the aether in the magnifying glass is denser and independent from the aether in the surrounding air. Thirdly that the aether outside the magnifying glass is immobile, and thus serves as an absolute reference frame from which to measure any other movement. Fourthly that the magnifying glass moves with the Earth’s presumed motion around the Sun and against the immobile aether outside of it. Fifthly as the magnifying glass moves with the Earth and against the immobile outside aether, it will “drag” its trapped aether with it in the same direction. The trapped aether inside the glass moves, while the aether outside is fixed. The hypothesis posits that when the light is pointed in the direction opposite the Earth's movement, it will pass through the "dragged" aether trapped inside the magnifying glass and traveling in the orbital direction; and this will be equivalent to the effect of moving against the aether in the orbital direction. This "drag," claimed Fresnel, accounts for Arago's experimental result that there is no directional difference in light incidence. According to heliocentrists, "drag," and not a fixed Earth, is the great equalizer. Fresnel invented an equation, known as his "drag coefficient," to measure the speed of the "dragged" aether inside the glass against the immobile aether reference frame. This theoretical equation, known as the “drag coefficient,” supports Fresnel's hypothesis by duplicating the results of Arago's experiment. It must be understood, however, that the entire hypothesis rests on a speculative manipulation of the hypothesized properties of aether, a substance Fresnel could not observe or measure. Fresnel conducted no physical experiments of his own; he did no more than try to explain away the results of Arago's labors.

Fizeau Water Tube Experiment: This was an attempt by Armand Fizeau to prove the Fresnel drag theory by means of an experiment. The experimental procedure consisted of filling two tubes with rapidly moving water. The water made the equivalent of a circuit so that it went in one direction in one tube and the opposite direction in the other. Using mirrors to refract light beams sent into the tubes, measurements of the light traveling both in the same direction of the water and in the opposite direction of the water, could be taken. Fizeau correctly hypothesized that the light beam moving against the water would take more time to travel through its tube than the light beam moving in the same direction as the water; but his subsequent interpretation of these findings is highly questionable. Fizeau's interpretation requires tagging a series of presuppositions onto the data. The first presupposition is that the water is permeated with aether. Secondly the aether in the water is being moved by the Earth's motion around the Sun. Thirdly in the direction going against the current, the aether in the water moves against the light beam, retarding its speed. Ironically Fizeau's experiment fails both to save Arago and to bolster Fresnel because, if aether is a factor in the conclusion, then it must be accounted for in the analytical process: If the Earth is moving through aether, then the speed of the light beam moving with the water must be a combination of the speed of the water and the speed of the Earth’s motion around the Sun. Fizeau did not factor in both velocities; hence he had no basis for his supposition that the Earth moves through the aether. And, as water moving in tubes on a non-moving Earth can easily account for the results of this experiment, it does not constitute a valid proof of the heliocentric thesis.

Airy's Failure: George Airy conceived of an experiment which would test Arago’s results by another method. His experimental procedure consisted in setting up two telescopes, one filled with air and the other filled with water. The experiment was based on several presuppositions. First that the Earth is revolving around the Sun. Secondly that starlight coming through the water-filled telescope will move slower and thus refract more. Thirdly that as the slower moving, more refracted starlight hits the water-filled telescope, it will bend outward, hitting the side of the telescope and missing the eyepiece. Fourthly that in order to compensate for this bending of the light, the water-filled telescope must be tilted to enable the beam to hit the eyepiece (as one must tilt an umbrella forward in order to prevent rain from hitting the body). The experimental results, however, falsified the hypothesis. It was not necessary to tilt the water-filled telescope, as it captured the same amount of light from the same direction as the air-filled telescope. The starlight did move slower through the water, but it did not refract. It went straight into the eyepiece. This stands as a dramatic proof that the Earth is at rest. In fact, Airy’s failure is one of the strongest evidences of geocentrism to date.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Reset signature


{Too spammy video promotion banner/link replaced with this message - Adminnemooseus)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Suzanne Romano, posted 06-30-2015 4:41 PM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by NoNukes, posted 06-30-2015 5:30 PM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded
 Message 37 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-30-2015 9:22 PM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded
 Message 39 by AZPaul3, posted 07-01-2015 8:00 AM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded
 Message 40 by Admin, posted 07-01-2015 8:06 AM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded
 Message 42 by JonF, posted 07-01-2015 8:25 AM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021