Geocentrism

The Michelson-Morley experiment confronted scientists with an embarrassing alternative. On the one hand they could scrap the ether theory which had explained so many things about electricity, magnetism, and light. Or if they insisted on retaining the ether they had to abandon the still more venerable Copernican theory that the earth is in motion. To many physicists it seemed almost easier to believe that the earth stood still than that waves – light waves, electromagnetic waves – could exist without a medium to sustain them. It was a serious dilemma and one that split scientific thought for a quarter century. Many new hypotheses were advanced and rejected. The experiment was tried again by Morley and by others, with the same conclusion; the apparent velocity of the earth through the ether was zero.

Lincoln Barnett
"The Universe and Dr. Einstein", p. 44

It is ironic that Einstein’s most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise was that no such medium existed…. Einstein… utterly rejected the idea of ether and inferred from its nonexistence that the equations of electromagnetism had to be relative. But this same thought process led in the end to the very ether he had first rejected, albeit one with some special properties that ordinary elastic matter does not have. The word “ether” has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum.

In the early days of relativity the conviction that light must be waves of something ran so strong that Einstein was widely dismissed. Even when Michelson and Morley demonstrated that the earth’s orbital motion through the ether could not be detected, opponents argued that the earth must be dragging an envelope of ether along with it because relativity was lunacy and could not possibly be right…. Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that such matter must have relativistic symmetry.

It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with “stuff” that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo."

Robert B. Laughlin (1993 Nobel laureate in physics), "A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down", 2005, pp. 120-121).



firmament....taboo.

It's also another example of misinformed skepticism. People often think the ether was disproved, but really even the original concept of the ether was never disproven or proven, it simply became impossible to detect due to the way time and space warp.

im not sure space and time warp though.

I have heard of a curious experiment. I don't know how to check if it is true independently of my source, and it's been a long time.

If you aim a single electron at a sharp knife, it will go either to the left or to the right. (Detector targets on either side can tell you which after the fact.) But if you turn the lights on, so you can watch it as it happens, it splits in half. The experiment, if true, proves that when a scientist is looking, the physical laws change. Could that be the rule for the shape and organization of the universe?

"In the middle of all sits Sun enthroned. In this most beautiful temple could we place this luminary in any better position from which he can illuminate the whole at once? He is rightly called the Lamp, the Mind, the Ruler of the Universe: Hermes Trismegistus names him the Visible God, Sophocles’ Electra calls him the All-seeing. So the Sun sits as upon a royal throne ruling his children the planets which circle round him. The Earth has the Moon at her service. As Aristotle says, in his On Animals, the Moon has the closest relationship with the Earth. Meanwhile the Earth conceives by the Sun, and becomes pregnant with an annual rebirth."
Nicolaus Copernicus , De Revolutionibus, Of the Order of the Heavenly Bodies 10.

DA?
you there?

Deuteronomy 4:19
And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars--all the heavenly array--do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshiping things the LORD your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven.

Ezekiel 8:16
He then brought me into the inner court of the house of the LORD, and there at the entrance to the temple, between the portico and the altar, were about twenty-five men. With their backs toward the temple of the LORD and their faces toward the east, they were bowing down to the sun in the east.

I remember the observer effect from studies in physics and technology. In psychology I recall an effect called the Greenfield Effect (which I can find NO information on today. Perhaps I had a brain lapse, perhaps zone could enlighten us on that (it is different from Bias/Prejudice, and would pertain to putting a camera in a room or sensors on a person for example). Maybe I was thinking of this:

Reactivity (psychology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia <<-- Link

but not this:Observer-expectancy effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia <<-- Link

From wiki (it's always among the first results in a search):

In science, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on a phenomenon being observed. ... in quantum mechanics, which deals with very small objects, it is not possible to observe a system without changing the system, so the observer must be considered part of the system being observed. Particle physics

For an electron to become detectable, a photon must first interact with it, and this interaction will change the path of that electron. It is also possible for other, less direct means of measurement to affect the electron.

Observer effect (physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia <<-- Link (see also, observer_effect generally).

"NASA&#8217;s Gravity Probe B satellite is using these near perfect spheres to test a couple of really strange predictions about how objects interact with spacetime &#8211;namely the geodetic effect and frame dragging.

This geodetic effect predicts that as a satellite orbits the Earth, it will slowly rotate. For instance the glass spheres in Gravity Probe B are spinning rapidly at 3,500 rpm. Recall that when a gyroscope is set spinning, the axis of rotation tends to point in the same direction as it started. This is due to conservation of angular momentum. The satellite was initially put into a polar orbit with the axis of the gyroscopes pointed at a particular star. However, after many orbits around the Earth, the geodetic effect caused the glass sphere gyroscopes to point slightly away from the star.

Gravity Probe B will also test the phenomenon of frame dragging. As the Earth rotates, it gently drags space and time with it. This caused the satellite to rotate in the same direction as the Earth&#8217;s rotation. Frame dragging also answers the famous question: If the Earth stood still and the rest of the universe rotated around it instead, would its equator still bulge? According to general relativity and Gravity Probe B, the answer is YES. It doesn&#8217;t matter if you are spinning or if the universe is revolving around you. Both situations are equivalent."

http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/pictures/einstein.cfm < click

~

"Gravity Probe B will also test the phenomenon of frame dragging. As the Earth rotates, it gently drags space and time with it. This caused the satellite to rotate in the same direction as the Earth&#8217;s rotation"

*cough*
seriously?

yay DA!
(btw: i only know a-a-a-a-nything cuz my best christian friend taught me...all the credit goes to him, and he happens to give credit to the Lord, so there ya go).

check this out DA, per the OBSERVER:

Planets < click

when it loads, use the sliders to:

zoom up all the way.
course you'll be observing from the SUN.

but find the menu bar that allows you to observe from the EARTH.

then slow the speed to, like.... 0.20

PRESTO!
Stationary Earth and everything revolving around it!

(thx Doc)

Zone thinking about freemasons in space as she studies the 'observer effect':

Think about this: to date, only three countries have been able to put a man merely in Earth orbit - the United States, Russia, and China. That speaks to how difficult it is just to get into orbit. Next, consider how far away the moon is from the Earth: 240,000 miles. Since the alleged moon landings, no country even claims to have gone more than 400 miles from Earth and that was in the Space Shuttle. The International Space Station orbits at 200 miles above Earth. There is a big difference between 240,000 miles and 400 miles. Why can't anyone make it more than 400 miles from Earth today if we could make a 480,000 mile round trip in 1969?

NASA further asserts that three men were loaded into a rocket, flew 240,000 miles to the moon and then achieved lunar orbit. They say the spacecraft separated and two astronauts flew 60 miles to the surface of the moon, in a vacuum and 1/6 Earth gravity. They then hung out on the moon for up to three days in 250 degree heat, hit golf balls, rode a moon buggy — but what powered their life support and equipment? They say BATTERIES.


They then supposedly blasted off the surface of the moon, docked with the third man going around the moon at over 4000 miles per hour, and made it 240,000 miles back to Earth. They re-entered Earth's atmosphere going 25,000 mph, but parachutes assured a safe landing in the ocean.

Given a concept that observation causes or may cause a change in behavior (applying both in the physical and psycho-social sciences) reminds me of the social phenomena of social inertia (action-reaction, cause-effect, sowing-reaping). We can see an inversion or flip in either a person or society over time based on their observations and experiences in the world.

These might be examples of opposing forces with a possible attempt at 'gain':This might be an example of a flip-flop or inversion that latches up:in other cases, people or societies tend towards obsession in one direction or the other, the extreme ascetics, the liberal playboys. Some persons oscillate, blown about by every wind of doctrine. We are called to understand the Middle WAY and to build our house on a solid rock of understanding affixed to a firm foundation of precepts and principles.

The metaphysical question is how do we apply Biblical precepts to existence, active intervention and change to the psycho-social behaviors we see in self, other persons, cliques, social groups and entire societies ... does the earth revolve around us, are we sitting still, are we always relative to the 'moon', must we bow to the 'stars' and 'star-bucks', is our position relative to the sun and THE Son, etc. ... sorry for getting off on a tangent ...

I reviewed some equations and algorithms regarding acceleration, velocity, position and time, and the derivatives of acceleration to velocity, velocity to position and such like. Control theory concepts relating to speed, torque, and power ... etc etc ... Graphic models help best, animations such as zone has posted, geometric and trigonometric diagrams, and simple calculus models do help if we relate the psycho-social phenomenon to related physical parameters ...

Ken / Zone et. al.
Metaphysically speaking, how does one apply the house on the rock, the kingdom parables (particularly those relating to the sower and the seeds, the wheat and the tares, the talents as examples of active participation) and the steps of the sermon on the mount from existing in a state (humility - poor in spirit) to engagement (peacemakers) to entanglement (being persecuted for [witnessing to] (righteousness sake))The Wise and Foolish Builders - Luke 6:46-49
Rambling a bit, in a sort of brainstorm for thought provocation and discussion, trying to relate 'our position' and 'spin' to scriptural and metaphysical and science/math related concepts ... jump in, or issue a cease and desist ...

If introducing light to some experiments changes the observable outcome, and God started creation with light, then it seems likely, it would follow that our ability to observe creation correctly depends on how much of His light we are in. Jesus is the light of life. Now, all that remains is to determine, how much of Jesus where changes which observation to what?

If we accept that everything is moving or not moving depending on our perception, then, since everyone must have his own center from which he operates to decide what is moving, we all see something dfferent. By definition, even a little evil is enough to perceive something is wrong. Any disagreement is perceived as evil, and the person sets out to correct it. From his center, you appear to be wrong, and thus you are resisted. You see his resistance is evil, and you are caught between wanting to resist and still wanting to share. The stress is processed as persecution.

The solution is in the parables. Present only Jesus, then walk away. Terribly, terribly hard. But take heart: You "will not cover the cities of Judah before the coming of the Son of Man."

Also, the mind is four dimensional. The dynamics are quite different than the body, which is only three. The mind and body are as different as object, and shadow.

okay guys.
Existentialism is cool.

but maybe it actually matters if we believe what God has said about the Earth not moving.
if we can be subjective about Genesis, what about the rest.

this topic is wide open for all of it....but for me, relativity and relativism are pretty much the same. what happens if we put them aside and actually look at who might have an interest in deceiving us.

who has the motive means and opportunity.
and to what end. does it matter...is there a reason for pretending the universe is billions of years old and everything started with a Big Bang.
and that earth is not the center of Gods Plan for human history and redemption....

more tomorrow, Lord willing.

Astronomers Find Evidence of a Special Direction in Space

Could the cosmos have a point?

"The universe has no center and no edge, no special regions tucked in among the galaxies and light. No matter where you look, it’s the same—or so physicists thought. This cosmological principle—one of the foundations of the modern understanding of the universe—has come into question recently as astronomers find evidence, subtle but growing, of a special direction in space."

"For now, the data remain preliminary—subtle signs that something may be wrong with our standard understanding of the universe. Scientists are eagerly anticipating the data from the Planck satellite, which is currently measuring the CMB from a quiet spot 930,000 miles up. It will either confirm earlier measurements of the axis of evil or show them to be ephemera. Until then, the universe could be pointing us anywhere."

Astronomers Find Evidence of a Special Direction in Space: Scientific American < click

.........

The results of the Planck satellite have come in - March 2013

"In particular, there is evidence for a violation of statistical isotropy at least on large angular scales in the context of the Planck fiducial sky model........In addition, there is evidence from such fits that the low-l spectrum of the Planck data departs from the fiducial spectrum in both amplitude and slope. These results could have profound implications for cosmology.

http://planck.caltech.edu/pub/2013results/Planck_2013_results_23.pdf < click


Planck data has confirmed that Earth is at the center of the universe.
Planck data confirms the standard cosmological principle has been scientifically falsified.

.........

European Space Agency attempts to cover up the data and develop excuses.

Planck reveals an almost perfect Universe / Planck / Space Science / Our Activities / ESA < click

.........

Copernican Principle, 1532-2013, RIP- Why Cosmology Is About to Get Interesting

Magisterial Fundies: Copernican Principle, 1532-2013, RIP- Why Cosmology Is About to Get Interesting < click

Two CMB anomalous features hinted at by Planck’s predecessor, NASA’s WMAP, are confirmed in the new high-precision data. One is an asymmetry in the average temperatures on opposite hemispheres of the sky (indicated by the curved line), with slightly higher average temperatures in the southern ecliptic hemisphere and slightly lower average temperatures in the northern ecliptic hemisphere. This runs counter to the prediction made by the standard model that the Universe should be broadly similar in any direction we look. There is also a cold spot that extends over a patch of sky that is much larger than expected (circled). In this image the anomalous regions have been enhanced with red and blue shading to make them more clearly visible.

ESA Website - Planck

THE KABBALISTIC BIG BANG SOONER OR LATER WILL ALSO BE EXPOSED FOR THE LIE IT IS


All Glory To God!


..........


A Review of Dr. Russ Humphreys' A Young-Earth Relativistic Cosmology


Russell Humphreys presented two papers at the conference: one discussing “A biblical basis for creationist cosmology” and the other detailing `Progress toward a young-earth relativistic cosmology"...

The paper covers much more ground than can be reviewed here, but the 6 general conclusions are listed below. They all have relevance to the proposed relativistic cosmology.

Matter in the universe is bounded.
The universe has expanded.
The Earth is near the centre of the universe.
The universe is young as measured by clocks on Earth.
The original matter God created was ordinary liquid water.
God transformed the water into various elements by compaction.

A Review of Dr. Russ Humphreys'' A Young-Earth Relativistic Cosmology - Answers in Genesis < click

"The Universe Has a Center"

The Universe Has a Center

"Massive Quasar Cluster Refutes Core Cosmology Principle"

Massive Quasar Cluster Refutes Core Cosmology Principle

~




[courtesy Doc]