So, I have an assumption that the sun is a giant table lamp. If the sun is a giant lamp then we should see light eminating from it. We do see light eminating from it. The giant lamp hypothesis is therefore supported, since it makes testable predictions that work.
Correct. That one particular test is passed. Of course, we can make
another prediction that
doesn't get passed, and thus the hypothesis is disproven. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to devise such a prediction.
Does that mean science proves the sun is a giant lamp?
No, and I have been quite careful to never use the word 'prove': science doesn't prove anything, no matter how many falsification tests a given hypothesis passes. As I keep saying, the heliocentrism hypothesis makes testable predictions which it continuously passes: this constitutes
evidence. Not proof, since, as you so aptly demonstrated above, false hypotheses can still make correct predictions.
Oh I thought this was 'ask a physicist anything' and he'll come up with the answers. Never mind.
...
I thought you were dishin' out answers? No your telling me to go find out for myself.
Answers, yes. Doesn't mean I'll trawl the internet at your leisure.
I've never seen any parallax or aberration. If you want to show me some maybe I can explain it.
Really? You deny that stellar abberation is a real phenomenon?
The rest use stellar phenomena to calculate star distances that you mentioned.
Indeed. And they do so without using heliocentricity, which means they're the same in a geocentric model as well.
Any trigonometry that makes up a 186 million mile baseline is false. And thats FACT.
The evidence begs to differ.
No I don't. How far is Pluto way from Earth?
Aphelion: 7,375,927,931 km
Perihelion: 4,436,824,613 km
The coreolis force is created by the entire universe rotating around the fixed Earth.
And how does the universe's rotation affect the movement of Foucault pendula? What force is imparted by the most distant stars onto the pendulum's mass, exactly? If the universe is spinning around the Earth, why do Foucault pendula exhibit rotational periods depend on their latitude? How does this explain why stellar parallax operates on a 6-month period?
Moreover, how do you get around the problem of
superluminal stars?
I really don't know what your talking about.
If I throw an object while standing on the Earth, the Earth itself gets pushed. Newton's Third Law: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. If I throw an object forward, I must therefore be thrown back with equal and opposite force.
Thus, I can make the Earth begin to rotate: all I need to do is apply a torque to it. A single meteorite colliding with the Earth will do nicely. Given that several tonnes of material lands on Earth every year, we have substantial torque imparted to the Earth.
In essence, even if the Earth was created stationary, it's spinning nowadays by virtue of material being deposited on it and imparting small, but finite, motion.
You have a theoretical reason.
Methinks you don't understand why 'theoretical' isn't a naughty word. Perhaps you think evolution is 'just a theory'?
I tried dropping an apple. Surprisingly it didn't orbit my ankles.
Indeed: it obeyed GR and fell to the ground. We can use GR to create orbits, however, which is why there are several thousand satellites orbiting the Earth as we speak.
Gravity is heavyness. I believe in that force.
Gravity is 'heavyness'... care to elaborate? Do you deny that two objects of mass are attracted to each other proportional to the product of their masses?
In the geocentric system, what you see is what you get, You can believe you're own eyes. The pendulum is really changing it's direction and the falling object is really moving sideways. It's reality. It's nice.
The most intuitive explanation is rarely the correct one. Careful analysis of the evidence almost always reveals something more complex going on - which is why we've discarded Classical Mechanics.
In any event, we don't deny that the pendulum
appears to spin. We simply attribute its spin to a testable phenomenon
I've seen an explanation from geocentrists but I'll wait until I've seen the actual phenomenon till I bring it forward. Not that I understand the math involved but you might.
Barbour and Bertotti tested rotating a hollow shell around a solid central sphere and found that coreolis and centrefugal forces were created.
They were quite mistaken: A shell of matter around an object imparts no gravitational force onto that object. This is part of the
shell theorem, and was proven by Newton some time ago.
If the hollow sphere is the universe and the solid central sphere is the Earth then that would explain the phenomenon in a geocentric universe.
This is from the book "Galileo was Wrong" by Dr. Robert Sungenis and Dr. Robert Bennett. 650 pgs.
Quote:
One can imagine why many who were looking for proof of a rotating Earth would appeal to the Foucault pendulum. It seems logical to posit that the reason the plane of the pendulum appears to be moving in a circle is that the Earth beneath it is rotating. In other words, the heliocentrist insists that the pendulum's circular motion is an illusion. The pendulum is actually moving back-and-forth in the same plane and the Earth is turning beneath it. Since the Earth is too big for us to sense its rotation, we instead observe the plane of the pendulum rotate. All one need do to prove the Earth is rotating, he insists, is to reverse the roles, that is, imagine the plane of the pendulum is stationary and the Earth beneath it is moving. This particular logic, however, doesn't prove that the Earth is rotating. One can begin the critique by asking this simple question: if the pendulum is constantly swinging in the same plane (while the Earth is rotating beneath it), what force is holding the pendulum in that stationary position? In other words, if the plane of the pendulum is stationary, with respect to what is it stationary?
It's stationary as in there is no force moving it.
This is understood as an 'unresolved' force in physics. The only possible answer is: it is stationary with respect to the rest of the universe, since it is certainly not stationary with respect to the Earth. With a little insight one can see that this brings us right back to the problem that Einstein and the rest of modern physics faced with the advent of Relativity theory: is it the Earth that is rotating under fixed stars, or do the stars revolve around a fixed Earth? As Einstein said: 'The two sentences: the sun is at rest and the Earth moves, or the sun moves and the Earth is at rest, would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems.'
Einstein was referring to the arbitrary way in which we can pick inertial frames. However, the Earth is not an inertial frame: it accelerates. The logical position to pick is that of the barycentre - which is near the centre of the Sun.
As such, it would be just as logical, not to mention scientifically consistent, to posit that the combined forces of the universe which rotate around the Earth are causing the plane of the pendulum to rotate around an immobile Earth. In other words, in the geocentric model the movement of the pendulum is not an illusion, it really moves.
Bald assertion. There is nothing that suggests the universe itself is
causing the pendulum to move.
According to Einstein, there is no difference between the two models.
The good doctors are quite mistaken, Strangelove.
Ernst Mach, from whom Einstein developed many of his insights, stated much the same. He writes: 'Obviously, it doesn't matter if we think of the Earth as turning round on its axis, or at rest while the fixed stars revolve round it. Geometrically these are exactly the same case of a relative rotation of the Earth and the fixed stars with respect to one another. But if we think of the Earth at rest and the fixed stars revolving round it, there is no flattening of the Earth, no Foucault's experiment, and so on..'.
Correct. We
can model physics using non-inertial references frames, such as a non-rotating Earth. But that gives rise to fictitious forces, like the Coreolis force. The point is that we want to pick an
inertial reference frame, which the Earth is
not.
Barbour and Bertotti proved that a large hollow sphere (representing the distant star fields) rotating around a small solid sphere inside (modeling the Earth) produced exactly the same pattern of Coriolis and centrifugal forces that are claimed as proof of Earth's spinning in space. If the hollow shell of matter accelerates or rotates, any object inside the shell will tend to be carried along with the acceleration or rotation to some extent.
I'm sceptical of this claim, since Newton disproved such a notion a long time ago.
But they note this all-important fact: An object at the center of the hollow sphere will not be affected by the inertial forces. The space around the Earth will exhibit the inertial effects of the distant sphere, but not the Earth itself, if it is centrally located.
From Mach's principle we can conclude that inertia is a universal property, like gravity. But in Mach's principle the conventional interpretation of distant masses as causing inertial effects around the Earth is too restrictive. The cause of inertia could also logically be the properties of the space around each object, modified by the presence of the mass in or around that space. In other words the ether/firmament may be the source of inertia, which causes the gravity and inertial effects on bodies embedded in the ether. The ether's properties are changed by the masses (via feedback), but it is the ether that is the primary or first cause. Linear inertia is the resistance to motion of objects moving linearly caused by the ether drag.
Since both the aether and the firmament have been soundly refuted, all we have left is a gross misapplication of
Mach's principle:
"
You are standing in a field looking at the stars. Your arms are resting freely at your side, and you see that the distant stars are not moving. Now start spinning. The stars are whirling around you and your arms are pulled away from your body. Why should your arms be pulled away when the stars are whirling? Why should they be dangling freely when the stars don't move?"
The reason, of course, is that there isn't a real force between the stars and your hands - the force comes from your body spinning. What these people seem to have done, however, is committed the cardinal sin of statistics: they assumed that correlation implied causation. Your hands fly out when the stars spin, therefore, the spinning stars pull at your hands. Obviously this is nonsense.
I've heard that Focault Pendulums are faked too. Have you examined the ones you've seen to make sure there are no mechanical parts or rigged areas?
Yes. The one I mentioned earlier was set in the main stairwell, so you could easily look at any point along the wire. It was not rigged.
Do you have any evidence that any Foucault Pendulum is faked? The simplicity of the experiment is such that there is one in pretty much every major establishment of science; Wikipedia has a nice list. Are you suggesting that there is a massive conspiracy?
