User:Tom Bishop
Unorganized Notes Page
This section contains unorganized notes, links for further reference, and works in progress.
Celestial Sphere Notes
A Text-Book of General Astronomy for Colleges and Scientific Schools
Charles A.Young, Ph.D.,
Professor of Astronomy,
College of New Jersey (Princeton).
“ Spherical Astronomy—This, discarding all consideration of absolute dimensions and distances, treats the heavenly bodies simply as objects moving on the “surface of the celestial sphere”: it has to do only with angles and directions, and, strictly regarded, is in fact merely Spherical Trigonometry applied to Astronomy. ”
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/35261/35261-pdf.pdf - p.38
“ Light moves in Straight Lines.—All astronomy is based on the truth of the proposition that, in a homogeneous medium like the ether, a weightless substance filling space, light moves in straight lines. The physicist demonstrates this from the wave theory of the motion of light. ”
See Also
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/eme810/node/534
Celestial Sphere Description and Moon Tilt Illusion:
Works in Progress
Below are works in progress, and an area for miscellaneous notes. The content may change significantly or be rearranged.
Lighthouses of the World
Water Level Devices
Curvature Compression Test
Standard Refraction
Electromagnetic Acceleration
Evidence for Electromagnetic Acceleration
Bishop Experiment
Airy's Failure
Phases of the Moon
Sinking Ship Effect Caused by Refraction
Sinking Ship Effect Caused by Limits to Optical Resolution
Lunar Eclipse Criticisms
Scale Experiments
Perspective
Sunrise and Sunset
Cosmology Has Some Big Problems
Mechanical Gyroscopes
Distances in the South
Opinions of the Press
Air Navigation
Aviation
Red Shift of Galaxies
Cosmological Principle
Rotation and Revolution
Aether
Planets
Stellar Parallax
Moon Tilt Illusion
Star Rotation
Star Size Illusion
Isostasy
Celestial Sphere
High Altitude Horizon Dip
Bridges
Railroads
Distant Islands
Sunken Oil Platform
Weight Variation by Latitude
Time Dilation by Latitude
Feynman - https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/richard_p_feynman_160383
Professionals and Military Personnel -- Flat Earth
Lunar Eclipse
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2005HiA....13.1055F
The way in which pre-Hispanic people predicted the eclipses by carefully observing the Sun's and Moon's trajectories can be explained to students by telling them that since the paths of the sun and moon form a 5 degree angle, and their apparent motion is different, the moon moves slower, one can incer when the trajectories will cross.
EA
The Elecromagnetic Accelerator predicts that the Lunar Eclipse will occur when the Full Moon occurs about 180 Latitude Degrees from the Sun's position. Presuming that the Sun and the Moon travel on essentially the same paths, albeit at different rates, and that the Full Moon represents the time when the Moon is furthest from the Sun. At this time a Lunar Eclipse will occur. It is shown graphically that 180 degrees marks the spot where the Moon is furthest from the Sun. Other Full Moon may occur at about 172 - 178 and 182 to 188 degrees latitude from the Sun, and will not cause an Eclipse.
The Lunar Eclipses according to the Elecromagnetic Accelerator predicts that over the course of a Lunar Month, the Full Moon will be the South-Most position of the Moon. This may be confirmed in applications such as Stellarium.
Scale Experiment Notes
"A body's weight or mass doesn't change in the presence of air or not. The problem is that scales actually don't measure weight (or mass). What they measures is the difference between the body's weight and its upward Archimedes' push made by air on it."
Wikipedia Altitude: All other things being equal, an increase in altitude from sea level to 9,000 metres (30,000 ft) causes a weight decrease of about 0.29%.
Wikipedia Latitude: "In combination, the equatorial bulge and the effects of the surface centrifugal force due to rotation mean that sea-level gravity increases from about 9.780 m/s2 at the Equator to about 9.832 m/s2 at the poles, so an object will weigh approximately 0.5% more at the poles than at the Equator"
temperature affect on scale notes:
"The only thing that matters is that you calibrate it in the same environment and on the same place on your bench as when you are using it. Don't cal the scale at 40* and then use it when it's 80*. Let everything stablize and calibrate; you'll be just fine. It doesn't hurt to double check things after every 100 rounds. Also, anytime I get interupted or have to take a break, I will re-check the cal on the scale."
https://www.vacumed.com/318.html
Deception of the Douglas Bag Validation Method - What is the Gold Standard of Incompetence?
"Would you take a medication knowing that a pharmacy used an uncalibrated scale to weigh its ingredients? Would you board a plane knowing that the fuel or altitude gauges are not calibrated at frequent intervals?
In these and thousands of other applications scientific bases and rules of metrology must be obeyed to assure chaos-free operation of modern societies. To scrutinize performance of measuring devices a process of calibration must be carried out by means of applying a known standard and getting back a correct reading."
Things that affect scales:
https://www.jaking.com/resources/articles/accuracy-and-repeatability-of-your-balance/
https://bitesizebio.com/33245/drift-measurements-analytical-balances/
"Pharmaceutical laboratories and bioscience research institutes make extensive use of analytical balances that are highly sensitive. These analytical balances are greatly affected by their environment and also by the way they are installed and handled."
Uncalibrated bathroom scales inaccurate - https://thewirecutter.com/blog/can-i-trust-my-bathroom-scale/
Barometer
A scale that measures the weight of the atmosphere is called the "barometer".
Air pressure does not affect the scale trivially. See the following illustration and text:
https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/fair-or-foul-how-to-use-a-barometer/
“ Air pressure decreases as altitude increases.
Atmospheric pressure — or barometric pressure — is simply the weight of the air at ground level. It’s a little easier to understand when you think about the concept of water pressure first. As you get deeper in water, the pressure increases. This is because as you descend, the built up weight of the water on top of you increases. In 1 foot of water, you have the weight of that foot of water pressing down on you. In 2 feet of water, you have the weight of an extra foot of water pressing on you. It’s quite logical, really. ”
Seismic
Ring Laser Gyroscope
Ring Laser Gyroscope - Seismology
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1702.02789.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1702.02789.pdf
Bi-Polar Model
Mainstream Astronomy
- NOAA Solar Calculator
- Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict The Solar System
- Problems of the Solar System
Topics Related to Relativity
Other
- Gravimetry -- fix misc
Flat Earth Star Trails
To review - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkDqdoINhYI
Astronomical Nutation
Project Longstop - Consider simplifying with references
Notes
Ballistic Missiles
Papers showing that missiles were designed to assume a Flat Earth:
Internal Guidance of Ballistic Missiles (1971)
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/722291.pdf
Videos:
NAVY Missile Instructor says that no earth curvature or rotation is assumed
Epicycles
History
University of Toronto Quarterly
At the end of the 19th century, long after Kepler and Newton's contributions to astronomy, we read about the state of astronomy in
Gravitational Redshift
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1512.09253.pdf
“ The second possible misconception relates to the notion that gravitational redshift experiments provide evidence for spacetime curvature. They do, but contrary to what is claimed in a couple of important modern textbooks on GR, a single gravitational redshift experiment does not require an explanation in terms of curvature. Rather, it is only multiple such experiments, performed at appropriately different locations in spacetime, that suggest curvature, via the notion that inertial frames are only defined locally. In the process of elaborating on this in section (3), we also take a swipe at the nomenclature associated with the “clock hypothesis”. ”
Rescheduled flights: http://ifers.123.st/t69p25-flight-routes-shipping-routes-under-sea-cables
Flat Earth - Flights from Sydney to Houston fly NORTH of Hawaii - Earth Not a Globe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=13&v=NuaP78vk440
bi-polar maps - http://www.e-perimetron.org/vol_3_4/gaspar.pdf
Sleddog Speeds
txt: http://publications.americanalpineclub.org/articles/12198311400/print
Latitude Origin
https://i.imgur.com/WOAF25a.png
Nullschool Map
Jet Streams
“ Jet streams are ever-present, relatively narrow, streams of high-speed winds undulating around the Northern and Southern Hemispheres ”
“ Within these streams, winds travel at different rates of speed, from some 50 miles per hour at the outer edges of the stream, to some 250 miles per hour at the center. Speeds as high as 300 miles an hour have been reported. ”
https://i.imgur.com/d0NUCyD.png
Jet Streams Enable Faster Than Sound Flight
https://www.wired.com/story/norwegian-air-transatlantic-speed-record/
“ OK, about that "subsonic" bit. You might know that the speed of sound at an altitude of 30,000 to 40,000 feet is roughly 670 mph. But Norwegian’s planes didn't break the sound barrier. Those near-800-mph figures represent ground speed—how fast the aircraft is moving over land. Their air speed, which factors out the 200-mph wind boost, was closer to the 787's standard Mach 0.85. (The older Boeing 747 can cruise at Mach 0.86, but is less efficient than its younger stablemate.) When talking supersonic, and breaking sound barriers, it's all about the speed of the air passing over the wings, which in this case was more like 570 mph. ”
Jeran Video - Jet Streams SH
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaDw-6sslrc
Trade Winds and South Pacific Gyre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_winds
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_winds#/media/File:Map_prevailing_winds_on_earth.png
South Pacific Gyre
http://thejunkwave.com/what-is-a-gyre/
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/South_Pacific_Gyre.png
Another illustration: https://books.google.com/books?id=bOg0EqqrDRgC&lpg=PA133&dq=%22jet%20streams%22%20%22southern%20hemisphere%22&pg=PA153#v=onepage&q=%22jet%20streams%22%20%22southern%20hemisphere%22&f=false
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20151009-where-is-the-windiest-place-on-earth
GPC and Lat-Lon distances
The coordinate system a GPS uses assumes that the coordinate points rest upon a sphere. The location of one coordinate point may be "accurate", but the distance between multiple coordinate points relies upon the Round Earth model, as Latitude and Longitude is a spherical coordinate system, and is therefore in dispute in these conversations.
Flights over the Southern Oceans
“ The Southern Ocean is notorious for having some of the strongest winds and largest waves on the planet. ”
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20151009-where-is-the-windiest-place-on-earth
“ There are huge belts of wind caused by the uneven way the Sun heats the Earth's surface. 30° north and south of the equator, the trade winds blow steadily. At 40° lie the prevailing westerlies, and the polar easterlies begin at around 60°.
Ask any round-the-world sailor and they will quickly tell you the stormiest seas, stirred by the strongest winds, are found in the Southern Ocean. These infamously rough latitudes are labelled the "roaring 40s", "furious 50s" and "screaming 60s". ”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2003JD004179
“ The Southern Ocean is a vital element in the global climate. Its circumpolar current plays a crucial role in the global transport of mass, heat, momentum, and climate signals from one ocean basin to another. Moreover, the Southern Ocean hosts the strongest surface winds of any open ocean area, fostering strong heat, moisture, and momentum exchanges between the ocean and atmosphere. However, the Southern Ocean is tremendously undersurveyed by traditional observation methods because of the remoteness of the area and rough environment, causing the largest data gap of global oceans. ”
Listed Flight Times Skewed
http://www.travelandleisure.com/travel-tips/airlines-airports/why-flights-take-longer
“ Surprisingly, flight time is calculated from when the aircraft releases the parking brake (on push back) to when it sets the brake on arrival to the gate,” commercial pilot Chris Cooke told Travel + Leisure. “All that waiting in line during taxi and takeoff counts toward flight time.
Not surprisingly, saving money is another reason flights take longer today. “Airlines are able to save millions per year by flying slower," reveals a video from Business Insider. ”
A study which says they are skewing flight times:
“ Are you being told the truth about flight times?
Passenger jets have never been more advanced. With Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner, introduced in 2011, leading the charge, and new models like the 737 MAX and the Airbus A320neo following in its wake, the aircraft on which we travel are safer, smoother, quieter and more fuel efficient than ever.
They also appear perfectly capable of flying faster than their predecessors. Just last month the low-cost carrier Norwegian issued a celebratory press release after one of its 787 Dreamliners whizzed from John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York to London Gatwick in five hours and 13 minutes, setting a new transatlantic record for a subsonic plane. That’s three minutes quicker than the previous best time set by British Airways in January 2015.
So why, record-breaking feats notwithstanding, are airlines claiming it takes longer and longer to fly from A to B?
That’s according to research by OAG, the aviation analyst, carried out for Telegraph Travel. It found that over the last couple of decades, despite new technology, scheduled flight times - ie. how long an airline estimates it will take to complete a journey - have actually increased by as much as 50 per cent.
Looking at Europe’s busiest international route, for example - Heathrow to Dublin - it found that in 1996 the vast majority of airlines published a scheduled flight time of between 60 and 74 minutes. Fast forward 22 years and almost all claim the journey takes between 75 and 89 minutes, while a handful bank on 90 minutes or more. ”
WGS 1984
https://www.gpsworld.com/data-collection-of-wgs-84-information-or-is-it/
“ In the meantime, here are a few of the main differences between WGS 84 and NAD83:
-The coordinate system for WGS 84 is geographic, and the NAD83 system is projected.
-WGS 84 values are points in space, while NAD83 coordinates are physical locations on the Earth. ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Plane_Coordinate_System
Background to NAD83
https://gisgeography.com/geodetic-datums-nad27-nad83-wgs84/
Datum definition:
https://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/~frazier/RSpatialGuides/OverviewCoordinateReferenceSystems.pdf
Truth Tokens -Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) conformal projection
https://web.archive.org/web/20181115035011/http://truthtokens.com/map/?upm_export=print
https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/civil-3d-forum/coordinates-system/td-p/3179510
Hi All,
I think my question is for people who are living in WA, or someone know much about US coordinate systems:
What is World Geodetic System of 1984 and how's difference between it and NAD83 Washtington state planes?
Thank you,
Re: Coordinates System WGS-84 is a coordinate system designed for world-wide navigation. It takes into account the spherical nature of the planet. The coordinates are given in deg-min-sec format, common with polar coordinates, for latitude and longitude.
The Washington state plane system is a square coordinate system specific for the state of Washington. It supposes a flat plane across the face of the state. Northing and Easting are given in feet, based on straight line-of-sight distance.
Transformations Between NAD83 and WGS84
https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/CORS/Articles/WGS84NAD83.pdf
Relativity
“ To solve the paradox of the Michelson-Morley experiment we have to abandon Newton's axioms of absolute space and absolute time. Einstein solved the problem by making the ingenious assumption that observers moving with different velocities with respect to each other have their own space and time. The second postulate of the theory of relativity is that light propagates in every direction with the same constant velocity, in every legitimate (uniformly moving) reference system. It is actually the theoretical formulation of the negative result of Michelson and Morley's experiment. The theory performed the unification of space and time.
However, the Newtonian action-at-a-distance still awaited explanation. This was accomplished again by Einstein with his general theory of relativity. By speculative reasoning exclusively, Einstein concluded that a uniformly accelerated reference system imitates completely the behavior of a uniform gravitational field. All masses fall in a field of gravity with exactly the same acceleration. i.e., the ponderable (gravitational) mass of a body is strictly proportional to its inertial mass. This is the so-called "equivalence hypothesis" confirmed by Roland Eötvös. The principle has important consequences. First, the force of gravity comes into existence solely through the (accelerated) motion of the reference system, like centrifugal force, for example. The second consequence is that the principle is universal: is holds for all physical phenomena. In an accelerated box an observer will see a beam of light following a curved path; consequently an equivalent gravitational field must also bend the path of a light beam. The velocity of light is no longer an absolute constant of nature. ”
American Association for the Advancement of Science is publishing content which states that SR has been disproved through its EurekaAlert website:
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-03/ngpi-tst030116.php
“ The special theory of relativity has been disproved theoretically
At present, mainstream physicists seem to have fully accepted Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (STR) and to take it as the foundation of modern physics because the theory appears perfectly logical and its predictions seem to be supported by numerous experiments and observations. However, if one re-examines these experiments carefully and with an open mind, serious problems may emerge. The paper has examined many experiments that are considered as the evidences of relativistic effects, but found they either have null effects or are wrongly interpreted or calculated. For example, the behaviours of clocks in Hefele-Keating experiment interpreted as the results of relativistic time dilation caused by the relative speed of an inertial reference frame are actually absolute and do not change with the change of inertial reference frames; the corrected calculation of Fizeau experiment based on Newton's velocity addition formula is much closer to the experimental measurement than the result calculated based on the relativistic velocity addition formula. In fact, Hefele-Keating experiment indicates the existence of a medium in the space that can slow down the frequencies of atomic clocks when they have velocities relative to the medium, and Fizeau experiment reveals the existence of a medium called aether relative to which the speed of light is constant, though it is possible that the medium to slow down atomic clocks may be different from aether as multiple media may coexist in the space.
The existence of aether means that the two postulates of STR are wrong for light and electromagnetic waves because the speed of light and the electromagnetic wave equations should be valid only in the inertial reference frame moving with the local aether, just like the acoustic wave equation valid only in the inertial reference frame moving with the local air.
The paper has cleared the definition of the physical time and proved that the time of a physical clock is an invariant of Lorentz Transformation i.e. an invariant of inertial reference frames same as Galilean time. The Lorentz invariance of the clock time makes it possible to synchronize clocks in all inertial reference frames to produce the absolute and universal physical time as demonstrated in the universal synchronization of all the satellite clocks and ground clocks of the global positioning system. Therefore, the time of the STR is no longer the physical time measured with physical clocks.
Moreover, the paper has further proved that Lorentz Transformation is the same as to redefine time and space as functions of Galilean time and space to produce an artificially constant speed of light in all inertial reference frames. The relationship between the STR space-time and Galilean space-time has revealed that the time dilation and length contraction of the STR in a moving inertial reference frame observed on the stationary inertial reference frame are just illusions. Using the relationship can also prove that the real speed of light measured with clocks still follows Newton's velocity addition formula, which directly falsifies the postulate that the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames.
All these findings lead us to conclude that the STR as a theory of physics is wrong. Thus, all relativistic spacetime model based physics theories (electromagnetic theory, quantum field theory, general theory of relativity, big bang theory, string theories, etc) become questionable. Disproving the STR and other related theories of physics will not lead to any crisis but instead open a new room for scientists to develop new theories for all the known and unknown physical phenomena. The paper has proposed a new experimental setup with which scientists will be able to measure the velocity of aether wind anywhere in the reachable universe and determine the velocity field of aether in the space for studying the dynamics of aether. The dynamics of aether may lead to the discovery of new methods to propel our space ships to speeds close to or even faster than the speed of light as the speed limit imposed by the STR is no longer valid, though there should exist an extremely difficult barrier for us to surpass the speed of light in the aether just as to surpass the sound barrier in the air. ”
On Sagnac:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a0bc/0dfe3a7809b3adeff723aeea6363f3272850.pdf
“ It is believed that the Sagnac effect does not contradict Special Relativity theory because it is manifest in non-inertial rotational motion; therefore, it should be treated in the framework of General Relativity theory. However, several well-designed studies have convincingly shown that a Sagnac Effect identical to the one manifest in rotational uniform motion is also manifest in transverse uniform motion. This result should have been sufficient to falsify Special Relativity theory. In the present article, we offer theoretical support to the experimental results by elucidating the notion that the dynamics of transverse and rotational types of motion are completely equivalent. Since the transverse Sagnac effect contradicts Special Relativity theory, it follows that the rotational Sagnac effect contradicts Special Relativity theory as well. ”
Relativity and Accelerating Upwards:
“ Consider a skydiver jumping out of an airplane. The skydiver falls freely, up to the effects of air resistance. According to Einstein, the skydiver's path is the straightest line possible through the curved space-time around the Earth. From the skydiver's perspective this seems quite natural. Except for the air rushing past her, the skydiver feels no perturbing forces at all. In fact, if it weren't for the air resistance, she would experience weightlessness in the same way that an astronaut does in orbit. The only reason we think the skydiver is accelerating is because we are used to using the surface of the Earth as our frame of reference. If we free ourselves from this convention, then we have no reason to think the skydiver is accelerating at all.
Now consider yourself on the ground, looking up at the falling daredevil. Normally, your intuitive description of your own motion would be that you are stationary. But again this is only because of our slavish regard to the Earth as the arbiter of what is at rest and what is moving. Free yourself from this prison, and you realize that you are, in fact, accelerating. You feel a force on the soles of your feet that pushes you upwards, in the same way that you would if you were in a lift that accelerated upwards very quickly. In Einstein's picture there is no difference between your experience sanding on Earth and your experience in the lift. In both situations you are accelerating upwards. In the latter situation it is the lift that is responsible for your acceleration. In the former, it is the fact that the Earth is solid that pushes you upwards through space-time, knocking you off your free-fall trajectory. That the surface of the Earth can accelerate upwards at every point on its surface, and remain as a solid object, is because it exists in a curved space-time and not in a flat space.
With this change in perspective the true nature of gravity becomes apparent. The free falling skydiver is brought to Earth because the space-time through which she falls is curved. It is not an external force that tugs her downwards, but her own natural motion through a curved space. On the other hand, as a person standing on the ground, the pressure you feel on the soles of your feet is due to the rigidity of the Earth pushing you upwards. Again, there is no external force pulling you to Earth. It is only the electrostatic forces in the rocks below your feet that keep the ground rigid, and that prevents you from taking what would be your natural motion (which would also be free fall).
So, if we free ourselves from defining our motion with respect to the surface of the Earth we realize that the skydiver is not accelerating, while the person who stands on the surface of the Earth is accelerating. Just the opposite of what we usually thing. Going back to Galileo's experiment on the leaning tower of Pisa, we can now see why he observed all of his cannonballs to fall at the same rate. It wasn't really the cannonballs that were accelerating away from Galileo at all, it was Galileo that was accelerating away from the cannonballs! ”
Sagnac:
“ A recent ingenious test by Wang et al. (2003) shows that the Sagnac result is also achieved by sending out and back again light in a straight-line portion of the light path. This is what this author claimed above, but it is so much more convincing when an actual experiment has shown the same thing. I wonder what excuse will be trotted out now! Wang et all. achieved the seemingly impossible by reversing a light beam sent out on a straight line on a moving platform and measuring the difference in time for it to return. This author had the pleasure of meeting Wang in 1997 and corresponded with him during the rests he performed and since then.
In another paper (2005), Wang gives further details of the experiment; appended to this paper are comments on the experiment by Hatch and Van Flandern, confirming that Wang had succeeded in proving that the Sagnac effect applies to straight-line motion.
...Any claims that the Sagnac experiment upsets [Special Relativity] were heretofore brushed aside by a statement that Sagnac is a rotational experiment and that SR does not apply to rotational experiments. That defense is now shown to be groundless. ”
From Unified Field Mechanics II by Richard L. Amoroso, Louis H. Kauffman, Peter Rowlands, and Gianni Albertini we see:
https://books.google.com/books?id=W4RIDwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA307&pg=PA307#v=onepage&q&f=false
“ This controversy, whether Sagnac experiment is against or in accordance with relativity, was settled recently by R. Wang et a. [30] with a very interesting experimental setup they called linear Sagac interferometer.
...From the experimental regults obtained with the linear Sagnac interferometer one is lead to conclude that in this particular case the linear additive rule applies. Consequently we may have velocities greater than c, which clearly shows that realitivity is not adequate do describe this specific physical process. ”
Reasons SR is wrong: http://www.harkess.org.uk/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html
Moon
http://www.umass.edu/sunwheel/pages/moonteaching.html
“ THE U.MASS. SUNWHEEL is an 8 year old stone circle -- a solar and lunar calendar and observatory located on the campus of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. The stone circle contains 14 stones 8'-10' tall, marking the cardinal directions, the directions along the horizon to the rising and setting Sun at the solstices and equinoxes, and the directions to the rising and setting Moon at major lunar standstill. ”
From Cornell University for the Northern Hemisphere:
| Season | Postion of Moonrise/set | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| New | 1st | Full | 3rd | |
| Winter | Southeast/Southwest | East/West | Northeast/Northwest | East/West |
| Spring | East/West | Northeast/Northwest | East/West | Southeast/Southwest |
| Summer | Northeast/Northwest | East/West | Southeast/Southwest | East/West |
| Autmn | East/West | Southeast/Southwest | East/West | Northeast/Northwest |
The direction of Moonrise changes quite drastically over 14 days, moving over quite extreme ranges South to North.
Earth-Moon System
From University of Arizona:
Right Angle Triangle
Input:
Angle A: 5.01
Adjacent Side: 238900
Angle B: 90
Output:
Opposite Side: 21,321.257
Angular Diameter Calculator
Take the above value of 21321.257 and 238900 and put it into an angular diameter calculator. This will tell us the number of degrees in the sky the space of 21321.257 miles will make if it were at the distance to the Round Earth moon.
https://rechneronline.de/sehwinkel/angular-diameter.php
Input:
g = 21321.257
r = 238900
Output:
a = 5.11 degrees
The above suggests that the moon must travel a path that is within 5.11 degrees from the ecliptic at all times.
Shift of the Ecliptic
To calculate the maximum amount the ecliptic of the sun can shift in the sky to perspective depending on where you stand on earth above (or below) the plane of the ecliptic which bisects the earth, we may do the following:
Opposite Side: 3,963 (radius of the earth in miles)
Angle A: 90 Degrees
Adjacent Side: 238,900 (distance to the moon in miles)
Angle B: 0.95 Degrees
Measuring the Sky
Timeanddate.com has provided a handy guide to measuring the sky. When holding one's hand at arms length 5 degrees will take up about three fingers of space.
https://wiki.tfes.org/images/7/73/Measuring-sky-with-hand.png
EAT
https://news.softpedia.com/news/Light-Can-Bend-While-Moving-265679.shtml
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/04/light-bends-itself
https://physicsworld.com/a/light-bends-itself-round-corners/
Criticisms of Special Relativity
Criticisms of Relativity Theory
Quote: "The most visible point I've seen is that the seasonal star constellations you know well (Orion in my case) will be seen as inverted if you change the hemisphere. The moon and sun position also change greatly. I'm not aware of any ideas that incorporate this."
Moon Tilt
Prof. Alan Myers - http://www.upenn.edu/emeritus/essays/MyersMoon.html
moon phases illustration p.19 - https://starlab.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/D.-25.-Moon-Cylinder-v616.pdf
stack exchange - https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/14809/sun-and-moon-anomally
Conspiracy
Clouds Lit from Below
Alt Explanation: https://epod.usra.edu/blog/2017/02/clouds-lit-from-below.html
Quotes
"Have you ever directly experienced anything in your entire life that would lead you to believe you were living on a sphere hurtling through space? If you hadn't been repeatedly told it was true, would you ever suspect that it was?
There's your proof: your own eyes."
Newton Divine
P. Kelly, LL. D. in his Metrology; Or, an Exposition of Weights and Measures (1816) comments on p.10:
“ Some philosophers have doubted the perfect equability of the earth's diurnal rotation on its axis; but from the best observations that have been made for 2000 years, in fixed observatories, it is concluded that there is no variation whatever. It is perhaps the only uniform motion of which astronomers are certain. And here it may be worthy of remark, that no natural cause has yet been assigned for the diurnal rotation of the planets. Sir Issac Newton observes, in one of his letters to Dr. Bently, (reviewed in Dr. Johnson's Works, Vol. II. p.332, Murphy's edition) that "the diurnal rotations of the planets cannot be derived from gravity, but must require a divine arm to impress them."
The above question respecting the natural cause of plentary rotation was submitted to the principle Astronomers of France in the summer of 1814, at a Metting of the Board of Longitude. It was introduced by a visitor from England, who wished to learn if any new light had been thrown on the subject, by the great advances made in analytical science and physical astronomy, by some of the members present. They all agreed that no satisfactory solution had yet been given of the phenomenon; and they listened with much attention to the opinion quoted from Sir Issac Newton's Letters, which they had not previously known, and on which the Count Laplace modestly observed -- "Si Netwon n'a pas pu l'exfliquer ce n'est pas a nous d'y pretendre." [Translated: If Netwon could not explain it, it is not up to us to claim it.] ”
Southern Hemisphere
https://www.loc.gov/resource/sn84024350/1897-01-31/ed-1/?sp=22&r=0.484,0.427,0.91,0.358,0
“ In a picture of the earth as these unique theorists believe it to be--of some of them, for they do not all agree that the "South Pole" is seen as a wall of ice surrounding the circular earth. This conception certainly fits well with the idea of the vastness of the Southern wastes of ice which have turned back all explorers.
The hardy searchers for glory have come much nearer to the North Pole, and have made the region around it seem small and familiar compared to that at the South, which is the true "terra incognita." In the flat earth picture, the North polar region is seen to be be a small region of eternal cold in the centre of the circular world.
Alexander Gleason, the sage of Niagara street, Buffalo, gave long and hard study to this great problem of the earth's surface, and spent much time publishing books and collecting information. At one time he advertised in a New York paper for sea captains who had made the trip from the West African coast around the Cap Horn, his desire being to prove that the distance was much greater than it would be if the earth were a sphere. The information which he obtained seemed to be satisfactory to himself, though it did not convince many scientists and geographers. ”
Electromagnetic Accelerator
Questions and Answers
Q: Does this model of the phases predict anything that RET does not?
A: According to the above rule-of-thumb table from Cornell University during the phases between New Moon and 1st Quarter (Half Moon) the Moon will not set in the sky until a time between Sunset (New) and Local Midnight (1st Quarter), meaning that the range of Crescent Moon phases will be seen during the night. In the Flat Earth Moon Phase diagrams above we can see how this can be possible -- of the nine phase examples arranged in a circle, it takes about two 'sections' for the celestial bodies to set from an overhead position. The Crescent Moon will overlap into the night time.
However, according to the geometric model of the phases in RET, a Crescent Moon appearing in the sky into late hours of the night is difficult to explain with the Round Earth model.
John Savage at Savage Plane explains the matter in an article and a video here:
Impossible Heliocentric Moon Phases Explained - Savage Plane (Archive)
The authors of the article even identify some dates in 2019 for when the Crescent Moon is seen past midnight for locations in the Northern Hemisphere -- which may be possible in the above Flat Earth model since locations in the Northern Hemisphere are closer to the center, but hard to explain with the Round Earth schema where those locations are geometrically pointing away from the daylight side. A gibbous moon seen during the day is another issue, essentially the reverse of the above, and is also discussed.
Flattened at the Poles
From Encyclopedia Brittanica's article on Jean Richer:
“ Richer’s observations also led to a discovery about Earth’s shape. Through experimentation, Richer discovered that the beat of a pendulum is slower at Cayenne than at Paris, which is at a different latitude. This meant that gravity must be weaker at Cayenne than at Paris. Sir Isaac Newton and Dutch mathematician Christiaan Huygens used this discovery to prove that the Earth is not a sphere but is actually flattened at the poles (an oblate spheroid). Thus, Cayenne is farther than Paris from Earth’s centre. ”
Mountain-Gravity
http://www.michaelbeeson.com/interests/GreatMoments/Chimborazo.pdf
http://milesmathis.com/schie.pdf
Mine-Gravity
https://web.archive.org/web/20180208095856/https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/mcnair.htm
Time Dilation by Latitude
https://motls.blogspot.com/ by Luboš Motl (bio)
https://motls.blogspot.com/2014/07/is-time-going-slowly-near-equator.html
“ John Rennie – who is going to jump above me at Physics Stack Exchange in a few months unless I will find motivation to prevent him from doing so – has asked a very nice question:
"The Earth is spinning so all people living at the equator are apparently moving at 464 m/s relatively to what seems like a "better inertial frame". By the special relativistic time dilation, this should slow their time by one part per trillion. That would be a 100 larger relative effect than the accuracy you may achieve with state-of-the-art atomic clocks. Has someone measured this effect that should be measurable?"
The answer is actually funny (especially if you say more than just the word "No"). Let me just repost mine.
The difference would indeed be measurable with state-of-the-art atomic clocks but it's not there: it cancels. The reasons actually boil down to the very first thought experiments that Einstein went through when he realized the importance of the equivalence principle for general relativity
...
Every argument showing the exact cancellation of the special relativistic effect must use the equivalence principle at one point or another; any argument avoiding this principle – or anything else from general relativity – is guaranteed to be incorrect because separately (without gravity and its effects), the special relativistic effect is certainly there. ”
Moonbounce
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/qw30x/can_an_amateur_astronomer_test_the_lunar_laser/
Q: Can an amateur astronomer test the Lunar Laser Ranging RetroReflector?
A: I was a grad student on the APOLLO (Apache Point Observatory Lunar Laser Ranging Operation) project that was shown on Mythbusters. The short answer is no way. You need laser that can shoot enough photons in a short pulse that you'll get some back in the return pulse (shoot 1017 green 532 nm photons per pulse). You need sensitive detectors because, even if you shoot 1017 photons up, you're only going to get about 1 photon back (we used avalanche photodiodes). You need fancy filters and timing electronics, because, when you are only getting 1 photon back, you need to turn the detectors on in as little a time as possible to minimize false detections from background light. You need a big telescope to maximize the number of photons you get (we used the 3.5 meter telescope at Apache Point). And you need to set this all up in a place with minimal background light and minimal atmospheric distortion (seeing). http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/apparatus.html I guess you could do all these things on your own, but you would need about $1 million and a couple years of time to set it up.
Water Convexity
Other experiments to review, comments section of https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/flat-earthers-are-the-most-dedicated-trolls-ever/
Gravity by Altitude
The following author says that, although he believes that gravity decreases with altitude, that the experiments in the literature do not take factors related to the atmosphere into account and calls for better experiments.
Unchecked Aspects of Variation of Acceleration due to Gravity with Altitude
Ajay Sharma
https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Astrophysics/Download/3606 (Archive)
“ It is correctly established that g decreases with altitude, but the variation of g with atmospheric of g with atmospheric pressure (decreases with altitude) is not considered in precise experiments in the existing literature. Torricelli determined in pioneering experiments that height of mercury column in barometer as 0.76m due to atmospheric pressure in 1644. Newton formulated g in 1685, and then Pascal’s Law was treated in presence of gravity for imaginary cylinder of liquid. Thus equation P=DgH is obtained which relates acceleration due to gravity, g with atmospheric pressure, P. The expression for variation in g with altitude as gh = g/(1+h/R)2, by both methods will be compared. At sea level the heights of liquid columns (for water 10.33m , for glycerine 8.202m , ethyl alcohol 13.16m ) are independent of other factors such as diameters of tubes, viscosity, surface tension of liquid, angle of contact and capillarity etc. At height of 2 km above the surface of the earth the heights of liquid columns are reduced e.g. for mercury 0.5967m, for water 8.1158m and for glycerine 6.4411 m. Now measuring P, H and g can be calculated. The value of g can be determined by both methods at various heights and should be same. Theoretically when atmospheric pressure becomes zero then value of gH (P/DH) must tend to zero; according to gh = g/(1+h/R)2, gh becomes zero at infinite large distances. But no such attempts have been reported in literature, hence it is open problem especially when tubes of various diameters are considered and characteristics of liquids are different. Due to diverse experimental conditions of liquids and equipments, mercury may be regarded as ideal liquid for such measurements of pressure. The value of g due to altitude decreases steadily, whereas due to atmospheric pressure g decreases abruptly. So sensitive experiments are absolutely necessary to draw concrete conclusions. ”
“ There is no factor which takes in account the diameter of the tube in which height of liquid column is measured. Theoretically, the height of liquid column must be same for capillary tube (closed upper end ) and tube of diameter two feet. However the phenomena of rise or fall of liquids is observed in capillary, whereas upper end is open. This aspect is not taken in account ”
“ At height of 50km the total air is only 1% implying considerable decrease in pressure as atmospheric pressure decreases. At height of 50 km, atmospheric pressure is 75.944 Pa and the same at height of 25 km is 2511.02 Pa. Thus accordingly g will decrease ”
Lunar Laser Ranging
http://cds.cern.ch/record/518975/files/0109063.pdf
“ The Lunar Laser Ranging experiment [5] has also veri ed that the Moon and the Earth fall with the same acceleration toward the Sun to better than one part in 1012 ”
Or, in other words, a null result.
After 40 years' reflection, laser moon mirror project is axed
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/jun/21/mcdonald-observatory-space-laser-funding (Archive)
Government funded:
“ The National Science Foundation (NSF) last week wrote to scientists working at the McDonald Laser ranging station at Fort Davis in Texas to tell them the annual $125,000 funding for their research project was going be terminated following a review of its scientific merits. ”
Used by NASA as evidence for Apollo:
“ The mirror's existence, and the fact that astronomers can bounce lasers off it and detect the returning beam, has also provided Nasa and other scientists with compelling evidence to refute the claims of moon-landing deniers who claim the Apollo lunar mission were hoaxes filmed in an Earth-based studio. ”
https://cddis.nasa.gov/lw19/docs/2014/Presentations/Degnan_Colloquium_presentation.pdf
Two new LLR stations were developed to compete with MLRS: CERGA LLR at Grasse in Southern France and a NASA funded site on Mt. Haleakala operated by the University of Hawaii.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/06may_lunarranging/
"Lunar laser ranging is one of the most important tools we have for searching for flaws in Einstein's general theory of relativity," says Slava Turyshev, a research scientist at JPL who works with Jim Williams and others on the project.
All of the phases were influenced by NASA. NASA is the customer and can easily say "we want the software to be developed by our external team" or "we want so and so to head this program".
When the government funds projects they don't just say "here's several million dollars, go wild", they go into it with clear rules and structure.
Some of the people on this project even freely identify themselves as working for NASA. From the press releases on the APOLLO website (second one down in the list of press releases):
http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/
Jim Williams is also a JPL employee --
"Jim Williams, a physicist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)"
According to this press release, James Williams, the aforementioned JPL eployee, is directing the research ---
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/14/science/moon-s-dust-hides-a-throbbing-heart.html?src=pm
Finding out what's inside the Moon isn't simple, said Dr. James G. Williams, who directs the research.
Seems that NASA is not only providing the software, they're directing the research as well.
The lunar ranging equipment at the Apache Point Observatory seen in the show is supported and funded by NASA --
http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/
"Finally, we thank NASA for supporting APOLLO and enabling it to get "off the ground", and more recently, a joint effort by NASA and the National Science Foundation to fund APOLLO at a level that will allow project completion and production of the first science results."
NASA could have easily built or modified the equipment or software to show the results they wanted, which is what a fake space agency would do to "prove" themselves. You're asking us to trust NASA that NASA is honest.
Points:
- The project is funded by NASA - The project is controlled by NASA, by virtue of being funded by them - NASA scientists are working on the project - The software for the project is admitted to come from NASA
Australia
Satellites
“ The satellite argument goes both ways, as desired at a given moment: I’ve heard: “don’t you see them moving across the night sky?” so. I’m supposed to see a washing machine in LEO but also “how would you be able to see washing machine at that distance?” Not very convincing, especially against the resolving power of modern cameras…… and your number is referring to active objects, which has no impact on visibility…..there are supposedly 20,000 objects out there which can move across your line of sight, a staggering number which makes the total invisibility of such objects an even greater mystery... ”
Misc. Quotes
Geocentric Quotes Sources on Web
Equivalence Principle
Why does an apple fall from a tree? Why do all objects accelerate towards earth at 9.8 m/s^2? The 'out-of-the-box answer' is that the objects themselves don't move. It's the ground that rushes up! Regardless whether attached to the tree or not, Newton's apple is suspended motionless: it's earth's surface that accelerates up and meets the apple. This simple insight immediately explains why all objects regardless their mass accelerate at the same pace of 9.8 m/s^2.
"“being on the surface of the Earth is equivalent to being inside a spaceship (far from any sources of gravity) that is being accelerated by its engines”
Rotation and Revolution
“There is no planetary observation by which we on Earth can prove the Earth is moving in an orbit around the sun. Thus all Galileo’s discoveries…can be accommodated to the system [in which] 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.”
- I. Bernard Cohen, Birth of a New Physics, revised and updated, 1985, p. 78.
"We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance."
- Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle
"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations, For instance, I can construct 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. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. 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."
- George Ellis, a famous cosmologist, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995
"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. 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 CS."
- Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.) (Note: CS = coordinate system)
“Accordingly, since nothing prevents the earth from moving, I suggest that we should now consider also whether several motions suit it, so that it can be regarded as one of the planets. For, it is not the center of all the revolutions.”
-Nicolaus Copernicus
“I demonstrate by means of philosophy that the earth is round, and is inhabited on all sides; that it is insignificantly small, and is borne through the stars.”
- Johannes Kepler
“We might hope therefore that the Einstein theory, which is well suited to such problems, would throw more light on the matter. But instead of adding further support to the heliocentric picture of the planetary motions, the Einstein theory goes in the opposite direction, giving increased respectability to the geocentric picture”
- Sir Fred Hoyle, Nicolaus Copernicus: An Essay on His Life and Work, p. 87
"...all masses, all motion, indeed all forces are relative. There is no way to discern relative from absolute motion when we encounter them...Whenever modern writers infer an imaginary distinction between relative and absolute motion from a Newtonian framework, they do not stop to think that the Ptolemaic and Copernican are both equally true."
- Ernst Mach, Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwicklung historisch-kritisch dargestellt, eighth ed, Leipzig, p. 222, 1921.
“There is no planetary observation by which we on Earth can prove the Earth is moving in an orbit around the sun. Thus all Galileo’s discoveries…can be accommodated to the system [in which] 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.”
- I. Bernard Cohen, Birth of a New Physics, revised and updated, 1985, p. 78.
"According to Einstein, the argument over whether the earth turns around or the heavens revolve around it, is seen to be no more than an argument over the choice of reference frames. There is no frame of reference from which an observer would not see the effects of the flattening of the poles. Thus in frame number 1 (the earth turns round while the sky is at rest), the centrifugal force is a consequence of the earth’s motion (uniform acceleration) relative to the heavens. This causes the flattening. In the latter frame, number 2 (the sky rotates and the earth stands still), the centrifugal force should be understood as being an effect of “the rotating heavens,” which is generating a gravitational field that causes the flattening of the poles. The two explanations are equivalent as there is equivalence between inertial and gravitational mass."
- “Einstein’s Ether: D. Rotational Motion of the Earth,” Galina Granek, Department of Philosophy, Haifa University, Mount Carmel, Haifa 31905, Israel, Apeiron, Vol. 8, No. 2, April 2001, p. 61.
“So which is real, the Ptolemaic or the Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, 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. Despite its role in philosophical debates over the nature of our universe, the real advantage of the Copernican system is simply that the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.” — Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design, pages 41-42.
"I have two things to say that might surprise you: first, geocentrism is a valid frame of reference, and second, heliocentrism is not any more or less correct.” — Phil Plait, The Bad Astronomer
"Before Copernicus, people thought that the earth stood still and that the heavens revolved about it once a day. Copernicus taught that "really" the earth revolves once a day, and the daily rotation of sun and stars is only "apparent"... But in the modern theory the question between Copernicus and his predecessors is merely one of convenience; all motion is relative, and there is no difference between the two... Astronomy is easier if we take the sun as fixed than if we take the earth... But to say more for Copernicus is to assume absolute motion, which is a fiction. It is a mere convention to take one body as at rest. All such conventions are equally legitimate, though not all are equally convenient."
- Bertrand Russell "The ABC of Relativity [ London: Allen & Unwin, 1958, p.13].
"Let it be understood at the outset that it makes no difference, from the point of view of describing planetary motion, whether we take the Earth or the Sun as the center of the solar system. Since the issue is one of relative motion only, there are infinitely many exactly equivalent descriptions referred to different centers - in principle any point will do, the Moon. Jupiter...So the passions loosed on the world by the publication of Copernicus' book De revolutionibus orbium coelestium libri VI were logically irrelevant..."
- Sir Fred Hoyle, Nicolaus Copernicus. An Essay on His Life and Work, p.1
"The ancient argument over Whether the Earth rotates or the heavens revolve around it (as Aristotle taught) is seen to be no more than an argument over the simplest choice of a frame of reference. Obviously. the most convenient choice is the universe.... Nothing except inconvenience prevents us from choosing the Earth as a fixed frame of reference...If We choose to make the Earth our fixed frame of reference, we do not even do violence to everyday speech. We say that the sun rises in the morning, sets in the evening: the Big Dipper revolves around the North Star. Which point of view is “correct”? Do the heavens revolve or does the Earth rotate. The question is meaninglessness."
- The Relativity Explosion: Martin Gardner, 1976, pp 86-87
"The superior simplicity of the Copernican theory was just as much of a myth as its superior accuracy. The myth of superior simplicity was dispelled by the careful and professional work of modern historians. They reminded us that while Copernican theory solves certain problems in a simpler way than does the Ptolemaic one. the price of the simplification is unexpected complications in the solution of other problems. The Copernican system is certainly simpler since it dispenses with equants and some eccentrics: but each equant and eccentric removed has to be replaced by new epicycles and epicyclets. . .he also has to put the center of the universe not at the Sun. as he originally intended. but at an empty point fairly near to it.....I think it is fair to say that the ‘simplicity balance” between Ptolemy’s and Copernicus’ system is roughly even."
- The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes, Imre Lakatos, pp 173-174
"We might hope therefore that the Einstein theory. which is well suited to such problems, would throw more light on the matter. But instead of adding further support to the heliocentric picture of the planetary motions. the Einstein theory goes in the opposite direction. giving increased respectability to the geocentric picture. The relation of the two pictures is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation. and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view"
- Sir Fred Hoyle, Nicolaus Copernicus. An Essay on His Life and Work, p.87
"One could just as legitimately assume the Earth to be fixed and the entire universe, with its great spherical cloud of black-body radiation, to be moving. The equations are the same. Indeed, from the standpoint of relativity the choice of reference frame is arbitrary. Naturally, it is simpler to assume the universe is fixed and the Earth moving than the other way around, but the two ways of talking about the Earth's relative motion are two ways of saying the same thing."
- 'The Relativity Explosion', Martin Gardner, pp. 184-185. On another page Gardner writes: "Do the heavens revolve or does the Earth rotate? The question is meaningless. A waitress may just as sensibly ask a customer if he wanted ice cream on top of his pie or the pie placed under his ice cream" (ibid., p. 87).
“In order for the Earth to be at rest in the center of the system of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, there is required both universal gravity and another force in addition that acts on all bodies equally according to the quantity of matter in each of them and is equal and opposite to the accelerative gravity with which the Earth tends to the Sun…Since this force is equal and opposite to its gravity toward the Sun, the Earth can truly remain in equilibrium between these two forces and be at rest. And thus celestial bodies can move around the Earth at rest, as in the Tychonic system.”
- Isaac Newton, Proposition 43.
"We can talk with precision of a body as spinning around relative to something or another, but there is no such thing as absolute spin: the Earth is not spinning to those of us who live on its surface and our point of view is as good as anyone else’s – but no better."
- F. Hoyle: Frontiers of Astronomy, New York, Harper & Row, 1966, p344
"Examined more closely, this simple idea acquires capital importance; there is no way of settling the question, no experiment can disprove the principle that there is no absolute space, all displacements we can observe are relative displacements. I have often had occasion to express these considerations so familiar to philosophers. They have even given me a publicity I would gladly have avoided. All the reactionary French journals have made me prove that the sun turns around the earth. In the famous case between the Inquisition and Galileo, Galileo should be all wrong."
- “The New Mechanics,” Henri Poincaré, 1913, The Monist, Vol. 23, pp. 385-395
Misc Quotes
"I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."
" Plato is my friend - Aristotle is my friend - but my greatest friend is truth."……."Truth is ever to be found in simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things."
-Sir Isaac Newton (“describer” of universal gravitation and the three laws of motion)
" ...the scientist, reverenced for their beards and the fur on their gowns, who teach that they alone are wise while the rest of mortal men flit about as shadows. How pleasantly they dote, indeed, while they construct their numberless worlds, and measure the sun, moon, stars, and spheres as with thumb and line. They assign causes for lightening, winds, eclipses, and other inexplicable things, never hesitating a whit, as if they were privy to the secrets of nature, artificer of things, or as if they visited us fresh from the council of the gods. Yet all the while nature is laughing grandly at them and their conjectures. For to prove that they have good intelligence of nothing, this is a sufficient argument: they can never explain why they disagree with each other on every subject. Thus knowing nothing in general, they profess to know all things in particular; though they are ignorant even of themselves, and on occasion do not see the ditch or the stone lying across their path, because many of them are blear-eyed or absent-minded; yet they proclaim that they perceive ideas, universals, forms without matter" --The Praise of Folly by Erasmus (1511)
Copernican Principle
“A fundamental presupposition of modern cosmology is the Copernican Principle, that we are not in a central, or otherwise special region of the Universe. Studies of Type Ia supernovae, together with the Copernican principle, have led to the inference that the Universe is accelerating in its expansion. The usual explanation for this is that there must exist a ‘Dark Energy,’ to drive the acceleration. Alternatively, it could be the case that the Copernican Principle is invalid, and that the data has been interpreted within an inappropriate theoretical framework. If we were to live in a special place in the Universe, near the centre of a void where the local matter density is low, then the supernovae observations would be accounted for without the addition of dark energy.”
- Timothy Clifton, Oxford Astrophysics Member, BSc, PhD.
(T. Clifton, et al, “Living in a Void: Testing the Copernican Principle with Distant Supernovae,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (13): 1302 (Sep 2008).
“…the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty.”
- Steven Hawking, A Brief History of Time, p. 42 (Bantam, 1988).
His co-author in another book, George F. R. Ellis admits much the same:
“This assumption is made because it is believed to be unreasonable that we should be near the center of the Universe.”
- George F. R. Ellis, “Is the Universe Expanding?” General Relativity and Gravitation 9 (2): 92 (1978).
“...all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe.”
- Steven Hawking, A Brief History of Time
“In the Friedman universe, one possible interpretation of the coordinates is that the whole space is on the surface of an expanding balloon and has no center… [But] in such a universe, there is no cosmic microwave background (CMB) dipole, even in the presence of a peculiar velocity. In other words, the observation of a CMB dipole excludes such an interpretation of the coordinates for the Friedman universe.”
- Y. Tomozawa, “The CMB Dipole and Existence of a Center for Expansion of the Universe,” Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics, University of Michigan, p. 2 (2 Feb 2008).
“Additionally, we must take seriously the idea that the acceleration apparently indicated by supernova data could be due to large scale inhomogeneity with no dark energy. Observational tests of the latter possibility are as important as pursuing the dark energy (exotic physics) option in a homogeneous universe.
Theoretical prejudices as to the universe’s geometry, and our place in it, must bow to such observational tests. Precisely because of the foundational nature of the Copernican Principle for standard cosmology, we need to fully check this foundation. And one must emphasize here that standard CMB anisotropy studies do not prove the Copernican principle: they assume it at the start.”
- George Ellis, “Inhomogeneity Effects in Cosmology,” arXiv:1103.2335v1 (Mar 2011).
“Studies of the cosmic background radiation have confirmed the isotropy of the radiation, or its complete uniformity in all directions. If the universe possesses a center, we must be very close to it…otherwise, excessive observable anisotropy in the radiation intensity would be produced, and we would detect more radiation from one direction than from the opposite direction.”
- Joseph Silk of the University of California, "The Big Bang: The Creation and Evolution of the Universe", p. 53 (W. H. Freeman, 1980).
"Although dark energy may seem a bit contrived to some, the Oxford theorists are proposing an even more outrageous alternative. They point out that it's possible that we simply live in a very special place in the universe - specifically, we're in a huge void where the density of matter is particularly low. The suggestion flies in the face of the Copernican Principle, which is one of the most useful and widely held tenets in physics.
Copernicus was among the first scientists to argue that we're not in a special place in the universe, and that any theory that suggests that we're special is most likely wrong. The principle led directly to the replacement of the Earth-centered concept of the solar system with the more elegant sun-centered model.
Dark energy may seem like a stretch, but it's consistent with the venerable Copernican Principle. The proposal that we live in a special place in the universe, on the other hand, is likely to shock many scientists."
- Dark Energy: Is It Merely An Illusion? ScienceDaily (Sep. 26, 2008)
SOURCE: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080926184749.htm
“A widespread idea in cosmology is that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic above a certain scale. This hypothesis, usually called the cosmological principle, is thought to be a generalization of the Copernican principle that “the Earth is not in a central, specially favored position”. The assumption is that any observer at any place at the same epoch would see essentially the same picture of the large scale distribution of galaxies in the universe.
However, according to a Fourier analysis by Hartnett & Hirano, the galaxy number count N from redshift z data (N–z relation) indicates that galaxies have preferred periodic redshift spacings.........A natural interpretation is that concentric spherical shells of higher galaxy number densities surround us, with their individual centers situated at our location.”
- Professor Shigeo Hirano, "Observational tests for oscillating expansion rate of the Universe" Physical Review D, 2010.
“The departures from uniformity are positive; the numbers of nebulae increase faster than the volume of space through which they are scattered. Thus the density of the nebulae distribution increases outwards, symmetrically in all directions, leaving the observer in a unique position. Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory, because the theory postulates homogeneity. Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position, the departures from uniformity, which are introduced by the recession factors, must be compensated by the second term representing effects of spatial curvature.”
-E. Hubble The Observational Approach to Cosmology, 1937, p.58
"Astronomers will find it hard to settle that troubling sensation in the pit of their stomachs. The truth is that when it comes to swallowing uncomfortable ideas, dark energy may turn out to be a sugar-coated doughnut compared to a rejection of the Copernican principle.”
- “Dark Energy and the Bitterest Pill,” July 14, 2008 at the Physics arXiv blog.
"The Copernican principle states that humans are not privileged observers of the universe and provides our philosophical basis for assuming that on the largest scales the universe is spatially homogeneous. While it is one of the foundational aspects of modern cosmology, this assumption remains untested outside of the standard paradigm. Though it may seem pedantic to test something so obvious, the standard paradigm itself is built on shaky foundations, relying on an unexplained, gravitationally repulsive, dark-energy component for observations to fit the model. The implications of this cannot be overstated. Assuming that the laws of physics do apply equally everywhere in the universe, the only non- copernican configuration possible is one in which we live in a place that originates from special initial conditions."
- 'Testing the Copernican principle by constraining spatial homogeneity' : Wessel Valkenburg,1, 2 Valerio Marra,2 and Chris Clarkson3 1Instituut-Lorentz for Theoretical Physics, Universiteit Leiden Postbus 9506, 2333 CA Leiden, The Netherlands.
LINK: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.4078v1.pdf
Cosmological Principle
"Dark Energy is problematic. No one really knows what it is. We can make an educated guess, and use quantum theory to estimate how much of it there might be, but then we overshoot by an astounding factor of 10120. That is grounds enough, says George Ellis…to take a hard look at our assumptions about the universe and our place in it. “If we analyse the supernova data by assuming the Copernican principle is correct and get out something unphysical, I think we should start questioning the Copernican principle…. Whatever our theoretical predilections, they will in the end have to give way to the observational evidence.”
So what would it mean if…the outcome were that the Copernican principle is wrong? It would certainly require a seismic reassessment of what we know about the universe….If the Copernican Principle fails, all that goes [with] that goes out the window too….Cosmology would be back at the drawing board. If we are in a void, answering how we came to be in such a privileged spot in the universe would be even trickier."
- Marcus Chown, “Is the Earth at the Heart of a Giant Cosmic Void? New Scientist, Nov. 12, 2008, pp. 32‐35.
“…the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty.”
- Steven Hawking, A Brief History of Time, p. 42 (Bantam, 1988).
His co-author in another book, George F. R. Ellis admits much the same:
“This assumption is made because it is believed to be unreasonable that we should be near the center of the Universe.”
- George F. R. Ellis, “Is the Universe Expanding?” General Relativity and Gravitation 9 (2): 92 (1978).
“...all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe.”
- Steven Hawking, A Brief History of Time
“In the Friedman universe, one possible interpretation of the coordinates is that the whole space is on the surface of an expanding balloon and has no center… [But] in such a universe, there is no cosmic microwave background (CMB) dipole, even in the presence of a peculiar velocity. In other words, the observation of a CMB dipole excludes such an interpretation of the coordinates for the Friedman universe.”
- Y. Tomozawa, “The CMB Dipole and Existence of a Center for Expansion of the Universe,” Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics, University of Michigan, p. 2 (2 Feb 2008).
“Additionally, we must take seriously the idea that the acceleration apparently indicated by supernova data could be due to large scale inhomogeneity with no dark energy. Observational tests of the latter possibility are as important as pursuing the dark energy (exotic physics) option in a homogeneous universe.
Theoretical prejudices as to the universe’s geometry, and our place in it, must bow to such observational tests. Precisely because of the foundational nature of the Copernican Principle for standard cosmology, we need to fully check this foundation. And one must emphasize here that standard CMB anisotropy studies do not prove the Copernican principle: they assume it at the start.”
- George Ellis, “Inhomogeneity Effects in Cosmology,” arXiv:1103.2335v1 (Mar 2011).
“Often the simplest of observations will have the most profound consequences. It has long been a cornerstone of modern science, to say nothing of man’s cosmic outlook, that the Earth attends a modest star that shines in an undistinguished part of a run-of-the-mill galaxy. Life arose spontaneously and man evolved on this miscellaneous clump of matter and now directs his own destiny without outside help. This cosmic model is supported by the Big-Bang and Expanding Universe concepts, which in turn are buttressed by the simple observation that astronomers see redshifts wherever they look. These redshifts are due, of course, to matter flying away from us under the impetus of the Big Bang. But redshifts can also arise from the gravitational attraction of mass. If the Earth were at the center of the universe, the attraction of the surrounding mass of stars would also produce redshifts wherever we looked! The argument advanced by George Ellis in this article is more complex than this, but his basic thrust is to put man back into a favored position in the cosmos. His new theory seems quite consistent with our astronomical observations, even though it clashes with the thought that we are godless and making it on our own.”
- Editor of Nature Magazine, Paul C. W. Davies.
Map reveals strange cosmos
By Dr David Whitehouse BBC News Online science editor
The best map yet of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Radiation - the so-called echo of the Big Bang - shows the Universe may not be the same in all directions.
The image has been produced from data collected by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (Map), which was launched in 2001.
"It is a photo of the most distant thing we can see; our best photo yet," said Dr Max Tegmark, of the University of Pennsylvania, US, who processed the image.
Dr Tegmark and colleagues present the CMB as a sphere: "The entire observable Universe is inside this sphere, with us at the centre of it."
~
Having produced the cleanest map of the CMB yet, Dr Tegmark displayed it in an unusual manner. Instead of a flat projection on a computer screen, he showed the data as ripples on a sphere - "after all the CMB comes from a sphere", he says.
"Space continues outside the sphere but this opaque glowing wall of hydrogen plasma hides it from our view. If we could only see another 380,000 light-years we would be able to see the beginning of the Universe," he told BBC News Online.
Looking for evidence
And he added: "We found something very bizarre; there is some extra, so far unexplained structure in the CMB.
"We had expected that the microwave background would be truly isotropic, with no preferred direction in space but that may not be the case."
Looking at the symmetry of the CMB - measures technically called its octopole and quadrupole components - the researchers uncovered a curious pattern.
They had expected to see no pattern at all but what they saw was anything but random.
"The octopole and quadrupole components are arranged in a straight line across the sky, along a kind of cosmic equator. That's weird.
"We don't think this is due to foreground contamination," Dr Tegmark said. "It could be telling us something about the shape of space on the largest scales. We did not expect this and we cannot yet explain it."
SOURCE: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2814947.stm
The uniform distribution of burst arrival directions tells us that the distribution of gamma-ray-burst sources in space is a sphere or spherical shell, with us at the center (some other extremely contrived and implausible distributions are also possible). But Copernicus taught us that we are not in a special preferred position in the universe; Earth is not at the center of the solar system, the Sun is not at the center of the galaxy, and so forth. There is no reason to believe we are at the center of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts. If our instruments are sensitive enough to detect bursts at the edge of the spatial distribution, then they should not be isotropic on the sky, contrary to observation; if our instruments are less sensitive, then the N ∝ S-3/2 law should hold, also contrary to observation. That is the Copernican dilemma. To this day, after the detection of several thousand bursts, and despite earnest efforts to show the contrary, no deviation from a uniform random distribution (isotropy) in the directions of gamma-ray bursts on the sky has ever been convincingly demonstrated.”
- Jonathan I. Katz, The Biggest Bangs: The Mystery of Gamma-Ray Bursts, The Most Violent Explosions in the Universe, pp. 84, 90-91 (Oxford University Press, 2002).
Astronomers Find Evidence of a Special Direction in Space
Could the cosmos have a point?
LINK: Sciencific American
Snippett~
"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."
Snippett~
"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."
Spin
Galactic ‘axis of asymmetry’ threatens cosmic order
Baffling rows of spiral galaxies that prefer to spin in one direction could have profound implications for our understanding of the cosmos
Snippett~
"If the universe does contain such an axis, it would contradict our current view of the cosmos, which assumes that matter and energy are uniformly distributed throughout, and that the universe looks pretty much the same in all directions."
"A similar bias among structures of cosmic proportions would have deep implications. For example, if more galaxies are spinning one way than the other, this implies that the universe has a net spin, or angular momentum, in a particular direction. Since angular momentum can neither be created or destroyed, the universe must have come into existence in a spin. What set it spinning, though, and what is it spinning relative to?"
Is the Universe Spinning? New Research Says "Yes"
If the universe was born rotating, like a spinning basketball, Longo said, it would have a preferred axis, and galaxies would have retained that initial motion.
"It could be," Longo said. "I think this result suggests that it is."
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/07/-is-the-universe-spinning-new-research-says-yes.html
Galaxies spin, stars spin, and planets spin. So, why not the whole universe? The consequences of a spinning universe would be profound. The cornerstone of modern cosmology is that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic — it has no preferred orientation and looks the same in all directions.
On the face of it, the claim of a spin axis would seem anti-Copernican. In other words, the universe has a preferred axis, which means there is indeed a special direction in space.
A left-handed and right-handed imprint on the sky as reportedly revealed by galaxy rotation would imply the universe was rotating from the very beginning and retained an overwhelmingly strong angular momentum.
http://www.seeker.com/is-the-universe-spinning-1765290694.html#mkcpgn=rssnws1
Redshift
"It is shown that the cosmological interpretation of the red shift in the spectra of quasars leads to yet another paradoxical result: namely, that the Earth is the center of the Universe."
“The Earth is indeed the center of the Universe. The arrangement of quasars on certain spherical shells is only with respect to the Earth. These shells would disappear if viewed from another galaxy or quasar. This means that the cosmological principle will have to go. Also it implies that a coordinate system fixed to the Earth will be a preferred frame of reference in the Universe. Consequently, both the Special and General Theory of Relativity must be abandoned for cosmological purposes.”
- Y. P. Varshni, “The Red Shift Hypothesis for Quasars: Is the Earth the Center of the Universe?” Astrophysics and Space Science 43 (1): 3 (1976).
"If the redshifts are a Doppler shift...the observations as they stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe, curiously small and dense, and, it may be added, suspiciously young."
- Edwin Hubble, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 17, 506, 1937.
Ultra-compact radio sources and the isotropy and homogeneity of the Universe J. C. Jackson
A 2.29 GHz VLBI all-sky survey of ultra-compact radio sources has formed the basis of a number of cosmological investigations, which examine the relationship between angular-size and redshift. Here I use a sample of 468 such sources with 0.5This is interpreted as meaning that the Universe is not spatially homogeneous on the largest scales, and is better represented at late times by a spherically symmetric model with a density enhancement at its centre.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.0697
Scientific American Article
The Case Against Copernicus p.72
"Copernicus’s revolutionary theory that Earth travels around the sun upended more than a millennium’s worth of scientific and religious wisdom. Most scientists refused to accept this theory for many decades—even after Galileo made his epochal observations with his telescope. Their objections were not only theological. Observational evidence supported a competing cosmology—the “geoheliocentrism” of Tycho Brahe. Copernicus famously said that Earth revolves around the sun. But opposition to this revolutionary idea didn’t come just from the religious authorities. Evidence favored a different cosmology."
"Rather than give up their theory in the face of seemingly incontrovertible evidence, Copernicans were forced to appeal to divine omnipotence."
On the giant stars dilemma: http://nautil.us/issue/60/searches/the-popular-creation-story-of-astronomy-is-wrong
CMB
From the paper - "Why is the Solar System Cosmically Aligned?"
LINK: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~huterer/PRESS/CMB_Huterer.pdf
“Developing the multi- pole vectors allowed us to examine how the CMB’s large-scale features align with each other and the ecliptic — the plane of Earth’s orbit around the Sun.”
Inflationary paradigm in trouble after Planck 2013
The recent Planck satellite combined with earlier results eliminate a wide spectrum of more complex inflationary models and favor models with a single scalar field, as reported in the analysis of the collaboration. More important, though, is that all the simplest inflation models are disfavored by the data while the surviving models -- namely, those with plateau-like potentials -- are problematic. We discuss how the restriction to plateau-like models leads to three independent problems: it exacerbates both the initial conditions problem and the multiverse-unpredictability problem and it creates a new difficulty which we call the inflationary "unlikeliness problem." Finally, we comment on problems reconciling inflation with a standard model Higgs, as suggested by recent LHC results. In sum, we find that recent experimental data disfavors all the best-motivated inflationary scenarios and introduces new, serious difficulties that cut to the core of the inflationary paradigm. Forthcoming searches for B-modes, non-Gaussianity and new particles should be decisive.
Cornell University Library - https://arxiv.org/abs/1304.2785
"One is therefore placed between a rock and a hard place. If the WMAP ILC is a reliable reconstruction of the full-sky CMB, then there is overwhelming evidence (de Oliveira-Costa et al. (2004); Eriksen et al. (2004); Copi et al. (2004); Schwarz et al. (2004); Copi et al. (2006); Copi et al. (2007); Land & Magueijo (2005a,b,c,d); Raki ́c & Schwarz (2007); for a review see Huterer (2006)) of extremely unlikely phase alignments between (at least) the quadrupole and octopole and between these multipoles and the geometry of the Solar System — a violation of statistical isotropy that happens by random chance in far less than 0.025 per cent of random realizations of the standard cosmology. If, on the other hand, the part of the ILC (and band maps) inside the Galaxy are unreliable as measurements of the true CMB, then the alignment of low-l multipoles can- not be readily tested, but the magnitude of the two-point angular correlation function on large angular scales outside the Galaxy is smaller than would be seen in all but a few of every 10,000 realizations.
We can only conclude that (i) we don’t live in a standard ΛCDM Universe with a standard inflationary early history; (ii) we live in an extremely anomalous realization of that cosmology; (iii) there is a major error in the observations of both COBE and WMAP; or (iv) there is a major error in the reduction to maps performed by both COBE and WMAP. Whichever of these is correct, inferences from the large-angle data about precise values of the parameters of the standard cosmological model should be regarded with particular skepticism."
- No large-angle correlations on the non-Galactic microwave sky, Craig J. Copi, Dragan Huterer, Dominik J. Schwarz and Glenn D. Starkman. 26th Aug, 2013 (revision of 2008 paper)
"There currently exists considerable evidence in favor of a large scale anisotropy in the Universe with the preferred axis pointing roughly in the direction of Virgo, close to the CMBR dipole. This includes, radio (Jain & Ralston 1999) and optical polarizations (Hutsem ́ekers 1998; Hutsem ́ekers & Lamy 2001; Jain et al. 2004), CMBR quadrupole and octopole (de Oliveira-Costa et al. 2004) as well as the radio source distribution and brightness (Blake & Wall 2002; Singal 2011; Gibelyou & Huterer 2012; Rubart & Schwarz 2013; Kothari et al. 2013). The physical reason for these observations is not clear and points towards a violation of the cosmological principle."
- 'Dipole Anisotropy in Integrated Linearly Polarized Flux Density in NVSS Data', Prabhakar Tiwari and Pankaj Jain Department of Physics, Indian Institute of Technology, Kan pur - 208016, India, 20 August 2013.
LINK: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.3970.pdf
"Particularly puzzling are the alignments with solar system features. CMB anisotropy should clearly not be correlated with our local habitat. While the observed correlations seem to hint that there is contamination by a foreground or perhaps by the scanning strategy of the telescope, closer inspection reveals that there is no obvious way to explain the observed correlations. Moreover, if their explanation is that they are a foreground, then that will likely exacerbate other anomalies that we will discuss in section IV B below.
Our studies indicate that the observed alignments are with the ecliptic plane, with the equinox or with the CMB dipole, and not with the Galactic plane: the alignments of the quadrupole and octopole planes with the equinox/ecliptic/dipole directions are much more significant than those for the Galactic plane. Moreover, it is remarkably curious that it is precisely the ecliptic alignment that has been found on somewhat smaller scales using the power spectrum analyses of statistical isotropy"
- 'Large-angle anomalies in the CMB', Craig J. Copi, Dragan Huterer, Dominik J. Schwarz and Glenn D. Starkman, 2010, p8.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.5602.pdf
General Relativity
“General Relativity has passed every solar-system test with flying colors. Yet so have alternative theories”
- Physicist Clifford Will - “The Confrontation Between Gravitation Theory and Experiment,” General Relativity: An Einstein Centenary Survey, ed., Stephen W. Hawking, 1979, p. 62
"In my scientific activity, I am always hampered by the same mathematical difficulties, which make it impossible for me to confirm or refute my general relativist field theory."
- Einstein, Letter to Maurice Solovine, November 25, 1948).
"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics"
- Subtle is the Lord: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein, 1982, 2005, p. 467
Special Relativity
"...galaxies farther than 4300 megaparsecs from us are currently moving away from us at speeds greater than that of light. Cosmological innocents sometimes exclaim, “Gosh! Doesn’t this violate the law that massive objects can’t travel faster than the speed of light?” Actually, it doesn’t. The speed limit that states that massive objects must travel with v < c relative to each other is one of the results of special relativity, and refers to the relative motion of objects within a static space. In the context of general relativity, there is no objection to having two points moving away from each other at superluminal speed due to the expansion of space."
- "Introduction to Cosmology", Barbara Ryden, page 39.
"The high-velocity experiments on mesons, such as those at CERN, are definite evidence of the meson lifetime's functional relationship to their velocity with respect to the Earth, but have nothing whatsoever to do with the 'time-dilation' of Special Relativity. The experiments also are yet another 'ether-drift' investigation, with the usual answer: the velocity of the Earth with respect to a fundamental frame is zero."
- 'The "Time Dilation" of Mesons Re-Examined', Donald T. MacRoberts, Galilean Electrodynamics, Volume 3, No. 5, pp. 83-84.
"According to the second postulate of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity the speed of light is independent of the uniform motion of its source. Direct experimental evidence by W. Kantor of the US Navy Electronics Laboratory, San Diego, leads him to the surprising conclusion that it may be untenable (Journal of the Optical Society of America, Vol. 52, No. 8, p. 978)...[...]..If Einstein's postulate is correct there should be no displacement between the two sets of interference fringes on spinning the disc, because the light from the approaching and receding windows, respectively, should all have the same velocity. In fact, an unambiguous, easily noted shift of the fringes was apparent when the mirrors were in motion (maximum linear velocity: 4,690 cm per sec) and Kantor deduces that Einstein's second postulate is incorrect. The fringe shift, moreover, appeared to depend on the speed of the disc. If the present work turns out, on more rigorous research, to be flawless and free from experimental artefacts, and if there is no obvious alternative explanation for the observed effects, there may be a need to reconsider some basic ideas in physics."
- 'Light Velocity Dependant on Speed of Source?', New Scientist 1 Nov 1962 p276.
Aether
Dirac in 1951 published a Letter to Nature titled Is There an Aether?(2) in which he showed that the objections to an aether posed by Relativity were removed by Quantum Mechanics, and that in his reformulation of electrodynamics the vector potential was a velocity.(3) He concludes the Letter with 'We have now the velocity(2) at all points of space-time, playing a fundamental part in electrodynamics. It is natural to regard it as the velocity of some real physical thing. Thus with the new theory of electrodynamics we are rather forced to have an aether'.
An Aether Model of the Universe
http://www.epola.co.uk/rothwarf/aethermodel.pdf
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).
“According to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there would not only be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense”
- Albert Einstein, “Geometry and Experience,” in Sidelights on Relativity, 1983, p. 30
"Everything becomes clear if the idea that particles always have a position in space through time is brought back…. According to my current thinking, the particle is always located within a physical wave….The movement of the particle is assumed to be the superposition of a regular movement… and of a Brownian movement due to random energy exchanges which take place between the wave and a hidden medium, which acts as a subquantum thermostat. The point of prime importance in this model is that at each moment the particle occupies a well-defined position in space, and this re-establishes the clear meaning which the configuration space had in classical mechanics.”
- Louis de Broglie, “Waves and Particles,” Physics Bulletin, 22, February 1971
"…in 1905 I was of the opinion that it was no longer allowed to speak about the ether in physics. This opinion, however, was too radical, as we will see later when we discuss the general theory of relativity. It does remain allowed, as always, to introduce a medium filling all space and to assume that the electromagnetic fields (and matter as well) are its states…once again “empty” space appears as endowed with physical properties, i.e., no longer as physically empty, as seemed to be the case according to special relativity. One can thus say that the ether is resurrected in the general theory of relativity….Since in the new theory, metric facts can no longer be separated from “true” physical facts, the concepts of “space” and “ether” merge together."
- Albert Einstein, “Grundgedanken und Methoden der Relativitätstheorie in ihrer Entwicklung dargestellt,” Morgan Manuscript, EA 2070, as cited in Ludwik Kostro, Einstein and the Ether, 2000, p. 2.
"Modern science has its roots in ancient Greek philosophy. This philosophy, as we know, used the word “ether” to designate the particular kind of matter that filled the universe. This term was used throughout the history of philosophy and science, and it was also current at the beginning of this century. A resumption of its use at the dawn of this new century is now a fact. Since, according to the General Theory of Relativity and other modern branches of physics, the space and time of the universe do not constitute a vacuum, but a structured material plenum characterized by different physical quantities, the historical and traditional word “ether” is the most appropriate to express these features of the universe."
- Ludwik Kostro, Einstein and the Ether, 2000, pp. 186-187.
"A few words about the gravitational ether, and the ether concept in general may be in place here. The ether hypothesis was thought to be buried by the Michelson-Morley experiment, but today it is more alive than ever, in the form of the CBR [Cosmic Background Radiation]: experiments capable of finding the ether were not possible in the 1880s, but were possible in the 1960s. In a sense, the electromagnetic ether has always been observed – as the heat of the Sun (since as pointed out, CBR is reprocessed photons)…. All the main cosmological, astrophysical and physical facts: the gravity and Olbers paradoxes, redshift effects and CBR, gravitation and radiation, and the existence of particles can be conceived in the framework of this ether concept."
- “Action-at-a-Distance and Local Action in Gravitation,” in Pushing Gravity, ed., Matthew Edwards, pp. 157-159.
LINK: redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V03NO3PDF/V03N3JAA.PDF
"Today the vacuum is recognized as a rich physical medium….A general theory of the vacuum is thus a theory of everything, a universal theory. It would be appropriate to call the vacuum “ether” once again."
- S. Saunders and H. R. Brown, editors, The Philosophy of Vacuum, 1991, p. 251.
"Later in our treatise we will find that the very ether Louis de Broglie desired offers a solution to the wave/particle conundrum that has hampered modern science since de Broglie first discovered that electrons produce waves. Any particle that moves through a medium will, indeed, create waves. In fact, a return to ether will help solve one of the most mysterious and perplexing problems in Quantum Mechanics today, the phenomenon of “entanglement” – the spooky connection between pairs of photons, electrons or atoms even though they are separated by great distances. Perhaps this was why John Stewart Bell, the inventor of Bell’s Theorem to answer the phenomenon of entanglement, stated in a BBC radio interview: “Yes, the idea that there is an ether…that is a perfectly coherent point of view.”
- Ludwik Kostro, Einstein and the Ether, p. 154, citing M. Jammer’s, “John Stewart Bell and the Debate on Significance of his Contributions to the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics,” in Bell’s Theorem and the Foundations of Modern Physics, eds. A. Van der Merwe, F. Felleri, G. Tarozzi, Singapore, 1992, p. 5; also cited in P. C. W. Davies and J. R. Brown, eds., The Ghost in the Atom, 1986, pp. 49-50.
"Prior to the twentieth century, physics tried to explain how Nature works. Over the twentieth century, and especially in the last half, we got much more ambitious - now we’re uncovering what Nature is. The foundation is an entity I call the Grid. The Grid fills space, and is full of spontaneous activity. In some ways it resembles the old idea of “ether”. But the Grid is highly evolved ether, ether on steroids if you like, with many new features. We have some wonderful ideas waiting to be tested. There are good reasons to think that the Universe is a multilayered multicolored superconductor; that all four known forces can be brought together in a unified theory; that seemingly hopelessly different kinds of matter are just different aspects of one all-embracing stuff. I anticipate that the next few years will be a new Golden Age in fundamental physics."
- Frank Wilczek, Professor of Physics at MIT, Nobel Prize winner of 2004, author of the book "THE LIGHTNESS OF BEING: Mass, Ether, and the Unification of Forces" (Basic Books; September 2, 2008) in a Q&A regarding his book.
LINK: http://www.frankwilczek.com/Wilczek_Q_and_A.pdf
"Certainly, from the standpoint of the special theory of relativity, the ether hypothesis appears at first to be an empty hypothesis. 1n the equations of the electromagnetic field there occur, in addition to the densities of the electric charge, only the intensities of the field. The career of electromagnetic processes in vacuo appears to be completely determined by tliese equations, uninfluenced by other physical quantities. The electromagnetic fields appear as ultimate, irreducible realities, and at first it seems superfluous to postulate a homogeneous, isotropic ether-medium, and to envisage electromagnetic fields as states of this medium.
But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view. For the mechanical behaviour of a corporeal system hovering freely in empty space depends not only on relative positions (distances) and relative velocities, but also on its state of rotation, which physically may be taken as a characteristic not appertaining to the system in itself. In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space. Since he classes his absolute space together with real things, for him rotation relative to an absolute space is also something real. Newton might no less well have called his absolute space ``Ether; what is essential is merely that besides observable objects, another thing, which is not perceptible, inust be looked upon as real, to enable acceleration or rotation to be looked upon as something real."
"It is true that Mach tried to avoid having to accept as real something which is not observable by endeavouring to substitute in mechanics a mean acceleration with reference to the totality of the masses in the universe in place of an acceleration with reference to absolute space. But inertial resistance opposed to relative acceleration of distant masses presupposes action at a distance; and as the modern physicist does not believe that he may accept this action at a distance, he comes back once more, if he follows Mach, to the ether, which has to serve as medium for the effects of inertia. But this conception of the ether to which we are led by Mach's way of thinking differs essentially from the ether as conceived by Newton, by Fresnel, and by Lorentz. Mach's ether not only conditions the behaviour of inert masses, but is also conditioned in its state by them.
Mach's idea finds its full development in the ether of the general theory of relativity."
- Albert Einstein, an address delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden.
"Modern science has its roots in ancient Greek philosophy. This philosophy, as we know, used the word "ether" to designate the particular kind of matter that filled the universe. This term was used throughout the history of philosophy and science, and it was also current at the beginning of this century. A resumption of its use at the dawn of this new century is now a fact. Since, according to the General Theory of Relativity and other modem branches of physics, the space and time of the universe do not constitute a vacuum, but a structured material plenum characterized by different physical quantities, the historical and traditional word "ether" is the most appropriate to express these features of the universe."
- 'Einstein and the Ether', Ludwik Kostro, 2000, pp 186-187,
"Einstein's new kind of ether was the metrical tensor field. He thus started to adhere to this new ether. He named it "Mach's ether" or simply "ether," and supplied the same reasons that Poincare had provided in his writings as to why we should adhere to the ether (we need the ether in order to remove absolute rotation and action-at-a-distance: see my papers "Poincare's ether"). Einstein thus returned to the 19th century concept of the ether, but stripped of it its most important characteristic: a medium being in absolute rest. One could still pose the perplexing question: Was Einstein's ether endowed with any properties independent of the masses in it? For if it did possess such properties then there was actually no difference between Einstein and Poincares ether. Einstein did not give a defmitive answer to the above question in his (1920) lecture."
- "Einstein's Ether: D. Rotational Motion of the Earth," Galina Granek, Department of Philosophy, Haifa University, Mount Cannel, Haifa 31905, Israel, Apeiron, Vol. 8, No. 2, April 2001, p. 64.
"A few words about the gravitational æther, and the æther concept in general may be in place here. The æther hypothesis was thought to be buried by the Michelson-Morley experiment, but today it is more alive than ever, in the form of the CBR: experiments capable of finding the æther were not possible in the 1880s, but were possible in 1960s. In a sense, the electromagnetic æther has always been observed..."
- Toivo Jaakkola Tuorla Observatory University of Turku "Action-at-a-Distance and Local Action in Gravitation", APEIRON Vol. 3 Nr. 3-4 July-Oct. 1996, p 70.
"Today the vacuum is recognized as a rich physical medium....A general theory of the vacuum is thus a theory of everything, a universal theory. It would be appropriate to call the vacuum "ether" once again."
- 'The Philosophy of Vacuum' , 1991, Simon W. Saunders, Harvey R. Jr. Brown, p 251.
"According to accepted theory, free space is a vacuum. If this is so, how can it exhibit impedance? But it does. The answer, of course, is that there is no such thing as a vacuum, and what we call free space has structure. The impedance equals 376+ ohms."
- "Space Must Be Quantizied,", Robert Moon, professor emeritus in physics at University of Chicago, 21st Century, 1988, p. 26ff.
Rotundity
"Newtonian laws operate in a world-model that is very different from everyday intuition. Because Newtonian space is infinite and homogeneous, Earth and its surface are not special places. The directions "up," "down," and "sideways" are fundamentally similar. Nor is rest privileged over uniform motion. None of these concepts matches everyday experience. They troubled Newton's contemporaries, and even Newton himself."
- Frank Wilczek, Professor of Physics at MIT, Nobel Prize winner of 2004, in his book "THE LIGHTNESS OF BEING: Mass, Ether, and the Unification of Forces" page 1. (Basic Books; September 2, 2008).
Parallax
"It is often said that Tycho’s model implies the absence of parallax, and that Copernicus’ requires parallax. However, it would not be a major conceptual change to have the stars orbit the sun (like the planets) for Tycho, which would give the same yearly shifts in their apparent positions as parallax gives. Thus if parallax were observed, a flexible Tychonean could adjust the theory to account for it, without undue complexity. What if parallax were not observed? For Copernicus, one only requires that the stars be far enough away for the parallax to be unmeasurable. Therefore the presence or absence of parallax doesn’t force the choice of one type of model over the other. If different stars were to show different amounts of parallax, that would rule out the possibility of them all being on one sphere, but still not really decide between Tycho and Copernicus.
In fact, if we don’t worry about the distant stars, these two models describe identical relative motions of all the objects in the solar system. So the role of observation is not as direct as you might have guessed. There is no bare observation that can distinguish whether Tycho (taken broadly) or Copernicus (taken broadly) is right."
- University of Illinois, Physics 319, Spring 2004, Lecture 03, p. 8
Cosmology
“Less than 50 years after the birth of what we are pleased to call ‘modern cosmology,’ when so few empirical facts are passably well established, when so many different over-simplified models of the universe are still competing for attention, is it, may we ask, really credible to claim, or even reasonable to hope, that we are presently close to a definitive solution of the cosmological problem?…Unfortunately, a study of the history of cosmology reveals disturbing parallelisms between modern cosmology and medieval scholasticism; often the borderline between sophistication and sophistry, between numeration and numerology, seems very precarious indeed. Above all I am concerned by an apparent loss of contact withempirical evidence and observational facts, and, worse, by a deliberate refusal on the part of some theorists to accept such results when they appear to be in conflict with some of the present oversimplified and therefore intellectually appealing theories of the universe…doctrines that frequently seem to be more concerned with the fictitious properties of ideal (and therefore nonexistent) universes than with the actual world revealed by observations.”
- Gerard de Vaucouleurs, University of Texas, formulater of de Vaucouleurs modified Hubble sequence, awarded the Henry Norris Russell Lectureship by the American Astronomical Society in 1988. He was awarded the Prix Jules Janssen of the French Astronomical Society in the same year.
"I don't think there is one person in many, many thousands--regardless of education--who knows that the Copernican Model had to turn the Moon's observable direction around and give it a new speed to accommodate the phases and eclipses." Marshall Hall
"But among all the discoveries and corrections probably none has resulted in a deeper influence on the human spirit than the doctrine of Copernicus…. Possibly mankind has never been demanded to do more, for considering all that went up in smoke as a result of realizing this change: a second Paradise, a world of innocence, poetry and piety: the witness of the senses, the conviction of a poetical and religious faith. No wonder his contemporaries did not wish to let all this go and offered every possible resistance to a doctrine which in its converts authorized and demanded a freedom of view and greatness of thought so far unknown indeed not even dreamed of.”
- Johann von Goethe, Zur Farbenlehre, Materialien zur Geschichte der Farbenlehre, Frankfurt am Main, 1991, Seite 666.
[The Copernican Revolution] "..outshines everything since the rise of Christianity and reduces the Renaissance and Reformation to the rank of mere episodes, mere internal displacements, within the system of medieval Christendom. Since it changed the character of men’s habitual mental operations even in the conduct of the nonmaterial sciences, while transforming the whole diagram of the physical universe and the very texture of human life itself, it looms so large as the real origin both of the modern world and of the modern mentality, that our customary periodisation of European history has become an anachronism and an encumbrance."
- Herbert Butterfield, The Origins of Modern Science: 1300-1800, 1957, pp. 7-8.
"Copernicus studied in Bologna under the Platonist Novara; and Copernicus’ idea of placing the sun rather than the earth in the center of the universe was not the result of new observations but of a new interpretation of old and well-known facts in the light of semi-religious Platonic and Neo-Platonic ideas. The crucial idea can be traced back to the sixth book of Plato’s Republic, where we can read that the sun plays the same role in the realm of visible things as does the idea of the good in the realm of ideas. Now the idea of the good is the highest in the hierarchy of Platonic ideas. Accordingly the sun, which endows visible things with their visibility, vitality, growth and progress, is the highest in the hierarchy of the visible things in nature…Now if the sun was to be given pride of place, if the sun merited a divine status…then it was hardly possible for it to revolve about the earth. The only fitting place for so exalted a star was the center of the universe. So the earth was bound to revolve about the sun. This Platonic idea, then, forms the historical background of the Copernican revolution. It does not start with observations, but with a religious or mythological idea."
- Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, p. 187
"…in the Renaissance movement championed by Marsiglio Ficino, the doctrine came alive again, but in a somewhat altered form; one might say that what Ficino instituted was indeed a religion, a kind of neo-paganism. Copernicus himself was profoundly influenced by this movement, as can be clearly seen from numerous passages in the De Revolutionibus."
- Wolfgang Smith, The Wisdom of Ancient Cosmology, p. 174).
"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.
“[Copernicus’] reasons for his revolutionary change were essentially philosophic and aesthetic,” and in a later edition he is more convinced that the “reasons were mystical rather than scientific”
- J. D. Bernal, Science in History, 1st edition, London, Watts, 1954; 2nd edition, 1965).
“Who [the sun] alone appears, by virtue of his dignity and power, suited…and worthy to become the home of God himself, not to say the first mover”
- Johannes Kepler, On the Motion of Mars, Prague, 1609, Chapter 4).
"Kepler knew that in Tycho’s possession were the raw observations that he, as “architect,” longed to assemble into a coherent picture of planetary motion. And Tycho knew that the gifted Kepler had the mathematical wherewithal to prove the validity of the Tychonic [geocentric] system of the heavens. But Kepler was a confirmed Copernican; Tycho’s model had no appeal to him, and he had no intention of polishing this flawed edifice to the great man’s ego."
- Alan W. Hirshfeld, Parallax: The Race to Measure the Universe, New York: W. H. Freeman and Co, 2001, pp. 92-93).
"Let all keep silence and hark to Tycho who has devoted thirty-five years to his observations… For Tycho alone do I wait; he shall explain to me the order and arrangement of the orbits… Then I hope I shall one day, if God keeps me alive, erect a wonderful edifice.....
Brahe may discourage me from Copernicus (or even from the five perfect solids) but rather I think about striking Tycho himself with a sword…I think thus about Tycho: he abounds in riches, which like most rich people he does not rightly use. Therefore great effort has to be given that we may wrest his riches away from him. We will have to go begging, of course, so that he may sincerely spread his observations around”
- Kepler, Letter to Michael Maestlin, February 16 1599, Gesammelte Werke, vol. xiii, p. 289
“I confess that when Tycho died, I quickly took advantage of the absence, or lack of circumspection, of the heirs, by taking the observations under my care, or perhaps usurping them…”
- Kepler as quoted by Stephen Hawking (2004). The Illustrated On the Shoulders of Giants: The Great Works of Physics and Astronomy. Philadelphia: Running Press. p. 108
"The personality of Galileo, as it emerges from works of popular science, has even less relation to historic fact than Canon Koppernigk’s…[H]e appears…in rationalist mythography as the Maid of Orleans of Science, the St. George who slew the dragon of the Inquisition. It is, therefore, hardly surprising that the fame of this outstanding genius rests mostly on discoveries he never made, and on feats he never performed. Contrary to statements in even recent outlines of science, Galileo did not invent the telescope; nor the microscope; nor the thermometer; nor the pendulum clock. He did not discover the law of inertia; nor the parallelogram of forces or motions; not the sun spots. He made no contribution to theoretical astronomy; he did not throw down weights from the leaning tower of Pisa and did not prove the truth of the Copernican system. He was not tortured by the Inquisition, did not languish in its dungeons, did not say ‘eppur si muove’; and he was not a martyr of science "
- Arthur Koestler, The Sleepwalkers, p. 358.
‘They defend the old theories by complicating things to the point of incomprehensibility.’ - Fred Hoyle
"The work, published in 1543, was called On the Revolution of the Celestial Spheres. It stated that the center of the universe was a spot somewhere near the sun...The scheme met the requirements of philosophical and theological belief in circular motion. In every other respect, however, Copernicus struck at the heart of Aristotelian and Christian belief. He removed the Earth from the center of the universe and so from the focus of God’s purpose. In the new scheme man was no longer the creature for whose use and elucidation the cosmos had been created. His system also placed the Earth in the heavens, and in doing so removed the barrier separating the incorruptible from the corruptible."
- James Burke, The Day the Universe Changed, p. 135
"The popular belief that Copernicus' heliocentric system constitutes a significant simplification of the Ptolemaic system is obviously wrong. The choice of the reference system has no effect on the structure of the model, and the Copernican models themselves require about twice as many circles as the Ptolemaic models and are far less elegant and adaptable!"
Modern historians, making ample use of the advantage of hindsight, stress the revolutionary significance of the heliocentric system and the simplification it had introduced. In fact, the actual computation of planetary positions follows exactly the ancient patterns and the results are the same. The Copernican solar theory is definitely a step in the wrong direction for the actual computation as well as for the underlying kinematic concepts"
- 'On Three Planetary Theory of Copernicus' - Otto Neugebauer 1968, p 103,
"Cosmology is not even astrophysics: all the principal assumptions in this field are unverified (or unverifiable) in the laboratory, and researchers are quite comfortable with inventing unknowns to explain the unknown. How then could, after fifty years of failed attempt in finding dark matter, the fields of dark matter..dark energy have become such lofty priorities in astronomy funding, to the detriment of all other branches of astronomy? I demonstrate in this article that while some of is based upon truth, at least just as much of ΛCDM cosmology has been propped by a paralyzing amount of propaganda which suppress counter evidence and subdue competing models. [...] I believe astronomy is no longer heading towards a healthy future, unless funding agencies re-think their master plans by backing away from such high a emphasis on groping in the dark."
- Richard Lieu, 'ΛCDM cosmology: how much suppression of credible evidence, and does the model really lead its competitors, using all evidence?', 2007, abstract.
https://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2462
"Dark energy appears to be the dominant component of the physical Universe, yet there is no persuasive theoretical explanation for its existence or magnitude. The acceleration of the Universe is, along with dark matter, the observed phenomenon that most directly demonstrates that our theories of fundamental particles and gravity are either incorrect or incomplete. Most experts believe that nothing short of a revolution in our understanding of fundamental physics will be required to achieve a full understanding of the cosmic acceleration. For these reasons, the nature of dark energy ranks among the very most compelling of all outstanding problems in physical science. These circumstances demand an ambitious observational program to determine the dark energy properties as well as possible."
- Report of the Dark Energy Task Force, 2006
https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609591
Galileo's recantation:
"The falsity of the Copernican system should not in any way be called into question, above all, not by Catholics, since we have the unshakeable authority of the Sacred Scripture, interpreted by the most erudite theologians, whose consensus gives us certainty regarding the stability of the Earth, situated in the center, and the motion of the sun around the Earth. The conjectures employed by Copernicus and his followers in maintaining the contrary thesis are all sufficiently rebutted by that most solid argument deriving from the omnipotence of God. He is able to bring about in different ways, indeed, in an infinite number of ways, things that, according to our opinion and observation, appear to happen in one particular way. We should not seek to shorten the hand of God and boldly insist on something beyond the limits of our competence.”
- Le Opere Di Galileo Galilei, p. 316, footnote #2.
Michelson-Morley
“This would mean that the Earth’s diameter in the direction of its motion is shortened by 2½ inches."
~
“The Michelson-Morley experiment has thus failed to detect our motion through the aether, because the effect looked for – the delay of one of the light waves – is exactly compensated by an automatic contraction of the matter forming the apparatus.”
- Sir Arthur Eddington, Space, Time and Gravitation, p. 20
"The explanation which had the most appeal in accounting for the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment was one that was literally dreamed up for the purpose. It is the so-called Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction. In 1893 Fitzgerald suggested that all objects contracted in the direction of their motion through the ether. He reasoned that if ordinary objects flattened out upon impact with other objects – a rubber ball hitting a wall or a ripe tomato dropped on the floor, for example – then why would it not be possible for objects that move through the ether to have the force of the ether push them in, or contract them? This would adequately explain the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. The arm of the interferometer moving against the ether would be shortened so that, even though the light wave travelling in that particular arm might be slowed down by the ether wind, this would be compensated for by having its path shortened.....
~
Objections to the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction hypothesis were rampant, as was to be expected, not only because there was no evidence to prove that such an effect took place, but particularly because Fitzgerald could not explain why objects would contract due to motion through the ether. The contraction hypothesis was originally advanced only as a possible explanation for Michelson and Morley’s results, providing such an effect existed. Then, too, the theory said that all materials travelling with the same velocity with respect to the ether would contract the same fractional amount. Since iron is much heavier and stronger than wood, for example, one would expect a greater contraction for wood than for iron, but this, too, went unanswered."
- James A. Coleman, Professor of Physics and Chairman of the Department of Physics at the American International College, Spring-field, Massachusetts, "Relativity for the Layman".
"...this unexpected result kept the scientific world long in perplexity....." wrote Hans Reichenbach in his insightful book “From Copernicus To Einstein.” He further noted: "This result, announced in 1887, dumfounded scientists...."
"Considering the motion of the Earth in its orbit only, this displacement should be 2D v2/V2 = 2D × 10‐8. The distance D was about eleven meters, or 2 × 107 wavelengths of yellow light; hence, the displacement to be expected was 0.4 fringe. The actual displacement was certainly less than the twentieth part of this, and probably less than the fortieth part.5 But since the displacement is proportional to the square of the velocity, the relative velocity of the Earth and the ether is probably less than one‐sixth the Earth’s orbital velocity, and certainly less than one‐fourth."
- A. A. Michelson and E. W. Morley, “On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” Art. xxxvi, The American Journal of Science, eds. James D and Edward S. Dana, No. 203, vol. xxxiv, November 1887, p. 341
Sagnac
"The Sagnac effect also occurs if an atomic clock is moved slowly from one reference station on the ground to another...Observers at rest on the ground, seeing these same asymmetric effects, attribute them instead to gravitomagnetic effects – that is to say, the warping of space-time due to spacetime terms in the general-relativistic metric tensor..."
- Physics Today, May 2002 p. 42
PDF LINK: http://www.ipgp.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_G
"In clear conception, it ought to be regarded as a direct manifestation of the luminiferous ether. In a system moving as a whole with respect to the ether, the elapsed time of propagation between any two points of the system should be altered as though the system were immobile and subject to the action of an ether wind which would blow away the light waves in the manner of atmospheric wind blowing away sound waves. The observation of the optical effect of such a relative wind of ether would constitute evidence for the ether, just as the observation of the influence of the relative wind of the atmosphere on the speed of sound in a system in motion would (in the absence of a better explanation) constitute evidence of the existence of the atmosphere around the system in movement."
- Georges Sagnac, “The Luminiferous Ether Demonstrated by the Effect of the Relative Motion of the Ether in an Interferometer in Uniform Rotation", Comptes Rendus de l’Academie des Sciences 95, pp. 708-710, (1913).
Multiverse
Interesting quotes on Multiverse:
But the main reason for believing in an ensemble of universes is that it could explain why the laws governing our Universe appear to be so finely tuned for our existence. [...]This fine-tuning has two possible explanations. Either the Universe was designed specifically for us by a creator or there is a multitude of universes--a "multiverse".
- Marcus Chown, New Scientist, 06 June 1998.
"Cosmologists deserve credit for making the choice so clear. In that spirit, Discover Magazine offers the multiverse as “Science’s Alternative to an Intelligent Creator” (2008)."
"The Copernican Principle is similarly flexible: When conjuring habitable planets, it assumes ours is one among countless winners. Yet when conjuring a multiverse, it assumes that our universe is a lonely winner among countless flops. The choice seems to depend on which assumption is required as a defense against design. That feature, as we shall see, can once again transform speculation into orthodoxy."
- Denyse O'Leary, Evolution News and Views
Source: https://evolutionnews.org/2013/12/copernicus_not/
"We have shown that most of the global time cutoff measures of the multiverse suffer from severe inconsistencies and developed a new framework which allows us to study the measure problem from a completely different perspective. In the emerging picture an infinite multiverse is replaced with a finite geocentric region..."
- 'Geocentric cosmology: a new look at the measure problem', Mahdiyar Noorbala and Vitaly Vanchurin, Department of Physics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, 2011.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1006.4148.pdf
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2010/05/looking-for-god-in-the-cosmic-details.html
Should the fine-tuning turn out to be real, what are we to make of it? There are two widely-discussed possibilities: either God fine-tuned the universe for us to be here, or there are (as string theory implies) a large number of universes, each with different laws of physics, and we happen to find ourselves in a universe where the laws happen to be just right for us to live. After all, how could we not?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026852.500-why-its-not-as-simple-as-god-vs-the-multiverse/
WHAT would you rather believe in, God or the multiverse? It sounds like an instance of cosmic apples and oranges, but increasingly we are being told it’s a choice we must make. Take the dialogue earlier this year between Richard Dawkins and physicist Steven Weinberg in Austin, Texas. Discussing the fact that the universe appears fine-tuned for our existence, Weinberg told Dawkins: “If you discovered a really impressive fine-tuning… I think you’d really be left with only two explanations: a benevolent designer or a multiverse.”
“ Here's the dilemma: if the universe began with a quantum particle blipping into existence, inflating godlessly into space-time and a whole zoo of materials, then why is it so well suited for life?
For medieval philosophers, the purported perfection of the universe was the key to proving the existence of God. The universe is so fit for intelligent life that it must be the product of a powerful, benevolent external deity. Or, as popular theology might put it today: all this can’t be an accident.
Modern physics has also wrestled with this “fine-tuning problem”, and supplies its own answer. If only one universe exists, then it is strange to find it so hospitable to life, when nearly any other value for the gravitational or cosmological constants would have produced nothing at all. But if there is a “multiverse” of many universes, all with different constants, the problem vanishes: we’re here because we happen to be in one of the universes that works.
No miracles, no plan, no creator. As the cosmologist Bernard Carr puts it: “If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse. ” -- New Scientist, God vs the multiverse: The 2500-year war
Newtonian Gravity
Mach (1872-1911) on action-at-a-distance:
“The Newtonian theory of gravitation, on its appearance, disturbed almost all investigators of nature because it was founded on an uncommon unintelligibility. People tried to reduce gravitation to pressure and impact. At the present day gravitation no longer disturbs anybody: it has become common unintelligibility.”
NASA
“ Today we have with us a group of students,
among America's best. To you we say we have
only completed a beginning. We leave you much
that is undone. There are great ideas
undiscovered, breakthroughs available to those
who can remove one of the truth's protective
layers. There are places to go beyond belief... ”
—Neil Armstrong
“ For we are opposed around the world by a
monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covet means
for expanding its sphere of influence on infiltration instead of invasion,
on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free
choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system
which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the
building of a “tightly knit”, highly efficient machine that combines
military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political
operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its dissenters
are silenced, not praised. ”
—John F. Kennedy, April 27, 1961
“ "In the late 1960s our simulation technology ' had progressed to the point where it became virtually impossible to separate the training from actual missions. The simulations became full dress rehearsals tor the missions down to the smallest detail. The simulation tested out the crew's and controller's responses to normal and emergency conditions. It checked out the exact flight plan, mission rules, and procedures that the crew and controllers would use tor a later flight."
"The simulations were so real that no controller could discern the difference between the training and the real mission." ”
—Apollo Flight Director Gene Kranz, Failure Is Not an Option
“ My great grandma went from covered wagons to moon landings. It's cool to see how far we go. ”
—Anonymous
Misc Quotes From Scientists on Space Travel
"To place a man in a multi-stage rocket and project him into the controlling gravitational field of the moon where the passengers can make scientific observations, perhaps land alive, and then return to earth - all that constitutes a wild dream worthy of Jules Verne. I am bold enough to say that such a man-made voyage will never occur regardless of all future advances." -- Electrionics and Radio Pioneer Lee De Forest, Ph.D., Yale University, 1957
"We did not ask ourselves whether space exploration was possible. We simply assumed that it was, and that it could brought about in our time" --Astronautics & Aeronautics - Volume 19 - Page 37, 1981
Writers
“ The science and technology did not exist in 1961 to make the moon shot at that time. And many scientists thought that it was impossible to create this technology by the end of the decade. But enough scientists existed who did not reject the idea as totally impossible, and they set to work to invent everything necessary to make it happen. And, of course, on July 20, 1969, the United States reached the moon and returned the Apollo crew safely home a few days later. An almost impossible stretch was accomplished. ” -- Robert M. Sheehan, Jr., Mission Impact: Breakthrough Strategies for Nonprofits
“ When I was a child, I read the popular comic strip Buck Rogers. Rogers wore a funny-lookin g outfit and traveled around in space in a shiny rocket. I liked reading Buck Rogers because it was like magic—the world of make— believe for young people. But later, the U.S. actually did it: we landed men on the moon and we got them back to Earth. In the 1958 two Harvard scientists conclusively proved that space travel was impossible (because of the weight of the fuel). Today we take Space travel for granted.
These achievements were all perceived to be impossible, but they were accomplished. If these things were possible, what else is possible? ”--Don Soderquist, The Wal-Mart Way: The Inside Story of the Success of the World's Largest Company
“ Unlike the problem of hunger, in which solutions already exist, there were no solutions to the problem of getting a man to the moon in 1961. President Kennedy created a context called "A man on the moon in 10 years," and out of that context, in which the question of feasibility was merely one of many positions within the context, came the workable solution: the Congressional approval, appropriations of money, technological breakthroughs, NASA, and, ultimately, men on the moon. Before then, space travel was not possible because the attempts to make it real existed in a condition of unworkability. ”--Werner Erhard, 1977, The Hunger Project Source Document
“ In 1963, when most scientists doubted the possibility of interstellar space travel, Carl Sagan embraced the notion enthusiastically. He advocated direct physical contact among galactic communities by means of relativistic interstellar flight. ”--George Basalla, Civilized Life in the Universe
“ The rocket engineers and promoters were often science-fiction fans and writers themselves. Tsiolkovsky, Oberth and Von Braun all wrote space fiction at one time or another. Oberth and the VfR were technical advisers for Fritz Lang's movie Frau im Mond, receiving enough money to build an actual rocket they intended to launch in connection with the film's premiere. The plan went awry, but at least one prominent rocket engineer, Krafft Ehricke, designer of the Atlas booster which sent the first Americans into orbit, was "converted to space travel" by the movie.11 G. Edwards Pendray and Nathan Schachner, both presidents of the American Rocket Society, wrote for science-fiction magazines under pseudonyms, as did Ley himself. Arthur Clarke was an officer of the British Interplanetary Society before he became a successful science-fiction writer. Among a long string of technical articles predating his debut as a professional fiction writer was Clarke's proposal for a communications satellite, written in October, 1945.12
Against this background, the divergence between the various developments in space flight "predicted" by science-fiction writers and those actually taken in the "real world" seem puzzling. Hardly an area of science fiction produces less evidence that science fiction has a firm grasp on scientific reality than the stories about space flight written in the first ten years of the space age. Yet a closer examination reveals not only that science-fiction writers were distrustful of the actualities of organized science, but that they were sufficiently distrustful of it to examine its social roots at a time when social criticism was extremely dangerous in the United States and when it had almost entirely disappeared from even "serious," as well as "popular" literature. ”--Science Fiction Studies, Volume 5, Part 2, July 1978 - https://www.depauw.edu/sfs/backissues/15/berger15art.htm
“ If respectable science could not open the road to the stars, there was only one alternative, "to go to the crackpots." ”--Science Fiction Studies, Volume 5, Part 2, July 1978 - https://www.depauw.edu/sfs/backissues/15/berger15art.htm
“ History is created, manipulated and written by those who
are predominantly on the Victorious side of the nation which
has supreme political, and especially military, dominance.
Any ‘truth’ which has the slightest potential of weakening
their total hold over the masses is not tolerated. Any truth
which can impact their power is squelched or cunningly
hidden by them, usually in a manufactured media release to
the unsuspecting public, often in a jovial manner to render
the information a laughing matter and display it as
harmless. ”--Former NASA astronaut, Clark C McClelland
“ History is a lie, commonly agreed upon. ”--Voltaire, French philosopher
Poll: Over Half of Russians Don't Believe America Landed on the MoonCC0 TECH 15:04 27.07.2018(updated 15:34 27.07.2018) Get short URL11373 NASA's six manned lunar missions, known as the Apollo program, which was conducted from July 1969 to December 1972, have attracted a great deal of interest among conspiracy theorists who hold that the entire program was a hoax aimed at pulling one over on the Soviets during the Cold War.
Some 57 percent of Russians believe that there has never been a manned lunar landing and are convinced that the US government falsified videos, photos and other material evidence regarding the 1969 expedition, a new poll by the Russian Public Opinion Research Center (Russian acronym VCIOM) has revealed.
https://www.rbth.com/lifestyle/329840-russians-refuse-apollo-11
Why do 76% of Russians refuse to believe that the Americans were on the Moon?
Three Body
Overview of Larange Points: https://gereshes.com/2018/12/03/an-introduction-to-lagrange-points-the-3-body-problem/
INTRODUCTION TO THE 3-BODY PROBLEM: https://gereshes.com/2018/10/22/introduction-to-the-3-body-problem/
Neutrino problems
http://t2k-experiment.org/neutrinos/beyond-the-standard-model/
http://hosting.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/sun_neutrino.htm
"The observed flux of neutrinos detected at Earth from the solar core is considerably less than that predicted by current models of solar nuclear fusion and our understanding of neutrinos themselves."
"Because neutrinos interact only weakly with ordinary matter, their detection is very difficult, and current neutrino "telescopes" are quite crude."
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12917543-300-science-solar-neutrino-problem-solved-at-last/
"There is also no correlation with sunspot activity, contrary to one claim."
EP
A test of the equivalence between active and passive gravitational mass is the Kreuzer (1968)132 experiment. It measured the gravitational field generated by substances of different composition. The experiment was performed with a Cavendish balance, using two substances, one mainly composed of fluorine and one mainly of bromine. The two substances had the same passive gravitational mass, as measured in the Earth gravity field, that is, the same weight. However, since they are of different compositions, they could potentially have different active gravitational masses. The result of this null experiment, in agreement with general relativity, was...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0039368185900020
Whilst prepating a review article on his new special theory of relativity, he became convinced that the key to the extension of the principle of relativity to accelerated motion lay in the remarkable and unexplained empirical coincidence of the equality of inertial and gravitational masses.
EA
http://www.tedpavlic.com/post_phil101_uncertainty.php
Now, the more modern view of quantum mechanics treats photons as particles which carry a probability with them which has both a magnitude and a phase. When photons with equivalent magnitudes and opposite phases "intersect," their probabilities subtract to zero and no photon is detected. Keeping this in mind, understand that light does not travel in straight lines from one point to another. Light travels in all directions through all possible curves and paths from one place to another. In the end, our observations are of where the probabilities "add up," which typically is along a path of a straight line. When light is forced through inhomogeneous space its probabilities cancel in such a way where the curved paths add up or perhaps multiple paths show up.
http://www.wlym.com/archive/pedagogicals/light.html
"So you see, light does {not} travel in straight lines!"
"Yes it does, if you do not disturb it. But by interposing matter, an inhomogenous medium, you deflected the rays from their natural, straight-line paths."
"How do you know that straight-line paths are `natural'?"
"If a light ray were allowed to propagate unhindered, in a pure vacuum or perfectly homogeneous medium, then it would propagate precisely along a straight line. It is just like the motion of material bodies in space according to Newton's first law: `a material body remains in its state of rest or uniform motion along a straight line, unless compelled by forces acting upon it to change its state.' No one could deny that."
"Does a `pure vacuum' exist anywhere in nature? Does a `perfectly homogenous medium' exist in nature?"
"Well no, of course. There is always a bit of dirt around, or inhomogeneities that disturb the perfectly straight pathways."
"So the presence of what you call `dirt' is natural, right?"
"Yes."
"So then it is natural that light never travels in straight-line paths."
"Wait a minute. You are mixing everything up. I am talking about the natural propagation of light, quite apart from matter."
"What do you mean, `quite apart from matter'? Do you assume that the existence of light is something that can be separated from the existence of matter?"
"Yes, certainly. The natural state of light is that of light propagating in a Universe that is completely empty of matter."
"And a completely empty Universe is a natural thing? Do you claim such a think could ever exist?"
"I could imagine one. Sometimes I get that feeling inside my head."
"Maybe that is because you are not thinking in the real world."
"Don't blame me for that. I am a professional physicist."
"Well then, fill the vacuum in your mind with the following thought: Light and matter do not exist as separate entities, nor does matter act to bend rays of light from what you imagine in your fantasy-universe to be perfectly straight-line rays. Rather, the existence of what we call matter, the existence of light and the fact that light never propagates in straight lines -- except in mere appearance -- are both interrelated manifestations of the fundamental curvature of physical space-time, which Fermat began to address with his principle of least time."
Quotes
“ Mercury runs on seven circles in all, Venus on five, the earth on three with the moon around it on four, and finally Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn on five each. Thus 34 circles are enough to explain the whole structure of the universe and the entire ballet of the planets. ” -- Nicolaus Copernicus
Retrograde Motion
Geocentricity
http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Aspects.pdf
Flat Earth Topics
- Stellar Rotation
- South Celestial Rotation
Stellar Illusions
The stars are a very interesting subject in modern astronomy. According to heliocentric astronomers whenever we look at the stars we are actually looking at a plethora of illusions which might make reality seem one way, but in truth are tricks of nature which hide the correct nature of modern astronomy.
- Close Stars Illusion - The Close Star Illusion makes the stars appear close to us when they are really far away.
- Star Size Illusion - The Star Size Illusion makes the stars to be too enormous for their interstellar distances, causing them to all dwarf the sun, some appearing one tenth the diameter of the visible disk of the moon, when really they are much smaller.
- Central Earth Illusions - The Central Earth Illusions are illusions involving the redshift, brightness, and cosmic microwave background data distributed in such a way that the Earth appears to be the center of the universe.
- Close Stars Illusion - The Close Star Illusion makes the stars appear close to us when they are really far away.
Galaxies
The galaxies are a topic of interest. The theories of gravity seem unable to explain their movements. The stellar systems of our universe rotate as if they were solid disks, and at a pace so great that they should fly apart. This is explained substances called 'Dark Matter' and 'Dark Energy', which are hidden from all forms of observation.
- Problems of the Galaxies
Cosmology
The subject of Cosmology is another very interesting topic. Our laws for the natural world do not appear to work in the universe. The theories of Cosmology have been described as a 'folk tale'.
- Cosmology Has Some Big Problems
Airy's Failure
Airy's Failure refers to an experiment which attempted to test the movement of the Earth. By use of a water-filled telescope George Airy was unable to detect the movement of the Earth. Starlight behaves as if the earth is physically motionless. This was later explained by the second postulate of Special Relativity, which saved the heliocentric model from difficulty by providing an illusion to explain the results of the Michelson-Morley and Airy's Failure motionless earth experiments.
- Airy's Failure
Close Stars Illusion
RESOLVING THE STARS’ APPARENT CLOSENESS PLUS THE SIZE AND AGE OF THE UNIVERSE
Creating the apparently close stars’ illusion:
It’s a clear night, you are gazing up at the stars that seem so close, “You can almost touch them" I believe someone once wrote. As you stand there, you are arriving at the same conclusion regarding the distance to the stars as the ancients who believed that the stars appear to be close, a fixed distance from the earth and attached to a celestial or crystal sphere.
As introduced previously, if you continue to observe the stars for a while, you will notice that they seem to “drift” toward the west. Closer observation will disclose that the stars appear to be rotating about a star in the Northern sky, a star now termed the pole star.
The star closeness illusion is not caused by the same reference problem that causes the apparently same size and closeness of the sun and moon illusion. We can actually “see" the sun and moon, but we cannot “see” any of the stars in the conventional sense. Because of the extreme distance to the stars, the human eye and even the most powerful telescope lacks the power to resolve a star. We can “see" a star since it is a source of light, but we cannot see any details of stars, what we "see” is an optical phenomenon, known as an Airy disk named for its discover, British mathematician and astronomer Sir George Biddell Airy (1801-1892)M.
The Airy disk is a series of concentric rings of varying intensity that only show where a star is but cannot be used to determine a star’s characteristics. Accordingly, we cannot determine the actual distance to a star: all stars appear to be the same distance from us and lacking a reference, appear to be relatively close for reasons discussed above.
https://books.google.com/books?id=GPl3UeLDEF8C&lpg=PA99&pg=PA97#v=onepage&q&f=false
CHAPTER 8: RESOLVING THE APPARENTLY CLOSE STARS AROUND EARTH ILLUSION
CREATING THE ILLUSION.
It’s a clear night and you are gazing up at the Stars. They seem so close, “you can almost touch them,” I believe someone once wrote. As you stand there, you arrive at the same conclusion regarding the distance to the stars as the ancients, who believed the stars appear to be a close, fixed distance from the earth and attached to a celestial or crystal sphere. You continue to observe the stats for a while, and you norice that they seem to “drift” toward the weSt. Closer observatiOn will disclose that the stars appear to be rotating around a star in the nOrthern sky, a star now termed the “pole star.”
The closeness illusion is caused by the same reference problem that causes the apparently same size and closeness of the sun and moon illusion, but there are other causes. While we can see the sun and moon, we cannOt “see” any of the srars in the conventional sense. Because of the extreme distance to the stars, the human eye and even the man powerful telescope lacks the power to resolve a Star. We can “see” a star because it is a source of light, but what we “see” is an optical phenomenon known as an Airy disc [1], named for its discoverer, British mathematician and astronomer Sir George Biddell Airy (1801—1892). Along with Airy’s Other accomplishments, he played a leading role in establishing Greenwich, England as the prime or zero meridian. Because we only see a star’s Airy disc and because of the earth’s atmosphere, all stars appear to be about the same distance from Earth.
~
EMPIRICAL DEVELOPMENT OF A PROPER EXPLANATION OF THE CLOSE STARS ILLUSION.
Resolving the problem of the “extra bright Stars” and the close stars illusion ultimately revealed that the universe is extremely large and very old. However, as with the resolution process of other illusions, this resolution required contributions from many persons. It began with the measurement of the distance to the nearest stars, which built upon our knowledge of the size of the solar system.
Knowing the Earth—sun distance, we can in principle measure the distance to any star using the triangulation method discussed in the previous chapter and illustrated in figure 8-1.
Star side2 side1 Earth. I‘ . Earth, June '? anglei sun angle2 F ‘. December 186 million miles
Figure 8—]. Measurement ol’distancc to a Star via triangulation We merely measure angles 1 and 2 in a triangle formed by the Earth— sun—Earth line and the star. 'lhe difference between the two angles is known as the parallax of a star".
Retrograde Motion
Another explanation for retrograde motion may be found with common analogy of the apparent retrograde motion is that of turning on a circle. If two cars are travelling at the same constant speed from the same point on concentric circles "next to each other" such that one car is on the "outside" and the other on the "inside", then the car on the inside will complete its circle before the car on the outside, because it has a shorter distance to travel. Thus, it will seem to the driver of the car on the inside, that, although the speed of the cars is the same, the car on the outside is slower. The outside car will appear to "fall behind" the inside car. The same concept is the basis of retrograde motion.
Astronomy Pseudoscience
Astronomy on Trial
“ On Logic:
All theories and concepts have a shelf-life. Back when the Greeks first started thinking of these things, the universe was thought to be only a few thousand years old. Now the estimate is between 7 and 20 billion. It seems that as science matures, estimated universe ages get older. Why doesn’t it follow, logically, that we’ll be a lot more sophisticated when we estimate that the universe is infinitely old?
Scientists do not readily admit to the use of logic, because the term implies judgment, and true science is not supposed to be judgmental as much as it is experimental and causal. But logic is not the same as “common sense.” Logic: the solving of syllogisms, is indeed mathematical; but scientists realize that the best logic can be faulty if one or more premises of the syllogism are faulty. Be that as it may, logic is not all that foreign to science: logic — even common sense — is applied to observation and test results in spite of best efforts to avoid it, because the rawest data must be put in perspective if it is to be communicated and applied. This, then, is why those 40 scholars, scientists, and other experts felt that they had to defend the scientific method. and urge a return to reason and logic.
The poor cosmologists have almost no choice but to try to apply logic, judgment, and unavoidably, common sense, to their observations; because they have little else. Almost all their data is questionable, and there are almost no tests that produce concrete results. It is inevitable then, that even though they share the same data, cosmologists suffer many different conclusions. Equally highly trained scientists frequently differ in their interpretation of observation, and the future offers precious little hope that we will ever find out which, if any, is correct. Logic might have it then, that if scientific experience is not a determinant for applying logic, or common sense, or reason to what we observe in the sky; you and I might as well try our hand at it. ”
Knowledge Unto Relationship
Roger Bacon argued:
"Without experiment, nothing can be adequately known. An argument proves theoretically, but does not give the certitude necessary to remove all doubt; nor will the mind repose in the clear View of truth, unless it finds it by way of experiment."
Likewise, he cautioned that, “[T]he strongest arguments prove nothing, so long as the conclusions are not verified by experience.” Albeit laboratory experimentation is less disconcerting than medical experimentation, the genius of the scientific method was that it provided traction: hypothesis, experimentation, and validation emerged as a means to persistently if not tenaciously advance the state of the art. Early science was tainted with bias and prejudice by comparison. It was the scientific method that helped it tease out valid evidence, affording a more candid assessment of nature’s ways, and thereby firming up its knowledge.
No Sacred Cows: Investigating Myths, Cults, and the Supernatural
Hundreds of years later, the traditional importance of experimentation in science lives on and thrives throughout the scientific community. In fact, physicist Richard P. Feynman echoed this simple yet important detail when he said, “If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong.”
“In that simple statement is the key to science,” Feynman explained. “It does not make any difierence how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any diflerence how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is—if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it”67
Cosmological Principle
https://books.google.com/books?id=02HRBQAAQBAJ&lpg=PA331&pg=PA331#v=onepage&q&f=false
All cosmological models are constructed by augmenting the results of observations by a philosophical principle. Two examples from modern scientific cosmology are the principle of mediocrity and the so—called anthropic, or biophilic, principle. The principle of mediocrity, sometimes known as the Copernican principle, states that the portion of the Universe we observe is not special or privileged, but is representative of the whole. Ever since Copernicus demonstrated that the Earth does not lie at the center of the Universe, the principle of mediocrity has been the default assumption; indeed, it is normally referred to as simply “the cosmological principle.”
Gravity Probe A
Moon Tilt Notes
We can see clear away, that the distance between the observer and the sun does matter.
From: https://www.triangle-calculator.com/?what=sas
- Triangle Calculator Side Angle Side
- Side a: 93000000
- Side b: 240000
- Angle Y: 110 degrees
- Angle A: 69.861°
Triangle Calculator Side Angle Side
- Side a: 9300000
- Side b: 240000
- Angle Y: 110°
- Angle A: 68.623°
Triangle Calculator Side Angle Side
- Side a: 930000
- Side b: 240000
- Angle Y: 110°
- Angle A: 57.438°
Triangle Calculator Side Angle Side
- Side a: 93000
- Side b: 240000
- Angle Y: 110°
- Angle A: 17.824°
Triangle Calculator Side Angle Side
- Side a: 9300
- Side b: 240000
- Angle Y: 110°
- Angle A: 2.058°
Yet, if we input 9300 miles into the math of that Author, the moon points in the same direction as if the distance was 93,000,000 miles. A green arrow will point the same way, no matter how far away the target is! This shows that the concept of the paper is fundamentally incorrect.
Moon Tilt Illusion (D0ing the Math)
From the Transcript
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2498&v=wAWJ1jbcHOA
41:02
- we've done the math and we've done the
- simulation and we see this is exactly
- what it's going to look like on the 24th
- at 8 p.m. now we mentioned this before
- but this diagram is not to scale how can
- this be accurate if this is not to scale
- well I have mentioned this before but
- the angles are what is important and we
- can we can do that let's get rid of
- something here about that thing the
- angles are what's important so if we
- just take the Sun which is currently at
- 100 units away from the observer and
- let's just move it out 100,000 units
- fold it way out there and the number
- didn't change
- let's take it to 10,000 units and the
- number can change why is that how is
- that possible because this view didn't
- change watch this bar watch that bar as
- I go back to 100
- check the angle put your finger right
- there and as I look how it doesn't the
- angle does not change with distance and
- that's all it really matters
TB: "Thirdly, I wanted to point out that at the 42 minute mark (above) you claim that the distance from the earth to the sun doesn't matter, and the moon will point in the same direction regardless.
Will a green arrow that points at the sun, located at the height of the moon, as seen from earth, point in the same direction regardless of whether the sun was one foot away from the earth or if it were 100,000,000 miles away? Clearly not.
All-in-all the marks for the "Round Earth explanation" are poor, and I intend to point these things out when I get around to making the Wiki article on the subject."
Universal Acceleration
Speed of Light
It has been asserted that if the Earth is accelerating upwards then we should reach the speed of light. According to Special Relativity the speed of light remains the same regardless of how fast we travel. Special Relativity was a modification to space and time adopted to explain the results of the Michelson-Morley Experiment, which seemed to show a motionless earth in photon experiments. Since it was 'known' at the time that the Earth is in motion around the Sun and through the universe, and since this motion was undetectable to experiments involving light, motion and the speed of light must therefore be relative. Hence, according SR we will never break the speed of light no matter how fast we go.
Alternatively, if we discard SR due to some experiments which seem to contradict it then there is no speed limit in nature, as SR is also the source of that popularized 'speed limit' idea.
Jet Propulsion Laboratory Development Ephemeris
The Jet Propulsion Laboratory Development Ephemeris (JPL DE or DE) is a 'mathematical model of the Solar System' produced by the Jet Propulsion laboratory in Pasadena, California. It has been claimed that JPL DE is a simulation of the Solar System which is based on gravity. However, it is seen that it uses perturbation-based methods.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_Propulsion_Laboratory_Development_Ephemeris
Each ephemeris was produced by numerical integration of the equations of motion, starting from a set of initial conditions. Due to the precision of modern observational data, the analytical method of general perturbations could no longer be applied to a high enough accuracy to adequately reproduce the observations. The method of special perturbations was applied, using numerical integration
Milky Way Arch
http://www.astronomy.com/magazine/ask-astro/2018/09/seeing-a-curved-milky-way
The Milky Way appears straightest when it is most directly overhead. Astronomy senior editor Rich Talcott points out, “The plane of the Milky Way projects as a great circle onto the celestial sphere (as does the ecliptic, which we are also in). So both the Milky Way and the ecliptic appear as large circles in the sky (which, if they happen to pass overhead, will appear as straight lines). But if the circles reach a peak altitude of only, say, 30°, they’re going to look like arcs to the naked eye.”
Ptolmy Epicycles
How Ptolemy’s theory of epicycles can explain anything – including Homer.
Ptolemy’s theory of epicycles (orbits within orbits within orbits…) was used to explain the strange motion of the planets, which sometimes flipped back on their own paths, instead of following simple patterns. At the same time, crucially, his theory allowed the Earth to remain the centre of the universe.
The problem is that Ptolemy’s theory can be used to justify any set of orbits, because the epicycles can be adjusted to describe any path. Indeed, a sufficiently complex and honed set of epicycles can even describe a planetary path that draws an outline of Homer Simpson.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVuU2YCwHjw
NASA Epicycles
Jet Propulsion Laboratory Development Ephemeris
The Jet Propulsion Laboratory Development Ephemeris (JPL DE or DE) is a 'mathematical model of the Solar System' produced by the Jet Propulsion laboratory in Pasadena, California. It has been claimed that JPL DE is a simulation of the Solar System which is based on gravity. However, it is seen that it uses perturbation-based methods.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_Propulsion_Laboratory_Development_Ephemeris
Each ephemeris was produced by numerical integration of the equations of motion, starting from a set of initial conditions. Due to the precision of modern observational data, the analytical method of general perturbations could no longer be applied to a high enough accuracy to adequately reproduce the observations. The method of special perturbations was applied, using numerical integration
Others
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-345/p93a.htm
FIGURE 6.4.1.-Longitudinal apparent attraction. A particle initially moving along the arc ab with radius r0 is suddenly perturbed by a tangential gravitational force fper due to the mass mper. The new motion consists of a retrograde epicycle motion in an ellipse, the center of which ("guiding center") moves in a circle with radius r0 + x0 (above). The perturbed motion of three particles, originally situated at a, b, and c, describes three epicycles (right).
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19660014501.pdf
"The first idea, attributed to Ptolemy (circa 200 A.D.), was that the sun, moon, planets and stars described circular paths around the earth, and that the five known planets also moved in epicycles in addition to their earth-centered motion. This view persisted for nearly 12 centuries until Copernicus (1473-1543) put forth the bold hypothesis that the earth, moon, and planets revolved uniformly in circular paths about a central, stationary sun. Epicycles were still required, but their number was greatly reduced. It remained for Kepler (1571-1630) to finally dispense altogether with the artifice of epicycles. Based on the multitude of recorded planetary observations made by Tycho Brahe (1546-1601), Kepler was able to formulate his three laws of planetary motion."
Einstein Corrected an Epicycle
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19870005715.pdf
Properties of the Orbit
“ The characteristics of movement of the planets determine the entire set of dynamic properties in the solar system. The rotation of the planets around the Sun is subject to Kepler's laws which make it possible to approximately determine the position of the planet on a non-perturbed orbit at any moment of time. In order to transfer from the position closest to a more precise definition (ephemeris of the planet), it is necessary to take into consideration perturbations in motion. These perturbations leading to deviation from the calculated elliptical trajectory (Kepler ellipse) occur as a result of mutual attraction of planets, depending on their position relative to each other and periodically changing with the passage of time. Additional perturbation is detected in the movement of Mercury for which, due to the closeness of the Sun, one must introduce a correction for the shift of the perihelion by 42" in a century; this comes from the general theory of relativity. It is impossible, truly, to exclude the fact that the agreement of these observations with the value of this effect was theoretically predicted by A. Einstein within the limits of error of measurement (=1%) caused, to an equal degree, by the effect of the quadrapole moment of the Sun, taking into consideration in a first approximation, the difference in the external gravitational potential of the Sun from the Newtonian potential for an ideal sphere. ”
Motion of the Planets
A work on by Dr. Hannes Alfvén (bio) titled Evolution of the Solar System (1976) shows that epicycles are still in use in celestial mechanics, more than 365 years after Kepler's discovery of elliptical orbits. Dr. Alfvén uses a combination of Kepler and epicycles:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19770006016.pdf
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-345/contents.htm
The Motion of Planets and Satellites
3.1 The guiding-center approximation of celestial mechanics
3.2 Circular orbits
3.3 Oscillations modifying the circular orbit
p.40
"FIGURE 3.3.1.—The guiding-center method of approximating the Kepler motion. The guiding center moves with constant velocity along the dashed circle of radius r0 in the center of which the gravitating mass Mc is situated. The body M moves in an “epicycle” around the guiding center. The epicycle is an ellipse with the axis ratio 2/1 and semiminor axis of er0. The epicycle motion is retrograde. The resulting motion of M is an ellipse which almost coincides with the undashed circle which has its center at O. The distance from O to Mc is er0. The position of the pericenter is given by Φp. The difference between the undashed circle and the exact Kepler ellipse is really less than the thickness of the line."
Sun Spherical
The Sun is believed to be spherical due to the apparent changes in the shape of sunspots as they approach the edge of the Sun's visible disk.
The Story of the Stars
New Descriptive Astronomy
By. Joel Dorman Steele, Ph.D.,
“ Spots Apparently Change Their Speed and Form as They Pass Across the Disk — A spot is seen on the eastern limb; day by day it progresses, With a gradually-increasing rapidity, until it reaches the center; it then Slowly loses its rapidity, and finally disappears on the western limb. The diagram illustrates the apparent change which takes place in the form. Suppose at first the spot is of an oval shape; as it approaches the center it apparently widens and becomes circular. Having passed that point, it becomes more and more oval until it disappears. ”
Dr. Dorman suggests that the Sun rotates on its axis:
“ This Change in the Spots Proves the Sun’s Rotation on Its Axis — These changes can be accounted for only on the supposition that the sun rotates on its axis: indeed, they are the precise effects which the laws of perspective demand in that case. About twenty-seven days elapse from the appearance of a spot on the eastern limb before it is seen a second time. ”
Planets Spherical
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/16767/16767-h/16767-h.htm#CHAPTER_VI
MEMS Gyroscope -- http://www.tkt.cs.tut.fi/research/nappo_files/Symposium_Gyro_Technology_2010_web.pdf See Sec 4.1 for raw data
Ring Laser
Military - https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/911373.pdf
http://www.jezzamon.com/fourier/
Honeywell Earth Rate - https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a266418.pdf
Curvilinear Perspective
Todd Lockwood observed the Moon Tilt, and explains a new theory of perspective he calls 'Curvilinear Perspective':
http://www.muddycolors.com/2011/06/todd-lockwood-curvilinear-perspective-part-1/
“ The sun was yet to come up, far north of due East , yet the 3/4 moon in the southwestern sky (almost 180° away) was clearly tilted upward. That puts a kink in your thinker...
The sun is out of sight beyond the terminator of light and shadow. The moon was low in the sky because I was basically looking over the shoulder of the earth toward its orbit below the plane of the equator. But I’m looking “up” at it in my hemisphere of sky.
If I had painted it in the fishbowl, it would have looked something like this:
The sun is out of sight below the horizon, just off my left shoulder. With my eyes in the sweet spot, the center of my field of view, all the dotted lines are straight.
The only way I could render this scene without distorting something, somewhere, would be to paint it on the inside of a perfectly spherical bowl, with my eyes in the sweet spot. See above. I’d have to turn my head to see it all. Failing that, as an artist I have to edit reality in a way that gives the best representation.
In the end, does it matter if we understand things that only happen out in the wilderness of our peripheral perception? I think so. When you get it, those tables in the corner of the image won’t be distorted by your perspective grid. They’ll look “right.” The ellipses on the top of the towers in your vertigo-inducing castle-scape will read correctly. You’ll know better how to edit reality to give the best illusion. ”
EA Eclipse
Moon Declination Tool - https://www.moontracks.com/moon-declinations.html
Declination graphs 2019 - https://cafeastrology.com/declinations.htm
Jan 2009 Declination graph from cafeastrology.com
January 20–21, 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse (Blood Moon)
Jan 31 2018 Eclipse
Timelapse Image
http://twanight.org/newTWAN/photos.asp?ID=3005824
Map
Lunar Eclipse, in-out, 90 degrees:
http://www.oceanlight.com/spotlight.php?img=29411
Griffith Observatory-- https://youtu.be/buXTecdfqxo
Jan 31 2018 Eclipse
Timelapse Image
http://twanight.org/newTWAN/photos.asp?ID=3005824
Map
Lunar Eclipse, in-out, 90 degrees:
http://www.oceanlight.com/spotlight.php?img=29411
Griffith Observatory-- https://youtu.be/buXTecdfqxo
Phase Overview
When one observes the phases of the Moon they are seeing the Moon's day and night, a shadow created from the Sun illuminating half of the spherical Moon at any one time. As depicted in the previous section, due to EA we are always observing the nearside (or underside) of the Moon.
The curved rays of the Sun results in the phases upon the Moon's surface. The plane of the Moon's route is at an inclination to the plane of the Sun's ecliptic, with its highest side opposite from the Sun. When the Moon is far from the Sun and higher than it, the Full Moon occurs. When the Moon is closer to the Sun and lower than it, the New Moon occurs1. The Moon moves at a slightly slower rate than the Sun across the sky, causing the range of phases. The time between two Full Moons, or between successive occurrences of the same phase, is about 29.53 days (29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes) on average.
Sample large-scale Sun ray diagram (side view):
Cause
The Lunar Eclipse occurs two to three times a year on an occasion when the Moon is on the opposite side of the Sun and its diurnal path goes "out of bounds", intersecting the daylight boundary at the edges. Due to the geometry involved the Lunar Eclipse occurs when the Moon is full and when it is opposite from the Sun, furthest from it. Interestingly, the shadow does not travel straight across the Moon's face, but appears to turn mid-stride, making a 110 - 120 degree angle across its surface.
Less than 180 degrees
Depending on how far the path breaches the daylight boundary, the shadow may make an angle between about 110 - 120 degrees.
October 2004 Lunar Eclipse taken from Hayward, California
https://lrtimelapse.com/news/lunar-eclipse-2015-timelapse/ (Archive)
Griffith Observatory Runtime: 1m
Other videos
Additional:
http://www.astrosurf.com/cidadao/animations.htm
http://www.oceanlight.com/spotlight.php?img=29411
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziCVOhDsQzE - Lunar Eclipse, moon orientation non-corrected (az mount)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Lunar_eclipse_time_lapse_still_image - near land, better orientation
Red Eclipse
The Lunar Eclipse turns red due to the rays at the boundary edge passing through the atmolayer near the Earth's surface on their parabolic course.
Duration
The Lunar Eclipse can last for up to 5 hours in duration.
Convex Eclipse
The shadow on the Moon is convex as result of a slightly concave shadow wrapping around a small convex sphere of the Moon, producing a net convexity upon the lunar surface.
Bright Eclipses Associated with Aurora
Epicycles
Fourier
Harmonic analysis
test
Ancient Greeks
Aristotle is credited as being the first to propose that the earth was round based on physical evidence. Around this time the Greek philosophers had begun to believe that the world could be explained by natural processes. Rejecting invocation of the unknown, religious, and supernatural, the leading philosophers of the day sparked a revolution by observing nature and interpreting what physical process may lay behind it. Aristotle gives three observations for the rotundity of the earth:
Sinking Ship Effect
Aristotle's first proof is the observation that ships at sea appear to sink as they recede past the horizon, providing demonstration that the Earth is a globe. In the mid-1800's Samuel Rowbotham demonstrated that this proof of sinking ships was inconsistent, and that one can often see further than should be possible. Beginning in 2012 long duration time-lapse photography of the sinking effect became available, showing that it is an inconsistent optical effect.
See the Sinking Ship Effect
Celestial Sphere
Aristotle said that the southern constellations appear to rise as you traveled southwards. This was another proof that the earth was globular, since if the earth were flat we should see all of the stars at once. This proof relies on certain axioms about the nature of light which the Ancient Greeks did not study or demonstrate. If light naturally bends upwards over very long distances it could create the celestial sphere effect.
See Electromagnetic Acceleration
Lunar Eclipse
Aristotle points to the Lunar Eclipse as proof that the Earth is round. Aristotle said that only a round Earth could create a round shadow. However, this is untrue. A slightly concave or flat-sided shadow projected onto the small convex surface of a sphere could also create a convexly curved shadow. The Flat Earth Theory's celestial model predicts that if the Moon travels out-of-bounds of the Sun's area of light a shadow will manifest upon its surface, which will occur when the Full Moon is near an opposite longitude from the the Sun.
See the Lunar Eclipse
General Relativity
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0039368185900020
“ Whilst preparing a review article on his new special theory of relativity, he became convinced that the key to the extension of the principle of relativity to accelerated motion lay in the remarkable and unexplained empirical coincidence of the equality of inertial and gravitational masses. ”
“ This equivalence of the gravitational and inertial masses (which allows us to refer simply to 'the mass'), is a truly remarkable coincidence in the Newtonian theory. In this theory there is no a-priori reason why the quantity that determines the magnitude of the gravitational force on the particle should equal the quantity that determines the particle's 'resistance' to an applied force in general. ”
http://cosmoschool2018.oa.uj.edu.pl/pdfs/day3/CosmoSchool_Cracow2018_PiorkowskaKurpas.pdf
“ Einstein proposed something very bold—if the two situations looked the same, they must be the same. Gravity was nothing more than an accelerated frame—of—reference.
...Einstein's assertion that gravity and acceleration are the same—which he called the equivalence principle—was influ- enced, no doubt, by his previous success in equating the situa— tion of a stationary magnet and a moving charge with that of a stationary charge and a moving magnet. But if gravity and accelerated motion were the same, then gravity was nothing but accelerated motion. Earth's surface was simply accelerating upward. This explained why a heavy ball and a light ball, when dropped, hit the floor at the same time. When the balls are released, they just float there—weightless. The floor (Earth) simply comes up and hits them. What a remarkably fresh way of looking at things!
Still one must ask how Earth's surface could be accelerating upward (away from Earth’s center) if Earth itself is not getting bigger and bigger with time like a balloon. The only way the assertion could make sense is by considering spacetime to be curved.
Einstein proposed that mass and energy cause spacetime to curve. It took him 8 years of hard work to derive the equations governing this. He had to learn the abstruse geometry of curved higher dimensional spaces. He had to learn about the Riemann- ian curvature tensor—a mathematical monster with 256 com— ponents telling how spacetime could be curved. This was very difficult mathematics, and Einstein ran upon many false leads. ”
“ In reading §23.7 you perhaps felt that cases (i) and (iii) must be distin- guishable because all the effects in the former are caused by the force of gravity, while no analogous force is involved in the latter. But are you sure that gravitation is a force? Is this force of gravity a hard fact of observation, or is it just a hypothesis introduced to explain why things fall in the way that they do?
Newton‘s theory of gravity as a force is so firmly built into our culture that we’ve come to feel that it’s obvious that things fall because a force is pulling them down. Yet if you examine your experience, you‘ll see that you have no direct evidence of this force. Try an experi- ment on yourself -a small-scale one, I suggest, like jumping off a chair. You don’t feel a force pulling you down.
On the other hand when you sit down again, not falling, you do feel a force—the upward pressure of the chair on your posterior. That observation would seem, if anything, to favour the case (ii) point of view-a rocket’s thrust, transmitted by floor and chair, is pushing you upwards, giving you an upward acceleration. Maybe the force of grav- ity is an illusion or an invention!
This alleged force of gravity has some very odd features. For every other force, we know a method of stopping it acting. We can cut tow ropes, demagnetise magnets, and so on. But no matter what we do, we cannot cancel or vary this force (if so it be) of gravity. Again, the fact that all bodies (in the same place) fall with the same acceleration implies that this gravitational force must be proportional to the body’s mass (§18.12)-and this has been verified to one part in a million million. That makes gravity very odd indeed, since in no other case is the strength of the force necessarily related to the mass of what it‘s acting on. On the other hand, the falling-with-the- same-acceleration behaviour is an obvious corollary of an explana- tion on the lines of case (iii). If the force needed to explain falling has to be so different from other forces, ought we not to feel suspi- cious about its reality?
So the simplest interpretation of what we observe would be to say that we are accelerated. Then we don’t need a force of gravity. But if we insist on maintaining that we are stationary, we have to invent this distinctly odd force to explain what we observe about things falling.
Such illusory or invented forces arise in other connections. In a car speeding round a circular track, any unrestrained object accelerates outwards (so it seems)—away from the centre of the circle. Sitting in the car, you are aware that forces are needed to prevent you from doing likewise. It seems as if everything in the car is subjected to a force driving it away from the centre-a ‘centrifugal force’, as it’s com- monly called—whose strength is again proportional to the mass of what- ever it‘s acting on.
But you know that this force is illusory. A trackside observer sees that if an object is not forcefully constrained to follow the car, it simply continues going straight ahead, and the car moves away from it. He needs no force to explain why things tend to move outwards relative to the car. For he sees that really the car turns aside, while unattached objects go straight on.
It is you in the car who are accelerated (§20.5)-towards the centre. But you habitually use yourself as reference system, thinking of your- self as stationary. And then to explain the behaviour of unrestrained objects you have to invent centrifugal force.
Could the force of gravity be similarly illusory? Obviously there will be complications when we consider things falling in both England and New Zeaiand— just as there are complications if the man in the car tries to explain the motion of things in another car on the opposite side of the track. But it looks as if there may be some sense in saying that the force of gravity is an illusion that arises because we deny being accelerated when we really are. ”
“ If we insist on maintaining that we are [at rest], we have toinventthis distinctly oddforce [gravitational attraction] to explain what we observe about things falling. . . Itlooks as if there may besomesense in saying that the force of gravity is an illusionthat arises because we deny being accelerated when we really are. . . The simplestinterpretation of what we observe would be to say thatweare accelerated. ”
“ It's incredible but true and profound. In general relativity, inertial frames are those in freefall. But if you are standing on the ground, that means that in the frame of a freefaller, which is inertial, you are accelerating, as is the ground. That's why you measure a real force, which you call your weight - it's just the force the ground is applying to you by accelerating upwards at g and pushing you along.
However, repeating this reasoning for various points on the surface of the round Earth, it should be accelerating outwards at all points. However measurably the total area of the Earth does not increase. How can a sphere expand outwards and maintain its area? Geometrically it appears we have a paradox... unless you admit the Earth is set in a spacetime which is geometrically non trivial. Thus, spacetime has to be curved.
This is how you prove the equivalence principle implies curved spacetime! ”
Size of the Universe
https://news.softpedia.com/news/The-Size-of-the-Universe-May-Be-Inaccurate-181163.shtml
“ Recent studies carried out by international teams of astronomers are reveling that the Universe may not have the size we currently attribute to it. At this point, it is difficult to say whether it's actually smaller or bigger than existing mathematical calculations show.
The uncertainty about its real dimensions stem from a changing view that astrophysicists and astronomers have on stars called Cepheid variables. These objects have until now been used to calculate distances in the Cosmos, but it would appear that this was a mistake.
The entire assumption on which space studies were conducted using Cepheid variables as a reference point was that they do not shift their properties as time passes. Even if they pulsate as seen from Earth, they do so in a repeatable manner, that always yields the same result.
But recently astronomers learned that these stars are losing mass as they do so. This discovery is bound to skew a host of scientific results and theories that were based on these “standard candles.”
If the luminosity variations Cepheid stars display are not consistent, then it means that the distances calculated using this assumption may be incorrect. The research team that conducted the investigation included University of Western Ontario astronomer Pauline Barmby.
“The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is,” adds Barmby, who is based at the university's Department of Physics and Astronomy.
“Measuring distances is important to understanding the properties of the things in the Universe,” she goes on to say. ”