Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't)

[hoi.polloi]

Amateurs have apparently captured Pluto, but most detailed imagery seems like dubious photoshop montage.

Saturn, Neptune and Jupiter have been captured by amateurs and their images indicate clear stripes.

Venus has been captured for decades, and its form, too, indicates strong stripe patterns.

Mercury appears to be a shriveled husk - a rock. Mars has come under the recent attentions of the propaganda machines and most of its recent imagery should be very suspect, indeed. Still, images seem to indicate it either goes through terrible transformations that change its entire surface, or we aren't entirely sure what a "constant" Mars should look like.

High-power telescopes indicate that many of the planets (and dwarf planets ) of our solar system are characterized by beautiful stripes across their entire surface. These stripes could indicate many things but it would be incredible evidence of constant spin.

Yet, which planet in our system is covered in a gas, is also supposed to be spinning, but whose surface is not broadly painted in stripes or hemispheric smudges?

Earth! Could it be that our planet is not spinning?

[lux]

Though this amateur astronomer unfortunately includes some NASA data in his thinking, he makes some interesting observations about his own telescopic views of Mars.

I find it interesting that, prior to the formation of NASA in the 1950s, it was widely believed even in official circles that the Martian "canals" do exist (though not necessarily being real canals) yet, according to NASA's presentation of Mars, they do not exist and are explained away as an optical illusion.

[hoi.polloi]

That is curious, isn't it?

---

I want to address a point some posts back where scud said to me:

Interesting graph Hoi. The line is clearly curved, suggesting at least a leveling off of gravity with altitude and perhaps some sort of ‘re-bound’ as you suggest. However, if we slam some numbers through this calculator.. http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpgravity/ne ... _force.php (object1, the Earth @ 5.9736 to the power 24 Kg...not forgetting the radius of 6,371 Km as our starting point) it would seem that the chart is pretty much correct.

Yet, I didn't suggest a rebound in this particular case. And my point was that the gravity is already measured from the surface, not from the core. 0 here already means the surface of the Earth. So, no, what I actually found interesting was that it suggests (apparently, though how could it be measured?) that Earth has a significant gravitational effect on things quite far away from itself.

If I misworded my previous post, it's not that gravity 'becomes stronger' as I said but that I find it impressive that gravity to Earth can assert itself from an infinity away.

Indeed, every chart I've seen does show a decreasingly diminishing acceleration. To be more specific, and clear about what I mean, this would mean that in an otherwise empty universe, Earth would have a slow "pull" on you from billions of light years away until you reached Earth. However, the present narrative about our universe tells us because there are other things, each with their own gravities, they would pull you in first. Ergo, it's actually very difficult to remain in empty space given enough time, since gravity is constantly pulling us toward one thing or another.

This is apparently "observed" in some way, but how has it been observed? Or has it merely been calculated? And if so, how? I understand this a big mystery and a big question, but it's worth discussing if we're going to determine whether our Earth is stationary, still, rotating or orbiting — and how the Sun and Moon fit into the picture.

[hoi.polloi]

Here is LifePsyop's (who goes by the username 'grav' on Cluesforum) latest video discussing the history of the theory of Heliocentrism and the evidence in favor of Geocentricity.

That video was interesting, Dcopymope.

It doesn't seem to be a very strong evidence for a Geocentric system, but it certainly discusses worthy questions about the motivations of Heliocentric system designers. On the one hand, Geocentric systems have not drawn up the complex model by which the Sun carries all its planets but itself manages to orbit the Earth. On the other hand, Heliocentric systems have disregarded and ignored the experiments describing the aether and its movement across a stationary Earth's surface; its theorized math of "dark matter" and "black holes" and a universal gravity and relativity, etc. etc. thusfar have been unproven Religious speculation.

Could it be that our system is complex enough to exist in multiple truths that haven't been successfully "married" together? If Earth physics are strictly attached to Earth and we've been trying to foolishly, mathematically construct our understanding of the universe based solely on the Earth physics that we know, then it would make sense that we only see the dualism of a Geocentric or Heliocentric model. But often the truth seems to exist in simple wanderings between two extremes.

Let's say in our physical existence, it's true that the observed aether is real and creates the effect of a stationary Earth with the cosmos seemingly orbiting around it. But perhaps it's also true that outside Earth, which has never been measured (but which NASA and others have pretended to measure for the sake of controlling Religious and philosophical thought), the local physics we know break down on such a profound level that we will not see the effects we expect when measuring anything beyond the ionosphere.

In other words, the Earth is both spinning and not spinning; the Sun both orbits the Earth and the Earth orbits the Sun. These uncomfortable possibilities exist simultaneously in our measurements. Perhaps, like measured light that can behave like waves or particles, there is also a macro kind of quantum physics going on.

[Dcopymope]

Here is LifePsyop's (who goes by the username 'grav' on Cluesforum) latest video discussing the history of the theory of Heliocentrism and the evidence in favor of Geocentricity.

That video was interesting, Dcopymope.

It doesn't seem to be a very strong evidence for a Geocentric system, but it certainly discusses worthy questions about the motivations of Heliocentric system designers. On the one hand, Geocentric systems have not drawn up the complex model by which the Sun carries all its planets but itself manages to orbit the Earth. On the other hand, Heliocentric systems have disregarded and ignored the experiments describing the aether and its movement across a stationary Earth's surface; its theorized math of "dark matter" and "black holes" and a universal gravity and relativity, etc. etc. thusfar have been unproven Religious speculation.

Could it be that our system is complex enough to exist in multiple truths that haven't been successfully "married" together? If Earth physics are strictly attached to Earth and we've been trying to foolishly, mathematically construct our understanding of the universe based solely on the Earth physics that we know, then it would make sense that we only see the dualism of a Geocentric or Heliocentric model. But often the truth seems to exist in simple wanderings between two extremes.

Let's say in our physical existence, it's true that the observed aether is real and creates the effect of a stationary Earth with the cosmos seemingly orbiting around it. But perhaps it's also true that outside Earth, which has never been measured (but which NASA and others have pretended to measure for the sake of controlling Religious and philosophical thought), the local physics we know break down on such a profound level that we will not see the effects we expect when measuring anything beyond the ionosphere.

In other words, the Earth is both spinning and not spinning; the Sun both orbits the Earth and the Earth orbits the Sun. These uncomfortable possibilities exist simultaneously in our measurements. Perhaps, like measured light that can behave like waves or particles, there is also a macro kind of quantum physics going on.

The heliocentric model tells us that earth is revolving through space around the sun at pretty much the speed of a bullet. I asked someone once to provide some physical evidence for all that commotion that we should be seeing and I have yet to get an answer and probably never will because the earth obviously is not moving. My conclusion is that its at the very least possible that the earth is spinning on its axis, but not anywhere near the speeds that have been given and this sure doesn't mean that its actually moving in any given direction, it seems stationary. I don't think the geocentric model needs to explain why the sun is carrying the planets while orbiting earth. The reason to me is obvious, because our planet was designed for habitation. In order for life to even begin and sustain itself on any planet it would have to be, well, "the third rock from the sun" without fail, the perfect distance. It can't be any closer or any further, and this can't be the case by pure chance. However, like the video said, both theories are still for the most part mutually exclusive because neither has been conclusively proven.

[rusty]

Decision set one:
1. The Earth is rotating
~ hence, necessarily ~
2. Gravity by itself (or along with some other force) works to both

• usurp and neutralize the centripetal force of standing on the Earth's surface
  and yet
• more or less equalizes gravity across the entire surface of the Earth

Hoi, if you don't doubt the official fomulas for gravity and centrifugal forces, you can quite easily calculate them. You will find out, that the centrifugal force of a rotating earth diminishes the effect of gravity only very marginally. Proponents of a rotating earth will argue, that the measurable difference between gravitational acceleration on the equator and the poles is due to earth's rotation and in turn this strongly indicates (vulg. "proves") that our earth rotates. Apart from that there's a measurable difference in gravity depending from the altitude, which goes well with the formula for gravity.

I'm all for a non-rotating earth, but apparently it's not that simple.

Could it be that our system is complex enough to exist in multiple truths that haven't been successfully "married" together? If Earth physics are strictly attached to Earth and we've been trying to foolishly, mathematically construct our understanding of the universe based solely on the Earth physics that we know, then it would make sense that we only see the dualism of a Geocentric or Heliocentric model. But often the truth seems to exist in simple wanderings between two extremes.

Wow, that's a pretty good quote in my book, Hoi. We are like the literal blind men trying to explore the elephant. I think the universe is all about dualisms.

There's another dualism I'd like to elaborate on, when time permits. It's the inverse model of the universe in contrast to our current model. I doubt many of you have heard of it. It's like turning the outside in. Earth becomes the outer bound of the universe by a simple mathematical transformation.

The fundamental assumption behind our current model of everything is that light rays travel on straight lines (minus gravity effects!). The entire topology of our universe builds on this assumption, and light + electromagnetic waves are the only source of our knowledge. But there has been (at least) one rather simple experiment back in 1898 which, if interpreted correctly, suggests that this assumption may not be entirely reasonable. And that the surface of the earth is possibly not what it looks like. The infinite space might as well be an illusion, a trick of the convoluted rays of light.

[anonjedi2]

Hoi,

Couldn't one argue that the visible movement of the stars throughout the night sky over a period of X hours could be used as "evidence that the earth is moving and/or rotating"?

[hoi.polloi]

Couldn't one argue that the visible movement of the stars throughout the night sky over a period of X hours could be used as "evidence that the earth is moving and/or rotating"?

Yes, but unfortunately it is equal evidence for the celestial bodies rotating around a still Earth, without further evidence. That's where the whole Geocentric and Heliocentric arguments begin.

Hoi, if you don't doubt the official [formulas] for gravity and centrifugal forces, you can quite easily calculate them. You will find out, that the centrifugal force of a rotating earth diminishes the effect of gravity only very marginally. Proponents of a rotating earth will argue, that the measurable difference between gravitational acceleration on the equator and the poles is due to earth's rotation and in turn this strongly indicates (vulg. "proves") that our earth rotates. Apart from that there's a measurable difference in gravity depending from the altitude, which goes well with the formula for gravity.

I'm all for a non-rotating earth, but apparently it's not that simple.

I have some simple formulas for gravity I could plug in, but how would you go about calculating the centrifugal "force" on the equator of a theoretically moving Earth? Could it be as simple as saying:

A 100kg individual flying at 463.6 m/s (^2) divided by the Earth's 6,3710,000 meter radius at the equator gives us about 5.85 Newtons of force? At Earth's conventional average gravity of about 9.8 Newtons per kilo, it does seem to put a chip in conventional thinking. 2 Newtons versus 100-k-man's 980 Newtons isn't much.

If one isn't standing at the equator, and one is — say — on the Tropic of Cancer, where the spin is slower but at a significant angle, we could try to calculate for 100kg x 342.35 m/s (^2) divided by the Tropic's radius of 4,707,644 meters to get a fairly noticeable 2.48 Newtons leaning on everyone at a 23-degree angle.

So shouldn't everyone at the Northern Tropic be leaning a little to the North to compensate for this constant subtle pressure? And shouldn't everyone at the Southern Tropic be leaning a little South to compensate for the pull to the equator? Wouldn't old people be annoyed by the constant quarter-kilo of force occasionally knocking them over when they try to get out of bed? Shouldn't we be building our structures at a slightly skewed angle for maximum efficiency and stability?

Or am I doing it wrong?

The fundamental assumption behind our current model of everything is that light rays travel on straight lines (minus gravity effects!). The entire topology of our universe builds on this assumption, and light + electromagnetic waves are the only source of our knowledge. But there has been (at least) one rather simple experiment back in 1898 which, if interpreted correctly, suggests that this assumption may not be entirely reasonable. And that the surface of the earth is possibly not what it looks like. The infinite space might as well be an illusion, a trick of the convoluted rays of light.

Well, don't hold back now. Let's bring it to the table. Perhaps it could somehow explain "Airy's Failure" such that the Aether can be reconsidered and further explained.

[rusty]

I have some simple formulas for gravity I could plug in, but how would you go about calculating the centrifugal "force" on the equator of a theoretically moving Earth?

The formula for the centrifugal force is: omega * omega * radius
omega is the angular speed. Since one rotation takes 24 hours, the angular speed is 2·PI/(24·3600) = 0.000072722 rad/s
The radius is about 6365000m, therefore the centrifugal force (acceleration) is about 0.03366 m/(s·s)

The gravity acceleration is: G · m / (r·r) = 9.841 m/(s·s)
G is the gravity constant 6.67384 / 10^11 = 0.0000000000667384
m is the mass of the earth: 5.974 · 10^24 = 5.975000000000000000000000 kg

So gravitiy is about 9.84 (they say it's rather 9.81), centrifugal force about 0.03 at the equator.

You may notice that the angular speed is far more important for the centrifugal force than the distance. Therefore the (assumed) orbit of earth around the sun accounts for even less centrifugal force that the rotation of the earth.

Well, don't hold back now. Let's bring it to the table. Perhaps it could somehow explain "Airy's Failure" such that the Aether can be reconsidered and further explained.

It's not that simple and will confuse the matter more than it will help getting a clear picture instantly. So don't expect too much. Still I think it's of much value.I know the "theory" sounds pretty outlandish and will therefore be instantly rejected by a majority, even in this forum where many of us doubt the achievements of NASA and modern astronomy. Therefore I want to take my time to elaborate on it as good as I can and not rush it.

[hoi.polloi]

Alright, well then! While you prepare the somewhat unrelated point, let me reiterate: the Earth doesn't magically spin in every direction at once. The hapless Earth is moving all sorts of different directions in our imaginations while we try to sort this out, but will the mystery of its true movement (or lack thereof) get deciphered?

So in the Heliocentric model, Earth is accused of spinning rapidly from West to East, to account for the apparent movements of the Sun and Moon. This is what we are discussing, since there is presently no evidence to argue this Heliocentric model except unproven, hypothetical mathematical models that bespeak elegance rather than the complex evidences.

But to tell you the truth, the "complexity" doesn't really concern me in this case. I am not looking for some String Theory of Everything to put the formula for the universe on a tee-shirt. I am fine with complex things. Everything seems rather complex anyway. If an experiment shows the Earth is still within an Aether, let's ask about that rather than dismissing the evidence entirely.

So there you have my philosophical bias laid out. I side with evidence. Not beautiful fantasy.

---

I am saying that people who live in Minnesota seem to be able to stand up perfectly straight. One is not burdened by a top-heavy push toward the South, no matter how many beers one has had down at the CC Club.

If 1 or 2 kilos of pressure were constantly leaning my body along the plane of the Tropic, I think I would find myself compensating for this, it would affect my sense of direction and navigation, particularly if I turned between North and South orientations. I would feel myself 'lighter' as I headed to Mexico, I would feel myself 'heavier' and more leaning as I headed up to Canada.

Do these sensations and compensations really exist on a subconscious level and we've evolved organisms/instincts to hallucinate that these sensations don't exist, for survival reasons?

---

"Evidence" of a still Earth?

If the speed of light is a constant (definitely up for debate, if not just because Einstein was quite capable of pulling everyone's chain on the Nuke question), then Airy's experiment ("Airy's Failure") indicates that the Aether is rotating around an Earth for which movement is not detectable. The star light itself seems to be moving, whereas the Earth is not, which would mean the visible heavens are spinning around the Earth. This isn't all that strange if you imagine that there could be an infinity of things we can't see and hence have nothing to do with us, and so we get fixated on the things we can detect — yet which we assume are unconnected to us. (How bemused humans can be about their senses!)

No lean or need for compensatory action at sub- and super-equatorial latitudes, which would indicate the spin of hundreds of meters and rotation of 4/1000ths of a degree per second.

No circumference-spanning stripes of anything across the surface of the Earth. So if the atmosphere isn't somehow magnetized or otherwise shielded from massive change, we would seek the idea that the air doesn't leave the Earth thanks to gravity, it doesn't bunch up because it is floating — along with the rest of the Earth — through the permissive void that allows the atmosphere to exist freely with no problem.

But ...


"Evidence" of a rotating Earth?

I can only think of one strange question, which might have a very prosaic explanation, given time to think about it. And I have a very roundabout way of getting to it ... but when one flies from country to country, then Westbound flights that take less time than equidistant Eastbound flights are interesting. The reason for this is apparently caused by a channel of weather that tends to blow West around the equator and East around the Tropics.

windpat.gif (33.06 KiB) Viewed 11442 times

http://www.aroundtheamericas.org/log/re ... baja-bash/

This is all to say: the Coriolis effect should be explained. If the Earth is spinning Eastward (counter clockwise if looking at the Earth from above the North pole), as per evidence of the still Earth above, the air shouldn't be moving faster, the air 'stays still' and is only stuck in weather patterns for some gyroscopic or other reason. If this can be explained as a complex chain reaction that doesn't have to do with whether the weather spins or not, we would still be stuck with more evidence for a still Earth based on some experiments of observed Aether.

[lux]

Let us say the Earth is not rotating. What then would explain the heavenly objects that we see moving across the sky?

Not only are they moving but they're keeping their same size and distance in relation to each other every time we see them. What could be causing that?

Are they all attached to an enormous spherical shell that revolves in space with the Earth at the center?

Or, are they all detached from one another and at varying distances from Earth but just happen to each move at the exact speed and direction necessary to make them all appear to move in concert with each other?

[hoi.polloi]

Are they all attached to an enormous spherical shell that revolves in space with the Earth at the center?

Or, are they all detached from one another and at varying distances from Earth but just happen to each move at the exact speed and direction necessary to make them all appear to move in concert with each other?

That is the postulation of the Geocentric universe. I think that's the only explanation offered for the synchronized stars. They are either part of some invisible shell-shaped force, or are on nearly identical paths. It's certainly not as lovely as the idea that they aren't moving at all, which the Heliocentric offers very seductively.

[hoi.polloi]

How can the universe rotate so rapidly without disintegrating? There is growing evidence that the aether has "Planck density" - it is extremely dense and the sun and planets are like corks in very dense water comparatively. This whole universe sweeps round the earth because otherwise it would collapse in on itself due to its density. The mechanics of this system forces the other planets etc. to describe ellipses in their orbit around the sun.

Ernst Mach proposed that it is the weight of the stars circling the earth that drags Foucault pendulums around, creates Coriolis forces in the air that give the cyclones to our weather etc. Barbour and Bertotti (Il Nuovo Cimento 32B(1):1-27, 11 March 1977) proved that a hollow sphere (the universe) rotating around a solid sphere inside (the earth) produced exactly the same results of Coriolis forces, dragging of Foucault pendulums etc. that are put forward as "proofs" of heliocentricity! This paper gives several other confirmations of the superiority of the geocentric model.

Thus, there is evidence that the earth is NOT moving around the sun, but either the aether is moving around the earth carrying the planets with it, or the earth is spinning on its axis. The most likely model is that the aether is rotating around the earth as calculations show that if it did not, it would rapidly collapse upon itself.

- http://homepage.ntlworld.com/malcolmbowden/Geocexpl.htm

I am not sure what this 'growing evidence' is that they're discussing, but what a horrific and interesting concept!

[rusty]

If 1 or 2 kilos of pressure were constantly leaning my body along the plane of the Tropic, I think I would find myself compensating for this, it would affect my sense of direction and navigation, particularly if I turned between North and South orientations. I would feel myself 'lighter' as I headed to Mexico, I would feel myself 'heavier' and more leaning as I headed up to Canada.

That's a pretty interesting argument, though I don't agree with the "1 or 2 kilos" figure. Need to do more calculation to get a more exact value...but even if it is only equivalent to 100g-200g wouldn't you think we'd notice it? Makes me go hmmm for sure.

On the question of the aether and all celestial bodies revolving around us - that's one of the things that get pretty simple once you apply the inverse model of the universe. I think I'll probably start a new thread...later.

[hoi.polloi]

Please, feel free to recalculate. I am not even talking about the crazy angle it would feel like up in New York (or anywhere North of Texas). Just assuming for the radius of the Tropic (from imaginary Earth "axis" from North to South pole) of 4.7 million meters, and its whirling 342 meters per second, you get some pretty interesting numbers.

---

I have been studying the oft-cited experiments which indicate a Geocentric model. This study of Sagnac does not indicate any Geocentric views, as far as I can tell. It merely tears apart the idea that motion is relative but light is constant.

If time dilation is an illusion, then the entire 4D time-space continuum of Einstein should be considered, to use his own word for the aether, “superfluous.”

-http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Sagnac ... ndRel.html

In fact, it seems that experiments based on observation indicate the opposite: motion is absolutely fixed, but light is relative to the observer.

If there is a fixed motion, then the "absolute frame of reference" for everything is the Aether containing the Stars.

Newton's bucket experiment, at the start of the article, is a good place to start but I will transfer here:

Newton pointed out it is not the relative motion of the [spinning] bucket and water that causes the concavity of the water. The concaving of the water suggests that it is rotating with respect to something else, far more remote. In Newton’s thinking, this showed rotation relative to say…absolute space. This is contrary to the idea that motions can only be relative.

So what I'm gathering is Sagnac's experiments themselves do not indicate a stationary Earth, but combined with Airy's (which indicate the Earth seems somehow exempt from the Aether), it would indicate a fixed framework of Stars twirling about the Earth.

---

What all this is beginning to tell me is: if rotations and forces work differently on Earth than how they do for the Earth itself, we would have a hard time finding out since all our measurements are taken from Earth; and NASA is just one big fantasy to pretend we can get them from anywhere else.