Scotty99 Posted February 9, 2015 Author Share Posted February 9, 2015 (edited) But those experiments do not show that we move at 30 km/s. Sungenis goes on to say later when michaelson teamed up with a different guy they found the same (smaller than expected) result as in 1887, but again it did not explain the 30 km/s instead it explained a 24 hour rotation (universe revolving around us) which was the goal of that experiment. He goes on to point out that in a heliocentric system, this number is not sufficient enough to explain the seasons because in a heliocentric model you need not only a rotating earth but a revolving earth. Edited February 9, 2015 by Scotty99 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Now when talking about the CMB, they list this as one of the big points of proof. They say (and ive seen this in pictures, actually) that the background shows two large planes of hot and cold (which should not be there in relativity, because again there are no special places in the universe) and that where those planes intersect is directly at the equinoxes of earth. Now should this alone be proof? Like someone said in this thread could it simply be an error of the equipment? One of the problems measuring the CMB in all directions is that there is this great big thing called "the galaxy" in the way. And then lots of other things, like other galaxies. So in order to measure the overall CMB a lot of filtering work has to be doine to remove these foreground sources. These depend on having accurate models of what thos foreground sources are so that they can be accurately subtracted. This has to be done very accurately because the variations in the CMB are minute. So the best anyone can say is that there seem to be these anisotropies. It seems likely, given the difficulties of removing the foregorund, that that is the source of the apparent alignment. However, even if the alignment were real, that wouldn't necessarily say anything about the earth occupying a special place in the universe. For example, if there is some very large scale asymmetry in the universe, then that could also make it more likely for planetary systems to be aligned with it. In which case, again, maybe many planets would see themselves having some speical alignment. So: exaggaerating the significance and drawaing unwarranted conclusions. This sort of thing is frowned upon in science, Sungenis and his ilk thrive on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty99 Posted February 9, 2015 Author Share Posted February 9, 2015 One of the problems measuring the CMB in all directions is that there is this great big thing called "the galaxy" in the way. And then lots of other things, like other galaxies. So in order to measure the overall CMB a lot of filtering work has to be doine to remove these foreground sources. These depend on having accurate models of what thos foreground sources are so that they can be accurately subtracted. This has to be done very accurately because the variations in the CMB are minute. So the best anyone can say is that there seem to be these anisotropies. It seems likely, given the difficulties of removing the foregorund, that that is the source of the apparent alignment. However, even if the alignment were real, that wouldn't necessarily say anything about the earth occupying a special place in the universe. For example, if there is some very large scale asymmetry in the universe, then that could also make it more likely for planetary systems to be aligned with it. In which case, again, maybe many planets would see themselves having some speical alignment. So: exaggaerating the significance and drawaing unwarranted conclusions. This sort of thing is frowned upon in science, Sungenis and his ilk thrive on it. I think you are missing the point he is getting at, take earth out of that equation altogether, say its pointing at neptune....its still pointing somewhere (remember no special places in relativity). The pointing at earth thing is incredible of course, but the fact its pointing at anything is equally as crazy right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 I think you are missing the point he is getting at, take earth out of that equation altogether, say its pointing at neptune....its still pointing somewhere (remember no special places in relativity). The pointing at earth thing is incredible of course, but the fact its pointing at anything is equally as crazy right? Well, if there is an asymmetry then it must be aligned with something, somewhere. By definition. So, no, not amazing at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty99 Posted February 9, 2015 Author Share Posted February 9, 2015 Well, if there is an asymmetry then it must be aligned with something, somewhere. By definition. So, no, not amazing at all. But all of the predictions before they got results of the CMB (based on relativity) expected total uniformity. What came back is completely different and i honestly cant remember anyone even talking about CMB in any of the hundreds of videos ive seen on youtube, maybe for the fact they cant explain it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 With geocentrism, being at the center of the universe goes directly at odds with relativity. With relativity there are no special places in the universe. This is one form of the cosmological principle. Placing any point as being special or referred would break this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 But all of the predictions before they got results of the CMB (based on relativity) expected total uniformity. Indeed. No one denies that the apparent anisotropy was unexpected. Whether it exists and what it means will require more work. What came back is completely different and i honestly cant remember anyone even talking about CMB in any of the hundreds of videos ive seen on youtube, maybe for the fact they cant explain it? Maybe it just confirms that youtube is a pretty poor place to gather scientific information. I am no great expert on cosmology but I have seen a huge amount written about this topic (and read a small amount of it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 But those experiments do not show that we move at 30 km/s. Sungenis goes on to say later when he teamed up with a different guy they found the same (smaller than expected) result as in 1887, but again it did not explain the 30 km/s instead it explained a 24 hour rotation (universe revolving around us) which was the goal of that experiment. He points on to point out that in a heliocentric system, this number is not sufficient enough to explain the seasons because in a heliocentric model you need not only a rotating earth but a revolving earth. Which experiments? Aberration shows we are moving at 30 km/s. From the link I provided earlier: "Approximating the Earth's orbit as circular, the maximum displacement of a star due to annual aberration is known as the constant of aberration, conventionally represented by . It may be calculated using the relation substituting the Earth's average speed in the Sun's frame for and the speed of light c. Its accepted value is 20.49552 arcseconds" I don't understand your point about seasons. We know we're rotating, too. A Foucault pendulum shows this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 The predictions of the CMB were that it was going to be entirely uniform, so when it came back like it did surely eyebrows had to been raised. Not entirely uniform. We think that the small differences in the CMBR are due to quantum fluctuations in the inflation field, that is the field responsible for the inflationary epoch. The details of the CMBR anisotropies fit this idea quite well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty99 Posted February 9, 2015 Author Share Posted February 9, 2015 Indeed. No one denies that the apparent anisotropy was unexpected. Whether it exists and what it means will require more work. Maybe it just confirms that youtube is a pretty poor place to gather scientific information. I am no great expert on cosmology but I have seen a huge amount written about this topic (and read a small amount of it). Agreed i really should read more lol, but when i say youtube videos i mean debates/lectures with renowned scientists of our day i dont only watch videos like this topic is about. Im being serious i cannot remember them talk about this at all really. In the presentation they also touch on GPS satellites, and claim the speed of light is only constant when in relation to the receivers on the earth. If you are in a plane while moving away from the satellite and turn your lights on, they claim you need to add the velocity of the plane to light, calling this vector addition. They also say the opposite is true, if you are flying towards the satellite you would need to minus your speed from light to get your actual speed. How they get to this point is by saying the satellites themselves are pre-programmed with the sagnac effect, that they would not function without this. The sagnac effect is the same resistance as the Michaelson gale experiment found as i listed above, where the null result was actually a small positive indicating the 24 hour period (again of the universe revolving around us as the center of mass in the universe). This stuff is so entertaining lol. I don't understand your point about seasons. We know we're rotating, too. Sorry i cannot speak to the abberation effect because as i asked earlier i am not sure if these theory depends on the interferometer experiments being true (null). As for the season thing, that means because they did not find a null result but a small positive....our ideas of a season wont fit in the heliocentric model because there simply is not enough movement, only a geocentric model fits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Agreed i really should read more lol, but when i say youtube videos i mean debates/lectures with renowned scientists of our day i dont only watch videos like this topic is about. Im being serious i cannot remember them talk about this at all really. As I say, you won't find a lot of detail on youtube. There might be few useful animations and some "talking heads" but precious little real information. In the presentation they also touch on GPS satellites, and claim the speed of light is only constant when in relation to the receivers on the earth. If you are in a plane while moving away from the satellite and turn your lights on, they claim you need to add the velocity of the plane to light, calling this vector addition. They also say the opposite is true, if you are flying towards the satellite you would need to minus your speed from light to get your actual speed. How they get to this point is by saying the satellites themselves are pre-programmed with the sagnac effect, that they would not function without this. The sagnac effect is the same resistance as the Michaelson gale experiment found as i listed above, where the null result was actually a small positive indicating the 24 hour period (again of the universe revolving around us as the center of mass in the universe). That is pretty garbled, you either watched a really bad video or you are not explaining it terribly well. For example: - "the speed of light is only constant when in relation to the receivers on the earth" The speed of light is the same for ALL obsevers. - "If you are in a plane while moving away from the satellite and turn your lights on, they claim you need to add the velocity of the plane to light" This is just false. The speed of light from your plane is the same speed of light everyone else sees. No need to add the speed of the plane. Sorry i cannot speak to the abberation effect because as i asked earlier i am not sure if these theory depends on the interferometer experiments being true (null). Aberration is a measurement. It does not depend on the results of the Michelson Morley experiment. In fact, it was measured about 100 years before that experiment. our ideas of a season wont fit in the heliocentric model because there simply is not enough movement, only a geocentric model fits. That sounds like a flat-out lie. (No surprises there.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty99 Posted February 9, 2015 Author Share Posted February 9, 2015 Like i said in my OP, im not good at putting my thoughts down into words (or others apparently lol). I think everyone in this thread is still confused as to what is actually being proposed by this man, everything you know about current science needs to go out the window, relativity is make believe. They are proposing a different set of rules that changes a lot of things, but not everything (for example gravity works great here). When you reply to my comments about the speed of light you are replying based on your current knowledge of the universe with relativity in mind, im asking you (not me, sungenis lol) to just open up a bit. Can we not talk about the possibilty of this being true? This is the speculation forum right lol? Again im not subscribed to anything but im a firm believer of having an open mind, we have been wrong about TONS of stuff in the past why is it so crazy to think maybe einstein was wrong when the evidence proposed upon us....makes at least a little bit of sense? I really dont wanna get into a bullet point argument of people just linking wiki's trying to prove me wrong when im not even trying to prove anything right, can we not just entertain some really neat ideas that have at least a small possibility of changing the entire universe as we know it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten oz Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Agreed i really should read more lol, but when i say youtube videos i mean debates/lectures with renowned scientists of our day i dont only watch videos like this topic is about. Im being serious i cannot remember them talk about this at all really. Lectures and debates on YouTube are terrific but unless you are reading and educating yourself how do you know what's true? Confidence not facts often wins debates for the average uniformed viewer and a professional setting can make a lecture appear more legitimate than it is. You need to set a bar. To have a standard. In science it is peer reviewed research Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Like i said in my OP, im not good at putting my thoughts down into words (or others apparently lol). I think everyone in this thread is still confused as to what is actually being proposed by this man, everything you know about current science needs to go out the window, relativity is make believe. But it works extremely well. Until someone comes up with a scientific theory that works better, it will be the standard theory. And that needs to be a scientific theory: making quantitative predictions, those predictions tested against evidence, the results reviewed and replicated by others, etc. When you reply to my comments about the speed of light you are replying based on your current knowledge of the universe with relativity in mind, im asking you (not me, sungenis lol) to just open up a bit. Can we not talk about the possibilty of this being true? I guess one could try and develop a theory where the speed of light is not constant. But then you would need to show that it is possibel to measure the varying speed of light. No one has been able to do this. This is the speculation forum right lol? But it is still a science forum, so speculations have to stick to the scientific method (or an informal approximation of it). Again im not subscribed to anything but im a firm believer of having an open mind, we have been wrong about TONS of stuff in the past why is it so crazy to think maybe einstein was wrong when the evidence proposed upon us....makes at least a little bit of sense? It is not crazy to think Einsten was wrong. No scientists should be trsuted. Unfortunately, it is a lot harder to argue that the facts are wrong. I really dont wanna get into a bullet point argument of people just linking wiki's trying to prove me wrong when im not even trying to prove anything right, can we not just entertain some really neat ideas that have at least a small possibility of changing the entire universe as we know it? Science doesn't proceed on the basis of things being really neat. If you can produce some evidence, then he idea could be considered. (Videos made by a proven crank and liar are not evidence.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 can we not just entertain some really neat ideas that have at least a small possibility of changing the entire universe as we know it? We do that here, but we do it within the framework of accepted methodology, so there might actually be some productive discussion instead of wild guesses and opinion and hand-waving. It's not for everyone, but most people here know that Wild West speculation with no guidelines is pointless. There are places where you can just toss your idea out with no structure to the discussion. I don't think they're as professional in their demeanor as we are here. Most of them just call you an idiot and ban you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Most of them just call you an idiot and ban you. And in some you will get responses along the lines of, "Wow that's awesome! That, like, totally fits with the idea of helical vortices in the space-time neural quantum substrate of dark matter-energy composite laminar flows that my spirit guide told me about" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty99 Posted February 9, 2015 Author Share Posted February 9, 2015 It seems this definitely was the wrong forum to post in, i literally just googled science forum and this was the first one to pop up. What really saddens me with some of these replies is how negative the tone is, when all i am trying to do is figure out why we have been stuck in science for so long. I am only looking for alternatives, thinking outside the box you could say is this not a good thing? I realize now just how hard it is to talk about these types of things, even if you leave the hard stuff out like religion. Its just so deeply ingrained in everyone even entertaining the idea is an extremely difficult thing to do. If you guys cant even play along on a sub thread of a random science forum i cant imagine how hard this is for robert sungenis in dealing with people in normal everyday scenarios. I guess this will be my first and last thread on this forum lol i dont know what else to say i feel like im getting ganged up on. Anywho thanks to the people who tried to have a chat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Like i said in my OP, im not good at putting my thoughts down into words (or others apparently lol). I think everyone in this thread is still confused as to what is actually being proposed by this man, everything you know about current science needs to go out the window, relativity is make believe. They are proposing a different set of rules that changes a lot of things, but not everything (for example gravity works great here). But gravity doesn't "work great here" with regards to geocentrism. You need to explain orbital epicycles. What is exerting gravity to make epicycles happen? It seems this definitely was the wrong forum to post in, i literally just googled science forum and this was the first one to pop up. What really saddens me with some of these replies is how negative the tone is, when all i am trying to do is figure out why we have been stuck in science for so long. I am only looking for alternatives, thinking outside the box you could say is this not a good thing? All too often "thinking outside the box" is used to mean "don't criticize the flaws in my proposal". If your idea is contradicted by measurement, it's wrong. Only looking for support and ignoring these contradictions isn't science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 I guess this will be my first and last thread on this forum lol i dont know what else to say i feel like im getting ganged up on. Anywho thanks to the people who tried to have a chat. If you'd asked questions you would have got educative responses but when you put up an idea that challenges the mainstream it will be subject to critique. Everyone goes through it, regardless of expertise or seniority. It's why the scientific method is trusted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 It seems this definitely was the wrong forum to post in, i literally just googled science forum and this was the first one to pop up. Any science forum worth its name will give you a similar, or tougher response. Some will instantly ban you for not discussing science. Some will just ridicule you. One or two will give you the sort of serious considered responses you have got here. I'm not sure what else you could ask for. What really saddens me with some of these replies is how negative the tone is, when all i am trying to do is figure out why we have been stuck in science for so long. I am only looking for alternatives, thinking outside the box you could say is this not a good thing? Sigh. You still don't get it. It is not about being negative or not considering alternatives. It is about requiring those alternatives to be supported. For example, what if your doctor said, "I have never studied medicine but I have been thinking outside the box and, using pure logic, have decided that extracting half your blood and boiling it up with some crystals will cure you". Or your car mechanic said, "I have determined that the problem with your car is the frobnitz. Now some negative, closed minded mechanics who learnt about cars by working on them and studying "books" will tell you there is no such thing as a frobnitz. But I have bypassed all that by thinking outside the box. Just believe!" Would you trust either of those? Thinking outside the box is OK if it is combined with a deep understanding of the subject (i.e. you have to have been in the box first) and critical thinking. Sungenis totally lacks the the former. Sadly, you seem to be lacking the latter. But this is not a problem: you can learn critical thinking skills. And this would be a good venure to practice. Unfortunately, "thinking outisde the box" is, too often, shorthand for "I don't know anything about this and can't be bothered to learn. But you should still take me seriously". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 I realize now just how hard it is to talk about these types of things, even if you leave the hard stuff out like religion. Its just so deeply ingrained in everyone even entertaining the idea is an extremely difficult thing to do. If you guys cant even play along on a sub thread of a random science forum i cant imagine how hard this is for robert sungenis in dealing with people in normal everyday scenarios. Many of these people who are arguing for alternative theories are simply unaware of experiments that contradict the ideas. That's on them — they need to do their homework. I don't understand why I should be expected to "play along" with someone whose idea has already been falsified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Your not being ganged up on even if it feels like it to You. There are so many intelligent eyes being cast upon the threads on this forum including the experts that generously give their own time to help students/laymen and potential theorists alike. Even though You said You never even finished college Your words on this thread show that You're intelligent and as such if You had cared to look at other threads You would have realised this would be no Easy-Ride. Please take their advice and their information forward positively and learn from it like others do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty99 Posted February 9, 2015 Author Share Posted February 9, 2015 I really am capable of critical thinking i just sound like an idiot on a forum because i never paid attention in english lol. Listen dont think i cant understand where you guys are coming from, whats the point in discussing something like this when according to all the literature (minus the ones sungenis points out of course) says otherwise? Its the entire basis of our understanding of the cosmos, how do you even start a conversation to the contrary? What really disappoints me though is the people who must only come back at me with terms you know i likely havent even heard of. If i didnt make it abundantly clear i have a limited science background and am only doing my best to convey what sungenis is trying to get across. It actually does feel like bullying, but if you and me were in a room together i can guarantee none of you would act this way, its the internet that changes people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg H. Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 (edited) No one is bullying you, but there's really no reason to play devil's advocate with established science, unless you have new evidence that contradicts the established model. And the longer the established model has been around, the more compelling your evidence will need to be. Reinterpreting experiments done a couple hundred years ago isn't enough. You need new models, with supporting maths, that better explains ALL of the existing evidence, not just a small fraction of it. On a topic like geocentrism, it's trivally easy to disprove, assuming you objectively review all of the evidence. The fact that Sungenis has to be intellectually dishonest to find experts that appear to agree with his proposals doesn't help his case at all. As it says in my signature, If reality and your theory disagree, it is not reality that's wrong. Edited February 9, 2015 by Greg H. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty99 Posted February 9, 2015 Author Share Posted February 9, 2015 The movie is one thing, but i havent seen it! Like i said i came across these videos 5 or 6 months ago before i even heard about the movie. Everyone in here says he is a lying bastard with religious motivations (that last part could surely be true, but so what?). But what ive seen of him is that he has spent a hell of a long time working this out, and talks to small groups of people cause he enjoys doing it, he does not seem like he is trying to trick people he just wants to be heard. Why would a dude spend so much time and energy on something when its likely he will never be widely accepted? You could even go as far as saying he is sabotaging himself.....but for what reason, he believes it! Again im not subscribed to anything right now im just in the fact gathering stage, but when i see a dude like sungenis with all that passion time and hard work for what amounts to a hill of beans, i respect that. Quite a few people who have replied to this thread have said its been disproven time and time again, but i still havent seen the concrete evidence that i need to say "ok there it is, sungenis is full of shit". Until then i need to keep this idea in my head, thats just how my brain works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts