Strange Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Again why must you guys attack me instead of sungenis I am not attacking you. I'm not sure why you think I am. PLEASE i am not saying what he says as fact, i am just noting the evidence you guys are throwing at me and the evidence i saw in the video is the same thing.....how can that be! Sigh. Because science builds models and test them The models developed by science pass those tests and generate useful results. Have any of Sungenis's claims been tested? No. Does he even make any testable predictions? No. Why are his claims plausible then? Lack of critical thinking. Why do you believe that the evidence supports his claims? Because he says so. Puhleeze. For god's sake: THINK. I just cannot understand why anyone would take unsubstantiated claims seriously. So you are telling me scientists are not already planning a larger collider in the future? I'm sure they are. but correct if i am wrong didnt we expect to find darm matter and/or dark energy in this current LHC? First I've heard about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 What mathematics died he present to explain the movement of Foucault's pendulum? If its none he immediately fails the test of providing better explanations. The same goes for all the other claims. Just shouting that your idea explains it doesn't hold much water. Modern physics is about making accurate predictions that requires maths. Without the maths you cannot show your idea is better there's no way to compare the ideas. Our mainstream science has amazingly accurate predictions for the pendulem, planetary orbits, the curve of cannon balls etc... Anyone would need to better those predictions to hope to claim to have a better idea, geocentric theories fail to do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 (edited) I just find a lot of the stuff he puts forward as intriguing It's not as exciting as science. either we have measured the earths movement or we havent Measured it relative to what? We have measured the rotation of the Earth. In various ways, such as centrifugal force affecting weight at different points on the Earth, coriolis forces, Sun rise and sun set, and most recently by detecting "frame dragging" (the way the Earth drags space-time around with it). We have measured the movement of the Earth around the Sun. We have measured the movement of the Sun (and Earth) around the galaxy. We have measured the movement of the galaxy relative to other galxies in the local cluster. We have measured the movement of the galaxy relative to the CMB. What more could anyone possibly want! But, again, note that you can't rule out geocentrism. It is just a coordinate choice. But it is no better than any other. We choose the coordinate system that is most convenient for the job. Is part of the problem that you are looking for The TRUTH? You won't find that from science, I'm afraid. Edited February 9, 2015 by Strange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 There's no such thing as bad publicity. And look how many fell for it. How many times has sundiculuos name now been listed on this respected Science website ? It must have risen in the search engines and webratings. Geocentricity is a model. And a very useful model at that. Used by more people the world over than any other, at all times in history, including now. The sun rises in the East and sets in the West. The First Point of Aeries transits at 0350.257893 hours and so on. But we all use models we know are incorrect, usually for the same reason. They make the calculation of something we want to know easier and close enough. Take virtual work. We all know it is a fantasy, but a very useful fantasy in simplifying some calculations. It is just a shame when someone starts to believe that his model is 'reality' and becomes obsessed with the idea, perhaps even to the extent of fiddling results to 'prove it'. Of course they are inevitably found out in the end. The list of such scandals is at least as long as the list of those 'were right but not listened to' Go well 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xyzt Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 (edited) Feel free to link anything you think would be helpful, michaelson morley experiments seem to be evidence for both sides so im not sure i can accept these lol. Surely, more experiments have been done since then? (genuinely dont know). Anywho, off to bed thanks for the chat and trying to be civil with a peasant like myself It is not "Michelson-Morley", it is "Michelson-Gale", a totally different experiment. Contrary to your fringe claim, Michelso-Gale cannot "be evidence for both sides". What mathematics died he present to explain the movement of Foucault's pendulum? This is a VERY interesting question, the argument presented by people that deny the Earth rotation is that one can assume that the Earth does not rotate and that it is the universe that rotates causing the plane of the pendulum to rotate with it. By contrast, experiments based on the Sagnac effect, like the Michelson-Gale experiment, by virtue of being purely local and kinematic (as opposed to being cosmological and dynamic) cannot be attributed to anything else but to the Earth rotation about its axis. Edited February 9, 2015 by xyzt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewcellini Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 It is not "Michelson-Morley", it is "Michelson-Gale", a totally different experiment. Contrary to your fringe claim, Michelso-Gale cannot "be evidence for both sides". they don't seem totally different. perhaps you can explain, though that may be off topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xyzt Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 they don't seem totally different. perhaps you can explain, though that may be off topic. Sagnac effect is kinematic, there are no forces, no external effects involved, so it is purely local. Foucault experiment involves the dynamics of the whole universe, one cannot tell if the universe is not rotating about the Earth, "dragging" the pendulum frame with it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Feel free to link anything you think would be helpful, michaelson morley experiments seem to be evidence for both sides so im not sure i can accept these lol. Surely, more experiments have been done since then? (genuinely dont know). Anywho, off to bed thanks for the chat and trying to be civil with a peasant like myself Here's the problem with this approach: you haven't linked to anything to support what's claimed in the video. Why are these presenters granted any credibility at all? Why do we have to do all of the work to rebut these claims, when no effort is made to support them in the first place? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xyzt Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Why are these presenters granted any credibility at all? Because they are "thinkers out of the box", not "followers" like the mainstream. Apparently, Sungenis took my argument against his crackpoterry to show that Michelson-Gale/Sagnac support his point of view. I have no patience to go through the video (makes me want to puke), so I would like to know the timestamp where he's talking about Michelson-Gale. Scotty, please give out that timestamp in order to support your claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 On regard to the CMB anisotropy this has been corrected in the latest 2015 Planck data set. The latest images no longer show the anistropy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 I have tried to keep up with how progressed we have been in the fields, watched many string theory videos with brian greene as well as many lectures/debates with some of the top scientists like (im going to list people i know, maybe they are jokes in the inner circles but these are the ones visible to me) neil de'grasse tyson, lawrence krauss, michio kaku etc I'd suggest adding The Copernican Revolution by Kuhn to your reading list. It's about this very topic. Not one time have i ever saw any of these people mention geocentrism, and i come here to ask why. That's because it's been disproven. Actually, when it comes to actual evidence, this happened relatively recently. But we've abandoned geocentrism for other epistemic reasons long before that. Geocentrism isn't nearly as dumb as people might tell you, if you don't have a telescope. Go outside. You can watch the sun, day by day, rise in the east and set in the west. It makes an arc. Go out at night, and you see the same thing with the moon. You see what appears to be all of the 'fixed stars' moving together tracing arcs in the sky. That's legitimately how the universe looks. This is the observational data. It's no wonder most ancient people with cosmologies had the stars embedded in a sphere that rotates about an axis running through the Earth. It's no wonder that these people described the sun as going around the Earth. The problem is the planets. They don't behave at all. They plane (Greek for 'wander'). But, it turns out, you can in fact chart their motion by having circles within circles. With enough circles, you can describe the motion of any planet as seen from Earth. Aristotle's physics (all they had at the time) said that that's how stuff past the moon worked. It goes in circles. The planets just happen to go in circles that themselves go in circles. What we have is the observational data meeting the physics, though in a more complicated manner than was desired. This model works just as well as the heliocentric model for the planets. There's no planetary motion that heliocentrism can accurately describe that geocentrism can't. Heliocentrism, however, scores epistemology points because of its relative simplicity. If you're to describe the motion of the planets, the geocentric way uses far more terms than the heliocentric way. There are also observations that 'fall out' of heliocentrism that are more or less fine tuned on geocentrism. That's why the heliocentric model eventually won out, but it's a bit more complicated than that. The planets aren't the only thing out there. In the geocentric model, the Earth is at the center of the stellar sphere, whereas in the heliocentric model, the Earth moves around in it. This means that our distance to the stars is the same on the geocentric model, but it varies on the heliocentric model. This introduces an observational difference between the two. The heliocentric model has to predict stellar parallax whereas the geocentric model predicts no stellar parallax. Parallax is the same phenomena that is apparent when looking at something like an analog clock from an angle. Looking at the hands from different angles has the hand align with different things. The same thing happens with stars in the heliocentric model. So, when Galileo advances the telescope technology, we should see it, right? Well, we looked, and it wasn't there. That's a great observational support for geocentrism. Heliocentrism may have simplicity, but geocentrism not only has physics on its side, but also the evidence. The heliocentrics, however, simply say that they weren't wrong about heliocentrism, but rather they were merely wrong about the distance to the fixed stars. They keep pushing it back and back. On the one hand, heliocentrism has the simplicity, but geocentrism has the evidence and the physics. There's a different kind of geocentrism that Tycho Brahe proposed which keeps the evidence of geocentrism but rejects the physics. This allows him to have a geocentric system with the simplicity of heliocentrism. In Brahe's system, the Earth is still the center, but all of the other planets go around the sun and the sun orbits the Earth. It's not until 1838 that stellar parallax is observed. That's right, Wisconsin is already officially a state before we have any observational evidence favoring heliocentric models over geocentric ones. So, geocentrism is finally falsified through evidence. So, the reason you don't see those people talk about it is that it has been long rejected and is inconsistent with observation. Geocentrism simply can't be true with stellar parallax. Please link me something, anything with concrete evidence. Id LOVE to get off this but i CANT. The moderator says he knows for sure by the statement "Asking people to watch 2.5 hours of a long-debunked theory is a lot to ask" but i need more than this! Sorry but i just cannot take the word from a forum, i need PROOF. Link me a paper from someone, a video, a book i dont care but it has to be BULLETPROOF. Stellar parallax is pretty bulletproof. Anyway, you invoked Occam's razor. Which is simpler, epicycles or Newtonian gravity? Ptolemy wasn't the only geocentric model in town. Brahe's system is geocentric, but doesn't use epicycles. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 The problem is the planets. They don't behave at all. They plane (Greek for 'wander'). But, it turns out, you can in fact chart their motion by having circles within circles. With enough circles, you can describe the motion of any planet as seen from Earth. Which we now understand is a consequence of being able to represent any periodic function as a combination of Fourier components, applied to a polar coordinate system and a closed path. (Here's an example of drawing Homer Simpson with them) It's not until 1838 that stellar parallax is observed. That's right, Wisconsin is already officially a state before we have any observational evidence favoring heliocentric models over geocentric ones. So, geocentrism is finally falsified through evidence. If that's the case, then mustn't one argue that we didn't have direct evidence that Newtonian gravity is correct until then? Because I think experimentally knowing that Newton was correct leads directly to elliptical orbits and an easy way to determine the mass of the sun, i.e. to heliocentrism. (Also, even ~175 years counts as long-debunked, IMO) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andreasjva Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 so far of everything ive read that science has offered me geocentrism makes the most SENSE in my head, if not for anything but the principle of occam's razor. I think the more obvious answer to Occam's razor is that no one is any closer to an answer, especially the guys in the video. Do yourself a favor and remove belief from your vocabulary for about 6 months. Don't believe anything (especially Geocentrism). Things are either true, false, or unknown. In science, all theory falls into the unknown category, including things like the Big Bang. There's very little "true" you can actually get a handle on in science once you start investigating. Science technically has no "false", because things are either true or theoretical. Some things could be false, but not intentionally. They just haven't figured it out yet, but it's certainly not a scientific conspiracy or mathematical laziness. That said, religion is completely unknown, with many "false". Religion relies totally on word of mouth over millennia and religious authority. You also have to consider this fact. The bible suggests Earth is the center of the entire universe, not our solar system, and everything spins around Earth. Clearly we are merely 1 planet out of 8 within our own solar system, and spinning around the sun. Geometrically speaking, there is no other way to interpret it. If we aren't even the center of our own solar system, how in the world could we be the center of the entire universe? I am more inclined to agree with the view there is no real center, but in that regard everything is center to everything else. That gets very complicated though, and not at all what geocentrism was or is about. Earth was literally the center of the universe. It's simply not possible. We're also seeing more and more planets spinning around stars. Common sense should be telling you the obvious. We are just like any other garden variety solar system we are finally able to see through our technology. We just happen to have a planet in the sweet spot. And our galaxy is merely one in 100's of billions that we can even see. There's nothing magical about it, and science isn't hiding anything or being lazy. Yes, there can be a majority consensus in science that fall pray to believing in some aspects of theory, but there is at least some logical basis for that belief. Beliefs are engrained in human nature, so it is what it is. Geocentrism is simply being peddled to support an erroneous/false biblical viewpoint, nothing more. Heck, the church wanted to execute Galileo for going against Geocentrism in the first place. You really don't need to believe anything. Most of it is unknown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Geocentrism = Egocentrism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 In science, all theory falls into the unknown category Nonsense. (So much so that I stopped reading there.) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 I think the more obvious answer to Occam's razor is that no one is any closer to an answer, especially the guys in the video. Do yourself a favor and remove belief from your vocabulary for about 6 months. Don't believe anything (especially Geocentrism). Things are either true, false, or unknown. In science, all theory falls into the unknown category, including things like the Big Bang. There's very little "true" you can actually get a handle on in science once you start investigating. Science technically has no "false", because things are either true or theoretical. Some things could be false, but not intentionally. They just haven't figured it out yet, but it's certainly not a scientific conspiracy or mathematical laziness. I don't agree. You're misusing the word theoretical. In science, if something has been tested as thoroughly as a theory, we don't say it's true but we say it's likely, or the most likely explanation, in the case of a theory like evolution, or The Big Bang. Theory is the best you can get in science. Truth is a philosophical notion, and proof is for math, not science. Science relies on evidence. We can prove something is false, we do that all the time. And if we don't have an explanation for something, we simply say, "We don't know yet". I agree with what you said about belief. If you can trust an explanation, belief isn't necessary. Belief often leads to unreasonable stances. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) 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. You know what, Scotty, this is actually extremely easy in science. No, really, it is. All that has to happen is publish a paper with the new idea that makes even better predictions that relativity. See, for example, this paper http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2014-4/ that is a pretty good review of all the predictions relativity makes compared to what has been measured. So, when can we expect that paper? If it can be done, I guarantee an awful lot of people would like to read it. On the other hand, if nothing is forth coming, then please review that linked paper, because it shows just how darn good relativity is. Before you declare "relativity is make believe", just look at how accurate its predictions really are. It may be "make believe" or "hogwash" or any other "generic scoffing phrase here"... but it makes really quite excellent predictions that agree with what is measured. And ultimately, that is what science is about, getting the most accurate predictions. So, back to my very point. Just show us more accurate predictions. More accurate predictions is all it takes to rid everyone of ides you don't like. Very, very simple in concept. Almost never ever lived up to in practice. The currently accepted idea is the currently accepted idea because it makes the most accurate predictions. Edited February 10, 2015 by Bignose 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 If that's the case, then mustn't one argue that we didn't have direct evidence that Newtonian gravity is correct until then? Because I think experimentally knowing that Newton was correct leads directly to elliptical orbits and an easy way to determine the mass of the sun, i.e. to heliocentrism. (Also, even ~175 years counts as long-debunked, IMO) Well, let's see. We can't count the data in his Principia, since that's what was used to derive the formula. The first actual test of Newton's gravity was the Cavendish experiment which took place 111 years after Newton's Principia was published and only 40 years before stellar parallax was first observed. So, pushing the first evidence back only 40 years doesn't do much to defeat the point that this is an area of science where the actual acceptance of the theory is long before any evidence came around. That's especially true since Newton's gravity isn't inconsistent with geocentrism. Remember that Ptolemaic and Tychic geocentrism both describe the same data. What Newtonian gravity predicts isn't strictly speaking an elliptical orbit. In a reference frame at rest with respect to the sun, the trajectory is an ellipse. If you chance the reference frame and coordinate system such that the frame is at rest with respect to the Earth, you get something different altogether. Remember that: Which we now understand is a consequence of being able to represent any periodic function as a combination of Fourier components, applied to a polar coordinate system and a closed path. (Here's an example of drawing Homer Simpson with them) The three systems are observationally interchangeable with respect to the planets. Where they differ is the parallax. What Newtonian gravity did was finally give the heliocentric proponents the beginnings of the metaphysics they've been missing for 134 years. Even then, it doesn't exactly come with a mechanism for the action at a distance. So, Newtonian gravity removed one of the disadvantages it had, but it was still disconfirmed repeatedly until 1838. It was then that the heliocentrists could point to the inconsitency between geocentrism and observation. Stellar parallax and geocentrism just don't go together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty99 Posted February 10, 2015 Author Share Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) On regard to the CMB anisotropy this has been corrected in the latest 2015 Planck data set. The latest images no longer show the anistropy Hmm really, so the "axis of evil" shown in some of the originals is now long gone and no remnants of this remain? This is one of the things sungenis points to when backing up his claims. Does the 38 degree angle still remain? Because they are "thinkers out of the box", not "followers" like the mainstream. Apparently, Sungenis took my argument against his crackpoterry to show that Michelson-Gale/Sagnac support his point of view. I have no patience to go through the video (makes me want to puke), so I would like to know the timestamp where he's talking about Michelson-Gale. Scotty, please give out that timestamp in order to support your claim. If you watch from about 13:20 to 21:00 he talks about the inferometer experiments, around 18:20 he mentions the gale experiments. They claim all of the experiments were not a null result, but 1/6th of what was expected if the earth was moving around the sun. 1/6th works out to a perfect representation to the 24 hour cycle in geocentrism they go on to point out. In this time chunk they also claim einstein never mentioned sagnac or michaelson gale experiment in any of his papers, and the reason for this is the positive results (1/6th) for these experiments would nullify special relativity, this is explained at about 19:10. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMr8lb2tYvo#t=13m20s I googled how to timestamp, hope that worked lol. Edited February 10, 2015 by Scotty99 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) Sungenis can try to use this argument to support his wild claims but the CMB axis of evil has nothing to do with geocentric motion. If anything it argued for a deviation in thermodynamic processes which would have argued against homogeneous and isotropic uniformity. In particular uniformity in matter distributions. The CMB has nothing to do with rotations. However the latest findings show that the cosmological principle and LCDM (hot BB with cold dark matter) is incredibly accurate to observational data with less that 1% possibility of error. (Science never admits to 100% accuracy) two years after those findings we still find the cosmological principle is accurate. Even without the latest dataset. http://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/387566/425793/2015_SMICA_CMB/c8c4c802-4b76-49da-b80a-0fb8d02c62b7?t=1423083319437u Here is some of the latest images. by the way instead of listening to a non scientist who just happened to make a video, and who is obviously trying to disprove our models based on religious grounds. Might be advisable to listen to those that have replied here. Some of the people who replied have physics credentials of various levels. Some of them are working as professional physicists. My signature wikidot link has numerous textbooks and articles to help you learn the real science This one covers a bit on geocentric vs heliocentric. Nice visual slide show http://terrytao.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/cosmic-distance-ladder1.pdf Edited February 10, 2015 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty99 Posted February 10, 2015 Author Share Posted February 10, 2015 by the way instead of listening to a non scientist who just happened to make a video, and who is obviously trying to disprove our models based on religious grounds. Might be advisable to listen to those that have replied here. Some of the people who replied have physics credentials of various levels. Some of them are working as professional physicists. Its just the way i am, i need to hear all theories and try and figure them out myself. I don't like to dismiss things so quickly, ive made a mistake early in my life with dismissing something and it came back to bite me (which i need not get into here lol). I never said i support what he is saying, i just found it interested especially the interferometer experiments. Its not that i dont follow mainstream science, of course i do! This is literally the first idea ive entertained outside of mainstream science, simply because i was getting impatient with the particle colliders. That probably sounds selfish but i want to be alive for a big discovery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Lol no prob discovering the Higgs boson was pretty significant. Placing that aside though, one of the best ways to avoid crackpot traps is to study the textbook concordance models. You'd be amazed once you understand the concordance models how easy it becomes to identify crackpot articles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty99 Posted February 10, 2015 Author Share Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) Ya i mean i get you. What initially turned me off to sungenis was the clear religious motivations, but the more i thought about it that is the only way you can view a geocentric model, you have to bring a creator into the mix for it to make sense. What im trying to figure out is there more resistance to geocentrism because of the religious implications or is the science of it what is holding it back. (again referencing my original post of how ive never seen this talked about). Edit: For grammerz. Edited February 10, 2015 by Scotty99 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 The science. Measurements and observations agree with heliocentric models. Particularly since we have space craft and satellites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty99 Posted February 10, 2015 Author Share Posted February 10, 2015 Ok, lets talk about the science then. I was asked to do some timestamps (understandably) and what i linked above he talks about interferometer experiments. This is one of the main things sungenis focuses on, and was one of the things that grabbed my attention because of how long they have been doing these experiements with basically the same results. Is the experiement itself flawed? Were the instruments used flawed? How do they keep getting results that fly in the face of relativity? If anyone wants to watch the youtube clip i linked above that starts at 13:20 and goes to around 21:00, then just post your thoughts about what he is getting at with the inferometer experiements and why they seem to contradict relativity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts