Yes, it is mathematically equivalent. The reason we should not consider it representing a special place in the Universe is because you would get the same centralism if you went somewhere else. There is no way to define absolute space, there is only relative motion.viscount aero wrote:It's also mathematically equivalent.
Why?ZenMonkeyNZ wrote: However we should not believe this logical equivalence somehow represents a special place for us in the Universe.
"The Principle" Produced by Dr. Robert Sungenis
-
- Posts: 63
- Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 7:19 am
Re: "The Principle" Produced by Dr. Robert Sungenis
-
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am
Re: "The Principle" Produced by Dr. Robert Sungenis
Not the best reference then. Hatch states "But all high precision GPS applications correct for the Sagnac effect." High precision requires Sagnac adjustment. Normal GPS does not. Also Hatch argues that the Sagnac is nothing to do with rotation so cannot be used to prove or disprove Earths rotation. The effect is due to the Earth's movement through a fixed Lorentz ether which disputes fixed Earth.jtb wrote:In the Sungenis interview he mentions Ronald Hatch as a GPS consultant that claims the Sagnac Effect is applied to GPS satellites. He said to do a web search of his name, which I did, and I came up with the link posted. I don't know if Hatch's paper supports or disputes using the Sagnac Effect in GPS satellites. Simply a reference.
There are only 2 assumptions, either Earth if fixed or not. If it's fixed then all the nearby 2.5 million or so stars travel in a spiralling or oscillating motion of exactly 12 month intervals. If Earth is not fixed they travel in straight lines or curves. Distance is irrelevant and is not related to this effect, it would only determine the magnitude of the oscillations not the frequency or existence.jtb wrote:Sungenis mentions parallax in his interview. He states there are many ways to determine parallax depending on your assumptions. From my own (I stress my own) previous research, depending on assumptions, parallax could also show that the stars are relatively close to Earth.
Indeed, and inhabitants of Venus or Mars or Pluto or even Haley, using Geocentric logic, could all state they are on non rotating fixed bodies and could use exactly the same mathematics to prove themselves right. Please explain why you're right and they're all wrong.jtb wrote:From studying law on my own years ago I realized that if there is an up there is a down, if a left then a right, a north then a south. Without a standard (something unchanging or unmoving: a reference frame), we don't know if we are moving up or down, left or right, north or south. Everything depends on what we pick as our standard. Our assumptions are our standard. Reminds me of the saying that to a hammer, everything looks like a nail. We can always find evidence to support our assumptions (myself included).
That's why good science tries not to operate that way. It removes it's shades and looks out the window.jtb wrote:Sungenis extensively addresses Mach's principle and relativity in his interview. He gives the example of waiting for a traffic light to change. We may be stationary, but momentarily get the sensation that we are moving and slam on the brakes. When on an airplane with the shades pulled I sometimes can't tell if the plane is stationary or moving. We sometimes just don't know.
There's another fundamental problem with Geocentrism (as if there weren't enough). The universe is supposed to be orbiting Earth but hardly any of it does. For Heliocentrism every object in the solar system is orbiting the sun. By that I mean that the sun is at the very centre of every objects orbital plane without exception. This is not true for Geocentrism, the vast majority does not have Earth at the centre of its orbital plane. For example Polaris just circles 400 light years above the North Pole every 24 hours. What is it supposed to be orbiting?
-
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 2:01 pm
Re: "The Principle" Produced by Dr. Robert Sungenis
What I don't understand is, the first assertion from the summary seems to be claiming evidence that the Earth is motionless relative to the stars (in terms of Earth's solar orbit). Wouldn't that be the conclusion of the specious claim that the Earth does not get any closer/farther away from a given star during the course of a year? Then there is the invocation of the equivalence of considering the Sun as the center of an orbital system vs. considering the Earth as the center. Following me? The first claim is quantitative and falsifiable: that the Earth's distance from a given star does not oscillate with a period of 12 months. The second claim is a matter of perspective: the distance does oscillate, but we can view the stars as oscillating relative to a motionless Earth rather than vice versa. As far as I can tell, these claims are contradictory.
- viscount aero
- Posts: 2381
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
- Location: Los Angeles, California
- Contact:
Re: "The Principle" Produced by Dr. Robert Sungenis
I'm not looking for an argument because this topic is considered fantasy. And I don't know if geocentricism can actually be valid. But from what I understand, having not seen the film, is that there is no way to falsify nor absolutely prove that the Earth is at the center of the cosmos by which all else revolves around. It is a matter of perspective and belief. In geocentrism, all other celestial objects move relative to the constant of the Earth's position. This includes nearness and farness of stars from Earth. If Earth gets closer to a star then the star is "actually" drawing closer to Earth.bill miller wrote:What I don't understand is, the first assertion from the summary seems to be claiming evidence that the Earth is motionless relative to the stars (in terms of Earth's solar orbit). Wouldn't that be the conclusion of the specious claim that the Earth does not get any closer/farther away from a given star during the course of a year?
bill miller wrote:Then there is the invocation of the equivalence of considering the Sun as the center of an orbital system vs. considering the Earth as the center. Following me?
Maybe restate your premise.
I don't quite follow. How is: "The first claim is quantitative and falsifiable: that the Earth's distance from a given star does not oscillate with a period of 12 months" ? The star could move closer or nearer to Earth while the Earth remains fixed in a geocentric cosmos. How is that falsifiable? Again, I'm just asking questions and not looking for a hostile debate. This is a fantasy topic.bill miller wrote:The first claim is quantitative and falsifiable: that the Earth's distance from a given star does not oscillate with a period of 12 months. The second claim is a matter of perspective: the distance does oscillate, but we can view the stars as oscillating relative to a motionless Earth rather than vice versa. As far as I can tell, these claims are contradictory.
-
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 2:01 pm
Re: "The Principle" Produced by Dr. Robert Sungenis
Assuming that the summary accurately reflects the film, Sungenis claims that because telescopes don't need to be refocused every 6 months*, then the distance between Earth and any given star must be constant (at least wrt Earth's annual orbit). This is incompatible with claiming that a star moves closer or farther from the Earth every 6 months, which is the less controversial "different perspective" view of orbital motion. If the Earth is fixed and only the stars move, then "you would have to refocus Hubble"* every 6 months, because some stars have gotten closer and some have gotten more distant. It cannot be the case that the distance to the stars is fixed and the stars oscillate once every 12 months; that is an impossibility.
* Ignoring the fact that we never have to refocus Hubble regardless of the object being viewed.
* Ignoring the fact that we never have to refocus Hubble regardless of the object being viewed.
- viscount aero
- Posts: 2381
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
- Location: Los Angeles, California
- Contact:
Re: "The Principle" Produced by Dr. Robert Sungenis
Ok I wasn't aware he made these claims. I must have missed that part. I think the stars are so far away that they are not subject to being "out of focus." Right? You can set one focus on the entire star field and it will never go out of focus ever.bill miller wrote:Assuming that the summary accurately reflects the film, Sungenis claims that because telescopes don't need to be refocused every 6 months*, then the distance between Earth and any given star must be constant (at least wrt Earth's annual orbit). This is incompatible with claiming that a star moves closer or farther from the Earth every 6 months, which is the less controversial "different perspective" view of orbital motion. If the Earth is fixed and only the stars move, then "you would have to refocus Hubble"* every 6 months, because some stars have gotten closer and some have gotten more distant. It cannot be the case that the distance to the stars is fixed and the stars oscillate once every 12 months; that is an impossibility.
* Ignoring the fact that we never have to refocus Hubble regardless of the object being viewed.
- nick c
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2483
- Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
- Location: connecticut
Re: "The Principle" Produced by Dr. Robert Sungenis
Yes, if you focus a telescope on a star and get it to the smallest possible point, you can pretty much look at any celestial object without refocusing. For all practical purposes, it is focused on infinity.Ok I wasn't aware he made these claims. I must have missed that part. I think the stars are so far away that they are not subject to being "out of focus." Right? You can set one focus on the entire star field and it will never go out of focus ever.
-
- Posts: 566
- Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:36 am
Re: "The Principle" Produced by Dr. Robert Sungenis
I did my best to summarize the Sungenis interview. I don't want to misrepresent him so it is best to view the utube video yourself. Below are my personal views on relativity and geocentrism:Aardwolf wrote:Indeed, and inhabitants of Venus or Mars or Pluto or even Haley, using Geocentric logic, could all state they are on non rotating fixed bodies and could use exactly the same mathematics to prove themselves right. Please explain why you're right and they're all wrong.
According to modern cosmology and relativity, we are all correct in assuming the universe revolves around "us", wherever "us" is located. There is no special place in the universe because everything is relative. We can't know if Earth is orbiting the moon or vise versa. We can't know if both are orbiting each other simultaneously. We only assume. Astronomy uses the term "fixed stars" or "sidereal". They are observing the universe from a motionless star. They could have chosen Venus, Mars, Pluto, or Earth just as easily.
Also, remember that modern cosmology has abandoned the Copernicus theory of a fixed spherical universe with boarders with the sun at the center and Earth orbiting the sun at ~67,000 mph. The universe is now a flat vacuum (nothing) with accelerating expansion into nothing creating nothing out of nothing (vacuum is absence of matter) with no center or boarders and Earth moving through nothing at ~2,000,000 mph. Sorry, I don't feel the breeze.
-
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 4:17 am
Re: "The Principle" Produced by Dr. Robert Sungenis
JTB & VISCOUNT,
Give this thread a good read (it's about geocentricity):
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f= ... b9a03832cc
That forum is dedicated to exposing hoaxes of all kinds. That section of the forum is strictly dedicated to NASA. Maybe, you guys have never questioned the authenticity of NASA... and that's okay. I'm not trying to convince you NASA has lied about its accomplishments. Just read the thread and if you find interest, may your journey of knowledge be a fun one.
Give this thread a good read (it's about geocentricity):
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f= ... b9a03832cc
That forum is dedicated to exposing hoaxes of all kinds. That section of the forum is strictly dedicated to NASA. Maybe, you guys have never questioned the authenticity of NASA... and that's okay. I'm not trying to convince you NASA has lied about its accomplishments. Just read the thread and if you find interest, may your journey of knowledge be a fun one.
- viscount aero
- Posts: 2381
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
- Location: Los Angeles, California
- Contact:
Re: "The Principle" Produced by Dr. Robert Sungenis
Thanks for the link. But this entire community exists to question the "authenticity" of NASA and many other such institutions.keepsake wrote:JTB & VISCOUNT,
Give this thread a good read (it's about geocentricity):
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f= ... b9a03832cc
That forum is dedicated to exposing hoaxes of all kinds. That section of the forum is strictly dedicated to NASA. Maybe, you guys have never questioned the authenticity of NASA... and that's okay. I'm not trying to convince you NASA has lied about its accomplishments. Just read the thread and if you find interest, may your journey of knowledge be a fun one.
-
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 4:17 am
Re: "The Principle" Produced by Dr. Robert Sungenis
No, I mean they are REALLY questioning NASA's authenticity.
- nick c
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2483
- Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
- Location: connecticut
Re: "The Principle" Produced by Dr. Robert Sungenis
Forum Rules and Guidelines
For the most part, discussion is to be restricted to published materials with some relevance to Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology themes, and related scientific information. Having said that, this forum affords more latitude than most, assuming most users will allow common sense to guide them. For those who wish to discuss topics closer to the fringes, please restrict your discussions to the 'New Insights and Mad Ideas' or 'The Human Question' boards. Please note, that even on these boards discussion still must bear some relevance to EU/PC themes. This is not the place for wild speculation or conspiracy theories, and there are many other forums suitable for that purpose.
- viscount aero
- Posts: 2381
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
- Location: Los Angeles, California
- Contact:
Re: "The Principle" Produced by Dr. Robert Sungenis
I don't understand what you mean. I stated beforehand that this community questions NASA to the extent that most here don't believe many (and for some most) of the things NASA even says.keepsake wrote:No, I mean they are REALLY questioning NASA's authenticity.
If you're talking about believing in "fake Moon landings" then you're on the wrong forum. NASA went to the Moon. If you don't believe so then I don't know what to tell you. Go to another site for that.
- viscount aero
- Posts: 2381
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
- Location: Los Angeles, California
- Contact:
Re: "The Principle" Produced by Dr. Robert Sungenis
Aardwolf wrote: There's another fundamental problem with Geocentrism (as if there weren't enough). The universe is supposed to be orbiting Earth but hardly any of it does. For Heliocentrism every object in the solar system is orbiting the sun. By that I mean that the sun is at the very centre of every objects orbital plane without exception. This is not true for Geocentrism, the vast majority does not have Earth at the centre of its orbital plane. For example Polaris just circles 400 light years above the North Pole every 24 hours. What is it supposed to be orbiting?
Good point.
I guess they assume, must require, the "celestial sphere" to be rotating around the Earth. So it is a "spherical" entity, the Cosmos, that moves around the fixed Earth. But don't ask me
-
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am
Re: "The Principle" Produced by Dr. Robert Sungenis
After suggesting that no-one can know if they are at the center, you then choose Earth to be that center. Please explain why? Faith?jtb wrote:According to modern cosmology and relativity, we are all correct in assuming the universe revolves around "us", wherever "us" is located. There is no special place in the universe because everything is relative. We can't know if Earth is orbiting the moon or vise versa. We can't know if both are orbiting each other simultaneously. We only assume. Astronomy uses the term "fixed stars" or "sidereal". They are observing the universe from a motionless star. They could have chosen Venus, Mars, Pluto, or Earth just as easily.
Also, remember that modern cosmology has abandoned the Copernicus theory of a fixed spherical universe with boarders with the sun at the center and Earth orbiting the sun at ~67,000 mph. The universe is now a flat vacuum (nothing) with accelerating expansion into nothing creating nothing out of nothing (vacuum is absence of matter) with no center or boarders and Earth moving through nothing at ~2,000,000 mph. Sorry, I don't feel the breeze.
Also, according to your theory Voyager 1 is orbiting us at 3,150,000,000 mph. If we're supposed to feel a breeze on Earth at 2,000,000 mph explain why is voyager still in one piece?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests