I must apologize to scud for being overly dismissive at first. There is a great deal of chewy science to dig into within the Geocentric studies. Even if it doesn't turn out to be very true, there are experiments Heliocentric science ignores and that seems uncool.
I have cleaned up the thread a bit and dumped some unnecessarily theological points into the Derailing Room. Anyone missing what NASA-defender alex_ro had to say in the opening pages can now check it out there.
I would be curious to hear scud's comments on my idea of a 'Third Way' between Helio- and Geo- centric evidences.
Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't)
-
hoi.polloi
- Member
- Posts: 5060
- Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm
Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulumA Foucault pendulum requires care to set up because imprecise construction can cause additional veering which masks the terrestrial effect. The initial launch of the pendulum is critical; the traditional way to do this is to use a flame to burn through a thread which temporarily holds the bob in its starting position, thus avoiding unwanted sideways motion. Air resistance damps the oscillation, so some Foucault pendulums in museums incorporate an electromagnetic or other drive to keep the bob swinging; others are restarted regularly, sometimes with a launching ceremony as an added attraction.
Emphasis added.
Aw! And I thought we had discovered perpetual motion and the end to all our worries over energy.
-
hoi.polloi
- Member
- Posts: 5060
- Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm
Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.
Looking at the moon. For reference, for whatever it's worth, moonrise and moonset take approximately 12 hours (or 9 to 15 hours).
http://www.almanac.com/rise/index.php
Another problem with there being no centrifugal "force" or effect is that it negates the model shown on Wickedpeddler here, depicting a little less than a month of Moon motion:
Could it be either of these:
1. The Earth is not fixed, but the Earth and its creatures are immune to the swiveling effects and motion caused by:
?
Might another reason to introduce the purely mathematical Heliocentric model be to obscure these incredible coincidences:
Another strange issue is the Moon's apparent rotation to constantly face the Earth with the same hemisphere. It does not spin too slow or too fast; it rotates perfectly to face the Earth. Is this some indication that the Earth's fixed properties are doing work on the Moon to keep it magnetically oriented to something like ... the Earth's core?
Quickly modified version of previous graphic:
Could it be the Earth's core and the heavens are both spinning and it is the very slowness and "fixedness" of the Earth which is only a property of Earth's surface and is relatively rare elsewhere in our cosmos? I am not going to guess that the Earth is filtering the Sun's 24-hour movement into a slower more-cumbersome movement whose physicalness translates to an over-24-hour affect on the Moon, because nobody knows what the Core of Earth actually does (or is), but it is interesting that we seem to be living in some kind of ginormous clock whose pieces work very mysteriously.
http://www.almanac.com/rise/index.php
Another problem with there being no centrifugal "force" or effect is that it negates the model shown on Wickedpeddler here, depicting a little less than a month of Moon motion:
Could it be either of these:
1. The Earth is not fixed, but the Earth and its creatures are immune to the swiveling effects and motion caused by:
- 24-hour 360 degree rotation
- gravity of moon soaring around at a leisurely 29.5 days per orbit (which shouldn't be too much wobble, right?)
?
Might another reason to introduce the purely mathematical Heliocentric model be to obscure these incredible coincidences:
- The Sun and the Moon are approximately the same sized disc in the sky, despite their (relatively) enormously different properties.
- The Sun and the Moon appear to circle the Earth in 24 hours, with the Moon being approximately just 3.5% slower.
Another strange issue is the Moon's apparent rotation to constantly face the Earth with the same hemisphere. It does not spin too slow or too fast; it rotates perfectly to face the Earth. Is this some indication that the Earth's fixed properties are doing work on the Moon to keep it magnetically oriented to something like ... the Earth's core?
Quickly modified version of previous graphic:
- Orbit3_mod.gif (45.86 KiB) Viewed 14995 times
-
hoi.polloi
- Member
- Posts: 5060
- Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm
Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.
Sorry to drop a boatload of questions in the thread, but I am just getting to explore this topic in depth and I am getting to Gerard Bouw's life work.
He claims there is a stable solid structure to the universe called the Plenum/Firmament made up of Planck densities. He posits that light is a transverse wave (whose speed through the Firmament is almost precisely equal to the speed of light), and hence there is no need for the Aether in the 1800's experiments which tested for it. The light is allowed because of its motion through the Firmament, which acts as the Aether.
It feels like a sloppily told story so far, and there are hours of video to catch up on the theory, but I will give it some time and come back to it in this thread later.
---
update:
He claims there is a stable solid structure to the universe called the Plenum/Firmament made up of Planck densities. He posits that light is a transverse wave (whose speed through the Firmament is almost precisely equal to the speed of light), and hence there is no need for the Aether in the 1800's experiments which tested for it. The light is allowed because of its motion through the Firmament, which acts as the Aether.
It feels like a sloppily told story so far, and there are hours of video to catch up on the theory, but I will give it some time and come back to it in this thread later.
---
update:
One of the major steps in the search for fundamental particles is the Grand Unification theory (GUT). It would take about 1025 volts to confirm it, which is ten trillion times as much as the most powerful accelerators in existence today. But GUT has its shortfalls, namely, it is plagued by ambiguity; there's more than one way to unify physics. Its apparent successor is the theory of superstrings which have energies of the order of 1026 (electron) volts. Superstring theory has succeeded in uniting all particles, both fermions and bosons, within a single (multi-dimensional) superspace. In the superstring theory, the string is of length 10^-33 cm (the same size as Planck particles), and has a mass of about a millionth of a gram (10^-6 gm). There is of the order of 1040 tons of tension on a massive superstring, which is a string whose ends move at the speed of light. Superstrings can twist, spin, turn, vibrate, tie and untie under the principle of least action. This way various properties are derived. Gravity, for example, is accounted for by closing the string into a loop, where fermions and bosons each run in opposite directions around the loop.
Now the latest twist is the massive superstring theory. Massive superstrings exactly match the properties of the aforementioned grains of the firmament, the Planck particles. The mass of a massive superstring is 2.18 x 10^-5 grams, its density is 3.6 x 1093 gm/cm3. It has a charge of 10 and a temperature of 1.42 x 1032 K. Each of these quantities is expressible in terms of the fundamental constants, namely, the speed of light, c, the gravitational constant, G, Planck's constant, h, and Boltzmann's constant, k.note 5 With massive superstrings, physics has come to the very doorstep of understanding the firmament.
-
hoi.polloi
- Member
- Posts: 5060
- Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm
Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.
Could it be that only the spinning of the Planck-density "shell of stars" explains Earth's mostly uniform acceleration (g-forces) on its surface, in a spinning-Earth model?
In other words, are we not faced with the following possibilities:
1. Earth is spinning in the firmament, but centrifugal effects are rendered moot by an undiscovered force (or uncalculated combination of discovered forces)?
or
2. Earth is not spinning in the firmament, so centrifugal effects are rendered moot.
Never mind Earth's orbit of the Sun. I find this problem of lack of centrifugal force increasingly problematic in accepting the math for a spinning Earth, with no physical evidence to back it up, and more evidence in favor of a still Earth or relatively still to surrounding laws of physics dictating a constant light speed. If neither of my proposed options are the case, what prevents wheels of a certain size oriented in the North-South direction from rolling toward the equator on their own accord?
If the first proposal is the case, what — except a massive gyroscopic effect — would save Earth from any effect of its rotation?
Furthermore, if anything manned is orbiting the Earth 10 times a day, what prevents the people inside — even from an official standpoint — from drifting to the "top" of the station away from the Earth? Wouldn't liquids fail to be 'weightless' and actually drift away-from-orbit-wise? Imagine a fast-moving train taking a turn and the effect you feel on everything sliding to the outside curve of the train. This seems to be another argument against the idea that we have ever had a Skylab or Mir or an ISS soaring about the Earth at 7,000 meters per second.
Using the same simple formula (please someone stop me if I am not using the right formula!) of F = mV^2/R (for Newtons) a svelte 50kg astro-nought in the ISS would be privately encountering a whopping 438.6 Newtons of pressure - politely plastering them to the ceiling of the ISS with 44 kilos of force, even at 400 kilometers above the Earth.
---
Could it be that one reason for the space and satellite program is merely to demonstrate by sheer amount of bullshit "orbiting" that it is not mysterious that something making an Earth-sized arc at such high speeds encounters no centrifugal effects within its body? The implication is that, "Oh yes, the Earth is spinning with no such effects, so anything can, really!"
When, in fact, the Earth is simply not spinning?
In other words, are we not faced with the following possibilities:
1. Earth is spinning in the firmament, but centrifugal effects are rendered moot by an undiscovered force (or uncalculated combination of discovered forces)?
or
2. Earth is not spinning in the firmament, so centrifugal effects are rendered moot.
Never mind Earth's orbit of the Sun. I find this problem of lack of centrifugal force increasingly problematic in accepting the math for a spinning Earth, with no physical evidence to back it up, and more evidence in favor of a still Earth or relatively still to surrounding laws of physics dictating a constant light speed. If neither of my proposed options are the case, what prevents wheels of a certain size oriented in the North-South direction from rolling toward the equator on their own accord?
If the first proposal is the case, what — except a massive gyroscopic effect — would save Earth from any effect of its rotation?
Furthermore, if anything manned is orbiting the Earth 10 times a day, what prevents the people inside — even from an official standpoint — from drifting to the "top" of the station away from the Earth? Wouldn't liquids fail to be 'weightless' and actually drift away-from-orbit-wise? Imagine a fast-moving train taking a turn and the effect you feel on everything sliding to the outside curve of the train. This seems to be another argument against the idea that we have ever had a Skylab or Mir or an ISS soaring about the Earth at 7,000 meters per second.
Using the same simple formula (please someone stop me if I am not using the right formula!) of F = mV^2/R (for Newtons) a svelte 50kg astro-nought in the ISS would be privately encountering a whopping 438.6 Newtons of pressure - politely plastering them to the ceiling of the ISS with 44 kilos of force, even at 400 kilometers above the Earth.
---
Could it be that one reason for the space and satellite program is merely to demonstrate by sheer amount of bullshit "orbiting" that it is not mysterious that something making an Earth-sized arc at such high speeds encounters no centrifugal effects within its body? The implication is that, "Oh yes, the Earth is spinning with no such effects, so anything can, really!"
When, in fact, the Earth is simply not spinning?
Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.
Sorry for harking back here. I did the exact calculation for a position 45° north.hoi.polloi wrote: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.
For explanation: The centrifugal force at that position is cos(45°) = sqrt(0.5) = 0.707 times the centrifugal force at the equator, because the radius at the position is that ratio of the equator radius and the centrifugal force is proportional to the radius. The direction of that force is also 45° relative to the surface. If you display that force as the sum of a vertical and a horizontal component, you get again cos(45°) = sqrt (0.5) = 0.707 times the total force for both components. In sum it is exactly sqrt(0.5) * sqrt(0.5) = 0.5 times the centrifugal force at the equator (which I had already calculated to be 0.3366 m/s^2). So we'd get roughly 0.017 m/s^2 for the lateral force fs, which is equivalent to about 0.17% of the gravitation g. So a 100kg individual like me would experience a pull "down south" equivalent to the weight of 170g.
Challenge: Is there any experiment showing that this force exists? If not, why? Is there any fault in my (our) reasoning?
-
hoi.polloi
- Member
- Posts: 5060
- Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm
Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.
Don't forget that in particular it should be affecting people's heads, the tops of buildings and so on, rather than strictly the bases. The faster one part is going (further from the center of radius), the greater brunt of the force it should feel. To me, this is a significant problem with the idea of a spinning Earth. Does this not also mean the tops of very tall buildings should be more stressed by this lifting/pushing force than their bases?
From my understanding, if this means that Geocentrism and Heliocentrism are part of a pair of math and physics scenarios that each has serious issues, the spin still must be reduced considerably so that we can basically say it's negligible and closer to the Geocentric's point of view of a non-spinning Earth model. This would mean, perhaps, some arbitrary marriage of the two slowly advancing Heliocentric motions until one could find the balance wherein both margins of error become negligible to observable, repeatable experiment.
But where is the margin of error in the Geocentric experiments? They already seem to be so minimal. Since Geocentrism has tested better than Heliocentrism, it would probably be best to try to reproduce Airy's experiment and try to get an even more accurate reading than was possible in his time. I don't see Heliocentrism on its own being able to combat this, though.
From my understanding, if this means that Geocentrism and Heliocentrism are part of a pair of math and physics scenarios that each has serious issues, the spin still must be reduced considerably so that we can basically say it's negligible and closer to the Geocentric's point of view of a non-spinning Earth model. This would mean, perhaps, some arbitrary marriage of the two slowly advancing Heliocentric motions until one could find the balance wherein both margins of error become negligible to observable, repeatable experiment.
But where is the margin of error in the Geocentric experiments? They already seem to be so minimal. Since Geocentrism has tested better than Heliocentrism, it would probably be best to try to reproduce Airy's experiment and try to get an even more accurate reading than was possible in his time. I don't see Heliocentrism on its own being able to combat this, though.
Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.
Why would you think so? The relative size even of the tallest tower compared to the radius of the earth is so minimal, that it doesn't make any measurable difference between top and bottom, I'd think.hoi.polloi wrote:Don't forget that in particular it should be affecting people's heads, the tops of buildings and so on, rather than strictly the bases. The faster one part is going (further from the center of radius), the greater brunt of the force it should feel.
I thought about this force in more depth and came to the conclusion, that although 170g may sound like quite a lot, it's probably not that noticeable. I'll try to explain: You could combine this force with the gravitational force to one, slightly inclined gravitational vector. The inclination is only about 0.1° - this is an awfully small angle.
If you'd try to set up an experiment, for example with water or a ball on a perfectly flat surface with almost no resistance and try to make it run "down south" every time in a "perfectly horizontal" setting, you will already fail at the attempt to make your surface "perfectly horizontal" - because all the tools we know, like for example a spirit level, would already compensate for that ominous force. They all work based on gravity - respectively that gravity combined with "our" small force. So what we experience as "perfectly horizontal" might already differ by 0.1° from the pure idealized geometry of the earth.
The only possibility would be to use an extremely precise optical instrument to determine the horizon, for example on a ship in the middle of the ocean while the sea is extremely calm. However, this may not do the trick as well - because our earth is known (or at least assumed) to be bulkier at the equator, so this may skew the results again and render them invalid, because our "perfectly horizontal due to the horizon" surface may not be perfectly tangential to an idealized geometrical sphere of the earth as well.
Sigh. I really would have hoped this would get us anywhere
-
hoi.polloi
- Member
- Posts: 5060
- Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm
Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.
May. Maybe. If. Possibly. I think that's a totally vague and silly argument, rusty. I also am not sure about your math. What is wrong with my formula for the force?
Please tell me what is wrong with Newtons = kilogram-mass x velocity in meters per second(^2)/meter radius of arc. Really. It's an important point and you could be right.
When you're saying the force would perhaps maybe be evenly distributed throughout a body, I think you might maybe really know that's not true.
Measurements can be precise. Are you talking about measuring the force with a tennis ball on a string or something?
One could test this in a professional lab, and not contend with the wind, random frictions, mountains or other things you are imagining will suddenly get in the way.
What is your winky-face supposed to even mean, that you actually do not hope we'd be getting anywhere? Then what's the point of discussing it? If the formula I'm using is totally off base, by several magnitudes, okay. Let me know.
Yet 23 degrees is not 45 degrees. And 340 meters per second is not 50 meters per second.
Please tell me what is wrong with Newtons = kilogram-mass x velocity in meters per second(^2)/meter radius of arc. Really. It's an important point and you could be right.
When you're saying the force would perhaps maybe be evenly distributed throughout a body, I think you might maybe really know that's not true.
You'd think, but you know you're wrong. We have been given fairly precise numbers for Earth and we know it isn't being said to be infinite and immeasurable. So you either toss out the numbers and give up or actually figure it out based on what NASA and others are claiming. For example, even 6 miles in the 'canal experiment' supposedly did not reveal 10 feet of difference in Earth's arc. Sorry to bring that up, and I don't want to get into Flat Earth Theory but this is all to say that measurements are certainly important and can be reproduced by lasers, rulers and so on.Why would you think so? The relative size even of the tallest tower compared to the radius of the earth is so minimal, that it doesn't make any measurable difference between top and bottom, I'd think.
Measurements can be precise. Are you talking about measuring the force with a tennis ball on a string or something?
One could test this in a professional lab, and not contend with the wind, random frictions, mountains or other things you are imagining will suddenly get in the way.
What is your winky-face supposed to even mean, that you actually do not hope we'd be getting anywhere? Then what's the point of discussing it? If the formula I'm using is totally off base, by several magnitudes, okay. Let me know.
Yet 23 degrees is not 45 degrees. And 340 meters per second is not 50 meters per second.
-
hoi.polloi
- Member
- Posts: 5060
- Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm
Penetrating yoUranus and beyond
What are Pluto, Charon and Neptune besides mathematical models?
Well, here is a brief on how those planets were discovered. The story goes something like:
Uranus wasn't discovered by Westerners until 1781 by an astronomer Sir William Herschel who said it was a comet with erratic movement. Retroactive credit to others has since been attributed. Asian astronomers had been tracing it for possibly much longer. The royal Windsor family was so "impressed" by this discovery however, and its later classification as a possible planet, that they paid Herschel to move near so they could look through his telescopes. Weird royal connection there. There was discussion to name the planet after King George, particularly as some sort of rally against the formation of what would become the United States. Its name was almost Neptune, but then they decided to settle on Uranus. And stick there.
After that, various explanations were given for why Uranus had a particular wobble to it, and it was decided that mathematically "there must be" some other body or bodies acting on it. Hence, when there came the time to find those planets, the name Neptune was already at the ready. But Neptune was simply not enough to describe our "tilted" planet's alluring motions. So Planet X also came about.
It was gradually revealed through NASA's concentration on yoUr-anus that this planet should be properly depicted in images as tilted, contrary to the other planets' orderly existence, and we should be partially looking at its 'top' (or 'bottom', if you will) like one sees a sort of bullseye askance, but mostly see its side like a typical planet image rotated 90 degrees.
There are a number of official odd connections and oddities regarding Uranus and the planets according to Wickedpeddler, including:
Since that time, astronomers have gradually revealed an amazing tossed salad of moons, debris, potential micro-planets and other interesting things out beyond where anyone had previously been able to see without mathematical calculations for those things.
Now, who am I to deny these things actually exist or aren't as important and vital to our understanding of the solar system as we are told they are? Yet, it's clear enough from any perspective that the wealthy psychological (or should that be psycho?) leaders of this world have taken particular joy in describing, naming and pushing awareness of their apparent understanding of the very reaches of space visible through telescopes ... and perhaps just a little beyond.
The blurry images and one-sided maths received from NASA's projects regarding the outer "3 planets" (or should we say 2 planets and 1 dwarf-planet micro system?) has been a relatively recent affair in the history of PsyOps. And with the undying meme of Planet X perpetually floating out there, we are psychologically poised to worship a 10th ancient God.
I think it's really high time we got access to the best telescopes available to start some real investigations and confirmations.
Well, here is a brief on how those planets were discovered. The story goes something like:
Uranus wasn't discovered by Westerners until 1781 by an astronomer Sir William Herschel who said it was a comet with erratic movement. Retroactive credit to others has since been attributed. Asian astronomers had been tracing it for possibly much longer. The royal Windsor family was so "impressed" by this discovery however, and its later classification as a possible planet, that they paid Herschel to move near so they could look through his telescopes. Weird royal connection there. There was discussion to name the planet after King George, particularly as some sort of rally against the formation of what would become the United States. Its name was almost Neptune, but then they decided to settle on Uranus. And stick there.
After that, various explanations were given for why Uranus had a particular wobble to it, and it was decided that mathematically "there must be" some other body or bodies acting on it. Hence, when there came the time to find those planets, the name Neptune was already at the ready. But Neptune was simply not enough to describe our "tilted" planet's alluring motions. So Planet X also came about.
It was gradually revealed through NASA's concentration on yoUr-anus that this planet should be properly depicted in images as tilted, contrary to the other planets' orderly existence, and we should be partially looking at its 'top' (or 'bottom', if you will) like one sees a sort of bullseye askance, but mostly see its side like a typical planet image rotated 90 degrees.
There are a number of official odd connections and oddities regarding Uranus and the planets according to Wickedpeddler, including:
In 1930, the mysterious Planet X (which to this day is an idea astronomers eagerly support in hopes that the next phenomenon will be named after themselves or will save humanity from some distant rocky menace) was finally christened "Pluto" and this was shortly (almost immediately) followed by Disney's Mickey Mouse gaining a canine companion with a wobbling, bobbing, planet-like sniffer that takes after his master's. This cartoon companion was created and named Pluto in the same year, for allegedly unknown reasons.The chemical element uranium, discovered in 1789 by the German chemist Martin Heinrich Klaproth, was named after the newly discovered planet Uranus. Uranus, the Magician is a movement in Gustav Holst's The Planets, written between 1914 and 1916 ...
Since that time, astronomers have gradually revealed an amazing tossed salad of moons, debris, potential micro-planets and other interesting things out beyond where anyone had previously been able to see without mathematical calculations for those things.
Now, who am I to deny these things actually exist or aren't as important and vital to our understanding of the solar system as we are told they are? Yet, it's clear enough from any perspective that the wealthy psychological (or should that be psycho?) leaders of this world have taken particular joy in describing, naming and pushing awareness of their apparent understanding of the very reaches of space visible through telescopes ... and perhaps just a little beyond.
The blurry images and one-sided maths received from NASA's projects regarding the outer "3 planets" (or should we say 2 planets and 1 dwarf-planet micro system?) has been a relatively recent affair in the history of PsyOps. And with the undying meme of Planet X perpetually floating out there, we are psychologically poised to worship a 10th ancient God.
I think it's really high time we got access to the best telescopes available to start some real investigations and confirmations.
Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.
There's nothing wrong with it. Both formulas are basically the same:hoi.polloi wrote: Please tell me what is wrong with Newtons = kilogram-mass x velocity in meters per second(^2)/meter radius of arc. Really. It's an important point and you could be right.
So ω is 0.000072722 (radians per second, the angular speed), r is the radius of the earth, which is roughly 6375000m. Now set m=1kg and you'll get: F = 0,033714 N
That's the centrifugal force per kilogram at the equator. What's your problem with that?
If you find a good reason why the force should NOT be evenly distributed throughout the object according to the distribution of its mass, please feel free to tell me about it. I think it's pretty obvious that the force is applied to each "molecule" of the object. So if you'd construct a tower with a heavy "head" and a slim "trunk" , yes, the force applied to the head will be stronger, because its mass is bigger.hoi.polloi wrote: When you're saying the force would perhaps maybe be evenly distributed throughout a body, I think you might maybe really know that's not true.
But, again, the same would be true for an "inclined gravitational force".
If you manage to construct a building which is 1000m tall, the distance from the ground to the center of the earth will be 6375000m, F = 0,033714 N per kg.hoi.polloi wrote: You'd think, but you know you're wrong. We have been given fairly precise numbers for Earth and we know it isn't being said to be infinite and immeasurable. So you either toss out the numbers and give up or actually figure it out based on what NASA and others are claiming.
The distance from the top of the building to the center of the earth will be 6376000m, hence F will be 0,033719 N per kg. That's not much of a difference in my book.
Maybe you are right and there is a way to somehow measure this force by using this small difference when the same object is placed at different heights above the surface. Something like a pendulum with varying length. But since the force is so small, there'd always be room for other interpretations, even if the difference is indeed there.hoi.polloi wrote: One could test this in a professional lab, and not contend with the wind, random frictions, mountains or other things you are imagining will suddenly get in the way.
No, the winky face meant, that we always tend to hope we'd be getting anywhere, but at the same time it's quite unlikely that the two of us will really stumble upon something significant that generations and generations have overlooked.hoi.polloi wrote: What is your winky-face supposed to even mean, that you actually do not hope we'd be getting anywhere?
-
hoi.polloi
- Member
- Posts: 5060
- Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm
Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't.
Okay, it's not much of a difference, but repeated tests usually reveal decreasing margins of error.
In any case, there are big differences between overlooking something, not finding something that is hidden and failing to sort out something that others never bothered to. I say we should press forward.
Anyway, even something approaching 1 Newton of pressure from a wonky angle should tell us a lot. I am standing by my argument that it should be noticeable and it isn't, which tells me that it does not exist or is seemingly diminished/canceled by something yet unexplained or quite obscured in our traditional education. Rather than reducing that incredibly interesting argument to a shrug of your shoulders and a wink, I think it should serve as inspiration for us to continue the investigation. But I don't really need to say that, I guess. I should just do as I often recommend of others and "put up or shut up".
I'll do that, and more. There are so many things about aerospace and astronomical science and the like which deserve being raised in this thread. I can't express my former arrogance against scud's initial post and I regret it is preserved. But now that the can of worms is open, let's pile it on our themes for this thread:
What is the Earth, and what is it doing?
What is in space around the Earth, and where and how is the Earth in it?
What are the stars, Moon, Sun and planets and how do they help us answer the aforementioned?
Perhaps the only thing I would say so far about this thread is that Gravity perhaps deserves its own thread, except that it seems intricately tied into different explanations for the crucial subjects above.
Unlikelihood seems like something that we can't scientifically determine in this case. Based on the track record of this forum to uncover some strange things which millions do overlook tells me we have the potential for great thinking indeed.it's quite unlikely that the two of us will really stumble upon something significant that generations and generations have overlooked.
In any case, there are big differences between overlooking something, not finding something that is hidden and failing to sort out something that others never bothered to. I say we should press forward.
Anyway, even something approaching 1 Newton of pressure from a wonky angle should tell us a lot. I am standing by my argument that it should be noticeable and it isn't, which tells me that it does not exist or is seemingly diminished/canceled by something yet unexplained or quite obscured in our traditional education. Rather than reducing that incredibly interesting argument to a shrug of your shoulders and a wink, I think it should serve as inspiration for us to continue the investigation. But I don't really need to say that, I guess. I should just do as I often recommend of others and "put up or shut up".
I'll do that, and more. There are so many things about aerospace and astronomical science and the like which deserve being raised in this thread. I can't express my former arrogance against scud's initial post and I regret it is preserved. But now that the can of worms is open, let's pile it on our themes for this thread:
What is the Earth, and what is it doing?
What is in space around the Earth, and where and how is the Earth in it?
What are the stars, Moon, Sun and planets and how do they help us answer the aforementioned?
Perhaps the only thing I would say so far about this thread is that Gravity perhaps deserves its own thread, except that it seems intricately tied into different explanations for the crucial subjects above.
Re: The SSSS
This is another view of the subject at hand that is quite interesting that may or may not exactly adhere , but it sure makes one think. I don't feel so awkward posting it though as Hoi had mentioned Koresh once previously in a prior post http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f= ... h#p2386051
Disclaimer -- I am not familiar with the integrity of the following websites but the questions asked seem legitimate. There are small aspects of religion mentioned in the 'Optical Phenomena' link.
Firstly, an interesting partial quote from the essay below:
http://www.andrepiet.nl/holle_aarde/Abdelkader.html
Here are quite a few questions asked from a website that looks to host information on the subject.
http://geocosmos.tripod.com/moestel.htm
This page, another from that same site, mentions this interesting bit of info:
(Interesting to note is that it is difficult to find any information on Koresh or the physicist W. Braun due to the search results defaulting to the more famous David Koresh (as Hoi noted) as well as Wernher vonBraun...)
In a few ways, this Geocosmos theory sort of explains a few things that many of us have processed that we have been lied to about.
Gravity -- Editing this one from earlier post. A better possible explanation here in section 1.2.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/foru ... gr_HW2kmXg
Satellites -- If the world had opposing 'sides', ground based satellite technology (that which can actually be repaired on earth, as well -- the solution to 'risk') now seems possible.
NASA -- The relentless propaganda and fake imagery of space travel and what things are 'supposed' to look like. Is the light that many see supposedly representing satellites and the ISS actually reflected light using the same tech on a smaller scale as that of the sun proposed in this theory?
The Nazi's -- There are several internet articles claiming that the Nazi's had this information re: Koresh's theory for what it's worth. Much of it seems sensationalized to the point of being wholly unbelievable, but who knows.
http://paranormal.about.com/od/hollowea ... 022206.htm
We've obviously been lied to so many times that it is refreshing to find ideas that might present answers, I suppose.
Disclaimer -- I am not familiar with the integrity of the following websites but the questions asked seem legitimate. There are small aspects of religion mentioned in the 'Optical Phenomena' link.
Firstly, an interesting partial quote from the essay below:
Mostafa Abdelkader and the GeocosmosFor one who dogmatically insists on believing the unprovable hypothesis
that light propagates in straight lines over distances of billions of lightyears,
the universe must be the universally accepted Copernican system. If
one is open-minded enough to get rid of one’s attatcment to this dogma,
then the only alternative universe is Geocosmos...
...Since both universes are equally possible, there is no valid reason for astronomers,
astrophysicists, and other scientists to confine their attention exclusively to
the study of [the Copernican system], totally dropping the competitive
[Geocosmos] out of their consideration. Probably the majority of these
scientists have never even heard of [Geocosmos]; it is never mentioned in
the proliferating books on astronomy, either the technical or the popular
ones, as far as the author is aware.
http://www.andrepiet.nl/holle_aarde/Abdelkader.html
Here are quite a few questions asked from a website that looks to host information on the subject.
http://geocosmos.tripod.com/moestel.htm
This page, another from that same site, mentions this interesting bit of info:
http://geocosmos.tripod.com/index.htmOptical phenomena, such as the horizon, or a photograph of the disk of the earth from the moon, need a scientific interpretation from an expert in the field of optics. The physicist, W. Braun, has shown in a scientific paper on the subject of seeing in space, using the laws of optics, how the phenomenon of a "photograph of the earth ball" originates, and how this is interpreted when we know about the hollow sphere nature of earth. No scientist of renown has yet maintained, that the full shape of a sphere of the earth has been proven by a photograph from space or by using the phenomenon of the horizon. Professor Roman Sexl, from the Institute of Physics of the University of Vienna, Austria, has confirmed that it is mathematically impossible to disprove the statements of the physicist W. Braun.
(Interesting to note is that it is difficult to find any information on Koresh or the physicist W. Braun due to the search results defaulting to the more famous David Koresh (as Hoi noted) as well as Wernher vonBraun...)
In a few ways, this Geocosmos theory sort of explains a few things that many of us have processed that we have been lied to about.
Gravity -- Editing this one from earlier post. A better possible explanation here in section 1.2.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/foru ... gr_HW2kmXg
Satellites -- If the world had opposing 'sides', ground based satellite technology (that which can actually be repaired on earth, as well -- the solution to 'risk') now seems possible.
NASA -- The relentless propaganda and fake imagery of space travel and what things are 'supposed' to look like. Is the light that many see supposedly representing satellites and the ISS actually reflected light using the same tech on a smaller scale as that of the sun proposed in this theory?
The Nazi's -- There are several internet articles claiming that the Nazi's had this information re: Koresh's theory for what it's worth. Much of it seems sensationalized to the point of being wholly unbelievable, but who knows.
http://paranormal.about.com/od/hollowea ... 022206.htm
We've obviously been lied to so many times that it is refreshing to find ideas that might present answers, I suppose.
Last edited by Libero on Wed Aug 14, 2013 6:49 am, edited 3 times in total.
Re: The SSSS
Lux wrote:
Indeed, but these are weather patterns. Hi / low pressure causes movement of the air from one region to the other, sometimes cumulating in violent storms. Generally however, our ultra fluid atmosphere would appear to move in direct relation to solid Earth beneath, at all latitudes / altitudes (if we are to believe in the Copernican system) otherwise pretty much everywhere (except for a few miles north / south of the poles) would have been flattened long ago by constant westerly winds ranging from 650 Mp/h here in London to 1032 Mp/h about the equator. As a crude analogy, imagine a busy motorway where all vehicles are traveling at 70 Mp/h on a remarkably still day. Does the surrounding air begin to travel at the same speed?...and if so, what height above this moving, solid mass does the air stop behaving in this manner?“ I don't think the movement of the atmosphere is exactly in perfect sync with the Earth's movements. If it were there would be no perceivable wind anywhere on Earth and that is never true. Quite the contrary. There are winds moving in different directions at different altitudes, in different locals, there are circular storms, etc., etc. In fact, the condition of "no wind at all" in a particular location seems somewhat rare or at least only a temporary situation.”
Re: The SSSS
scud wrote:Lux wrote:Indeed, but these are weather patterns. Hi / low pressure causes movement of the air from one region to the other, sometimes cumulating in violent storms. Generally however, our ultra fluid atmosphere would appear to move in direct relation to solid Earth beneath, at all latitudes / altitudes (if we are to believe in the Copernican system) otherwise pretty much everywhere (except for a few miles north / south of the poles) would have been flattened long ago by constant westerly winds ranging from 650 Mp/h here in London to 1032 Mp/h about the equator. As a crude analogy, imagine a busy motorway where all vehicles are traveling at 70 Mp/h on a remarkably still day. Does the surrounding air begin to travel at the same speed?...and if so, what height above this moving, solid mass does the air stop behaving in this manner?“ I don't think the movement of the atmosphere is exactly in perfect sync with the Earth's movements. If it were there would be no perceivable wind anywhere on Earth and that is never true. Quite the contrary. There are winds moving in different directions at different altitudes, in different locals, there are circular storms, etc., etc. In fact, the condition of "no wind at all" in a particular location seems somewhat rare or at least only a temporary situation.”
But, you left out my point #2 about the atmosphere being created by emissions from a rotating Earth.
I guess I don't see what is hard to believe about a rotating atmosphere. Air and other fluids can and do rotate. Some planets are themselves made up of rotating gasses. Is there any evidence of atmospheres of other planets not rotating while the planet itself does rotate? I know we can't trust NASA imagery but some photography of other planets was done prior to or possibly independently from NASA. Telescopes do exist and amateurs are observing planets with them. Are there any other examples of immobile atmospheres on rotating planets?
It just seems more likely to me that a planet would rotate because, to my knowledge, nothing is unmoving in the universe. Lack of movement requires an exact equilibrium of forces. For a planet to not rotate it would mean that no significant off-center force was ever applied to it one way or the other over billions of years or more. It doesn't seem likely to me.