Tweet
Originally posted by Ben2503
View Post
(a) The Michelson-Gale experiment (Reference-Astrophysical Journal 1925 v 61 pp 140-5 - I forgot to put this reference in my book!) This detected the aether passing the surface of the earth with an accuracy of 2% of the speed of the daily rotation of the earth! Thus, the Michelson-Morely experiment detected no movement of the earth around the sun, yet the Michelson-Gale experiment measured the earth's rotation (or the aether's rotation around the earth!) to within 2%! This surely speaks volumes for geocentricity.
(c) The Sagnac experiment (Reference - Comptes Rendus 1913 v157 p 708-710 and 1410-3) Sagnac rotated a table complete with light and mirrors with the light being passed in opposite directions around the table between the mirrors. He detected the movement of the table by the movement of the interference fringes on the target where they were recombined. This proved that there IS an aether that the light has to pass through and this completely destroys Einstein's theory of Relativity that says there is no aether. It is for this reason that this experiment is completely ignored by scientists. More recently Kantor has found the same result with similar apparatus.
All these experiments are never taught at universities, so consequently, scientists, including most Christian creationists, are ignorant of this evidence for geocentricity. Is it any wonder, therefore, that Christian geocentrists find their most vociferous opponents are fellow Christian creationists to whom geocentricity comes as a shock. They do not want to be tarred with such a heretical brush that will only increase the great ridicule they are already receiving for their stance against evolution?
(c) The Sagnac experiment (Reference - Comptes Rendus 1913 v157 p 708-710 and 1410-3) Sagnac rotated a table complete with light and mirrors with the light being passed in opposite directions around the table between the mirrors. He detected the movement of the table by the movement of the interference fringes on the target where they were recombined. This proved that there IS an aether that the light has to pass through and this completely destroys Einstein's theory of Relativity that says there is no aether. It is for this reason that this experiment is completely ignored by scientists. More recently Kantor has found the same result with similar apparatus.
All these experiments are never taught at universities, so consequently, scientists, including most Christian creationists, are ignorant of this evidence for geocentricity. Is it any wonder, therefore, that Christian geocentrists find their most vociferous opponents are fellow Christian creationists to whom geocentricity comes as a shock. They do not want to be tarred with such a heretical brush that will only increase the great ridicule they are already receiving for their stance against evolution?
I would also add that if we calculate based on the raw data of the 1881 experiment, and since MM said that the displacement was certainly less then one twentieth part (1,5 km/s) of expected 0,4 fringe (which corresponds to 30km/s) and perhaps less than one fortieth of what they expected, if we take one fortieth of 30 km/sec we have 0.75 km/sec. One fiftieth would be precisely 0.45 km/sec, the exact figure corresponding to the movement of ether you stated at the equator.
In our original draft of GWW, we had “1-4km/sec,” because, there seemed to be more experiments after MM that were closer to 1km than 4km.
In any case, the important theme we wanted to being out in GWW in light of all these experiments is: (a) the fringe shifts were no where near what would be expected for an Earth moving at 30km/sec around the sun, and (b) that the results of all the interferometer experiments showed that they did not exhibit “null” results, but results in keeping with some movement between Earth and its environment. The hard part is trying to figure out just how fast or slow that movement is.
The heliocentrists, of course, are in a quagmire either way, since if they
choose to attribute the ether drift to a rotation of the Earth in an immovable
environment, then they must also incorporate a revolution of the Earth
around the sun to account for the seasons, which then requires at least a 30
km/sec drift, and thus the whole thing falls like a house of cards.
From the geocentric model, if there is any excess ether drift above 0.464
km/sec, I would attribute it, perhaps, to some additional ether winds that are independent of and not concurrent with the universe’s rotation. We talk about some of these in our Hildegard section and try to put some scientific basis to them. Hildegard says there is an independent high-speed vortex around the sun that slows quite rapidly with increasing radius from the sun.
In our original draft of GWW, we had “1-4km/sec,” because, there seemed to be more experiments after MM that were closer to 1km than 4km.
In any case, the important theme we wanted to being out in GWW in light of all these experiments is: (a) the fringe shifts were no where near what would be expected for an Earth moving at 30km/sec around the sun, and (b) that the results of all the interferometer experiments showed that they did not exhibit “null” results, but results in keeping with some movement between Earth and its environment. The hard part is trying to figure out just how fast or slow that movement is.
The heliocentrists, of course, are in a quagmire either way, since if they
choose to attribute the ether drift to a rotation of the Earth in an immovable
environment, then they must also incorporate a revolution of the Earth
around the sun to account for the seasons, which then requires at least a 30
km/sec drift, and thus the whole thing falls like a house of cards.
From the geocentric model, if there is any excess ether drift above 0.464
km/sec, I would attribute it, perhaps, to some additional ether winds that are independent of and not concurrent with the universe’s rotation. We talk about some of these in our Hildegard section and try to put some scientific basis to them. Hildegard says there is an independent high-speed vortex around the sun that slows quite rapidly with increasing radius from the sun.
http://zaslike.com/files/73dx62d9cfevj2qbs1ia.jpg
http://www.zaslike.com/files/lc0s8a16a6fjzmi6sih5.jpg
Again, we see that a non-moving Earth was certainly one possible solution to MMX, but modern academia simply could not accept it. It was “unthinkable.” I can certainly understand why. It would overturn almost everything modern science had striven for in the past 500 years. Every career, every book, every sheepskin, including the fame and fortune that went along with them, would have been put in jeopardy if a non-moving Earth was found to be the best solution to MMX.
But the fact is, they all knew a non-moving Earth was the simplest solution. Take for example the words of physicist G. J. Whitrow in the 1950s:
“It is both amusing and instructive to speculate on what might have happened if such an experiment could have been performed in the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries when men were debating the rival merits of the Copernican and Ptolemaic systems. The result would surely have been interpreted as conclusive evidence for the immobility of the Earth, and therefore as a triumphant vindication of the Ptolemaic system and irrefutable falsification of the Copernican hypothesis. The moral of this historical fantasy is that it is often dangerous to believe in the absolute verification or falsification of a scientific hypothesis. All judgments of this type are
necessarily made in some historical context which may be drastically modified by the changing perspective of human knowledge” (G. J. Whitrow, The Structure and Evolution of the Universe, 1949, 1959, p. 79).
Other scientists also saw a motionless Earth as a possible solution to MMX, but were unwilling to accept it due to their philosophical presuppositions. Of his own MMX experiment, Albert Michelson said: “This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation…which presupposes that the Earth moves.” (“The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 22, August 1881, p. 125).
Arthur Eddington said the same about MMX: “There was just one alternative; the earth’s true velocity through space might happen to have been nil.” (The Nature of the Physical World, 1929, pp. 11, 8.).
Historian Bernard Jaffe said: “The data were almost unbelievable… There was only one other possible conclusion to draw — that the Earth was at rest.” Jaffe’s philosophical barrier was then revealed when he concluded: “This, of course, was preposterous.” (Michelson and the Speed of Light, 1960, p. 76.).
Has anyone spotted any bit of honesty and dignity and justness in modern science? I have not!!!
For example, 
Comment