The Principle--most controveral movie of science of this century?

[aljhoa]

Qauntum BS like virtual photons

gluons
muons
electrons


its an absurdity with no basis in reality.

Aether Unit Animation

Al

[indio007]

See if you can do a better job of explaining the science behind your claims.

The claim that aether causes a fringe shift is an assumption.
The idea that aether is motionally at rest at all point of the light path relative to the apparatus is an assumption.

What makes the entire experiment suspect is the null result, that has been claimed for 100 years
The null result claim is a straight up mischaracterization. The shift is NOT zero

[Bob Smith]

I watched quite a few of Robert Sungenis' videos and listened to an interview (which I linked earlier) in which he summarizes the scientific bases in his argument for a geocentric universe.

One of the things I found interesting was the notion that the earth is centre of the cosmos, not based on symmetry of current models, but rather, as occupying the centre of mass. He uses the thrown tennis racket rotating on its centre of mass as an analogous example.

I can live with either geo or helio centric notions of the universe - still gotta get up and go to work each day. Do you think it would change the thesis of this presentation?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxHA...detailpage#t=9
Bob

[wayne.ct]

Atheism

... genuine atheism (the REAL SCUMBAG variety) is NOT merely a denial of god, but of metaphysical and ontological subjects (the soul, the Ether, the substrate to phenomena)....

I did read your response, TA, and found it interesting and perhaps I learned something from it. Since you seem to be using several words is special ways, I truly hope I understood you correctly.

I think we agree that one can only speak for ones self, since it is not likely we understand other's views when they use language in such different ways.

Judging from the movie trailer, I think the producers have a rather large burden of proof if they think they will convince me that the earth is the center of the universe. Especially so if that is meant in the pre-Copernican sense of the phrase. I would consider the thesis to be a claim or conjecture.

Is anyone here thinking the idea so outlandish it should be rejected without consideration? Based on what logic? The talking heads are not credible? Can anyone defend (or destroy) the voices excerpted in the trailer?

Just a few of my thoughts.

[TheoriaApophasis]

if they think they will convince me that the earth is the center of the universe.

any premise that the earth is the center of anything is astronomically absurd.


the earth is an ant fart on the ass of a monkey on one tree in a jungle outcropping among countless other spots in a small corner between nowhere and eternity.

[TheoriaApophasis]

The idea that aether is motionally at rest at all

which motion????........, empirical motion or ontological motion?


the two are wholly diff. creatures.



relative empirical motion requires subjective motion not as mutually divisible motion between relative bodies but motion as DENOTATED as the attribute of a subject which is ever objectified definitionally

There is NO Prima Causa as per the Ether.

"First Cause" is one of the oldest fallacies of mankind and the genesis for EVERY religion (translation: bastardized Platonic metaphysics) that exists or ever existed.

There is ONE equation only that I discovered 12 years ago and fits in EVERY model of the Ether from dielectricity to magnetism to gravity to electricity.


Ive spent 12 years trying to refute it and test it, .....it always works.


The equation for the Ether is 1/Phi^-3

ISBN number 0-9712541-6-8 The equation: 1/Phi^-3


however it takes about 100+ pages just to elaborate on what that means.

[indio007]

which motion????........, empirical motion or ontological motion?

empirical motion

The MM experiment presupposes that the earth is moving (along with the path of the light in the experiment) and the aether is stationary.

It also presupposes that there is only one variable in the experiment that can cause an interference fringe.

The MM is garbage because the assumptions are baseless.

[TheoriaApophasis]

It also presupposes that there is only one variable in the experiment that can cause an interference fringe.

The MM is garbage because the assumptions are baseless.



and the aether is stationary.

Yes, the MM "experiment" is typical bull cookies and crap from pseudo-intellectual academia that is incapable of actually THINKING


as for ANYTHING being stationary, theyre brain dead (now theyre really dead)


Even the ancient Greeks knew this


τὰ πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει


translated into modern English that says "everything is moving dammit"


ancient saying from Heraclitus , saying actually "everything is ever flowing, moving endlessly"

[Ernst]

The MM experiment is a pretty good experiment, it has been repeated many times with better and still better apparatus. I believe that only Dayton Miller was convinced that there actually was a detectable fringe shift.
The experiment however is based on a number of assumptions and misunderstandings. The most important issue they overlooked of these is this:
Why is the Earth (and all other planets) moving around the Sun?
Is not mass a vortex in the ether? And the Sun quite a bit of mass?
Shouldn't this create a giant vortex (=rotation) in the ether?
Doesn't it make sense that after a few billion years all planets would be stationary with respect to the ether, meaning that they are dragged along in the ether vortex?
This is the issue of "action at a distance" which is so elegantly solved if you include ether in your considerations. No mathematical trickery, no fields, no quantum fairy tales, no counter space pixie dust, none of that. Just simple every day mechanics.
Simple logic reasoning shows that the result must be 0 or very close to 0, and this has nothing whatsoever to do with the Earth being the centre of the universe (or not).


Ernst.

[TheoriaApophasis]

Shouldn't this create a giant vortex (=rotation) in the ether?
Ernst.

It does.

See this video and see the TRUTH, that computer simulation isnt a conjecture, is a hardcore FACT

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38YF_VoiCck

The MM experiment is a pretty good experiment
Ernst.

Nope, its pure crap

, it has been repeated many times with better and still better apparatus
Ernst.

Indeed so, in which case you have REPEATED CRAP

Why is the Earth (and all other planets) moving around the Sun?
Ernst.

It ultimately ISNT. The Ether doesnt "see" objects, it "sees" field pressure mediations, just like fluid dynamics.

The sun is also moving around the earth, however its magnitude of same is nearly = negligible.

Is not mass a vortex in the ether? And the Sun quite a bit of mass?
Ernst.

Even the term VORTEX is meaningless BS[/B]

Vortex in explanation is saying 2 pressures are mediating each other around a NULL FULCRUM ,........this pressure mediation "draws" out a 'vortex'.

This is the issue of "action at a distance"
Ernst.

There is NO SUCH BS as "action at a distance" ultimately.


Fields are 'overlapping' and interact over 'distances' of space, but space is a posterior attribute of fields.

to speak of "instant action at a distance" is an inverse fallacy of nonsense. Space cannot be reified as something to "act IN and against"

Fields are first, ...space is the crap from the 'horse of fields'.


co-eternal action-reactions are only measured in time as implicative of induction speeds of empirical mediums (matter, transverse fields).

Ultimately all space is a meaningless slave and nothing to any and all fields which produce space but are not subject TO space which is a polarized abstraction of said polarized fields.

Simple logic reasoning shows that the result must be 0 or very close to 0
Ernst.

The ancient Greeks and others had no such nonsense as the false reification of ZERO , empty and EMPTY OF are two diff. things.

Zero is purely a human concept and contrivance; it has no reality whatsoever, nor could it, nor can it even be proven to exist by anyone on earth.

[ldrancer]

on this video that you linked https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38YF_VoiCck
in that case of the vortex and it doesnt make sense. just like none of it.

not saying its not real, but wouldnt if the sun was spiraling off somewhere. ok? like in that animation, you see that line it leaves behind it? wouldnt it be pretty hot if we where to go through that? say on a spaceship or anything? and also, shouldnt we be able to, see it? measure it? find it in some way?

[Ernst]

The MM experiment is a pretty good experiment

Nope, its pure crap

As was rightfully requested in this thread I was explaining and giving arguments as to why the MM-experiment was invalid for the fact that they tried to prove.
I think it is a good thing to add some arguments in stead of your rather useless response.

, it has been repeated many times with better and still better apparatus

Indeed so, in which case you have REPEATED CRAP

It was not me who repeated that experiment, but it is you who repeats a useless response.

This is the issue of "action at a distance"

There is NO SUCH BS as "action at a distance" ultimately.

Glad you agree, but it seems it is very hard for you to write a reply without resorting to profanity. I wonder how your translation work would look if you have the same problem there .

The ancient Greeks and others had no such nonsense as the false reification of ZERO , empty and EMPTY OF are two diff. things.

Zero is purely a human concept and contrivance; it has no reality whatsoever, nor could it, nor can it even be proven to exist by anyone on earth.

Really?
What is the relative speed between two neighbouring grains of sand on the Moon?
And what is their difference in temperature and electric potential?
How many unicorns are at this moment jumping through a hoop of fire (on Earth).
Also notice that I said

Simple logic reasoning shows that the result must be 0 or very close to 0

So what is your point? Just wanted to bring up those oldies again?


The rest of your post is, I believe, to show that a problem can be solved through simple mechanics and logic reasoning (as I did) or by confusing the audience with fairy tales of pixie-dust and unicorns.
I don't know if you know Keshe, he is also a master at this. You should look him up some time.
When I come to think of it, there are actually quite a few out there!


Ernst.

[Allcanadian]

@Ethan

What does geocentric earth and religion have in common?
Its a man made egotistical god complex fabrication.

We are born without knowing who we are, where we came from, or where we are going.
We are scared of the unknown. That is why we created religion.
Religion is a human fabrication to comfort us as we travel into a state of existence that we have NO knowledge of. (the afterlife, death)
Instead of accepting the fact that we have NO idea what will happen to us, we have created pleasant fictional religions to keep our fears at bay.
Personally, I think life is eternal, the human soul is a part of the singularity.
The reason I believe that...it makes me feel good as I go to sleep at night.

That was an insightful post and I would disagree with many who would like to separate science from religion when science is not unlike religion. For instance what are the primary fields?, Magnetic, Electric, Gravic?. What is Inertia, how small is the smallest thing and how large the largest?.

We have no real answers to anything and yet we presume to know and understand and judge others despite the complete lack of tangible proof either way. Now science tells us that what we call tangible is 99% empty space, it tells us what is actually there is popping in and out of existence from multiple parallel universes. Which is kind of like saying most everything you know is a lie and what remains is even more questionable than the lies and so we must believe without question because we have no answers to our questions.

So I would tend to agree with your philosophy and I think we tend to believe in what makes sense to us even if there is no sense in it. Personally I can't say I'm afraid of much of anything, cautious yes, but afraid not so much ... it is what it is. I am however very cautious about anyone who knows anything for certain without doubt. Be it science or religion or anything else because their views seem extreme to me which by definition makes them an extremist of sorts. Which is kind of like when the scientist say's I am logical and reasonable however you must believe what I believe or you are somehow stupid and illogical... despite the fact I have no more real proof of anything than you do.

So yes I also tend to believe things which make sense and make me feel good however I do reserve the right to be completely wrong about everything.

AC

[TheoriaApophasis]

@Ethan

I would disagree with many who would like to separate science from religion when science is not unlike religion.
AC

Youre confusing religion with metaphysics


very common error.

[TheoriaApophasis]

Originally Posted by Ernst
Simple logic reasoning shows that the result must be 0 or very close to 0
Ernst.

That is a senseless/ useless/ unqualified comment without context or relevance.


Zero doesnt exist, if you MEANT to intelligently says Zero as implicative of unmanifest, or trans-empirical (ie ontological or Etheric, ie metaphysical), that would be another matter.

An empirical zero is a QUALIFIER SAID OF SOMETHING ELSE

Like "Alaska is DEVOID OF (Zero) coconut trees" etc.


Negative affirmation of empirical subjects are only qualifiers.


An unmanifest Ether inertia of which we can say "it measures 0 on the empirical scale of this "X" test" , it not a negation ANYMORE SO THAN SAYING "There are no elephants in Alaska therefore elephants dont exist"





True science 1000s of years ago required that one be FOREMOST a Platonic metaphysician (NOT = new age trash as the term metaphysics current connotatively implies!!!!) with a mind geared towards abstruse:

1. deduction
2. induction
3. and most importantly retroduction

As was rightfully requested in this thread I was explaining and giving arguments as to why the MM-experiment
Ernst.

It wasnt an experiment , rather a pontificative brain fahrt brought out in extension to a senseless "test"


As as "TEST" it ranks right up there with "tests for being a Witch" as found in Colonial America.
........Useless profane illogical twaddle, and pure Bull cookies.





Suggest your educate yourself more about differentiating VIA NEGATIVA qualification of "ZERO" (X is devoid of Y) , rather than REIFICATION of "0" in or as an unreal abstraction which is just a human brain fahrt , or mental contrivance.


Kha and other words denoting "Zero" in Connection with the Greek and Indian metaphysics of space

Kha, cf. Greek Xaos, is generally "cavity"; and in the Rg Veda, particularly "the hole in the nave of a wheel through which the axle runs" (Monier Williams). A. N. Singh has shown conclusively that in Indian mathematical usage, current during the earlier centuries of the Christian era, kha means "zero";(1) Suryadeva, commenting on Aryabhata, says that "the khas refer to voids (khaini sunya upa lakptani) . . . thus khadvinake means the eighteen places denoted by zeros." Among other words denoting zero are sunya, akasa, vyoma, antariksa, nabha, ananta, and purna.(2) We are immediately struck by the fact that the words sunya, "void," and purna, "plenum," should have a common reference; the implication being that all numbers are virtually or potentially present in that which is without number; expressing this as an equation, o=x-x, it is apparent that zero is to number as possibility is to actuality. ,.gain, employment of the term ananta with the same reference implies an identification of zero with infinity; the beginning of all series being thus the same as their end. This last idea, we may observe, is met with already in the earlier metaphysical literature, for example RV IV.I.II, where Agni is described as "hiding both his ends (guhamano anta) "; AB 111.43, "the Agnistoma is like a chariot wheel, endless (ananta)"; JUB 1.35, "the Year is endless (ananta), its two ends (anta) are Winter and Spring . . . so is the endless chant (anantam saman)." These citations suggest that it may be possible to account for the later mathematicians selection of technical terms by reference to an earlier usage of the same or like terms in a purely metaphysical context.
Our intention being to demonstrate the native connection of the mathematical terms kha, etc., with the same terms as employed in purely metaphysical contexts, it will be necessary to prepare the diagram of a circle or cosmic wheel (cakra, mandala) and to point out the significance of the relationships of the parts of such a diagram according to universal tradition and more particularly in accordance with the formulation of the Rg Veda. Take a piece of blank paper of any dimensions, mark a point anywhere upon it, and With this point as center draw two concentric circles of any radii, but one much less than the other; draw any radius from the center to the outer circumference. With exception of the center, which as a point is necessarily without dimension, note that every part of our diagram is merely representative; that is, the number of circles may be indefinitely increased, and the number of radii likewise, each circle thus filled up becoming at last a plane continuum, the extended ground of any given world or state of being; for our purpose we are considering only two such worlds mythologically speaking, Heaven and Earth, or psychologically, the worlds of subject and object as forming together the world or cosmos, typical of any particularized world which may be thought of as partial within it. Finally, our diagram may be thought of either as consisting of two concentric circles with their common radii and one common center, or as the diagram of a wheel, with its felly, nave, spokes, and axle point.
Now in the first place, as a geometrical symbol, that is to say with respect to measure or numeration, our diagram represents the logical relationships of the concepts naught or zero, inconnumerable unity, and indefinite multiplicity; the blank (sunnya) surface having no numerical significance; the central point (Indu, bindu) being an inconnumerable unity (inconnumerable, advaita, because there cannot be conceived a second center); and either circumference an endless (ananta) series of points, which may be thought of as numbers; the totality (sarvam) of the numbered, that is to say individual, points representing the sum of a mathematically infinite series extending from one to "infinity," and conceivable as plus or minus according to the direction of procedure. The whole area (sarira) delimited corresponds to place (desa), a revolution of the circles about their center corresponds to time (kala) It will be observed further that any radius connects analogous or corresponding points or numbers on the two circumferences;(3) if, now, we suppose the radius of one or both circles indefinitely reduced, which brings us to the central point as limiting concept (that is also "as it was in the beginning"), it is evident that even this point can be thought of only as a plenum of all the numbers represented on either circumference.(4) on the other hand, this point, at the same time that it represents an inconnumerable unity and, as we have seen, a plenum, must also be thought of as representing, that is, as the symbol of, zero, for two reasons: (1) inasmuch as the concept to which it refers is by definition without place and without dimensions, and therefore nonexistent, and (2) the mathematically infinite series, thought of as both plus and minus according to direction, cancel out where all directions meet in common focus.
So far as I know, Indian literature does not provide a specifically geometrical exegesis exactly corresponding to what is given in the preceding paragraph. What we do find in the metaphysical and religious traditions is a corresponding usage of the symbol of the Wheel (primarily the solar chariot, or a wheel thereof), and it is in this connection that we first meet with some of the most significant of those terms which are later on employed by the mathematicians. In RV 1.155.6 and 1.164.2, II, 13, 14, 48; AV x.8.4 7; KB xx.i; JUB 1.35; BU 1.5.15; Svet. Up. 1.4; PS 6, and like texts, the year as an everlasting sequence is thought of as an unwasting wheel of life, a revolving wheel of the Angels, in which all things have their being and are manifested in succession; "none of its spokes is last in order" (RV v.85.5) . The parts of the wheel are named as follows: ani, the axle point within the nave (note that the axle causes revolution, but does not itself revolve); kha, nabhi, the nave (usually as space within the hub, occasionally as the hub itself); ara, spoke, connecting hub and felly; nemi, pavi, the felly. It should be observed that nabhi, from nabh, to expand, is also "navel"; similarly in anthropomorphic formulation, "navel" corresponds to "space" (MU vi.6) ; in the Rg Veda, the cosmos is constantly thought of as "expanded" (pi n) from this chthonic center.
Certain passages indicating the metaphysical significance of the terms ani, kha, and nabhi in the Rg Veda may now be cited. It should be premised that we find here in connection with the constant use of the wheel symbol, and absence of a purely geometrical formulation, the term ani employed to express ideas later on referred to by the words indu or bindu.(5) Vedic ani, being the axle point within the nave of the wheel, and on which the wheel revolves, corresponds exactly to Dante's "il pumadello stelo al cui la prima rota va dintorno" (Paradiso XIII.I I I2) . The metaphysical significance of the ani is fully brought out in RV 1.35.6, anim na rathyam amrta adhi tasthuh, "as on the axle point of the chariot wheel are actually existent the undying [Angels or intellectual principles]," which also supplies the answer to the well known problem, "How many Angels can stand on the point of a needle?" More often the nave of the wheel, rather than the axle point specifically, is treated as its center; nor need this confuse us if we reflect that just as under limiting conditions (indefinite reduction of the radius, or when the central point has been identified but the circle not yet drawn) the center represents the circle, so under similar conditions (metaphysically, in princi pio) the axle point implies the nave or even the whole wheel the point without dimension, and a principial space not yet expanded (or as the Rg Veda would express it, "closed") being the same in reference. The nave then, kha or nabhi, of the world wheel is regarded as the receptacle and fountain of all order, formative ideas, and goods: for example, 11.28.5, rahydmato varuna kham rtasya, "may we, O Varuna, win thy nave of Law"; viii.4I.6, where in Trita Aptya "all oracles (kavyd) are set as is the nave within the wheel (cakre nabhir iva) "; IV.28, where Indra opens the closed or hidden naves or rocks (apihita . . . khani in verse I, apihitani asna in verse 5) and thus releases the Seven Rivers of Life.(6) In v.32.I, where Indra breaks open the Fountain of Life (utsam), this is again an emptying out of the hollows (khani), whereby the fettered floods are released.