Help with my logic (paranormalities and science)

**dear all,
this is not MY post. this is a copy from a paranormal forum from someone seeking “geek” and sciencey types answering some questions. i have little doubt this will not be fun for all involve.

feel free to go straight to the forum and post answers, or just post them here. i’m curious what you, who fight ignorance, have to say about this. NOTE: all else i post here will be quotes.
forum is located:
*I put this in the Strange Science folder to try to draw the geeks and semi-geeks out. I put it on a paranormal forum because that is where it’s headed.

So I wake up on a super smooth monorail of the future. Super smooth. Super quiet. The windows are shuttered for the night. How to determine if I am moving or stopped at a station without looking out the window?
I place one watch on the table. This is my base time. My earth time. I synchronize a second watch on a chain and then begin to spin it at my side (in a clockwise direction from my point of view)
Let us assume I am spinning it at 100 mph. Since it is moving faster than the watch on the table it should experience a greater time dilation. When I am stationary only. Keep this in mind when considering the test with the atomic clock flown around the world.
If I am spinning the watch at 100 mph but unknown to me the train is moving forward at 200 mph then during each complete circle I spin the watch I am spinning faster than the clock on the table only half the time. From the 3:00 position to the 9:00 position its resultant speed is 300 mph. It is moving 100 mph faster than the clock on my table. But from 9:00 to 3:00 it’s resultant speed is only 100 mph. The clock on the table is moving 100 mph faster. Any benefit timewise accumulated by the spinning watch as it moves forward is exactly offset by the lack of time dilation the tabled watch experiences which the spinning watch does not during the second half of it’s spin.
the resultant velocities should show no gain in time when the two watches are compared at the end of the test.
If however I spin it at right angles to the track (read: at right angle to any possible motion of the train) then it should enjoy time dilation during it’s entire spin as during it’s entire spin it is moving faster than the tabled watch.
Point? A spinning object should demonstrate time dilation only when compared to a stationary source or point of origin.
Did they fly an atomic clock around the world? Did it show time dilation? Did all the little physicists jump up and down and say ‘yeah! We’ve proven time dilation is real!’? or did they prove that at least as regards the direction of the path of the plane that the earth is stationary?

Slowly but surely being pushed back to the Michelson-Morley experiment. But not to worry there’s still a lot of science before we get backed up to Newton. I think. I hope.

more coffee…more problem. Come on geeks. I know where this ends up. A scientifically functioning universe is neat and organized. I can not say the same for where this line of reasoning is going.

*I am a former geek myself. I wanted to grow up to be an astronomer when I was younger. The problem is I keep finding myself being quite slowly but surely pushed into a magical universe (which is why geeks on a paranormal site seem ideal for an assist)

A problem with time dilation
So the Michelson-Morley experiment showed that when the speed of light was measured both as we approach and recede from the sun, it is constant. This is totally contrary to everything science knew at the time. Mr. Einstein explained this with his concept of time dilation.
But the problem is for this to explain the problem of the constancy of the speed of light then it must follow that the entire planet is experiencing it as well as the fact that it must change for the entire planet over the course of each year. The time dilation needed to maintain the illusion of a constant speed for light as we are approaching the sun and therefore should combine our speeds to produce a resultant is not the same as when that needed to balance our resultant speed out to maintain the speed of light when we are moving away from the sun and would subtract one velocity from the other or something like that. The point is 1) the entire planet experiences this time dilation since the experiment can be performed any time and any place on earth, and 2) The degree of time dilation we experience is not constant but must vary over the course of the year dependent on our movement in relation to the sun.

Now a common suggestion made by many would be to broadcast a signal from earth to astronauts in a rocket so that they could use it to track ‘earth time’. When reading about this it is always pointed out how the astronauts would experience the signals as coming in further and further apart as their time slowed down.
But if the planet earth is serving as that spaceship then why aren’t the signals we receive coming in at different rates dependent on the degree of time dilation we are experiencing which is in turn dependent on where we on in our orbit?
We have such signals. We have an intergalactic clock that sends out signals at regular intervals. They are called Pulsars. Some send out a signal every 1.4 milliseconds yet there is no mention of the frequency of these signals ever varying as we move around the sun. Why was it necessary to put an atomic clock in a plane and fly it around the world a few dozen times to prove time dilation? Wouldn’t the people who measure the frequency of pulsars have said ‘No need. The fluctuations in the frequency of pulsar transmissions is sufficient proof’?
Would not these fluctuations occur all year long as the earth moved through the different parts of it’s orbit and therefore experienced different levels of time dilation?
Being a former geek I do try to keep up on the latest scientific news and articles. I have never seen a single report anywhere of anyone ever even casually referring to the fact that pulsars pulse at different rates in the autumn and spring which they should as we are experiencing different forms of time dilation at these two particular times.

Here is the method posted by that explains how the frequency of pulsar signals are determined. Note it nowhere mentions any allowance being made for any time dilation the earth might be experiencing.

I think about two starships (Kirk’s Enterprise and Picard’s. Hey I warned you I’m a former geek) who find themselves approaching each other with no other reference points and attempting to determine who is moving and who is stationary (The classic two men floating in space problem). I put them on the outer edges of a giant black hole so that they may continue to cross each other’s paths while travelling in a straight line. During one particular passing Spock and Data (our two logic dependent crewmen) are beamed across to the other ship.
Each ship believes it has transported a man into a passing speeding ship which then shoots away from them, makes four or five rounds of the central black hole and then is returned. How can both of them find their crewman has returned with his watch having moved slower than the rest of the crew?
How can both Spock and Data have watches that have moved slower than each other?
Common sense says one man must return with his watch having moved ‘faster’. But if this is the case we are screwing with Einstein’s claim that all points of view are equally valid? Is this not the same as asking those who still accept Aristotle’s idea of the rate of fall of an object being dependent on it’s weight what happens when a 5 and a 10 pound weight are tied together? Does the 5 lb weight slow the other down or does it now fall faster as a 15 pound weight would? I believe it was this paradox that called Aristotelean physics into question to begin with.
And in our two spaceship scenario one person believing himself stationary accelerates a crewman and finds that when returned, yes, his watch ran slower but it is equally possible (as must occur on the other ship) that it ran faster? Is this not a paradox equal to Aristotle’s? (Aristotle’s weight’s falling both faster and slower) How can this be done and still maintain Einstein’s claim of all points of view being equally valid?
Why isn’t the frequency rate of pulsars dependent on the time/date/season of the measurement?

But if time dilation is not correct then what of all the other theories dependent on the idea of time dilation? It is time dilation specifically that makes acceleration beyond the speed of light impossible and also time dilation that accounts for the constancy of the speed of light. How many laws of physics collapse if we reject the idea of time dilation?
If we can measure the time dilation experienced by a plane then why can we not detect the dilation produced by a much more rapid earth moving through space?

More coffee…more problem…back in a minute. How about playing with the general idea of relativity itself, our two men floating in space without reference points? Would it be possible to determine motion without using time dilation? Just plain Newtonian physics? Einstein of course, said No! He stated quite clearly in his ‘Theory of Relativity’ and I quote “THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ABSOLUTE MOTION”. For the non-geeks this translates into there is no such thing as absolute space and our two geeks in space with no reference points can never determine who is moving.
That’s the problem. Not only does there appear to be an answer but it seems obvious enough for an eight-year-old to figure out. But I could be wrong.
Report abuse

Jabawaki22 (Jabawaki22)
Last Visit: 5:20 AM
Posts: 461
Add to Friends


To: All
Posted: Jan 05 10 10:56 PM
Message: 16544.3 (3 of 6) Reply to 16544.2

Bear with me Mr. Wagner. One more and then I hope to firmly establish this conversation as a ‘paranormal’ subject.

So, non-geeks will have to trust me on this. It would take too long to translate into common terms but Mr. Einstein’s theories hold that in space one can not determine motion, speed or even direction.
This is inconsistent with his own theories as he also states that at a high enough speed (near light-speed) the universe would seem to draw up into a single point of light ahead of you.
So if I look out the front view port at this point of light then the person standing behind me facing the other way can not see anything but darkness? This does not indicate direction?
If I decrease my speed and this point of light grows larger and begins to expand around me and I can not determine that I am losing speed? Perhaps Mr. Einstein did not have enough coffee this particular day. Self-inconsistencies are sloppy work.

But let’s get to our eight-year-old critics.
According to Mr. Einstein it is not simply that moving and stationary objects cannot be distinguished, he claims there is no difference.
So you ask an 8-year-old what is the difference.
He gives you an 8-year-old’s answer.
A stationary object can not slow down.
Interesting. Does this idea have any practical application? We take the time to explain the idea of absolute space to him. The idea of reaching an ‘objective’ stop that science can demonstrate is more than an opinion. He reaches into his pocket and removes one straw for his spitballs, one ball bearing for his slingshot and one slingshot. The ball goes inside the straw, the elastic from the slingshot is stretched around the straw the long way and he gives it to you announcing he has just built a device for locating absolute space. ??? What?
Translate. A steel ball inside a cylinder with very fine membranes stretched over either end. He explains that this should be connected to a source of constant acceleration with a signaling device included.
Now pick a direction in space. There are three but we will use just one to start with. Fire off two of these little devices in opposite directions, 180 degrees apart. Unless the starting point is itself located in absolute space and containing no motion in relation to this plane, then it follows that the two objects cannot both be accelerating. One must be decelerating.
In both cases the forces of inertia (We’re going to limit ourselves to Newtonian physics) will force the ball bearing back against the membrane causing it to stretch. The stretched membrane in turn completes a circuit which arms our device.
Now if we graph the speed of these two objects the one that is accelerating should show a gradual and steady increase in speed.
In a graph showing time vs speed we would produce something like a line growing out from O (our point of origin and climbing at a specific angle up to the right.
But in the case of the device which is decelerating the line will go down to the zero and then begin to climb upward to the right. A “V” shape.
But we have added more information than needed. We have a constant source of acceleration and so the time portion of our graph is unnecessary. Let us just graph the rate of speed. To do this we need only a number line.
Remember them?

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Cute little things we learned in the third grade
In the case of an accelerating object we put our highlighter on the zero and just cover everything to the right.

In the case of a decelerating object, however, we must place our highlighter on one of the negative numbers and move it to the right. But you can not decelerate forever. Eventually your speed will reach zero and you begin to accelerate even if it appears you are moving in the same direction
BUT you cannot get from the negative numbers to the positive numbers without passing through zero. You can not go from decelerating to accelerating without passing a moment of being stationary. There must be an instant, no matter how brief when it shifts from deceleration to acceleration and neither holds sway. There is no inertia in a car when it spins it’s wheels. It is not until the motion begins that inertia kicks in. When the graph passes zero, when the motion has stopped, so has inertia. If it’s motion is non-existent the force of inertia would not hold the ball bearing against the membrane. Remember it is not simply a case of remaining in place but of exerting a force against a membrane which is pushing back. At zero point there would be an instant which lacked inertia. The membrane would push the bearing away, the signaling device would detach and a radio signal would be sent back to the point of origin.
The signaling device was released during the moment of no motion and therefore the laws of inertia demand it remains where it is at a dead stop in space, at least on that plane. Two more test in the two remaining planes and absolute space would be firmly established.
Do you see technical difficulties? The question is not does the technology exist now but simply is it potentially possible? I have given you the idea. Must I provide schematics?

I am running out of Einstein’s problems. Time to move back to Mr. Newton and show that we are all existing in a magical universe. But first, more coffee.

So where are my geeks? Last chance to save me before I top the mountains of madness and move into a very bizarre world. Come on guys, I’m one of you. Help!

*So believing I have raised some serious questions about the concept of time dilation (feel free to argue if you feel I have not) I refer once more to my past.
I wanted to be an astronomer. I loved science. Something I still love is the scientific method. This was one of my major problems with the scientific establishment. They failed to follow their own rules.

As most geeks are aware there was once a great deal of animosity between the scientific community and the church. When secular authorities in various countries began to forbid the church from setting fire to scientists and they became free to follow their studies, this animosity did not disappear. The newly freed scientific community decided to destroy anything that bore any resemblance to endorsing the church’s point of view. They would turn the universe into a giant clockwork and demonstrate a complete lack of need for anything resembling a supreme being. No openings available. Deities need not apply.

This became relevant and obvious when the constancy of the speed of light was discovered during the Michelson-Morley experiment. The results of this experiment was the equivalent of discovering that if you drive your car at 60 mph directly at an oncoming vehicle doing 100 mph you would only close the distance between you at the rate of 100 mph rather than the predicted 160 miles per hours. ???
This is where science demonstrated their unwillingness to follow where the evidence led because of their prejudice. There should have been no mystery involved here. None was needed. Science as understood at the time explained the results perfectly. Anyone who understands the addition of velocities understands this is impossible. It can only happen if your speedometer is not showing the correct speed. If your car is jacked up and off the ground then it does not matter how fast the wheels turn you are not going any where and if you are pointed at a car coming at you at 100 mph then it will close the distance between you at 100 mph. No mystery. Simple physics as understood at that time. No magic tricks needed. No introduction of new unprovable theories. Just straight science as explained by Newton and simple math. So what was the problem?
To have the equivalent of the wheels jacked off the ground in the Michelson-Morley experiment would have been to concede that the earth is not moving. It would force us back to a geo-centric system. So what was wrong with that? If that was where the evidence led did not the scientific method demand that was where we should follow? Was not the helio-centric system simply an unproven theory? Well it was just a theory and not proven so why the fuss? Why the reluctance to give it up?
Because acknowledging the geo-centric system meant putting the earth back at the center of our solar system. They could not justify giving the earth what seemed to be such an exalted position. It too closely resembled the churches claim that the earth was special. That it is was made separate from all the other stars in the sky as stated in Genesis.
Here science demonstrated it’s prejudices. Despite the fact that a geo-centric system is what all the evidence indicated, science ignored it. Earth must be shown to be no more than a single grain of sand on an endless beach.Nothing special and so much the worse for any scientific test that indicated different.
So science had an answer but chose to ignore it. It made no attempt to disprove it. It simply decided that this went against it’s ‘view’ or ‘concept’ of the world and therefore, based on that fact alone, was incorrect.
This is exactly what science criticizes religious believers for. Rejecting the results of scientific tests because they conflict with pre-existing dogma. By dogma I mean a belief based on faith rather than any actual scientific testing which was (and still is) the case with the helio-centric system. When these men abandoned the scientific method and refused to follow the test results due to dogmatic prejudices they cease to deserve the title of scientist. They were now ‘believers’ and what they claimed as science just a new materialistic religion.

But the implications of the geo-centric system has far-reaching effects even on Newtonian physics. The idea of a celestial object the size of the sun orbiting an object with the mass of the earth is in complete disagreement with Newtons theories on gravity. To question the helio-centric system was to basically tear down what little of their clockwork universe they had managed to construct and revert back to what? Aristotelean physics? Religious dogma? No, no no. A thousand times no. But that was where the evidence led? Don’t care. Screw the evidence. No no no.
And so the constancy of the speed of light was written up in the physics books as a mystery. The one possible solution in total agreement with all the test results and established science of the day was not even introduced as a possibility.

I, with my passion for science, attempted to adhere to the scientific method and pursue the evidence but the more I thought of a geo-centric system and it’s implications, the more nonsensical it appeared to me also. The temptation to go along with dogma and just assume it wrong based on my own personal prejudices was very strong.
But science came through. The double slit experiment. Many geeks today may not know it but the implications of the double slit experiment and the multi-verse concept of reality it implies were very well known back in what? 1927? The Copenhagen conference?
Here’s one for the supergeeks. Are you aware of the letters written to various scientific periodicals of the time asking why the actual findings of the Copenhagen conference were being suppressed or misrepresented?

What came out of that meeting explained the problem perfectly. Still no need for Einstein’s time-dilation. But this new explanation was just once more a tad too mystical for the scientific community to openly acknowledge.

Think about it. You stand on a hill and watch the sun come up to your right. It moves across the sky and sets to your left. How can you explain this in a manner that has the sun orbiting ‘you’ rather than the other way around and not sound completely mad? (I told you I was going to move into a bizarre world). Well, what the Copenhagen meeting came up with was You are living in a dream, or the matrix, or a collective hallucination, call it what you want. You are not a byproduct of reality. Rather you are the cause. You are the source creating this world as you experience it.
Today this is expressed in physics as ‘an observer-created universe’. It also explains, ‘why’, as Big D pointed out, the observer’s observations and expectations effect test results.
If you had a dream in which you watched the sun come up and set do you truely believe the dream ‘you’ would actually be orbiting the dream sun? Do you believe Newtons laws of motion actually have any real say insofar as actions occuring in a dream are concerned? As silly as the geo-centric system had sounded, the idea of a helio-centric system in an observer-created universe was even more ridiculous.

OK Mr. Wagner. We are now closing in on a magical universe where all paranormal phenomena becomes potentially possible and explainable. So this is an appropriate forum, yes?

More coffee and I will explain how friends and I attempted to ‘prove’ this. Our experiments and results. Some will challenge them but all will have the details to attempt to duplicate them themselves. If I am a liar and/or idiot everyone will have the means of discovering this themselves. They will have no need to take others words for it. For the heavy duty believers I will even provide biblical backing. If the subject bores you ignore this thread. If I am right the potential for almost any type of magic you can imagine is going to be explained.

Disclaimer: I must concede the possibility does exist that I am simply stark raving mad and so hope that some will attempt to duplicate these experiments and let me know.*

I’ve only looked at the first post, but the key flaw there is that the rotating clock constitutes an accelerated frame of reference, yet is being treated as an inertial one; the acceleration it experiences basically means that it’s subject to a time dilation independently of the underlying linear motion of the train, and thus can’t be used to determine the state of its movement, as one should expect.

Actually, scratch that acceleration business, it’s a bit of a red herring here; what’s going on is simply a confusion of reference frames. When the train is moving at 200mph, it’s doing so only relatively to some ‘stationary’ frame, like, for example, the train station (of course, it’s equally valid to say that it’s the train station that’s moving). Relatively to you (the passenger), it’s always at rest, as demonstrated by the fact that you don’t slam into the back wall (or it into you). When the original poster says that the clock moves at 100mph during one half of it’s circle, and at 300mph during the other half (which isn’t really right in itself, since the velocity of the clock will only be parallel to the velocity of the train at the 12 and 6 o’clock points of its circle), he’s measuring the velocity against the train station’s rest frame, but applying the result in the train’s rest frame; but in the train’s rest frame, the clock is simply moving at a constant speed of 100mph around a circle, in both cases, and the time dilation obtained when compared to the clock ‘at rest’ on the table will be identical whether or not the rotation is perpendicular to the train’s movement.

To sum up; it isn’t the train moving 200 miles per hour going west. It’s the entire rest of the earth moving 200 miles per hour going east, while the train sits still. :slight_smile:

Too much stuff all at once. If you want us to explain all the flaws in your arguments, it would be easier if you posted your thought experiments one at a time.

It sounds like this guy just has absolutely no grasp on relativity.

He doesn’t seem to have any clear idea of what his frames of reference are when he talks about velocity and acceleration, and this makes his positions nearly incoherent; but I get the impression that his whole argument is mainly one big example of begging the question. He’s essentially assuming the existence of an absolute reference frame, and using this to “prove” that the proposition that there is no such thing as an absolute reference frame must be false. At least, that’s what it seems like to me.

His apparent claim that if you accelerate two rockets away from each other in opposite directions only one of them can experience acceleration because the other one is really “slowing down” with respect to the origin point’s “absolute” motion is particularly :dubious:-worthy.

In addition re: the spinning clock. Even if you don’t take the rotational reference frame into account, the time dilation for 1/2 time spent at 100 mph + 1/2 time spent at 300 mph > the time dilation for an average time of 200 mph! The total relativistic impact will be much greater because the lorentz equations are not linear. So even from a naive view of special relativity one can see that relativistic effects from spinning will not go away simply if you are inside an object that is moving.

thanks all.

Could you please have a geek explain why the constancy of light was considered a problem until Einstein’s introduction of the concept of time-dilation and why it is not explained by a geo-centric system. Please do not go into the other reasons the geo-centric system is nonsensical. I have freely admitted that myself. Just, very simply, does it explain the problem of the constancy of the speed of light or not?
Please have them confirm or deny the the multi-verse and observer-created universe grew out of the double slit experiment (and the wave/particle nature of subatomic particles indicated by this experiment)
While you have their attention ask them to confirm or deny if an observer-created universe would also explain the problems with the constancy of the speed of light.
Have them explain the flaw in the method described for locating absolute space or the solution to my two enterpise vessels as an extension of the two men in space problem they, if geeks, are aware of.

I only read the first part of the first post before eye-glazing set in, but if I woke up on on a supersmooth monorail and wanted to know if I was moving or not, I’d set up the following experiment, with the following assumption - the monorail track is along the surface of the Earth at a constant altitude.

Given that, I’d get my monofilament pendulum and hang it from the ceiling of the monorail car. If it hangs perfectly straight, I’ll know that my speed is constant (and may be zero). Then I’d give the pendulum an impetus and with my ultra-accurate watch, would start to calculate the Foucault oscillation. If it is constant (I’d of course have to improvise a vaccuum chamber), I’ll assume the train is not moving. Inconsistency suggests north-south movement, while getting a constant value that doesn’t match the latitude of the track suggests east-west movement.

Or I’d just pull the emergency brake and if I feel a sharp deceleration, I’ll at least know that I was moving.

I suggest that if you want an intelligent answer from an intelligent person, don’t start off calling that person a geek. Just a thought experiment.

Now… how on earth arr the speed of light and geocentric thought connected?

In the 19th Century most scientists thought that light was a wave transmitted by an invisible medium called “luminiferous aether” much the same way that waves move through water.

So, presumably if space is filled with this invisible aether, then the Earth is plowing through it as it circles the sun. That means that if you set up an experimental apparatus on Earth to measure the speed of light, you should get different results if you measure the speed parallel to the Earth’s path through the aether and perpendicular to it. Michelson and Morley did such an experiment and discovered to their surprise that the speed of light was the same no matter which direction the beam was traveling.

Now, this is certainly *consistent *with the idea of the Earth being stationary with respect to the aether. But that raises a whole host of other questions about why the Earth should occupy such a special location in the universe. Einstein assumed that Earth didn’t occupy some special location in the universe and came up with an alternate explanation for why the speed of light is always the same.

Yes, they do, for some flavor of multiverse theory (there are several).

No, it doesn’t. Why should it?

Once you put them both in orbit around a black hole so their paths can keep crossing, they are no longer in a simple inertial reference frame and the effects of time dilation are very different.

Say Kirk and Picard zoom past each other at nearly the speed of light without a black hole to muck things up. From Kirk’s perspective, Picard’s clocks are running slow. From Picard’s perspective, Kirk’s clocks are running slow. Which one is correct, you might ask? Both of them are!

This may seem to create a paradox, but only if they ever meet up at some point in the future to determine who is ahead and who is behind. But in order to meet up, one or both of them have to accelerate. And when they accelerate, the relative flow of time between them changes in complicated ways depending on who is accelerating and how quickly. The acceleration eliminates the temporal paradox.

jabawaki’s reply below. PLEASE NOTE: this is just cut and pasted by me, from a different forum. this is a direct reply to YOUR posts here. none of the ‘geek’ or sagan-wanna-be comments are mine, just cut and pasted. ok?

*I suggest you get better geeks.
There is a common problem is physics which deals with two men approacjhing each other in space with no apparent reference points.
The idea is to attempt, using the known laws of physics, to determine who the motion producing the closing effect should be attributed to.
To introduce the question of 'if no reference points then what is the source of the light?, or how are they breathing?, etc. is considered nonsense not relevant to the problem.
My monorail problem was labeled as incorrect as it depends on an absolute reference point. Your geek, as expected, subject to contemporary scientific dogma insist there is none. But that is one of the very points being questioned so should that not be dealt with first? Does it not make sense to determine if such a condition does exist or not before we use it’s non-existence to prove a different point?
If any of his replies are going to reference the fact that my claims are based on an absolute reference point then let him deal ‘first’ with the fact that there is none.
You are doing the equivalent of using bible quotes to prove the validity of the bible. It says right here in Matthew 12:16 “This book is true”.
It is nonsensical and circular idiot logic.
An argument attempting to show a flaw in physics is ‘disproved’ by pointing out that it contradicts the very law of physics it claims does not exist! You can not see the flaw in the logic here?
You are also evading the primary question. If your geek does not want to deal with the fundamental underlying point of all these questions which would be to determine the reality or non-reality of an absolute frame of reference (You behave as though I should simply accept it because Einstein said it, but then why don’t you accept Matthew 12:16 and acknowledge the bible to be literally true?) then let us deal with the issue chronologically to determine that these questions may not even be relevant.
Let’s do it on a point by point basis so the layman can follow
Specific question #1. Was the constancy of the speed of light considered a problem demonstrated by the Michelson-Morley experiment? yes or no
Specific question #2. Despite any other problems it may produce in physics, does a geo-centric solar system resolve the problems of specifically, the constancy of the speed of light? yes or no.
This is how I presented it in my argument. This is how it occurred historically in a chronological sequence so let us deal with it this way.
My whole argument begins with the Michelson-Morley experiment demonstrating a consistant speed of light contrary to what was known or expected mathematically by the science of that day, as pertains to producing resultant velocities by combining two or more independent velocities.
Specifically…Is this the part I got wrong? yes or no?
I then claimed that science as understood at that time indicated the only way such resultants could be produced mathematically was if the earth was stationary.
Specifically…Is this the part I got wrong? yes or no?
I am quite ready to deal with your resident geek. He sounds like a Sagan wanna-be. Lets see how good he is without the double talk, without a constant changing of subject to bounce around from point to point to confuse the issue.
I am attempting to do my very best to assist you in demonstrating my ignorance. I am presening my points one at a time in chronological order as they occurred to help you pinpoint exactly where my ignorance will best shine through. Why resist then?
So two specific questions. Let me know when your geek is ready to get back on them. If my flaw is not here I will move on to the next point. As you and your geek have made clear I have no real grasp of this subject so it shouldn’t be too hard to find my error. Hell, I am only a pseudo-intellectual. This should be a breeze for you guys.
So…specific question #1 yes or no?
…specific question #2 yes or no?

more. i think this is to hamster king…not sure tho?

*This is your arguement? You are agreeing with me?
I say the evidence at the time, specifically the way veociities are combined to produce resultant velocities indicated the earth was not moving.
Now you say:
this is certainly consistent with the idea of the Earth being stationary

I then pointed out that this raises other questions. It produced results that I had already acknowledged seemed nonsensical as undertood by science at the time. you continue
But that raises a whole host of other questions

I point out that one of science’s MAJOR concerns was that such a claim seemed to support the claims of the church that the earth was ‘special’
You rephrase the exact same idea as
questions about why the Earth should occupy such a special location in the universe

I claim that despite the fact the evidence pointed toward a geo-centric solar system, no attempt was made to actually demonstrate this was wrong. Instead science followed it’s prejudices and accepted dogma, that which was based on faith rather then the results of scientific test. You have already acknowledge that the evidence was ‘consistent’ with a geo-centric system but scientific dogma said the earth could not be special.
So Mr. Einstein based his theories on what? On the results of scientific tests disproving the geo-centric system or on assumptions dependent on his biased position? Well, according to you…
Einstein assumed that Earth didn’t occupy some special location in the universe and came up with an alternate explanation for why the speed of light is always the same.

He ‘assumed’ the Earth didn’t occupy some special location? Let us not play with words. Specifically, he ‘assumed’ the Earth did not occupy the center of our solar system. This rephrasing is correct? No? Yes? Let’s try another rephrasing ‘He ‘assumed’ the geo-centric system was incorrect’. This is what is actually being said, yes? no?, As I pointed out to self-righteous, if you really believe you are correct you should have no need to play semantical games with the facts.
Einstein ‘assumed’ the geo-centric system was wrong. He conducted no test to establish this. He made no actual attempts to disprove it. He simply assumed it because it conflicted with his scientific paradigm. I am wrong? There were tests? Could you ask your geek friend for references?

Now let’s see how badly I have grasped my physics.
I began
There was a test (Michelson-Morley) that produced a problem (the constancy of the speed of light) which all the science and math of the day indicated was consistant only with a stationary Earth (a geo-centric system). The scientist of the day, not wishing to assign any special status to the Earth, having a paradigm that demanded Earth be no different than any other celestial body, did not even bother to pursue the evidence produced by these experiments and so, disregarding the scientific method and refusing to follow where the evidence led, simple ‘assumed’ it wrong with no actual evidence that this was the case. Just a simple prejudice against the facts (the facts be damned) because they conflicted with preconceived notions accepted on faith.

That was the opening volley of my arguement. Am I wrong or did you not agree with every single point?

So what next? Again check with your geek and let me know if this is not correct.
Despite the fact that they did not publicize the geo-centirc system as a possible solution to the problem, they were aware of it. Understand since this threatened to destroy their clockwork universe the problem of the constancy of the speed of light was not just considered ‘a’ problem. It was ‘the’ problem. One of Einstein’s well known quotes was a response to someone asking if his special theory of relativity was a bit extreme to which he replied words to the effect ‘Extreme problems call for extreme solutions.’ making it clear this was not just one of the many thousands of unknowns science had to deal with. This specific problem was a ‘biggie’.
It remained unsolved (if we do not allow a geo-centric solution) for several decades until Einstein came up with his idea of time-dilation.

So geek friend. Have I got the historical time line correct? Hang in there we’ll get to my error sooner or later. Can’t take too long. I have no grasp of what I am talking about.
Dontbe…get yourself a better geek.*

more to hamster king

*So we start off again by pointing out where you are in agreement.

Very good. We have found a point of disagreement.
Question Mr. Geek, does not the theory of observer-created universes hold that the results of any experiment may be dependent on the beliefs/expectations of the experimenter? The Michelson-Morley experiment would be an exception to this why?*

*Just one more quickie to test the integrity of your geek.

Not wishing to use the same circular logic as when people quote the bible to prove it’s validity, then allowing that it is Mr.Einstein’s physics which are being called into question…
Have we, even at this late date, without the use of Mr. Einstein’s physics, using Newtonian physics only, ever actually disproved the geo-centric system or is it just generally regarded as too silly for serious consideration? Or is it that the math just seems to favor the other option?



By the time of Einstein there had been several hundred years of astronomical observations that showed that the Earth circled the sun. Clearly that’s strong evidence against geo-centrism, and Einstein, was, of course, well-aware of this fact.