Geocentrism?

[Logan]

This is no more relative than an ambulance pitch changing as it approaches you and then passes you. This is basic wave physics.

There is a difference between speed and frequency.

This is a perceived frequency change (Doppler shift) because of the motion of the ambulance. The sound waves are still traveling at 340 m/s. If you were sitting inside the ambulance you would notice no frequency change because your speed, relative to the ambulance, is zero. Regardless, the speed of the sound is the same.

Einstein himself understood that the experimental evidence of his day showed conclusively that during the part of the year the earth is supposed to be hurling towards a star as it orbits the sun, and six months later is hurling away from the star on the other side of the orbit, we get a zero value for the change in the speed of light. Einstein himself understood that light is a wave and normally you would add the velocity of the earth in one direction and subtract it in the other.

The experiments of Einstein's day could show the earth is at rest under one assumption, it could show the speed of light is a constant under the other. If you're talking about Doppler shift from either moving toward or away from stars, that was not what these experiments were designed to show, yet incidentally, there have been measurements based on the velocity of the earth looking at the Doppler shift of stars. When the Earth's orbit is toward a star we see a tiny rise in the frequency and when it is away from the star we see a tiny lowering of the frequency: consistent with predictions based on Earth's rotational velocity around the sun (which is minuscule compared to the speed of light and requires very sensitive instruments). I cannot think of any geocentric explanation for these Doppler shifts.

 

[lynnie]

When the Earth's orbit is toward a star we see a tiny rise in the frequency and when it is away from the star we see a tiny lowering of the frequency: consistent with predictions based on Earth's rotational velocity around the sun (which is minuscule compared to the speed of light and requires very sensitive instruments). I cannot think of any geocentric explanation for these Doppler shifts.

I doubt it. Einstein didn't believe in such a rise and fall, but I'm not up on the latest claims. But I just sent an email to Selbrede at Chalcedon to ask about it. Hope he replies. As I understand relativity, you just contradicted that theory, no? Which would make you an old fashioned classical wave physics person....which I like

If they close this thread before Selbrede writes back, if he does, I'll post his reply or send you a PM. If you are correct, that would be consistent with heliocentricity, but like I said, I doubt the people you are reading are correct. But let me see if I get a response.

 

[Logan]

This is accounted for easily enough. From an observational standpoint...

Why would you use a shifted coordinate system as an explanation? If that were the case, why would I not accept it? Austin, I've still seen no geocentrist say that everything is the same just with 0,0,0 set on the earth. If that were the case then this entire discussion would be no big deal. The explanations of a "firmament" of unknown density, thickness, etc to account for "centrifugal" forces (for just things around the Earth apparently, not other objects orbiting the sun) are where the problem lies.

But I described above that it is no trouble for a geocentric model because it is not a "physical cause" question but just an observational question.

You described it to be no trouble for your geocentric model of merely shifted coordinates. At that point this entire discussion becomes trivial.

As I understand relativity, you just contradicted that theory, no?

No, and that's where I've been confused: you seem to be seeing the Doppler effect and general relativity as mutually exclusive.

 

[Logan]

Because the question you posed was not a question of physical causes but only of whether something would be observed. I simply pointed out that all of the observed motions are the same in both models

Respectfully Austin, they are not. They are the same if you merely shift the coordinates, they are not if you accept an absolute geocentric view, complete with aether and firmament, which is kind of what this whole discussion has been about, isn't it? I don't understand why you would even say they would be the same if you were to observe from a different location. I know they would be, yet it seems irrelevant to the discussion.

Let God be true, and every man a liar

This is true, and I think (if I recollect correctly) that A.W. Pink used that exact statement when he made the claim that the earth is flat because the Bible says so. I may be mistaken on that. But I would also add that we as men are fallible in our interpretation of God's infallible word, and should approach it with humility. In this instance, it seems to me that a geocentric view is derived from a perceived implication. I don't see geocentrism explicitly taught in the Bible and would be very reticent to be dogmatic about it, especially as exegetes for the last several hundred years have not seen the Bible as tied to a geocentric view. Maybe they are all wrong, maybe they are all a product of the current-day beliefs, but then one would have to seriously consider the same is true for a Ptolemaic view, would one not?

I found a warning from Gary North (who I seldom read) that while biting and biased, seemed relevant particularly in reference to geocentric models proposed.

Misinterpreting the Bible, however, is always dangerous. Furthermore, recruiting ill-informed and emotionally vulnerable laymen (theological and scientific) in terms of both the misinterpretation of the Bible and an outer fringe theory of the cosmos endangers the victims' spiritual maturity.

Geostationism strains the outer limits of both cosmology and credulity. If the naive victims' faith in geostationism is ever shaken by the breakin-in of reality, their faith in the word of God becomes at risk. Playing bizarre games with astrophysical theory in private is one thing, so long as no one hires the practitioner to work in the space program. Developing bizarre theories in the name of anti-establishment science is normally neither dangerous personally nor significant culturally. It is the pastime of very bright, very bizarre people. But a problem arises when others with far more to lose emotionally are attracted to these bright by bizarre people. These bright, bizarre people had better be correct, not just bizarre. Other people's spiritual and emotional stability is at stake.

I sincerely hope this will be my final post in this thread. I too would be more interested in the exegetical approach to such passages as Josh 10.

 

[bookslover]

I am not sure why the quoting of my post was followed up with a statement about geocentrism, as I've said nothing in that regard either way. My post was intended to combat the idea that Science verifies Scripture, nor could it. Scripture establishes its own verity, and there is nothing outside it which may bring it into judgment or critique.

But, Joshua, science does verify Scripture, in the sense that it finds historical artifacts that confirm what Scripture has already revealed. For example, archaeology has recently discovered coins with King David's name on them, from the era when David lived, that confirm his historical existence. Yes, Scripture is its own witness to its own truthfulness, but there are occasions when science is able to confirm this. Archaeology might be the only science that can do so with consistency, but it does happen.

 

[Logan]

I am not sure why the quoting of my post was followed up with a statement about geocentrism, as I've said nothing in that regard either way... Scripture establishes its own verity, and there is nothing outside it which may bring it into judgment or critique.

I agree, and I tried not to tie you to geocentrism in that paragraph, but merely wanted to jump off that to add that while the Scriptures are infallible, we are fallible interpreters and a degree of humility is also required when saying "let God be true and every man a liar". I apologize if you or anyone else thought I was tying you to geocentrism. I did not intend to do so.

 

[Mushroom]

This is a perceived frequency change (Doppler shift) because of the motion of the ambulance. The sound waves are still traveling at 340 m/s. If you were sitting inside the ambulance you would notice no frequency change because your speed, relative to the ambulance, is zero. Regardless, the speed of the sound is the same.

There is still a Doppler effect, since that derives from the motion of the source through the medium, air. But the passenger creates an offsetting Doppler effect through their motion through the medium, and the sound is detected as unchanged. It affects both frequency and wavelength.

I cannot think of any geocentric explanation for these Doppler shifts.

If, as postulated in a geocentric paradigm, said star is hung in a firmament or absolute space, then the motion still exists, and the light will be affected as described by Doppler. A geocentric model does not deny the motions of heavenly bodies.

 

[Afterthought]

Raymond- again- Einstein himself understood that the experimental evidence of his day showed conclusively that during the part of the year the earth is supposed to be hurling towards a star as it orbits the sun, and six months later is hurling away from the star on the other side of the orbit, we get a zero value for the change in the speed of light. Einstein himself understood that light is a wave and normally you would add the velocity of the earth in one direction and subtract it in the other.

This is no more relative than an ambulance pitch changing as it approaches you and then passes you. This is basic wave physics.

Einstein understood this, he realized the implications, and therefore since everybody "knows" the earth is not at rest, he formulated a complicated relativity theory to explain the results. And that undergirding mentality, like Darwinian evolution in biology, pervades almost everything nowadays.

It doesn't make Einstein wrong and the geocentrists with classic wave behavior right, but understand that geocentrists reject that relativity theory. And again, you can argue with people here of course, but if you read some of the detailed rebuttals to relativity by the big brains, you would perhaps be more sympathetic to geocentricity.

I am actually quite sympathetic to scientific geocentricity. And maybe I just have unusual professors, but I seriously doubt they would merely brush the theory off and instead would take it seriously, judging it as any scientific theory. I have read much of the scientific geocentric literature. It has been quite some time, so my memory may not be correct, but I had thought that not all of them rejected relativity. Indeed, from what I understand of the theory, it actually helps the geocentrist case...unless one wants to have an absolute scientific geocentrism. I also remember being disappointed with the lack of mathematics in the literature. Perhaps it is because their audience is a lay audience. I looked again and found the "Biblical Astronomer" actually has something that looks like a real scientific presentation of "Geocentric mechanics," though I don't have time just now to look through it to be sure it is what it appears to be.

I don't recall whether that was actually one of Einstein's motivations, or even his primary one, but I do know he had other motivations too. He was a Machian and wanted to construct a Machian theory, and he also always had an interest in Maxwell's equations. It also isn't fair to view his theory as complicated, except for general relativity's mathematics. Special relativity is actually rather nice, and both of his theories are derived from a few simple assumptions. And both can be explained intuitively fairly easily. There also may be a subtle and fundamental problem with rejecting his two assumptions; I'll have to look at my textbook again, but I seem to recall reading that there was something more fundamental that basically dictated there must be something that is a universal speed limit (given that the laws of physics look the same in all frames), and that speed limit was postulated by Einstein to be c, the speed of light, in special relativity.

But anyway, this is all getting off topic again. The sentence that you quoted from my post is basically a philosophical observation that "location" and "motion" must be measured relative to something in order to be meaningful. Hence why there were other relativities before Einstein. I'm not entirely sure why these are always relative according to empirical science (that was going to be in another round of questions to Rev. Winzer), but I can see why they would be considered relative in general. I appreciate your attempts to clarify matters, and I hope I'll have some time someday to look at that plasma universe you mentioned. Having done some (undergrad) research in plasmas, I might find that interesting.

 

[earl40]

Science cannot do so, and that is the point. To assert such is to say that there is something outside of Scripture -which is God's revelation- judges Scripture. Scripture may not be put in the dock. Let God be true, and every man a liar.

Science...."knowledge attained through study or practice,"

I realize how it is impossible for us to come to the realization of Who God is via science, but at least it appears that Thomas leaned something by what he saw with his eyes and felt with his fingers. Of course those who witnessed the resurrection came to believe in it by a "scientific method" and we are "more blessed" than they because we were given faith by the gift of spiritual sight, or faith in The Lord as Rev. Winzer pointed out already.

 

[MW]

I remember when we discussed Turretin speaking of how seemingly contradictory statements between philosophy and theology could be resolved because philosophy was speaking according to natural causes while theology supernatural.

It might be useful if you could find that quotation and repeat it here, although it is bound to get lost again in five pages of thread.

I understand your question as a desire to explore the deeper significance of the topic, but it is hard to do so in a thread in which the topic itself is under debate; it is a bit like snorkelling in a tsunami.

 

[Logan]

There is still a Doppler effect, since that derives from the motion of the source through the medium, air. But the passenger creates an offsetting Doppler effect through their motion through the medium, and the sound is detected as unchanged. It affects both frequency and wavelength.

It seems like you're trying to correct me, I'm trying to make sense of this explanation...creates an offsetting Doppler effect? Are you sure you've got that right? The Doppler effect is a perception from the point of the observer, the emitted waves are not altered. I'm likewise baffled that you appear to be always trying to correct me on physics. Why tell me it affects both frequency and wavelength as if I wouldn't know?

I cannot think of any geocentric explanation for these Doppler shifts.

If, as postulated in a geocentric paradigm, said star is hung in a firmament or absolute space, then the motion still exists, and the light will be affected as described by Doppler. A geocentric model does not deny the motions of heavenly bodies.

I don't think you understand. If there is a firmament with a rotational period of 1 day, why during part of the year would certain stars in this fixed firmament be appearing to "move" away from the earth and during the other part of the year "move" away? I cannot think of an explanation from an absolute, geocentric, firmament model. That doesn't mean there isn't one.

 

[VictorBravo]

it is a bit like snorkelling in a tsunami.

That's why I'm sitting here on the bottom with my SCUBA gear--just too many waves (bad pun intended)

 

[Afterthought]

It might be useful if you could find that quotation and repeat it here, although it is bound to get lost again in five pages of thread.

I understand your question as a desire to explore the deeper significance of the topic, but it is hard to do so in a thread in which the topic itself is under debate; it is a bit like snorkelling in a tsunami.

Hah! Very true! I almost made my own thread on the matter for that reason, but since everyone else was discussing these sorts of questions I've raised, I posted here instead. I do have some interpretive questions too though (and Austin asked some of them that I had), and I'll ask them at some point to return to the exegetical considerations that spawned this sidetrail.

Here it is. We actually discussed it in another thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/turretin-solves-creation-evolution-debate-72265/

 

[Mushroom]

It seems like you're trying to correct me, I'm trying to make sense of this explanation...creates an offsetting Doppler effect? Are you sure you've got that right? The Doppler effect is a perception from the point of the observer, the emitted waves are not altered. I'm likewise baffled that you appear to be always trying to correct me on physics. Why tell me it affects both frequency and wavelength as if I wouldn't know?

Not trying to correct you, Logan, just pointing out an additional factor that is somewhat... relative. I'm certain you are aware of those things. Doppler effects are a major component to the differences of positions in this discussion, as you point out. Some assert that they disprove at least part of Special Relativity.

But as for the offsetting effects, a person is standing on the back of a fire engine. The siren is blaring at the front, so the waves behind are elongated. But the person's forward motion is compressing the waves in a nearly perfect manner so as to return the frequency and wavelength to it's original state, so they hear the sound as it was at first. A person inside a closed cabin or rail car is not relevant to this experiment, because they are travelling in an envelope of air moving with the vehicle, and hear the sound as it penetrates the walls of said cabin, and so compression and elongation are lost. At least that is my understanding.

No offense intended, although the incredulity and tone are somewhat off-putting. Likely just internet mistranslation.

 

[MW]

I almost made my own thread on the matter for that reason

If you do perhaps we could explore science as an human construct, particularly with a book like Hawking's Grand Design as a foil. I would be interested to learn the current philosophic feeling on it. My own view is that Hawking has inadvertently done a service to Christian theism in outlining the relativism involved with "natural" science and the presuppositions which drive it.

 

[MW]

That's why I'm sitting here on the bottom with my SCUBA gear--just too many waves (bad pun intended)

Vic, you have a "deep" sense of humour.

 

[Afterthought]

If you do perhaps we could explore science as an human construct, particularly with a book like Hawking's Grand Design as a foil. I would be interested to learn the current philosophic feeling on it. My own view is that Hawking has inadvertently done a service to Christian theism in outlining the relativism involved with "natural" science and the presuppositions which drive it.

It is made! I tried my best to write the OP, but it is difficult to do so when I'm unclear on some of these things that I'm trying to learn about. Hopefully it does the sort of thing you had in mind. I actually don't know much about what the current philosophic feeling on that book is, so hopefully someone else will be able to contribute that part.

 

[SRoper]

I'm returning after several days of absence. There's a lot to wade through which will have to wait for another time. I can only address what was directly addressed to me.

or he wants to mess around with Newton's law of gravitation (or both).

And, Scott, what precisely IS gravity?

Who knows? It's a name we give to describe the force of attraction between two masses. It is arrived at empirically and described by Newton's law of gravitation (as modified by Einstein for fast things). It's a good model, not ultimate reality. The reason I insist on it is because, currently, there is no alternative. Geocentrism has not provided an alternative, even a more complicated one.

I know you are likely done, but you are not correct in your analysis of even the rotational model. The net force is not zero according to the rotational model. There is no outward force. If there was, the satellite would stay on the same velocity vector and fly off into space. The centripetal force provided by gravity is a net force that is always accelerating the satellite towards the Earth. This has the effect of continually changing the velocity vector so that the satellite follows a circular path around the Earth. You can't change direction without a net force. If you review the equations I wrote down you won't find any outward force.

Yes and no. This is just two different approaches to solving the problem. Some physicists refer to the feeling of outward pull as centrifugal force, directed outward, and they balance this with gravity, as I described. But technically centrifugal force is a fictitious force which is actually just accounting for the net effect of the tangential velocity as the object moves around the center. Some physicists prefer not to work with fictitious forces, so they prefer to speak in terms of inward, centripetal force, which in this case is supplied by gravity. The math is otherwise the same. It's just a matter of convention - and we are still only talking about a heliocentric model. Look up centrifugal vs centripetal force.

Sent from my XT557 using Tapatalk 2

Centrifugal force is a force that is away from the center. It is the force that a person in a rotor feels that keeps them glued to the wall. It is different than the velocity vector of a satellite or a ball on the end of the string which is not in a direction away from the center but tangential to the circle described by the orbit. Velocity is not a force, even a fictitious force. Fictitious force comes about from acceleration. I think you are confusing two ideas. Centrifugal force only comes into play if you are talking about forces felt inside the satellite. It does not describe the motion of the satellite relative to the Earth, which, in the case of the rotational model, requires a non-zero net force to keep it on a curved path.

Time for a humor break? It should be obvious why this discussion reminded me of this comic.


Centrifugal Force

Only centripetal force will act on Mr. Bond from Mr. Goldfinger's stand-in's perspective. That's why he will move in a circle instead of a straight line. On the other hand, Mr. Bond will experience a centrifugal force pulling him out counteracted by an opposite normal force from the wall of the rotor. From his perspective, relative to the rotor, he will have no motion and no net force. The two sets of equations are different because the reference frame is different.

Sometimes it is useful to describe things in terms of fictitious forces. That's what the Coriolis effect is. However it should be clear that geocentrism is entirely made up of fictional forces. There is nothing like Newton's law of gravitation that you can use as a model. Every situation is different and requires an ad-hoc system to describe it. What works on Earth doesn't work on the Moon and certainly doesn't describe the space between.

 

[au5t1n]

Scott, we are in agreement. I know that force involves acceleration not constant velocity, but the velocity is technically not constant due to the changing direction. Velocity, as you know, is a vector, not a scalar. This is indeed the source of a person in the satellite feeling a centrifugal force. It is a net effect as you go around the circle. It is the same reason that if you put Matthew Henry's commentaries (why not?) on your dashboard and drive around a curve, they may (if they can overcome friction) slide outward from the projected center of the curve.

I realize that a centripetal force problem can be solved without centrifugal force, but the reverse is also true. I was taught both methods by different professors and both work. If you give me another unnecessary physics lecture, I might just make a video showing both methods of calculation and post it here, but I really don't have time for that, so please don't make me.

Loved the comic.

Sent from my XT557 using Tapatalk 2

 

[lynnie]

My reply from Mr Martin Selbrede: ( re 183, 184):

*****************************

There are two variations of the geocentric model that account for the phenomenon in question.

In the modified Tychonic model (the version of geocentricity that most geocentrists tend to adopt), the motion of the stars, etc., is tied to the Sun, so that the annual motion of the Sun is also geometrically shared by the stars. This gives a purely geometric explanation of the dynamics. This would be the form of geocentricity that secular scientists working within relativistic frameworks, for example, Einstein or Poincare or Hoyle would have adopted, as it is a simple coordinate transformation with all the relative velocities remaining constant. This, as has long been pointed out, is due to the general covariance of Einstein's field equations (which also has implications for forces present at the Earth's surface). This model also accounts for related phenomena alleged to "prove" heliocentricity (diurnal variation of meteoric influx presumed to be due to how the Earth scours out a path through interplanetary debris during its alleged journey around the Sun, etc.).

There is, however, a minority view among geocentrists, whom we shall call the purists, who don't think the modified Tychonic model is the right geocentric paradigm to promote. This smaller group is extremely well versed in high power mathematics, and were able to make some rather remarkable scientific concepts quite rigorous. In this variation of geocentricity, the stars do NOT partake of the annual motion of the Sun, but are rotating around a center that is still fixed on the Earth. The question them becomes, how then do these purists account for parallax and aberration? These two phenomena are distinct in the modified Tychonic (and conventional heliocentric) cosmologies, but not in the case of this "pure geocentric" model. What these men have discovered is that if you treat the Earth as the sink of a conformal mapping (an elaborate mathematical procedure that is tractable in two dimensions, but not yet in three dimensions), you discover that both parallax AND aberration are two orthogonal components of a single phenomenon tied to that mapping effect at the sink. Because this derivation was made rigorous in two dimensions, it has considerable scientific plausibility and provides a rather novel approach to the behavior of starlight that isn't anticipated in conventional heliocentric cosmology nor in the majority version of geocentricity, the modified Tychonic model (which leverages the same explanation as heliocentricity uses to explain these phenomena, namely, dynamic shifts in system geometry). The purists are interested instead on the behavior of the light and accounting for it directly as a property of the light and the position of the sink. The non-purists and detractors of geocentricity are interested in the geometry, assuming nothing unusual about the behavior of light in any way, shape, or form.

I hope this helps set forth the two options available under the geocentric paradigm to explain phenomena such as posed in the quote you affixed to your inquiry.

As to the interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment, the situation is rather simple: the heliocentrists assume the Earth to be in motion, and reject the zero-velocity reading of the interferometer as representing physical reality. In their view, nature conspires to hide the motion of the Earth. The geocentrists argue that the interferometer's readings should be taken at face value. Those physicists who hold to various ether theories have to also teach that the ether is "entrained" at the Earth's surface to create that null result, but that means that there is a gradient in the ether between the Earth's surface and outer space — and this gradient (required by this model) simply does not exist, and has never been found. There is also a massive disproportion in this effect between the daily and annual motion of the Earth, where the greater acceleration yields the smaller apparent effect — but such discrepancies are ignored. The geocentrists, to their credit, do not ignore this evidence, they make sure these serious problems with the modern cosmologies remain center stage wherever and whenever possible. Nobody should be given a free pass on a question of this nature, nor permitted to fudge the data.

Martin

 

[Logan]

Thanks Lynnie. I could see an annual Doppler shift in a Tychonic universe, but as I've said before that's simply moving the starting point in our coordinate system to earth, and I don't have a problem with that, per se, though it seems more for rhetoric than for anything practical.

I don't personally see how the concept of a "sink" in two dimensions helps and would relegate that to speculation at this point.

the heliocentrists assume the Earth to be in motion, and reject the zero-velocity reading of the interferometer as representing physical reality. In their view, nature conspires to hide the motion of the Earth. The geocentrists argue that the interferometer's readings should be taken at face value

I have a problem with this after reading the experiment. That there is a zero-velocity (difference) reading can have multiple interpretations. The assumption Michelson and Morley were going on was the existence of this aether that affects the speed of light. I found no place where they interpreted their data to mean the earth was at rest, their conclusion was actually that the aether was "completely dragged" with the earth. Another interpretation is that the speed of light is constant, and after many, many, many experiments, this has been the accepted conclusion. To say that geocentrists argue that the interferometer's readings should be taken at "face value" is misleading, as their "face value" has assumptions of aether underlying it. Heliocentrists also take the result at "face value", only with different assumptions (that have been tested I might add).

Anyway, interesting discussion.

 

[Mushroom]

Another interpretation is that the speed of light is constant, and after many, many, many experiments, this has been the accepted conclusion.

Is there an experiment that you can point me to that confirms Einstein's postulation that both a) c is unrelated to the motion of an emitter/source, and b) c is unrelated to the motion of an observer/receptor?

 

[Logan]

Is there an experiment that you can point me to that confirms Einstein's postulation that both a) c is unrelated to the motion of an emitter/source, and b) c is unrelated to the motion of an observer/receptor?

This page is of course incomplete but has many resources related to experiments regarding special relativity, but specifically look at section 3.3 for light speed from moving sources.

I should note that practically speaking, this is used in radar (electromagnetics) and things like laser finders. We can tell the exact distance to say, a fighter jet flying at mach speed. There is a Doppler shift, but the round-trip time for the electromagnetic pulse (whether microwave or laser) is unaffected by the speed of the object. This of course works reciprocally when the radar/laser is mounted on the moving aircraft/spacecraft.

 

[Mushroom]

Is there an experiment that you can point me to that confirms Einstein's postulation that both a) c is unrelated to the motion of an emitter/source, and b) c is unrelated to the motion of an observer/receptor?

This page is of course incomplete but has many resources related to experiments regarding special relativity, but specifically look at section 3.3 for light speed from moving sources.

I should note that practically speaking, this is used in radar (electromagnetics) and things like laser finders. We can tell the exact distance to say, a fighter jet flying at mach speed. There is a Doppler shift, but the round-trip time for the electromagnetic pulse (whether microwave or laser) is unaffected by the speed of the object. This of course works reciprocally when the radar/laser is mounted on the moving aircraft/spacecraft.

Logan, as I read it, this refers to the effect (or non-effect) of motion of an emitter/source on c, as does your mention above of radar, etc. I don't see how this correlates to the effect of motion of an observer/receptor on c.

That's the crux of SR, right? And the reason that Einstein used Lorentz transformations to infer that matter increases in mass and flattens in-depth as it approaches c - to make the observations of M-M fit into his schema? (makes me think of all those particles at the CERN accelerator and why they don't grow to near infinite mass)

But as far as I've heard, there are no experiments that stand up to rigorous critique that prove both 'a' and 'b' above. Perhaps there are, but I just don't know about (or can't understand) them.

 

[Logan]

Logan, as I read it, this refers to the effect (or non-effect) of motion of an emitter/source on c, as does your mention above of radar, etc. I don't see how this correlates to the effect of motion of an observer/receptor on c.

No, which was why I said it works both ways: whether the laser/radar is on the nose of the jet (source moving) or on the ground looking at the jet (observer moving), the reading is still the same.

That's the crux of SR, right? And the reason that Einstein used Lorentz transformations to infer that matter increases in mass and flattens in-depth as it approaches c - to make the observations of M-M fit into his schema? (makes me think of all those particles at the CERN accelerator and why they don't grow to near infinite mass)

Einstein did not reference the M-M experiment in his famous paper and it's not certain if he knew about it or not (Einstein said he didn't think he had read it at that point but regardless it didn't influence him). I'm not sure how he made the "observations of M-M fit into his schema". As I've said before, that experiment was designed to detect a theorized aether wind, NOT motion of the planet and not the speed of light relative to motion. Even if the assumption of a real aether were true, it would necessarily not imply a stationary earth except under extremely specific conditions which don't help the geocentric model in my mind.

 

[Mushroom]

Einstein did not reference the M-M experiment in his famous paper and it's not certain if he knew about it or not

From the Wikipedia article on the History of SR:

The failure of any experiment to detect motion through the aether led Hendrik Lorentz in 1892 to develop a theory based on an immobile aether and the Lorentz transformation. Based on Lorentz's aether, Henri Poincaré in 1905 proposed the relativity principle as a general law of nature, including electrodynamics and gravitation. In the same year Albert Einstein published what is now called special relativity – he radically reinterpreted Lorentzian electrodynamics by changing the concepts of space and time and abolishing the aether.

So whether Einstein had read it or not (as improbable as that might be, seeing it was a major milestone in the development of SR), M-M being the main experiment that failed to detect motion, it was certainly by 1905 a known conundrum that SR was postulated to address. Not sure of the 'relevancy' of this insistence that AE knew nothing of M-M.

But aside from all that, measuring Doppler effects on EM emissions to determine speed/location (Heisenberg anyone?) of objects by reflection does not address the effects of b) above. If there is a solid experimental proof of both I'd like to see it.

 

[Logan]

So whether Einstein had read it or not (as improbable as that might be, seeing it was a major milestone in the development of SR), M-M being the main experiment that failed to detect motion, it was certainly by 1905 a known conundrum that SR was postulated to address. Not sure of the 'relevancy' of this insistence that AE knew nothing of M-M.

It's only relevant because it keeps being said that relativity was the "answer" to there being no motion detected. Please, please keep in mind that the M-M experiment was to detect motion of aether, not the earth. There are multiple ways to interpret the results, depending on your assumptions.

But aside from all that, measuring Doppler effects on EM emissions to determine speed/location (Heisenberg anyone?) of objects by reflection does not address the effects of b) above. If there is a solid experimental proof of both I'd like to see it.

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle does not apply here, it's like you're just tossing out scientific terms without understanding their meaning or application. It applies to quantum particles, the measurement of which affect the particle. The act of measuring its location affects the particle so that we cannot know the speed at which it was going. This is not true of objects not on the quantum level.

I don't see how it doesn't address the effects of "b)", in one example the source is moving, in the other receiver is moving. We even have both source and receiver moving when an aircraft targets another aircraft. But anyway, I pointed you to the literature, it's up to you to read and understand them if you want.

 

[Mushroom]

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle does not apply here, it's like you're just tossing out scientific terms without understanding their meaning or application.

I was being facetious, Logan, but in fact your point is actually debatable - although not applicable to this discussion.

I'm not sure you're understanding what I am asking, Logan, or perhaps I'm not understanding you. Doppler effects on EM radiation bouncing off of or being emitted from moving large objects such as an airplane don't seem to apply to the question. The differences are negligible when compared to 'c'. Doppler doesn't directly address speed, it deals with wavelength and frequency, as you noted earlier, and the measurements are not based on how long it takes for the beam to return, but frequency variation that will change with distance.

Which is why its important to note that the person at the back of fire engine creates his own, offsetting, Doppler effects to restore the sound waves to nearly their original frequency and wavelength. There is a medium through which they (fire engine and person) are traveling that causes the Doppler effect - the sound travels at a constant speed, but the medium affects f & w. So what might be the medium that causes Doppler effects in light?

But again, and maybe somebody else can help me here, is there a reliable experiment that can show that light emitted from a star hurtling at us at high speed will clock at the same speed as it enters our eyes as it would if standing on the surface of said star? And if it would, what would be it's speed as clocked while standing on an asteroid traveling away from us at half the speed of the star? If its all the same, then light is traveling in at least 3 different speeds, and in fact an innumerable variety of speeds as it passes through an innumerable variety of reference frames. Sorry, but that's just hogwash, and an example of Einstein et al trying to force their square peg into a round hole - but not a black hole since Hawking now says they don't exist. (Being facetious again, Logan, just in case you weren't able to tell)

 

[lynnie]

GEOCENTRISM-Sagnac's experiment - an animated explanation - YouTube

This is a short video about the Sagnac effect, another major experiment along with Michaelson-Morley.

This is "Airy's Failure." He was the Royal astronomer. Fascinating.

GEOCENTRICITY - An animated explanation of "Airy's Failure" experiment. - YouTube

Very simple, and shows the earth is not moving in orbit.

This is one of a gazillion youtubes about Michaelson-Morley ( secular, modern). You can see how either there is aether/firmament/(dark matter?) and the earth is at rest, or if the earth is moving in orbit then there cannot be aether.

Prelude to Einsten's Theory I - The Michelson-Morley Experiment (2/3) - YouTube

The geocentrist position is so integrally related to the biblical firmament that you can't separate them.

Logan- you are correct that M-M was really about the aether initially. Eventually it became about speed of light appearing to be the same when it should show changes in velocity (no interference fringes) but it wasn't about that when they did it. So I can see that my comments were at best confusing.

The geocentrists argue that the interferometer's readings should be taken at face value. ( Selbrede)

I guess there is faith either way- you believe the geocentrist position and in a firmament, or heliocentric with no firmament and light waves that don't behave the way we expect waves to behave. Either way something needs faith.
The Bowden youtubes have all sorts of geocentricity videos on the side to look at if anybody cares to pursue this. I think I'll give up I do hope you will at least look at the ones on Sagnac and Airy.

 

[lynnie]

But again, and maybe somebody else can help me here, is there a reliable experiment that can show that light emitted from a star hurtling at us at high speed will clock at the same speed as it enters our eyes as it would if standing on the surface of said star? And if it would, what would be it's speed as clocked while standing on an asteroid traveling away from us at half the speed of the star? If its all the same, then light is traveling in at least 3 different speeds, and in fact an innumerable variety of speeds as it passes through an innumerable variety of reference frames. Sorry, but that's just hogwash, and an example of Einstein et al trying to force their square peg into a round hole....

Brad, that was an impressive summary. You should have been a lawyer. Thanks for a memorable quote.

The thing is though, I don't think Einstein says it is traveling at different speeds. He says it is traveling the same speed, and yet always clocks the same, even if one of the objects has velocity and one does not. Which goes against all physics for all other waves, as well as common sense. But unless the earth is at rest, nobody has a better answer for the experiments. I think it takes a greater leap of faith to believe in relativity than geocentricity. Either way, you have to suspend belief if you were brought up on heliocentricity.

mods- thanks for letting this thread go so long.