It was a great treat to be with “birds-of-a- feather” who rarely “flock together”, the nearly extinct species of geocentricia fidei. There were some great ideas put forth by the other speakers and some interesting feedback from the attendees. Based on these inputs I will be researching aether models of gravity, such as LeSage. ….. I was grateful that the threats to disrupt the conference did not materialize and thought that Bob did a masterful job of handling the Q&A sessions.
Even though the concept is much simpler than relativity and free of logical and empirical contradictions (so far) , there has been no response yet, at the conference, by email or in the blogs, to the ALFA model presentation of an Absolute Lab frame and a Flexible Aether. Hard to gauge from silence what the issue is…. too complex? incoherent? trivial? beyond belief? paradigm shift shock? ideological barriers?
When the ALFA model was pre-tested on Net forums, the responses were misdirected ad hominem, focusing on my credentials, religious beliefs and claiming that relativity had been proven by all experiments (despite my clear use of Sagnac’s results to the contrary).
One forum reply questioned the application to binary stars, claiming the aether motion would scramble the light from each star. This was easily answered, since the light from the opposite-moving stars would only vary from c locally, an infinitesimal part of the path to Earth. In any case, the ALFA model is still standing.
GeoCatCon II or bust!
"paradigm shift shock?"
ReplyDeleteScientists rarely go backwards to models that are a WORSE fit for observed phenomenon, so yes, the "paradigm shift" of rejecting a heliocentric model of the solar system (Which explains things like the transit of Venus and observed planetary movement) to a pre-Medieval model far divorced from reality is unlikely to happen.
halleyscomet: If you knew how right you are in your first assertion, and how wrong you in your last, you would be unlikely to ever advance the "transit of Venus" or "planetary motion" arguments publicly again, since they are both completely bogus.
ReplyDeleteBut you would know this if you had attended the conference.
Anyway, in the geocentric model advanced at the conference, both the phases of Venus and *all* planetary motions are perfectly accounted for, as every attendee saw with their own eyes, and as everyone who has read "Galileo Was Wrong" has had demonstrated on the included CD ROM graphically presenting the coordinate shift between heliocentric and geocentric reference frames.
But as for models being a worse fit for observed phenomenon, I would humbly suggest that you fully internalize the following quotes from Stephen Hawking, and then click the link below them.
Let's see if you can figure out why the link poses such a problem for the quote, which in turn summarizes the foundational assumption underlying the standard cosmological model (the "cosmological" or "Copernican" principle).
If so, then we might have something to talk about.
If not, then happy red herring hunting.
“......we shall interpret the Copernican principle as stating that the universe is approximately spherically symmetric about every point (since it is approximately spherically symmetric around us).” ---Hawking, S.W. and Ellis, G.F.R., The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 134, 1973. Their reference is to: Bondi, H., Cosmology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1960.
Hawking continues with this thought and develops it further, in his “A Brief History of Time”:
“...all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe......There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too.....We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe.” --Stephen Hawking “A Brief History of Time” 1988 p.42
Now click this link and tell us why Professor Hawking's Copernican Principle has a very, very, very big problem- if you can:
http://www.sdss.org/news/releases/galaxy_zoom.jpg
Good luck.
Congratulations Mr.Robert:
ReplyDeleteEinstein´ideas are deadest then the person itself, thanks to Dingle and others greater physics.
Can you tell me how is that there was a threat to the conference? I thought that these things were only typical from neodarwinists (or north corea).
The science must to go backwards to the pre-darwinian times, Why not to pre-copernican days?.
Thank you Robert, I´m reading your work in Sungenis book and I apreciate you
Juan Ara from Spain (sorry for my english)
@heleyscomet:
ReplyDeleteShifts in cosmological thinking today are not rare. Einstein shifted back and forth in his view of the universe with his lambda “constant”; Quantum Mechanics has shifted away from General Relativity’s “vacuum space” to a space filled with infinitesimal particles, which is curious since Einstein’s reinsertion of the lambda constant meant he was opting for the same reintroduction of ether that QM was suggesting but which Einstein’s Special Relativity had denied; cosmology in general is reconsidering a Steady State universe as opposed to the Big Bang due to the continued anomalies with the latter. As regards geocentrism the new data we have today of spatial isotropy from the cosmic microwave background radiation, gamma ray bursts, X-ray bursts, quasars, and almost any other source of energy or matter with a red shift today, show conclusively that we are in the center of it all. Additionally, the contradictions they have been finding in Relativity theory suggest that the interpretation Einstein gave to the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment will not suffice and that the interpretation he had rejected out of hand, namely, a motionless Earth in space, is completely viable. As for the transit of Venus and planetary motion, whereas some believe that the Ptolemaic model may have had difficulty with these, not so with the Tychonic geocentric model. The Tychonic model can explain all of these very easily, including retrograde motion and parallax. These issues are all covered in our book, Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right. Order a copy. You won’t regret it. Robert Sungenis
Thanks for your comment, Juan.
ReplyDeleteContinuing the work of Dingle et al. is the focus at http://www.mythpages.blogspot.com.
A few Web free-thinkers had grumbled about GeoCathConI.... apparently, forum discussions on geocentrism are permitted but an organized public conference is pushing freedom of speech too far.
Don't worry about your comm. skills - your message comes through the language barrier loud and clear ==>
The modern malaise in science (and morals) didn't begin with Darwin but with Galileo.
In this we have 100% agreement - whether in English, Spanish or Spanglish.
btw: if I attempted an e-mail in Spanish, nadie comprendera'
Don't hesitate to ask Bob S. or me any GWW question ...
Robert B