Upside Down Earth and Geocentric Ideology

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 11:20 AM
link   

IkNOwSTuff

amraks
Australia is upside down then


Disappointing to hear such ignorance from a fellow Aussie,

Its not upside down..... Its on top


Actually there is no top to a sphere or square or triangle or other geometric object except to the observer and that conclusion is personal preference.

But if you place this object on a table in your room. and you agree you ceiling is up then the top of the object is the up side.

if you claim the floor as up then the bottom is the upside.

So the whole thing has to have established orientation ( for those who would claim orient as china it also was concluded that the middle east is part of the orient as well). So if in austrailia your orientation of up is your ceiling and it is the same in Britain that their orientation of up is their ceiling then up is skyward.

If you are in vast space not on any object then how does one orient it self to an up position? It would be concluded that up would have to be related to well our origin, which is earth. Now a new problem arises seeing that depending on where you are located on the earth all ceilings are up and they point all directions

The Sun could not be used for orientation because the sun has a constant shifting polarity that completely reverse itself every 24 years or so. thus the conclusion is the Sun is unstable to orient to therefore unreliable for orientation in deep space if we use the suns magnetic pole.

The problem is solved by using the geomagnetic positive which in the case of Earth is called north pole. So standing in your isolated space location you orient to the earth using the north pole as the source of up for your location.

Now standing in your remote space location and you are orientated to the earths N as up how do you conclude if you are absolutely still?

Do you synchronize with the Earth to establish stillness?

If the earth is moving then your synced position is moving also.

Do you synchronize with the Sun?

If you do and the Sun is moving in the Galaxy then your are moving as well.

Do you synchronize with the center of the galaxy?

If the galaxy is moving then so are you.

How does one establish absolute stillness in space in order to observe the movements of it correctly?

One must find the center of the universe and this cannot be found and has not been found as of yet.

But an interesting scientific observation has been noted from different sources. whether from Voyager, Our satellites, and from the earth our equipments tell us that all heavenly bodies in the universe seem to be moving away from the earth. this is a quandary and many do not like to discuss it because it ends with the conclusion that for some strange reason notes that the earth is the center of the universe.

edit on 30-12-2013 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by amraks
 


˙dn ǝpıs ʇɥƃıɹ ǝɥʇ ɐılɐɹʇsn∀ sı ʍoN



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 


The sun can be used as a orientation......if you refer to it's spin axis....not it's magnetic polarity.

Each planet in our solar system has it's "North" and "South" poles referred to based on their spin axis. Not their magnetic poles.

The amount of physical tilt of a planet's spin axis is measured against the solar system's ecliptic plane, which is a invisible reference plane, stretching out from the sun's equator to infinity. Our planet's spin axis tilts at just over 23 degrees from this plane of reference...which does not move (IE the sun's physical spin axis does not flip over, nor suddenly stop and reverse. Only it's magnetic fields do that).

As we look into our solar system, we label things up or down, which is actually very incorrect, as was pointed out, there really is no "up" or "down" in space. "Up" or "Down" is a construct of our minds and gravity.

In space, you have different references, such as a three dimensional coordinate system of X, Y and Z with Z being what we would refer to here on Earth as "up" or "down".

"North" and "South" are more of a construct of our minds here on Earth, but also with the other planets in our solar system, but mainly as common points of reference. Venus spin axis is the reverse of the Earth's. If we assume that all planets are suppose to spin counter clockwise (which other than Venus, they do), then we could say, based upon it's spin axis, Venus is "upside down" as compared to the other planets in the solar system.

The sun's spin axis is actually tilted 67 degrees with the galactic equator of the galaxy. If we used the Milky Way as our reference, then we would say that the Earth is actually tilted more than it is.

It's all about using a common frame of reference for navigation.

The Heliocentric Model was accepted because it explained movement of not only the stars and the sun, but also the path the planet's take. Geocentric models fail when trying to explain the orbital paths such as Mars, which appears to stop on it's journey through the sky, reverse direction for about 3 months, stop again, and continue once more in the direction it was going before.
The only way for Geocentric model to work, is if the outer planets not only orbit the Earth, but they must also orbit around a empty point while doing so.

Modern space flight has indeed helped confirm that yes, the sun is the center of our solar system, with the planets in orbit around it.

Observational data of the stars from centuries past, and with today's extremely sensitive equipment, so that our nearby stars motion is indeed in orbits about the center of our galaxy.

As for everything in the universe moving away from us, I'm afraid that is simply not true.

For example, the Andromeda Galaxy is blueshifted and is moving towards us at about 300 km/s.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 


I used to think that but now I believe its the atmosphere flipping the image. Bit like looking in a spoon.
It's a bit like not believing the sun is hot or not nearly as hot as we believe. I think the light emitted generates heat in light created only by the magnification from our protective spheres that creates our atmospheres, magnetosphere and the rest. A magnifying glass under the sun creates flame.
lol



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   
You have an OP only saying this:

ChesterJohn
I recently heard a professor of Physics say, "that in relation to all other planets in our solar system the earth is upside down."

I tried to google this but was unable to verify the statement.

Does anyone agree with this and if so where can I find confirmation of this upside down earth?

edit on 30-12-2013 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)

You after several posts just say "he said"....

Then you post a short soundless video of a stationary Earth with Mars and the moon in relation to it.

Then you slowly expand on what this "he" said. Any Links or anything else to provide us?

Then you seem to drop the Op and the whole Earth is upside down thought altogether and move on.
then:


So what is your idea on this whole thing.
I think that is what helio and geo centricity is all about what rotates around what and how. The why in science is not as simple as many dont agree but all do agree the earth seems to be rotating.


I guess I am missing your point because it seems quite obvious that we don't live in a geocentric solar system, galaxy, or universe. We spin on an axis, but also rotate around the sun, as do the other planets, comets, etc. Observation of their movements, transits, seasons, etc. all point to this. All calculated and /or observed throughout centuries.

Heliocentric--our solar system (and other observed systems) -- well, see above. The solar system itself is rotating around the center of the galaxy in an arm of a spiral.

Other galaxies and their contained stars of course are seen to be moving by their red and blue shifts.

To say the darkness beyond the stars is the "boundary of the universe" isn't necessarily true. Light moves at a constant speed. The universe is an estimated 13.7 billion years old. The furthest forming galaxy we can see is 13.2 light years away. There may be more beyond that visible in different spectrums, but that is as far as we can see right now.

Red shift shows that even these distant galaxies are moving away--the universe may be expanding at a quick rate.

This is what I understand and have learned. The ideas of geocentric and heliocentric, to me are conceptions that were bashed and disproved as far as our galaxy is concerned.

Of course, our vantage point is the Earth and the many probes sent out, so an illusion of the Earth being the center of the universe is present, but is soooo highly improbable that it's ridiculous. Pick a galaxy and a planet within it, and this will also appear to be the case.

Soooo, I still guess I don't see what you're getting at.

edit on 12/30/2013 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 


Sorry no links it was not on the internet nor do I think his lectures/seminars will be either. I forgot his name I thought I wrote it down for further research but I can't find the first page of my notes (my six year old may have got a hold of it).

Basically I wanted to know more of the upside down remark and I got into some of his other stuff overall his talk was on geocentric/heliocentric models, absolute stillness in space (basically he says there is not way to determine it), and expanding and collapsing universe (I left before he got deeper into it). I didn't stay for the rest I got sleepy.

anyway gleaned some info from other posters, especially erictheawful, and had fun expressing what I thought he had been sharing. It was actually interesting just somewhat dry.


edit on 30-12-2013 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 03:25 AM
link   

ChesterJohn
absolute stillness in space (basically he says there is not way to determine it)
That's not precisely true, if you look at the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background), which is the "afterglow" from the big bang. We can and have determined our velocity relative to that, as well as the velocity of the Milky way relative to that. So to put it another way, if we had more advanced rocket technology, we could launch a rocket that would be stationary with respect to the CMB. We would know that it was stationary by observing that there's not any red shift or blue shift in any direction.

We know we aren't stationary now because this is what we see:

ircamera.as.arizona.edu...


The raw data returned by the COBE mission shows the red and blue shifts in the background spectrum due to the Sun and the Milky Way's motions through space



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


How did they prove that the CMB was actually the remains/aferglow of the "Big Bang"?

We should not allow our minds to be cluttered with theory. the big bang is still a theory actually.




This radiation is the highly redshifted (z~1000) remnant of photons emitted ~500,000 years after the Big Bang. The radiation results from the Universe cooling sufficiently that electrons can be captured by protons to form neutral atoms. Before this time, the Universe was filled with electrically charged particles which prevented the free motion of photons. The Universe was opaque before recombination. The temperature at this time was 3000° K, similar to the outer layers of a cool star. (Note that "recombination" is a bit of a mis-nomer as neutral atoms never existed in the Universe before this point in time!).



this is taken from a link above.

I am still curious how they proved any of this to be fact?

Unless you can go to the location and take samples of redshift radiation to confirm it is redshift radiation it could just be the equipment is interpreting what it does not know as such because it is the closest to its computerized programed understanding.

How does one prove that the universe was Opaque before recombination?

Lastly how does one know for fact that no neutral Atoms ever existed before any point in time?

Are not these statements a cognitive preference of those who observing the information?

Are not these statements preconceived ideas being interpreted into the data without actually sampling the physical matter at the location?

That would not be true scientific fact but theory correct?




edit on 31-12-2013 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


But wouldn't the picture show the same thing if everything else was moving except the Earth or wherever that picture was taken from? Basically all it tells is if the distance is widening or shortening, right? It doesn'tprove that both the observation point and what is being observed is moving. Only one of the two needs to be moving toward or away from the other right? So the earth could be totally still and we would never know right?

Anyway it's interesting to think about.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 10:15 AM
link   

ChesterJohn
I am still curious how they proved any of this to be fact?
The existence of some type of evolution is widely considered to be scientific fact, but few other things are, and the big bang theory is not considered fact. It is however a well supported theory.


Are not these statements preconceived ideas being interpreted into the data without actually sampling the physical matter at the location?
Are you familiar with spectroscopy? If not, that's what you need to research, because it really is amazing how we are fairly certain we know the composition of distant stars, without actually sampling them. The spectroscopic signatures are also what allow us to determine red shifts (or, in rare cases, like with the Andromeda galaxy, blue shifts).

Also, the further back in time we go (closer to the big bang), the less well-supported theories become, and the more speculative. But, what makes the CMB compelling as evidence is that it was predicted from theory, before it was actually discovered. So when you have a theory with a lot of evidence already, that makes a prediction, then you discover something the theory predicted, it does seem to validate the theory. However, the existence of the CMB and the measurements of it are observational and therefore can be considered factual. So, if one wanted to, as you seem to be considering, ponder the possibility that the CMB is not stationary and that it has another origin, then you could think about an alternative theory to explain it in other terms...do you have one?



3n19m470
But wouldn't the picture show the same thing if everything else was moving except the Earth or wherever that picture was taken from?
It was taken from the COBE satellite. We can certainly question the scientific principle which states that we no longer think the Earth is the center of the universe. But there are scientists who have published peer-reviewed papers which still consider that possibility, and yes if the Earth was the center of the universe and it was still and everything else was moving, we could see something similar, I suppose.

This notion is considered archaic by most, but the paper I saw not too long ago said that if the Earth was at the center of the universe, then there could be a mathematical explanation for why we think we see "dark energy" even if there's no such thing. And mathematically, the paper is probably correct, which is why it passed peer review, however, I doubt most scientists seriously consider that the Earth is really the center of the universe. But to really keep an open mind, I suppose we can't rule it out; it's just that there are lots of reasons to consider that pretty unlikely, including cosmological observations that show our place in the universe looks pretty much like many other places in the universe, as far as we can tell. So there aren't really any observations that indicate we have a special place in the universe.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Arbitrageur

ChesterJohn
I am still curious how they proved any of this to be fact?
The existence of some type of evolution is widely considered to be scientific fact, but few other things are, and the big bang theory is not considered fact. It is however a well supported theory.


Are not these statements preconceived ideas being interpreted into the data without actually sampling the physical matter at the location?
Are you familiar with spectroscopy? If not, that's what you need to research, because it really is amazing how we are fairly certain we know the composition of distant stars, without actually sampling them. The spectroscopic signatures are also what allow us to determine red shifts (or, in rare cases, like with the Andromeda galaxy, blue shifts).

Also, the further back in time we go (closer to the big bang), the less well-supported theories become, and the more speculative. But, what makes the CMB compelling as evidence is that it was predicted from theory, before it was actually discovered. So when you have a theory with a lot of evidence already, that makes a prediction, then you discover something the theory predicted, it does seem to validate the theory. However, the existence of the CMB and the measurements of it are observational and therefore can be considered factual. So, if one wanted to, as you seem to be considering, ponder the possibility that the CMB is not stationary and that it has another origin, then you could think about an alternative theory to explain it in other terms...do you have one?



3n19m470
But wouldn't the picture show the same thing if everything else was moving except the Earth or wherever that picture was taken from?
It was taken from the COBE satellite. We can certainly question the scientific principle which states that we no longer think the Earth is the center of the universe. But there are scientists who have published peer-reviewed papers which still consider that possibility, and yes if the Earth was the center of the universe and it was still and everything else was moving, we could see something similar, I suppose.

This notion is considered archaic by most, but the paper I saw not too long ago said that if the Earth was at the center of the universe, then there could be a mathematical explanation for why we think we see "dark energy" even if there's no such thing. And mathematically, the paper is probably correct, which is why it passed peer review, however, I doubt most scientists seriously consider that the Earth is really the center of the universe. But to really keep an open mind, I suppose we can't rule it out; it's just that there are lots of reasons to consider that pretty unlikely, including cosmological observations that show our place in the universe looks pretty much like many other places in the universe, as far as we can tell. So there aren't really any observations that indicate we have a special place in the universe.


I am very familiar with spectroscopy? In short it is the color coded placed on elements and wavelengths in order to identify them by scientist.

But just because they are calculated to our earth does not mean that they are existing in the other parts of the universe. You could in fact be looking at the computer program of the closest match to the coded system of elements and not at what it really is. In order to prove that the spectroscopy is correct you would have to go to the location and gather the material and verify it is exactly the sames as it is here.

Ever think that there are unknown waves, light and elements that are not calculated into the color coded program? If so the computer can get the closest match and report red/pink/purple/blue/green/yellow/orange etc . . when in fact it is not known.

How do we know that the spectroscopy is not affected by the surrounding space blending the spectroscopy to another color or causing a false reading? We are talking light years and a variables of unknowns exist between here and there.

Basically if you can't actually go to the source and verify physically then you could in fact have false information. Just because something says it is there does not mean it is. Kind of like a mirage effect.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 11:50 AM
link   

ChesterJohn
But just because they are calculated to our earth does not mean that they are existing in the other parts of the universe. You could in fact be looking at the computer program of the closest match to the coded system of elements and not at what it really is. In order to prove that the spectroscopy is correct you would have to go to the location and gather the material and verify it is exactly the sames as it is here.
Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but it's not scientifically well-founded.

We already know that the spectroscopic analysis of hydrogen in a distant star looks different from the analysis of the hydrogen on Earth, and by how much (in fact we use this difference to calculate red shift).

There would have to be something really bizarre going on for us to think we understand spectroscopy if we really don't, since spectroscopy is not an isolated analysis but it's linked with many other physical observations relating to well supported observations in chemistry and quantum mechanics. From your comments, I don't think you really appreciate how unique spectroscopic signatures are.

Yes you could hypothetically fake something in a computer program if the movie "The Matrix" was not science fiction, but do I really have to say it's science fiction? Apparently so. It's science fiction.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Arbitrageur

ChesterJohn
But just because they are calculated to our earth does not mean that they are existing in the other parts of the universe. You could in fact be looking at the computer program of the closest match to the coded system of elements and not at what it really is. In order to prove that the spectroscopy is correct you would have to go to the location and gather the material and verify it is exactly the sames as it is here.
Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but it's not scientifically well-founded.

We already know that the spectroscopic analysis of hydrogen in a distant star looks different from the analysis of the hydrogen on Earth, and by how much (in fact we use this difference to calculate red shift).

There would have to be something really bizarre going on for us to think we understand spectroscopy if we really don't, since spectroscopy is not an isolated analysis but it's linked with many other physical observations relating to well supported observations in chemistry and quantum mechanics. From your comments, I don't think you really appreciate how unique spectroscopic signatures are.

Yes you could hypothetically fake something in a computer program if the movie "The Matrix" was not science fiction, but do I really have to say it's science fiction? Apparently so. It's science fiction.


yes of course but isn't BELIEF that ALL light and elements of matter are known and are exactly the same here as they are anywhere else in the Universe nothing more than a theory or opinion in and of itself?

How do you know that it is Hydrogen on a distant star that you are really LOOKING at when in fact you have never been to that distant star to verify it physically?

I don't doubt the accuracy of the spectroscopy (the device) and spectrology (the science) as bound to our verifiable earth. But to assume that it is the same in a distant star system is a preference of belief that has not been verified as fact. Belief that all the same matter was used for the formation of the whole Universe is a unverifiable theory at present. Not that some day it may be verifiable.

Are you getting the Idea of what I am saying?

You must agree to some point that that which is verifiable here may not be the same on another star system and until we can go there and verify it first hand it is still theory.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 


Spectroscopy

When something is hot enough to glow (like a star), it gives you information about what it is made of, because different substances give off a different spectrum of light when they vaporize. Each substance produces a unique spectrum, almost like a fingerprint.


Now imagine a suspect who has no alibi at the time of the murder. They find his fingerprints at the scene of the crime. He denies he was ever at the scene and pleads that those must be the fingerprints of someone else who happens to have the same fingerprints he does. He can say that, but nobody will believe him, just as I think no scientists would believe your assertion that something else may have the exact same spectroscopic signature or "fingerprint" as hydrogen, unless of course you have some evidence for this and we both know you don't. You saying "maybe it could happen" is not evidence.

So I can see how you might think you can argue the case, like the guy who argues it's not impossible for another person to have identical fingerprints, but these arguments are not really very plausible or credible, given the amount of knowledge we have which contradicts them, so I don't think you or the suspect will get many supporters of your "maybe something else has the same fingerprints" ideas. There are plenty of things which are truly unknown in science which are a more prudent use of our pondering what is really going on with our observations.



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Arbitrageur
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 


Spectroscopy

When something is hot enough to glow (like a star), it gives you information about what it is made of, because different substances give off a different spectrum of light when they vaporize. Each substance produces a unique spectrum, almost like a fingerprint.


Now imagine a suspect who has no alibi at the time of the murder. They find his fingerprints at the scene of the crime. He denies he was ever at the scene and pleads that those must be the fingerprints of someone else who happens to have the same fingerprints he does. He can say that, but nobody will believe him, just as I think no scientists would believe your assertion that something else may have the exact same spectroscopic signature or "fingerprint" as hydrogen, unless of course you have some evidence for this and we both know you don't. You saying "maybe it could happen" is not evidence.

So I can see how you might think you can argue the case, like the guy who argues it's not impossible for another person to have identical fingerprints, but these arguments are not really very plausible or credible, given the amount of knowledge we have which contradicts them, so I don't think you or the suspect will get many supporters of your "maybe something else has the same fingerprints" ideas. There are plenty of things which are truly unknown in science which are a more prudent use of our pondering what is really going on with our observations.


But you have not really visited the crime scene. You are looking at the crime scene through a telescope from a distance, you are unable to apply the fingerprint powder to the actual smudges and get a clear set of prints.

Like wise until you can actually verify it on location it is just man best guess that it may be according to equipment we have calibrated to light and matter here on earth. Our equipment must be calibrated to the light and matter there to get a verified reading and until that time it is ASSUMED to be what we think it is. The larger assumption is that all matter and light are the same every where in the whole universe.

edit on 1-1-2014 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 




The larger assumption is that all matter and light are the same every where in the whole universe.

Does that mean you are suggesting that there are varying and multiple sets of laws of physics just running willy-nilly around the universe?



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Chamberf=6
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 




The larger assumption is that all matter and light are the same every where in the whole universe.

Does that mean you are suggesting that there are varying and multiple sets of laws of physics just running willy-nilly around the universe?


No I am saying that matter differs and there may be matter we are not aware of and and unless we can get to the location to verify our conclusions there is no way in reality we make claims as facts.



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 12:43 PM
link   
If there were elements unknown to us, they would be in very low concentrations, now, here is the kicker. When we do spectroscopy we are looking at other stars... huge concentrations of material. Spectral lines and atomic physics is very very well established, and it works very very well.

What you are saying is that if I have a Mercury lamp, and someone looks at it from 5 miles alway using a spectroscope and says, OK all the emission lines are exactly what i expect from Mercury... but it might not be mercury unless i go and sample gas from the lamp.

Do you know who first identified Helium? Many will cite the chemists who isolated it on the Earth. But back in 1800s the periodic table had big gaps in it, Helium didn't really exist in scientific knowledge. So why is Helium called helium if it was discovered by William Ramsey. Wouldn't it be named after him? Well it was discovered using spectroscopy, by Norman Lockyer and Jules Janssen, and named after the source they used to find it... The Sun. Helios, God of the sun. Helium...

Their calculations would fit the lines they saw in a place of an element with 2 protons and electrons... Have we been and scooped up the sun? No not really. Have we looked at atomic helium on the Earth, Yes. Is it the same as what we see in the sun's atmosphere? Yes. Case Closed, the sun contains helium.


This has already been done Sir, Identifying spectral emission and absorption is a very mature subject, humans know atomic physics very well, we are able to make lasers so precise that they can be used to separate different isotopes of chemicals caused by hyper fine splittings from different numbers of neutrons in the nucleus. This is not a happy accident. Optical properties of materials are not one of simple empirical laws. We know enough about atomic physics that we can take a material, and calculate what the wavelength dependant transmission limits should be. We are limited to fairly simple chemicals, but my point is that this is not a black box that we have no understanding of.

Also the instruments that take the data do absolutely ZERO analysis of the data, that data is analyzed and calibrated offline.

To then make a statement that Scientists cannot really say they understand spectroscopy unless they go somewhere, is quite frankly a very lazy statement and more of an admission of none understanding than anything else.

SO the CMB... The CMB represents the point when the universe 'froze out' and became matter dominated, rather than energy. IF the universe was hot and dense back then, then you would expect a spectrum which is that of a black body. Guess what? the CMB actually has a perfect black body spectrum... It is the most perfect natural source that fits theory of a black body generating light when it gets hot. So why is the CMB cold? Well because of the expansion OF space, causing it to be redshifted.
edit on 2-1-2014 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 






 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join


Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant
read more: Ora.TV's Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant