Mr. Martin claims I have not provided specific examples of problems that cannot be addressed with a 'stationary earth'. Yet I have not seen him or any of his supporters meet my Lagrange Point challenge.
JM – It took me not more than 10 seconds to find a Geo paper on Lagrange points on the internet. I wonder if B can find it? Type in google the following – Galileo was wrong lagrange points.
B - The problem the Geocentrists don't acknowledge, is that these models also work having the entire universe rotate around Mars, or the Moon, or even a planet orbiting a star in a distant galaxy.
JM – Geo’s acknowledge the models work for other stationary points. Fellas like Bridgeman routinely ignore the fact that such models are only maths models and as such are limited in their truth value. His anti geo claims normally collapse quite quickly any time he evokes relativity theory, because the theory permits a stationary earth. This is something he doesn’t want to promote, for it undermines his anti geo propaganda.
Furthermore, what of the claim concerning relative distances? Let distance between A and B = x. Let distance between B and A = y. These are relative distances, yet they are the same. x=y To claim a model only uses relative distances is harmless to geocentrism, for the distances are the same regardless of whether the earth is moving or not in the Machian model.
The other claims of no absolute reference frame and all particles are treated the same is also harmless for the geo position. Every time a point is considered to be stationary, then all motions are absolute values compared to the motion of that point at v=0. So the claim that there are no absolute reference frames, is at best ambiguous and also harmless to the geo position.
Every point is considered the same is merely a claim within the model, which is to be expected and only shows the limitations of the model contained within the assumptions. Goes refer to such models, knowing all models are imperfect, but can be used within a limited ambit to demonstrate some pertinent points. As such, goes use such models as part of their apologetic for those who use such models. In doing so, we see the deficiencies, but also the explanatory power of such models when applied to a stationary earth.
B - Planetary Aberration
In regards to planetary aberration, Mr. Martin had this to say:
"The above statement by Wicki doesn’t give us any calculated examples or any references to any journal articles. This is telling on wicki and shows the reader that planetary aberration is merely assumed, but no evidence is presented for its existence."
Planetary aberration is calculated as it is for stars, based on the RELATIVE velocity of the planet and spacecraft. These corrections are installed in numerous software used for planetary navigation (see Geocentrism: Ubiquitous Aberrations). The aberration calculation itself is trivial once the positions and velocities of the objects of interest are known. The real work is computing the positions and velocities of the objects involved, be they planets or spacecraft, a task which geocentrists have demonstrated no competence.
JM – But you simply don’t know what the real velocities are do you. You only assume the velocities are relative and place them within a model. So you have yet another example of the relativist claiming a real velocity, which infers a preferred reference frame of the immobile sun and the moving earth, which contradicts relativity theory, which affirms no preferred reference frame. Aberration of the star light caused by a moving earth was invalidated long ago anyway by George Airy’s null result with the water filled telescope. The stellar aberration due to the moving earth was not measured but this experiment, which falls in line with the near null results of the Michelson Morley and other similar experiments.
B - "Aether Drag"
In the late-1800s as Maxwell completed the mathematical unification of electricity and magnetism with his equations and light was recognized as an electromagnetic phenomenon, the question arose "what is the medium that allows light to travel?" Previous experience with sound suggested that a medium was required for the waves. It seemed reasonable to researchers of the day that light would also need such a medium. They called that hypothetical medium the aether or ether and proceeded to devise experiments in an attempt to determine its properties (much like today we adopted the name Dark Matter as the explanation for cosmological gravitational inconsistencies and proceed to determine its properties).
Experiments searching for the aether gave such contradictory and inconsistent results it was eventually suggested that light did not need an aether to propagate and the proposal of special relativity in 1905 provided a firm mathematical foundation.
JM – Bridgeman simultaneously holds to no eather because of special relativity theory and must also hold to aether in general relativity and in the form of dark matter. Bridgeman’s science world is indeed contradictory.
B - Nonetheless, some try to hang onto the aether as a way to claim Earth is motionless. Per Mr. Martin:
"Galileo’s theory of gravity is false. Things do not fall at the same acceleration. Newton’s theory of gravity is also false because the aether has been found. Finally Einstein’s theory is also false because of the constancy of c, time dilatation and length contraction have all been invalidated or are internally logically incoherent. All this is in an article dedicated to debunking crank science and all the time you are unaware of the findings of modern science which overturn you pet theories. Evidently your example is just as flawed as your understanding of science and gravity. Maybe it is you who has no operational experience other than deluding yourself into thinking you know more about gravity and science theory than what your erroneous posts are saying."
Things do not fall at the same acceleration? Not sure where THAT comes from as Mr. Martin provides no reference.
JM - See not less than ten references to experiments on page 28 of GWW vol 2, 7th edition.
B- Claims of Aether drag having been 'found' conveniently ignore the fact that it has been known since 1907 that the Einstein theory gives the same result as the Fresnel 'aether drag' equation. This derivation is illustrated on the Wikipedia page (Aether drag hypothesis: Lorentz and Einstein)
JM – So we have two models that make diverse assumptions and come up with the same numbers. This shows the weakness of the models. Science really doesn’t know what it is modeling, only so long as the numbers come out. I note the preferred reference frame assumed in this discussion, which is again a big no no in R theory. Its so sad to see Rel theorists contradict theory own theory to support the theory.
B - One of the most popularly cited papers by 'aether' supporters is by Aleksandar Gjurchinovski (Aberration of light in a uniformly moving optical medium"). However, if you actually READ the paper (and understand it), you'll notice that Gjurchinovski is explaining the Jones result in a relativistic framework. Note in particular equation 3 which is the Lorentz transformation! Pushing the parameters of the experiment with a very dispersive medium, Gjurchinovski gets a result that matches the derivation by Player (referenced above) including the effects of dispersion. I have found some quotes from the Gjurchinovski papers where there is a discussion of how 'real' these effects are, but one must exercise care with the wording.
JM – I don’t remember referring to this paper anywhere. Its not found in GWW 7th edition. Anyway if R theory is used in the paper, then it can be used for a stationary earth as well. Why is it that you continue to avoid the obvious?
B - So what's the excuse for such blatant errors?
JM – The errors only exist in B’s mind based upon a poorly constructed argument.
B - Note that Mr. Martin actually invokes CONTRADICTORY claims as his own evidence, invoking Machian models (the ultimate in relativity) simultaneously with 'aether' models (the ultimate in anti-relativity). This is a popular tactic for those who have no evidence FOR their actual claims - they desperately throw out any claims they think might have any sticking power, and hope no one is the wiser.
JM – B is probably unaware that Geo’s evoke various models because each has strengths and weaknesses. B does the same with aether, where he is forced to both affirm and deny the aether in BB cosmology and R theory respectively. We live in an imperfect world of competing science models and when Geo’s evoke some models that contain contradictory claims we are aware of the problem, but use the models for their explanatory value to show different phenomena can be accounted for with a stationary earth. The similar problem exists for main stream science with different models used to explain the same phenomena.
B - Oh, and one entry in Mr. Martin's 'laundry list' invokes Halton Arp's discordant redshifts. The final post I did on this topic from 2013, summarizes the more detailed posts (and includes links to the details) at Discordant Redshifts: A Post-Mortem.
JM – In that post you said – “The only way to rescue discordant redshift claims from the simple geometrical effect is for them to retreat to a small, geocentric universe (which decreases the probability of chance alignments at high-redshift).” Well Geos do have a stationary earth so the redshifts are consistent with the earth in a special place in the universe. So much for the RIP of disconcordant redshifts, when you even admit they appear in a geo universe.