Mr. Martin's response is a collection of nonsense that can only be maintained if one is never required to test their claims against real physical measurements.
JM –Tom goes out of his way to make a truth claim that he never establishes. In fact Tom has ignored most of my post that included several evidences for geocentrism, yet he claims the geocentric claims do not stand up to real physical measurements. Is Tom being genuine about his statements concerning geocentrism or is he making false statements through selective silence and truth claims that ignore much of what I have written on the physical evidence for geocentrism? Evidently Tom is not being genuine.
Tom - Martin: "2. Science has demonstrated physical phenomena occur relative to earth as though the earth was stationary relative to the rest of the universe. As such, the geocentric model alone is the correct model."
All of Mr. Martins 'proofs' of Geocentrism rely exclusively on experiments done on the Earth, while ignoring similar experiments elsewhere in space.
JM – I have not ignored experiments completed in places other than the earth. The CMB derived from WMAP was included as one evidence and WMAP was taken from a satellite not on earth. So there you have it folks, Tom has lied to his audience about what geocentrists do. Its not the first time Tom has lied and it probably wont be the last time either.
Tom - Martin: "If Dr Bridgman denies this problem exists then let him have a look at a similar situation with the lunar laser ranging experiment. According to Dr Tom Murphy the experiment works by the mirror deforming according to relativity theory, causing the laser to bounce back in the mirror frame along a different line from which it entered, thereby the laser returns safely back to the moving earth. A clear indication of the mirror deformation is shown here figure 2, page 2 - http://www.physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/doc/velocity.pdf"
JM – Tom’s logic is incomprehensible. He has quoted me saying Tom Murphy has a paper showing the light enters and leaves the retro-reflector at angles which the reflector was not designed for. This conclusion shows any normal person that something is afoot with the LLR and the only real explanation is the earth is stationary to save the reflectors functionality as it was designed to reflect lasers along the same flight path from which it enters the reflector. Currently, if the earth is moving at 30km/s around the earth, then the laser cannot return back to the firing station, for the flight time is 2s, the light spread is 20km and the earth has moved through space 60km, so the return beam must miss the earth by about 40km. Yet the return beam is always received by the firing station, so either –
- The earth is stationary and the retro-reflector really does return the laser beam along the same flight path, just as it was designed to do.
- The retro-reflectors bounce beams back to earth at an angle, thereby causing the reflector to act in a way that is contrary to what it was designed to do.
Geocentrists have chosen 1 above, which matches the physics, and others such as Bridgman and Murphy have chosen 2, which is not in accord with physics.
Tom has chosen to ignore this simply fact in Tom Murphy’s paper and decided to dive into the matter of aberration. Apparently Tom Murphy’s paper includes aberration of the return beam caused by the motion of the moon. The paper is entitled, “velocity aberration of lunar return” http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/doc/velocity.pdf. The paper does discuss the motion of the moon in relation to aberration and does not discuss aberration in relation to any motion of the earth. So what’s Tom Bridgman’s point concerning the LLR and aberration? Evidently Tom has made a big blunder here by inferring Tom Murphy’s discussion of aberration is some how evidence for a moving earth, when the aberration being discussed is that of light bouncing back from a moving earth. I hope Tom Bridgman understands that geocentrists believe the moon is moving past the earth and as such Tom Murphy’s comments concerning lunar aberration are inconsequential.
Tom Bridgman also cites his post entitled Geocentrism: Ubiquitous aberrations, where he claims satellites requires precise measurements of aberration to allow satellites to plot flight paths and aberration is taken into account in satellite trajectory planning. Tom thinks aberration is caused by the motion of the earth around the sun, where he says –
“Everyone is probably familiar with the effect of aberration. The popular analogy is of walking through rainfall. Even though the rain may be falling vertically, to the walking observer, the rain appears to be falling at an angle.”
Yet Tom must ignore the results of George Airy, who set out to physically demonstrate that aberration was caused by a moving earth and the failure to find such evidence, demonstrated aberration is caused by another mechanism such as motion within an aether flow. Geocentrists do not deny aberration of light occurs, but we do deny aberration of light is caused by a moving earth because the physical evidence points to the existence of aether flow, a motionless earth and motion of light in space.
How then does the heliocentrist account for aberration in the satellite trajectory planning? The earth’s motions are assumed to be the cause of the aberration for light and as such, these assumed motions are included in the calculations to plan satellite flight paths. Does this mean the flight plans are in favor of heliocentrism over geocentrism, or is there more to this problem than Tom Bridgman wants us to know? Tom wants his readers to think NASA and JPL must use the helio model, with its aberration caused by the motion of the earth against light and geocentrism is therefore invalidated. Yet aberration has been proven to be caused by the motion of light within aether flow and not by the motion of the earth, therefore any light aberration must be caused by motion of celestial objects and not the earth, in accord with physical experiment. So what is the logical conclusion Tom Bridgman can draw from his statements concerning aberration?
1 – physical experiment confirms aberration is not caused by a moving earth.
2 – physical experiment confirms aberration is caused by the motion of light within an aether flow.
3 – satellite flight plans are calculated by assuming light aberration is caused by the motion of the earth.
4 – calculations that assume the earth motion as a cause of light aberration are only used based on convenience and do not reflect physical experiment.
5 – satellite flight plan calculations for light aberration that assumes a moving earth are not evidence against geocentrism
6 - satellite flight plan calculations for light aberration that assumes a moving earth are only done so out of calculation convenience.
7 – aberration can be calculated, by assuming an earth motion that is not observed in any physical experiment, yet those calculations allow accurate flight plans to bring satellites into correct orbits.
8 – Heliocentrism is therefore a relatively convenient way to model light aberration and produce maths calculations that plot satellite flight paths.
When we see the above points it is noted that nowhere is geocentrism invalidated and nowhere is heliocentrism physically confirmed. Accordingly, Tom Bridgman’s claims concerning light aberration are at best only truth claims concerning an assumed earth motion and light aberration calculations that have some pragmatic value and nothing more and nothing less. He cannot conclude that geocentrism is therefore invalidated and heliocentrism is therefore real.
Tom - The LRR is not the only laser ranging experiment. I can think of three that have operated, or are operating, around the solar system:
- MOLA was in orbit around Mars,
- LOLA is currently in lunar orbit,
- Messenger is at Mercury
JM – Tom fails to tell us that none of these experiments use retro-reflectors and as such, the lasers that bounce from a body, back to the satellite are not the same configuration at that used in the LLR. Therefore the LLR is a unique experiment that clearly indicates the moon is moving past a stationary earth.
Tom - (see Planetary Laser Altimetry). All these instruments operate by bouncing laser signals off the surface of the planet. All operate around the particular planet they orbit as if that planet were the center of the universe, or even as if the instrument itself were the center of the universe. The lasers use the exact same value of 'c' in computing their range from timing even though they are in motion relative to the Earth. This is as expected from relativity.
JM – Tom doesn’t give us any evidence for his claim that “the instrument itself were the center of the universe”, so why would anyone take his claim seriously, especially when we note the MOLA and other similar experiments don’t use retro reflectors? Does Tom really think everyone will miss this important and somewhat obvious point? Maybe he does.
Tom - If the Earth were truly a distinguished coordinate system as Mr. Martin claims, then you would expect these laser altimeters to operate differently when orbiting another planet.
JM – Laser altimeters only measure the distance between the satellite and the ground surface below the satellite. What is it about laser altimeters that requires the earth to be any different to other objects? Tom merely assumes so and then poses a false challenge to geocentrists to come up with the evidence that is not required.
Tom - Mr. Martin evades specifying what would be different in their operation. The simple fact is the laser altimeters operate exactly like they do when based the Earth, or Earth orbit, as predicted/expected by relativity.
JM – Mr Martin never discussed laser altimeters, so Mr Martin was not evading any issue at all. Tom is lying again.
Tom - This is not an idle question.
JM – taken in context of what the laser altimeter does, it is a dull and irrelevant question.
Tom - If there were a way to distinguish a frame of absolute motion, it would be possible to build an actual 'speedometer' to ride aboard a spacecraft, instead of using the complex combination of spacecraft orientation and remote Doppler measurements currently required. If Geocentrists are correct, they should be able to prove their case by the invention of such a device.
JM – Geocentrists claim the earth is stationary relative to the rest of the universe. We also claim the universe is permeated with an aether flow, which is the cause of aberration and motions of objects in the cosmos. How then is it possible to build a speedometer, based upon some absolute property of zero motion on earth? I’m not sure off hand, but maybe as a starter we could suppose that a speedometer is set at a bench mark of zero velocity when placed on the earth’s surface and any motion relative to earths rest is then an absolute motion.
Then again a speedometer isn’t required to determine if the earth is stationary or not because physical experiments have already been performed that show the earth is stationary. As such, Tom is using desperate hand waving to avoid the consequences of all experiments that have failed to detect the motion of the earth.
Tom - Mr. Martin whines that Dr. Murphy won't respond to him.
JM – No, I merely stated the truth. I asked Tom Murphy a series of simple questions, which he answered. Then I asked him if the LLR would work if the earth was stationary and all he had to do was answer either yes or no. This would have taken about 5-10 seconds of Tom Murphy’s time. Why is it that a man of Tom Murphy’s intelligence can answer questions on the LLR, yet when it comes to the matter of a stationary earth, he chooses to remain silent? Tom Bridgman’s reasoning is evidently false, and therefore Tom Murphy has chosen not to answer my question because Tom Murphy knows geocentrism is the only real way to explain the LLR outside of the failed theory of relativity.
Tom - That is no mystery. People doing real work don't enjoy wasting their work time with Mr. Martin's type of silliness, whereas I do this as a hobby outside my day job.
JM – Tom Bridgman finds plenty of time to answer my silliness, so that makes him silly or perhaps unemployed.
Tom - Mr. Martin cannot produce an experiment operating around the other planets, or in the space between them, that suggests Geocentrism is true. There are many experiments operating in these regions providing evidence that Geocentrism is false.
JM – Tom’s claims makes Tom a prophet! No, really Tom, do you think geocentrists are going to ignore all the physical evidence for geocentrism and ignore the fact that you routinely ignore the evidence presented? Do you really Tom . . . come on man, get real and fess up to the fact that your case against geocentrism is very compartmentalized and illogical.
Geocentrism forever remains a truth denied by the professionals, in spite of the physical evidence to save the professionals career, because the science establishment has bought into the moving earth theory, based upon a false understanding of parallax, aberration, the Foucault pendulum and the ad hoc explanations given to the many experiments that have failed to detect the motion of the earth.
Science can and often does make discoveries without the need of divine revelation. Yet in the case of cosmology, the divine creator has chosen to inform man of the stationary earth. As such, science must bow to the truths given to man by God and embrace geocentrism.
Despite any attempts by the relativists and heliocentrists, geocentrism has not been invalidated and it never will simply because geocentrism has been revealed by God, who is the cause of all truth.
JM
