Scotty99

What i find very odd is that list mordred linked states " Contrary to popular myth, their result is not actually “null”—in their words “the relative velocity of the Earth and the aether is probably less than one sixth the Earth's orbital velocity". If you go to wiki it says null for almost every experiment, which is confusing to me. I realize it later goes on to link this : http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608238which states " The key point of this paper is the need for a comprehensive and quantitative error analysis. The concepts and techniques used in this analysis were not available in Miller's day, but are now standard. These problems also apply to the famous measurements of Michelson and Morley, and to most if not all similar experiments; appendices are provided discussing several such experiments.". So they are just allowed to say not only this experiment needs quantitive error analysis so it lines up with relativity but ALL the experiments prior do as well? That whole paragraph sounds really sketchy to me.

I see the words idiocy, stupid, and quite a few caps locked words in there. Yet, as one of the people who asked me to do a time-stamp of the video (which i gladly did!) you still refuse to have a discussion about what sungenis puts forth in the video. I honestly expected a little more from this forum, cause hey its the first one that popped up on google remember? Yes the experiments were expecting one thing, but what they found was 1/6th of that, which a lot of times were described as null results. What sungenis is saying is that 1/6th is describing a 24hour period in the geocentric model, and that these results are consistent through like what, 80 years of testing? I bring up these interferometer experiments because it seems like what sungenis is holding onto the most (outside of the CMB data), he even notes how einstein said "if michaelson - morley is wrong, relativity is wrong". Did einstein actually say that?

Ok, lets talk about the science then. I was asked to do some timestamps (understandably) and what i linked above he talks about interferometer experiments. This is one of the main things sungenis focuses on, and was one of the things that grabbed my attention because of how long they have been doing these experiements with basically the same results. Is the experiement itself flawed? Were the instruments used flawed? How do they keep getting results that fly in the face of relativity? If anyone wants to watch the youtube clip i linked above that starts at 13:20 and goes to around 21:00, then just post your thoughts about what he is getting at with the inferometer experiements and why they seem to contradict relativity.

Ya i mean i get you. What initially turned me off to sungenis was the clear religious motivations, but the more i thought about it that is the only way you can view a geocentric model, you have to bring a creator into the mix for it to make sense. What im trying to figure out is there more resistance to geocentrism because of the religious implications or is the science of it what is holding it back. (again referencing my original post of how ive never seen this talked about). Edit: For grammerz.

Its just the way i am, i need to hear all theories and try and figure them out myself. I don't like to dismiss things so quickly, ive made a mistake early in my life with dismissing something and it came back to bite me (which i need not get into here lol). I never said i support what he is saying, i just found it interested especially the interferometer experiments. Its not that i dont follow mainstream science, of course i do! This is literally the first idea ive entertained outside of mainstream science, simply because i was getting impatient with the particle colliders. That probably sounds selfish but i want to be alive for a big discovery.

Hmm really, so the "axis of evil" shown in some of the originals is now long gone and no remnants of this remain? This is one of the things sungenis points to when backing up his claims. Does the 38 degree angle still remain? If you watch from about 13:20 to 21:00 he talks about the inferometer experiments, around 18:20 he mentions the gale experiments. They claim all of the experiments were not a null result, but 1/6th of what was expected if the earth was moving around the sun. 1/6th works out to a perfect representation to the 24 hour cycle in geocentrism they go on to point out. In this time chunk they also claim einstein never mentioned sagnac or michaelson gale experiment in any of his papers, and the reason for this is the positive results (1/6th) for these experiments would nullify special relativity, this is explained at about 19:10. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMr8lb2tYvo#t=13m20s I googled how to timestamp, hope that worked lol.

Two things before i go to sleep: 1. I am not a conspiracy theory type person. I am actually disgusted by people who say 9/11 was an inside job. I dont watch ancient aliens and my tin foil goes to cooking pigs in a blanket. 2. Evolution. I know sungenis is against this theory (duh) but to me ive always taken evolution as fact, even as a kid i thought this and i dont know where i got it because i surely didnt study out of school. I just wanted to make these two things clear, i dont know what kind of perceptions people have but judging by some of the comments i felt that would be somewhat helpful. Feel free to link anything you think would be helpful, michaelson morley experiments seem to be evidence for both sides so im not sure i can accept these lol. Surely, more experiments have been done since then? (genuinely dont know). Anywho, off to bed thanks for the chat and trying to be civil with a peasant like myself

Ya i really cant expect people to watch both videos, the first one isnt sungenis but his buddy ,tho it also lays out most of what they are talking about. Sungenis goes more into detail in the 2nd, but you get the gist from the first. I know the way i type about this stuff i probably sound like a fanboy for sungenis, that really isnt the case. I just find a lot of the stuff he puts forward as intriguing, and until i find hard evidence (this should exist, either we have measured the earths movement or we havent) i gotta at least keep it in the back of my head.

So you are telling me scientists are not already planning a larger collider in the future? Point i was getting at with that comment is when, when is big big enough. If they found dark energy/matter tomorrow id be thrilled, ever since i heard about it ive been waiting and waiting and waiting, it got to the point where i had a bookmarked keywords so i didnt have to type them everyday. Ok sure maybe im impatient ill give you that, but correct if i am wrong didnt we expect to find darm matter and/or dark energy in this current LHC?

Again why must you guys attack me instead of sungenis, im just a messenger cause yall are too lazy to watch the vid!He touches on both foucalts pendant and goes into detail about michaelson and gale and uses it in his argument. PLEASE i am not saying what he says as fact, i am just noting the evidence you guys are throwing at me and the evidence i saw in the video is the same thing.....how can that be!

Sorry i didn't mean science as a whole, i am specifically talking about the LHC and how 10 years ago (or more now?) the LHC was expected to solve everything, i remember people saying this back then. Now just recently people are saying no, we need wayyyyy bigger. And my comment "when is this gonna end" i wasnt referring to science lol, i mean when is the larger and larger colliders gonna stop, how BIG do they need to get before people start questioning things.

Thats actually hilarious, this experiment is one of the main things sungenis points to that supports his claims in the video i linked. I wish so much at least one of you watched the videos i linked, just to know where im coming from and what sungenis is getting at. Would make this so much easier to either disprove him, or maybe (possibly?) any of his points are eye openers to people who frequent this forum (im not asserting that would happen, but wouldnt that be crazy!?)

Icwutudidthar! No, i am no more attatched to this than i am anything else, i just find it exceedingly interesting and am exploring if its at all possible. Also im not sure with multiverses, in geocentrism gravity still exists so i imagine so does quantum physics. But i do know with geocentrism there is no big bang, and there is no need for dark matter or dark energy.

Sungenis is very convincing in that we have actually never measured the movement or rotation of the earth, if you could link me a study or experiment that unequivocally proves we have that is enough for me. Whats funny about what sungenis says tho, is that if you actually were able to prove that the earth was moving, it in itself would disprove relativity (i cannot remember exactly why, but i remember this quote).

Ive considered mainstream science but whats taking so long! Again like i said before they all say bigger is better when talking about colliders, wasn't LHC supposed to be the saving grace 10 years ago? Now why are they talking about the next one, does it ever end? Let me be clear tho, with a gun to my head im going with einstein at this point, but i cant rule out other things as well. I think you are taking my interest in sungenis a bit far, cause its very interesting to me right now. The one thing i keep holding onto with geocentrism is that you do NOT have to create multiverses with this model nor do you need dark matter or dark energy. To me its the occams razor, it works on SOOOOOO much stuff in life why wouldnt it work with the universe. And please dont hold back for my sake strange, im pretty solid in dealing with insults and the like.

The movie is one thing, but i havent seen it! Like i said i came across these videos 5 or 6 months ago before i even heard about the movie. Everyone in here says he is a lying bastard with religious motivations (that last part could surely be true, but so what?). But what ive seen of him is that he has spent a hell of a long time working this out, and talks to small groups of people cause he enjoys doing it, he does not seem like he is trying to trick people he just wants to be heard. Why would a dude spend so much time and energy on something when its likely he will never be widely accepted? You could even go as far as saying he is sabotaging himself.....but for what reason, he believes it! Again im not subscribed to anything right now im just in the fact gathering stage, but when i see a dude like sungenis with all that passion time and hard work for what amounts to a hill of beans, i respect that. Quite a few people who have replied to this thread have said its been disproven time and time again, but i still havent seen the concrete evidence that i need to say "ok there it is, sungenis is full of shit". Until then i need to keep this idea in my head, thats just how my brain works.

I really am capable of critical thinking i just sound like an idiot on a forum because i never paid attention in english lol. Listen dont think i cant understand where you guys are coming from, whats the point in discussing something like this when according to all the literature (minus the ones sungenis points out of course) says otherwise? Its the entire basis of our understanding of the cosmos, how do you even start a conversation to the contrary? What really disappoints me though is the people who must only come back at me with terms you know i likely havent even heard of. If i didnt make it abundantly clear i have a limited science background and am only doing my best to convey what sungenis is trying to get across. It actually does feel like bullying, but if you and me were in a room together i can guarantee none of you would act this way, its the internet that changes people.

It seems this definitely was the wrong forum to post in, i literally just googled science forum and this was the first one to pop up. What really saddens me with some of these replies is how negative the tone is, when all i am trying to do is figure out why we have been stuck in science for so long. I am only looking for alternatives, thinking outside the box you could say is this not a good thing? I realize now just how hard it is to talk about these types of things, even if you leave the hard stuff out like religion. Its just so deeply ingrained in everyone even entertaining the idea is an extremely difficult thing to do. If you guys cant even play along on a sub thread of a random science forum i cant imagine how hard this is for robert sungenis in dealing with people in normal everyday scenarios. I guess this will be my first and last thread on this forum lol i dont know what else to say i feel like im getting ganged up on. Anywho thanks to the people who tried to have a chat.

Like i said in my OP, im not good at putting my thoughts down into words (or others apparently lol). I think everyone in this thread is still confused as to what is actually being proposed by this man, everything you know about current science needs to go out the window, relativity is make believe. They are proposing a different set of rules that changes a lot of things, but not everything (for example gravity works great here). When you reply to my comments about the speed of light you are replying based on your current knowledge of the universe with relativity in mind, im asking you (not me, sungenis lol) to just open up a bit. Can we not talk about the possibilty of this being true? This is the speculation forum right lol? Again im not subscribed to anything but im a firm believer of having an open mind, we have been wrong about TONS of stuff in the past why is it so crazy to think maybe einstein was wrong when the evidence proposed upon us....makes at least a little bit of sense? I really dont wanna get into a bullet point argument of people just linking wiki's trying to prove me wrong when im not even trying to prove anything right, can we not just entertain some really neat ideas that have at least a small possibility of changing the entire universe as we know it?

Agreed i really should read more lol, but when i say youtube videos i mean debates/lectures with renowned scientists of our day i dont only watch videos like this topic is about. Im being serious i cannot remember them talk about this at all really. In the presentation they also touch on GPS satellites, and claim the speed of light is only constant when in relation to the receivers on the earth. If you are in a plane while moving away from the satellite and turn your lights on, they claim you need to add the velocity of the plane to light, calling this vector addition. They also say the opposite is true, if you are flying towards the satellite you would need to minus your speed from light to get your actual speed. How they get to this point is by saying the satellites themselves are pre-programmed with the sagnac effect, that they would not function without this. The sagnac effect is the same resistance as the Michaelson gale experiment found as i listed above, where the null result was actually a small positive indicating the 24 hour period (again of the universe revolving around us as the center of mass in the universe). This stuff is so entertaining lol. Sorry i cannot speak to the abberation effect because as i asked earlier i am not sure if these theory depends on the interferometer experiments being true (null). As for the season thing, that means because they did not find a null result but a small positive....our ideas of a season wont fit in the heliocentric model because there simply is not enough movement, only a geocentric model fits.

But all of the predictions before they got results of the CMB (based on relativity) expected total uniformity. What came back is completely different and i honestly cant remember anyone even talking about CMB in any of the hundreds of videos ive seen on youtube, maybe for the fact they cant explain it?

I think you are missing the point he is getting at, take earth out of that equation altogether, say its pointing at neptune....its still pointing somewhere (remember no special places in relativity). The pointing at earth thing is incredible of course, but the fact its pointing at anything is equally as crazy right?

But those experiments do not show that we move at 30 km/s. Sungenis goes on to say later when michaelson teamed up with a different guy they found the same (smaller than expected) result as in 1887, but again it did not explain the 30 km/s instead it explained a 24 hour rotation (universe revolving around us) which was the goal of that experiment. He goes on to point out that in a heliocentric system, this number is not sufficient enough to explain the seasons because in a heliocentric model you need not only a rotating earth but a revolving earth.

With geocentrism, being at the center of the universe goes directly at odds with relativity. With relativity there are no special places in the universe. Im sure i understood this the first time i watched the video, but in my stuper i somehow mixed up relativity with gravity (newtons gravity works in geocentrism). That has to be how i messed that up. Now when talking about the CMB, they list this as one of the big points of proof. They say (and ive seen this in pictures, actually) that the background shows two large planes of hot and cold (which should not be there in relativity, because again there are no special places in the universe) and that where those planes intersect is directly at the equinoxes of earth. Now should this alone be proof? Like someone said in this thread could it simply be an error of the equipment? The predictions of the CMB were that it was going to be entirely uniform, so when it came back like it did surely eyebrows had to been raised. They even elaborate on this by mentioning the tilt of the universe, and how the tilt of the CMB is exactly what was predicted by an astronomer before galileo who also predicted the universe is on a 38 degree tilt, which is what the CMB came back with. I havent started the second part but that is mostly what the first is, along with the M M experiments.

Im sorry you wrote that all up, but as you can see above i was wrong (unbelievably lol) in saying that geocentrism is in line with general relativity.....turns out it isnt. More to come.