Is the Stationary Earth the Heaviest Object in the Universe?

[Sparko]

You guys are all wrong!!!! There is no Aether!!! The reason the planets stay up in the sky and why satellites can be stationary can all be explained by my new concept: The String Theory.

It is very simple and I can explain it with a simple diagram:

4.GIF

[hansgeorg]

The String Theory. It is very simple and I can explain it with a simple diagram:

Humm, and angels are attaching satellites to strings when we send them up?

Obviously, with no aether, angelic beings or human fraud would be my next candidate explanations for why geostationary satellites work.

[Sparko]

Humm, and angels are attaching satellites to strings when we send them up?

Obviously, with no aether, angelic beings or human fraud would be my next candidate explanations for why geostationary satellites work.

Sticky Strings. They attach themselves to anything launched into space.

[hansgeorg]

Sticky Strings. They attach themselves to anything launched into space.

I see a problem with that one : it would not be predictable where exactly a string which is sticky drops down to.

In other words, scientists would be launching a satellite for an orbit x and it would get caught too early or too late and remain in orbit y or z.

Also, the geometry seems a bit too two dimensional for this to cover all known orbits.

[Roy]

I fail to see the point you're making. The only way I can get your 'we've never observed an electron' to make sense, in the sense of never having seen one with the naked eye. But that's trivially true of all microscopic things, that can only be seen through various instruments. Even more so for the structure of DNA, which was can be detected only through (first through crystallography, and today we can do it by NMR spectroscopy).

And we can add that parallax is only viewed through a telescope.

You can add that if you like, but it isn't true. Parallax is trivially viewable simply be walking through a room. Even some forms of astronomical parallax are detectable without telescopes - lunar parallax, for example, or the parallax of planet positions against the stellar background.
But aether isn't the Aristotelic "light element" - those were air and fire. Aristotle introduced an extra (first or fifth, depending on the ordering) element which he associated with the heavens. Also, Aristotle actually wrote of a light element (fire), a heavy element (earth) and two intermediate ones (air, water).

* it is medium for light, place, qualities.

It's traditionally seen as being super-light, and completely lacking in hot/cold//wet/dry.

Now, in atmosphere, there are fewer atoms than in solid objects, which means the aether is denser

Not necessarily. It could mean there is more aether of the same density. The density of water in a bucket doesn't change if you drop a brick in it, only the density of the combined substance.

and nucleic matter less dense. This also implies that aether is per se moving around the nucleic matter of oxygen molecules westward

It doesn't - you'd need additional premises to conclude westward movement - particularly in light of this:

Above atmosphere, the aether is moving westward.

In objects, the aether is not moving,

If aether is motionless within objects it could be motionless within the atmosphere too.

except if electric currents are movements of aether along with electric charges (these being a qulity for which aether is the medium).

Lightning strikes do not flow westward. Therefore either electric currents don't flow with aether, or aether doesn't flow westwards.

In vicinity of nucleic matter, aether is not evenly distributed, since it provides the shell for the atoms appearing as balls (the big ball and the two smaller ones in a water molecule, as seen through electronic microscopy).

Those are electron shells, not aether shells.

I was saying that the "electron moving" through a magnetic field originates, by "particularisation" in part of aether and electric charge of the surrounding of a nucleus.

What you actually said was this: "Electrons moving through a magnetic field would be another thing. If originating in aether around nucleus at all, they would be a particularisation.". You obviously don't know what Leonhard meant by deflection of an electron in a magnetic field.

It really seems you scientists have a huge linguistic problem, when facing statements about anything like alternative science.

The only 'linguistic problem' is that you and your ilk don't understand technical terms and don't define your cargo-cult terminology.Then stars, since they move westward at "star speed", would also fall down.

This means, a speed either eastward or westward through aether is a vector keeping satellite up.

Then how do stars stay up without a speed eastward or westward through aether? Another bunch of angels? Attachment to a non-existent firmament? Denser aether?Like stars don't.You've given the period for the sidereal day, which is based on the vernal equinox. This is very slightly different from the stellar day which is how long it takes for a star to appear over the same spot.

You are saying "because a adequately explains known phenomenon we know a is true" and at same time "even though b adequately explains known phenomenon, b is not true, simply because a is".

No he isn't. In particular, he's not saying that b (your aether idea) adequately explains known phenomena, because it doesn't.

That is a paralogism, a fallacy. I am giving the reasoning of Riccioli and reaffirming that at the most basic, we do not know.

That is a fallacy - the claim that because we don't know everything, we don't know anything.

No, we don't know it, you think you know it.

We know it. That 'we' doesn't include you.

So, you know it is wrong exactly how?

Foucault's pendulum, Coriolos forces, stellar parallax, and many other things you don't understand.

In short, Everything You Know Is Wrong. Not that I'd expect better from some-one who thinks the planets are rolled around by angels.

[Sparko]

I see a problem with that one : it would not be predictable where exactly a string which is sticky drops down to.

There are a LOT of strings. Can't miss.

In other words, scientists would be launching a satellite for an orbit x and it would get caught too early or too late and remain in orbit y or z.

All depends on the length of the string and the speed of the rocket. It has to slow down at a certain height in order for the string to attach itself.

Also, the geometry seems a bit too two dimensional for this to cover all known orbits.

the earth is flat.

[Duragizer]

I believe Sparko makes a better case for geocentrism than any of the geocentrists here.

[shunyadragon]

the earth is flat.

No, it is dome shaped held up by pillars on the backs of elephants.

[hansgeorg]

You can add that if you like, but it isn't true. Parallax is trivially viewable simply be walking through a room. Even some forms of astronomical parallax are detectable without telescopes - lunar parallax, for example, or the parallax of planet positions against the stellar background.

The observable parallaxes are not the ones I was talking about, namely annual stellar parallax, which I most often see referred to as "parallax", especially in Geo/Helio debates.

But aether isn't the Aristotelic "light element" - those were air and fire. Aristotle introduced an extra (first or fifth, depending on the ordering) element which he associated with the heavens. Also, Aristotle actually wrote of a light element (fire), a heavy element (earth) and two intermediate ones (air, water). It's traditionally seen as being super-light, and completely lacking in hot/cold//wet/dry.

And my theory on aether, whether I should bury it or not after Shunyadragon's comment, is that there is more aether in fire and in electricity than in air, more aether in air than in water, more aether in water than in earth/solids.

Reason being that space between nucleic matter is not vacuum but aether.

Not necessarily. It could mean there is more aether of the same density. The density of water in a bucket doesn't change if you drop a brick in it, only the density of the combined substance.

You are talking about the "density" which is synonymous to specific weight.

I am nearly doing so too.

All space is either aether or nucleic matter. The denser the nucleic matter, the less completely dense the aether. The less dense nucleic matter, the closer aether gets to 100% density.

It doesn't - you'd need additional premises to conclude westward movement - particularly in light of this:

Above atmosphere, the aether is moving westward.

In objects, the aether is not moving,

If aether is motionless within objects it could be motionless within the atmosphere too.

If aether is motionless within atmosphere, that solves one problem (cannon balls of Tower of Pisa), but creates another, how the westward movement of the Universe is trasnmitted to equatorial winds and currents.

Lightning strikes do not flow westward. Therefore either electric currents don't flow with aether, or aether doesn't flow westwards.Those are electron shells, not aether shells. What you actually said was this: "Electrons moving through a magnetic field would be another thing. If originating in aether around nucleus at all, they would be a particularisation.". You obviously don't know what Leonhard meant by deflection of an electron in a magnetic field.The only 'linguistic problem' is that you and your ilk don't understand technical terms and don't define your cargo-cult terminology.Then stars, since they move westward at "star speed", would also fall down. Then how do stars stay up without a speed eastward or westward through aether? Another bunch of angels? Attachment to a non-existent firmament? Denser aether?Like stars don't.You've given the period for the sidereal day, which is based on the vernal equinox. This is very slightly different from the stellar day which is how long it takes for a star to appear over the same spot.

If aether in objects does not move with the universe (since nucleic matter blocks it from doing so), there is no problem in electric currents being aether currents without moving westward.

You missed that the theory on which Leonhard wanted a clarification so he could calculate was precisely that the "shells around nuclei" actually are aether and not electrons as in particles.

Stars having angels is not a problem for my theory - especially if their specific weight is better in tune with aether than with nucleic matter, more light than heavy, but even without.

No he isn't. In particular, he's not saying that b (your aether idea) adequately explains known phenomena, because it doesn't.That is a fallacy - the claim that because we don't know everything, we don't know anything.We know it. That 'we' doesn't include you.Foucault's pendulum, Coriolos forces, stellar parallax, and many other things you don't understand.

It was for him to reply that my idea doesn't.

It actually does explain Foucault and Coriolis pretty well (and I have angelic movers for stellar parallax), as long as I don't have to answer about cannon balls from Tower of Pisa.

I'll see what I can do on that one.

In short, Everything You Know Is Wrong. Not that I'd expect better from some-one who thinks the planets are rolled around by angels.

Now, that is simply temporal snobbery.

I am reviving as far as I can scholasticism, and you are writing off the attempt as ignorance of current theories. It is not. I am however hampered, if one may put it like that, by having few collaborators who would willingly help me fix what I get wrong, in the sense I want, unlike what people who, having many allies, can count on help whenever blundering.

Like, I answered Leonhard, and it was a boon to him that you and Sparko answered, I think he needs time to think too.

[hansgeorg]

There are a LOT of strings. Can't miss.

Could miss the one you were heading for by its being caught by another one first, especially if there are a lot of them.

All depends on the length of the string and the speed of the rocket. It has to slow down at a certain height in order for the string to attach itself.

I can only say, I don't think so.

the earth is flat.

There I have positive disproof, seasons in Southern Hemisphere, particularly long days in December very far South.

[Sparko]

I believe Sparko makes a better case for geocentrism than any of the geocentrists here.

Yeah the String Theory has no flaws. Also I want to add my addendum, which I call the Intelligent Design String Theory. The universe is full of what I call Smart Strings, that know when to attach to various satellites in order to keep them at various orbits.

[Sparko]

No, it is dome shaped held up by pillars on the backs of elephants.

unpossible! We would just slide off!

[Sparko]

Could miss the one you were heading for by its being caught by another one first, especially if there are a lot of them.



I can only say, I don't think so.

I have modified my theory into the Intelligent Design String Theory (see post above) which solves all of the problems you brought up.

There I have positive disproof, seasons in Southern Hemisphere, particularly long days in December very far South.

All explained by the variations in the sun's orbit

[Roy]

And my theory on aether, whether I should bury it or not after Shunyadragon's comment, is that there is more aether in fire and in electricity than in air, more aether in air than in water, more aether in water than in earth/solids.

Well that totally contradicts Aristotle and company, who stated that the additional element was separate and distinct from air/water/fire/earth.

You are talking about the "density" which is synonymous to specific weight.

I am nearly doing so too.

No you aren't - you're talking about percentage composition:

All space is either aether or nucleic matter. The denser the nucleic matter, the less completely dense the aether. The less dense nucleic matter, the closer aether gets to 100% density.

Stars having angels is not a problem for my theory - especially if their specific weight is better in tune with aether than with nucleic matter, more light than heavy, but even without.[/quote]If your theory requires undetectable angels that hold up the stars and wiggle them about* then that most definitely is a problem for your theory.

Now, that is simply temporal snobbery.

I am reviving as far as I can scholasticism, and you are writing off the attempt as ignorance of current theories. It is not.

No, it is not ignorance of current theories. You are also demonstrably ignorant of ancient theories and common knowledge. You are also oblivious to ridicule.

I am however hampered, if one may put it like that, by having few collaborators who would willingly help me fix what I get wrong, in the sense I want, unlike what people who, having many allies, can count on help whenever blundering.

There are lots of people here who would help you fix what you get wrong if only you would drop your base assumption that you are right and they are wrong.

*To generate the observed stellar parallax

[hansgeorg]

If your theory requires undetectable angels that hold up the stars and wiggle them about* then that most definitely is a problem for your theory.

*To generate the observed stellar parallax

OK, you entertain an atomic theory which involves electrons never detected per se, at least when bound in shells?

Is that a problem for your theory?

There are lots of people here who would help you fix what you get wrong if only you would drop your base assumption that you are right and they are wrong.

If I did, I would probably beat most of them on the fingers about details of your theory.

Most, not all. Certainly not Leonhard, very soon.

But bottom line, I don't need such help, because I wouldn't need it if I dropped the assumption you suppose is mine, or the one which really is.

That being : we see Earth as still, confirmed by other sense equilibrial sense. We see celestial bodies moving.

If I can accept that as observed, without meddling it around with this illusion of parallactic type or that illusion of being used to the speed, I prefer angels moving them over not believing what my eyes see as moving also moves, when I am not in a travel situation myself, and an obvious rather than theoretic one.