In Which The Universe Revolves Around Robert Sungenis – Part 2

See Part 1, in which I discuss the lecture, here

Let me begin by apologizing for the delay in completing this analysis. Needless to say, it was a daunting task to dissect the debate in a comprehensive way. Although I cannot possibly encompass the extent of ridiculousness that occurred that evening, I humbly offer my very best attempt. 

“A lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on.”

– Charles Haddon Spurgeon, often falsely (and ironically) attributed to Mark Twain

After “Dr.” Sungenis’ performance the previous evening, I must confess that I was quite excited by the prospect of having someone debate him. He clearly was an experienced orator, but it was hair-pullingly aggravating to have to sit through a solid hour of his verbal diarrhea. The prospect of someone calling him out on his insane conclusions delighted me, though I must admit that I had trepidations as well. I knew in advance that the individual who had stepped forward to debate Dr. Sungenis was not a professor of Astronomy, or even a graduate of that program. They had recruited, with a week’s notice, an undergraduate student. A knowledgable undergrad, but nonetheless, it hardly seemed fair.That none of the faculty stepped forward to open the can of proverbial whoop-ass was disappointing. I would have sorely loved to see him verbally eviscerated.

Nonetheless, the introductions began on a similar note as the night before. Mr. Adam Cousins, undergraduate. Dr. Robert Sungenis, doctorate! Again, the moderator emphasizes Dr. Sungenis’ penis thesis length, as if this should be impressive. I believe we have happened upon a new fallacy, my friends:

Argumentum ad book length-ium

Although, perhaps I should give some credit, as I confess that unlike the good doctor, I would probably not be able to vomit 700 pages worth of logically untenable text. I suspect I would be all tuckered out by page 40 and be ready for a nice cup of tea and a nap.

In any case, the statement to be debated was “A geocentric system is a false cosmological assumption.” Notice that this put Adam on the positive side of the debate – it was his job to defend reality, rather than to attack Dr. Sungenis’ argument. It was also worded in such a way that it could not be argued that geocentrism can be a useful cosmological assumption, as a frame of reference, say, in the orbit of the moon. Ultimately, the debate was asking Adam to prove Dr. Sungenis as wrong, rather than Dr. Sungenis having to prove himself correct. It is a subtle distinction, but utterly key in maintaining an unfair advantage. As long as Dr. Sungenis could plant some seed of a doubt, demonstrate that in some minute way that geocentrism was possible, the debate was his to win.

Adam opened the debate, reading from a written statement he prepared in advance. Although I understand why he did it, I do wish that he might have given himself talking points instead. When speaking off the cuff he was quite engaging and passionate about the science, but in reading he stumbled nervously and lost his intonation. It weakened his presentation, though not his science, in a partially hostile audience – a charismatic lecture would have served his case far better than a dry recitation. Still, he opened up admirably, and even brought along props! In order to explain how a stationary earth could not exist in a universe rotating around it, he floated a ping pong ball in a dish of water. He then got the water spinning as a demonstration of the ether (and universe) spinning around the world. As the water pulled on the ball and set it into motion despite being originally stationary, so would a rotating ether around the Earth. It was brilliantly simple.

He also pointed out that the infamous Michelson/Morley experiments failed to demonstrate the existence of the luminiferous ether and were repeated well into modern times – with consistent negative results. Furthermore, he argued that Newtonian physics is required for geocentrist theories to function, and yet those same Newtonian laws defy geocentrism. Overall, it was a solid start.

Dr. Sungenis’ opening statement was a well-formed mess (Katamari-style) of misquotation, appeal to authority, and “evidence.”

Direct quote: "A rose by any other name is still a rose." Really? Misquoting Shakespeare? Do I need to just play "Storm" by Tim Minchin on loop to rebut this guy?

The most aggravating part of his arguments was that they simply were wrong. On a base level, he did not or refused to understand. He argued that the mass of the universe isn’t accounted for by heliocentrism, due to some twist of logic about gravity and saying that scientists have added dark matter ad hoc to make equations work. He argued that if the Big Bang is true, the universe must be homogenous, and yet did not explain why that should be true. If anything, Newtonian physics – the law of universal gravitation – says that things should form in clumps as larger masses attracted smaller masses into them. And then the ether. Again, again with the ether. I did take debate in junior high, and one of the first rules of good debating is to not introduce a term without a definition. To this moment I still have no idea what it is or why it would be there, and I find it aggravating that Dr. Sungenis could not deign to define it for us lowly audience members. Still, he insisted that ether does exist with the sort of adamant tone that the Little Engine That Could would take: it does exist it does exist it does it does it does! The null results, he proclaimed, were because science was working under a heliocentric assumption. Of course, that old stand-by of pseudoscience, “quantum” came up. Watch out Deepak Chopra. Somehow, quantum fluctuations are the covert name for ether. It’s the same thing, but with a fancy new sciencey name.

He tried to rebut Adam’s ping pong ball experiment by saying that well, of course that’s not how it works. The ether rotates backwards while the universe rotates forwards. There is no explanation for the forces necessary to sustain such a situation. I imagine that such an illogical situation could only be explained by the hand of some sort of magical being.

Then the evidence! Don’t worry, it’s “substantial.” For a moment, I might have been worried. Happily, the most recent “evidence” dates back to 1929 with Hubble’s Law. Hubble’s law is somehow proof of… something? Because the Doppler shift shows… something? George Ares in 1871 said something as well, but he talked about it too quickly for me to write down, and Google is no help. Of course, Michelson/Morley found nothing but error bars, and those error bars are evidence!

Pictured: EVIDENCE!!!

I suppose I’m breaking my own rules in bringing in a term without defining it. For those who are unfamiliar with statistical significance in a scientific perspective, error bars are representative of the variability of your data. Although simple standard deviation will do for most medical settings (showing the range of data), most other situations call for standard error of the mean. This means you take the average of your data points (the mean). Then, you calculate the standard deviation of those data points. However, as you do more experiments, more replicates, more “n,” you become more confident in your data, and you can be more sure of the real mean outside of the noise. Thus, you divide your standard deviation by the square root of the “n” or number of replicates. So, while we can be rather unsure about a data point with high variability over 5 replicates, we can be quite certain of something which occurs around a particular data point 500 times. I’m sure a statistician could correct me on the details (I don’t know why we do the square root of n, for example) but the principle remains the same. When I look at the Michelson Morley data, I see data points fluxing around zero with relatively massive error bars. The only way in which this could be considered data is in that it is negative data.

He also appealed to the scientific authority of Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss – prominent physicists. He assured us that these two juggernauts offer two explanations for current evidence from cosmology, one of which is (according to Sungenis) a geocentrist viewpoint. Not only am I utterly certain that he was quoting them out of context, he once again failed to provide any reason why should they interpret data that way, or even offer the alternate explanation. With that, the opening arguments were over.

In his rebuttal, Adam did an admirable job of pointing out some of the flaws in Dr. Sungenis’ opening. He also brought forward Doppler shift – the changing in the spectrum of light received from stars as they move away from or towards us. Much like Doppler effect in sound, the shift is only seen when stars move towards or away from us. If a given object was indeed in orbit around us, a perfect orbit would result in no shift, while an ellipse would result in an unstable Doppler shift: redshift as it moved further away in the orbit and blueshift when it came back around. In other words, the stable Doppler shifts observed are evidence of an expanding universe moving mostly away from us, directly opposing a geocentric universe.

Dr. Sungenis countered the Doppler shift data by citing data from 1932 and citing his book. Note that he was not actually providing the evidence from his book, merely promising answers which only could be obtained by purchasing and reading it. Given that he wrote it, I am sadly disappointed that he was incapable of providing the direct evidence verbatim. Another gem: “Mathematics cannot prove anything.” Ironic, considering that mathematics is the only science that can deal in literal proofs!

This is incidental to the point, but nonetheless an excellent time to say that calculus blows.

Adam next questioned how something as large as a galaxy could move towards the earth in a geocentric theory, and why the universe does not wobble in its rotation given its non-uniform density. In return, he was given an assertion that blue shifts are possible, but no mechanism or evidence. Wobbles were acknowledged but why individual systems wobbled but not the entire universe was left unanswered. Dr. Sungenis further gleefully asserted that Newton was wrong – there is a centrifugal force, and that’s what maintains the orbits of the universe. It came up several times that it must exist because if you twirl a ball on a string and then let it go, it will go flying off! He kept asking what the name of the force that causes that is… it’s a tangental force due to momentum, you fool. What do you think it would do, just stop dead and fall straight down?

The debate finished with perhaps the most entertaining part of the evening – the cross-examination. Adam really excelled in this area. He asked Dr. Sungenis to define standard error, since he refused to acknowledge the negative data of Michelson-Morley. Dr. Sungenis stumbled through. He also returned to the wobble question with this delightful (paraphrased) exchange:

Adam: Is the universe homogeneous?

Sungenis: No.

Adam: Then how is it balanced?

Sungenis: I don’t understand.

Adam: If the universe rotates around the earth as a focal point with very little wobble, it must be balanced. How is a non-homogenous universe balanced?

Sungenis: Matter is proportionally balanced.

Adam: Can you prove it?

Sungenis: No, but I don’t have to!

He's special, you see.

Sungenis’ hard-hitting questions, by contrast, fell to the now-predictable appeal to authority – starting by asking if Adam would accept what Stephen Hawking says about the Michelson-Morely experiments. Adam, wisely, said that he couldn’t without knowing what he said and why he said it. Quote mining thwarted!

There were quite a few interesting moments in the question period as well. An astrophysics postdoctoral student asked Dr. Sungenis to define the dipole, quadripole and octipole – something he couldn’t do. She also rightly pointed out that of course we are at the centre of the observable universe, by sheer definition, since we can see a specific radius around us. Dr. Sungenis countered, utterly failing to appreciate the irony of his statement, that of course she might think that, since she had been indoctrinated over the course of her PhD.

And in what was perhaps the  most stunning moment of the night, one of the geocentrists in the audience (who had very rudely interrupted my questioning of Dr. Sungenis five minutes before) had the gall to ask Adam if he wasn’t being academically dishonest. I wish I could say I was grossly exaggerating his accusation. He asked Adam, ad verbatim, if it was academically dishonest for him [Adam] to debate Dr. Sungenis without first having read his book. Never mind that the burden of proof is on Dr. Sungenis if he wants to make extraordinary claims, never mind that the two-volume book is massive, never mind that Adam agreed to this debate with a week’s notice, never mind the fact that academic dishonesty consists of plagiarism, cheating ,deception, bribery or sabotage. Apparently, engaging in a discussion with someone about their academics without having already read the entirety of their work is a new class of academic dishonesty. Ultimately, I believe this flabbergasting accusation comes from a theological background, where it would be academically untenable to criticize a religious text without having read it first. It is unfortunate that some believe that such reverence is required for all printed text. I suppose someone should inform them that they are obligated to read the entirety of the political platforms as well as memoirs, newspaper articles and personal blogs of all the party leaders by May 2nd – otherwise they are being electorally dishonest.

They'd better get started - Elizabeth May alone has 6 books.

The final poll of the audience after this two hour gong show was 24 against the resolution – 18 for. Of course, as a consequence, the Earth immediately stopped in its tracks and commanded the universe to start moving around it, and all life on Earth was sent hurtling off into outer space. Sarcasm aside, it is indeed fortunate that scientific law has rarely been decided by democratic election. Dr. Sungenis’ arrogance, snideness and verbosity has left a horrible taste my mouth that I have not been able to get rid of, even a month later. If it can be said that all heliocentrists are atheists, then certainly we can generalize that all geocentrists are dickwads.

Advertisements

34 responses

  1. Pingback: In Which the Universe Revolves Around Robert Sungenis – Part 2 « The Winnipeg Skeptics

  2. Wow. Please tell me that there are audio recordings both of the talk and this debate. That I would dearly love to hear.

    • We did take video both days but, unfortunately, in order to get permission to record it he had me sign a paper saying I would not publicly distribute it.

      • Well that’s too bad. The whole things sounds very, uh, entertaining and interesting. This part is very interesting to me:

        “Since Galileo’s time, the Church has fallen in prominence and atheism has gained in popularity. Ipso facto, heliocentrism leads to atheism. Later on in the lecture, he actually said verbatim that if you did not believe in a geocentric universe you were atheist. He mentioned nothing of the numerous rational individuals who manage to somehow synthesize heliocentirsm and Catholicism. Nor does he ever demonstrate how accepting his model would mean that the Church is and always has been right about everything.”

        He really said that verbatim? Because as you said, there are millions and millions (well, billions really) of theists who don’t believe in geocentrism. Could you have a listen to the recording to verify that’s what he really said? Better yet, surely it wouldn’t violate your agreement to transcribe that quote? Thanks.

      • So, according to you, even after Robert Sungenis made such a poor performance he still won the debate. I guess it shows us many are not convinced of the moving earth, even after 300 years of ongoing propaganda from the science establishment.

        By the way, if you want to impress people about the ineptitude of Sungenis, it’s probably not a good idea to admit you couldn’t understand what he was talking about or what happens in statistical analysis of averages. When you admit your ignorance about such matters and make false statements about the value of maths and logical argumentation, then readers see you as nothing more than an axe grinding whinger.

      • JM, he won the debate by audience poll. The room was full of people who believed him going in. As I mentioned, reality does not care what democracy says.

        I also felt that it was important to be honest about the limitations of my knowledge – something Sungenis was not. I understand statistical analysis conceptually but not the mathematical theory behind the calculations (I use a program for that). I’m not a statistician, though I use statistics regularly. I’ve taken some undergraduate courses in physics and am probably slightly more educated on the topic than the average lay public. The rule of thumb when presenting to the public is to assume a Grade 10 level of education. I couldn’t understand because it wasn’t explained at all. He just said that it was cosmic background radiation and showed the images. It is a complex topic. My lack of understanding was not based in a lack of intelligence but a failure on his part to educate. He had no intention of educating anyone in the audience, and instead chose to rely on logical fallacies and force us to read his book.

  3. Adam: Is the universe homogeneous? – Sungenis: No. – Adam: Then how is it balanced? -Sungenis: I don’t understand. – Adam: If the universe rotates around the earth as a focal point with very little wobble, it must be balanced. How is a non-homogenous universe balanced? – Sungenis: Matter is proportionally balanced. – Adam: Can you prove it? – Sungenis: No, but I don’t have to!

    Any more than other scientists have to prove black matter, I suppose. Or Einstein his take on Michelson Morley. Speaking of the latter:

    Ether is a concept in older physics: if light, gravitation, et c are a kind of transmitted qualities, what is the substance transmitting them? Like, if light is a wave, what is it a wave in?

    • I don’t know how anyone could look at the Michelson Morely data (pictured above!!) and say that it is anything other than negative data. Furthermore, it’s been replicated numerous times, and as would be expected of negative data, more advanced tests with better equipment have resulted in a further regression to zero, with smaller error bars. Einstein interpreted the data exactly as any scientist would, and that is based in logic and knowledge of statistics, not wild speculation. A balanced, non-homogenous universe is a pretty extraordinary claim with absolutely no evidence to back it up, as I already discussed above. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

      Furthermore, dark matter (not black matter) is inferred from the behaviour of things which interact with them, in the same way that we can observe the behaviour of black holes, chemicals, tiny biological molecules such as RNA, etc. We can’t visually see the difference between a litre of water and a litre of hydrochloric acid, but you certainly can tell which it is by adding some baking soda! We may have even discovered a way to detect dark matter directly, as noted recently in the news.

      Neither of your examples are apt analogies for asserting an unproven statement and refusing to share the evidence for it. If Mr. Sungenis’ evidence was so compelling, why did he insist we buy his book to see it??

      As for commenting on light being a wave, wave-particle duality was quite thoroughly described a century ago. It is now taught in elementary science classes, and I’m sorry that you seem to have such astounding gaps in your basic education. Wikipedia may be an excellent resource to help you start understanding wave properties of matter.

      • No, actually Dayton Miller ran much more sophisticated and accurate experimnts for a few decades after MM and his results were consistent with the positive results of MM, but with much smaller error bars. MM apparatus could barely discern above the noise lavel, but Dayton Miller’s apparatus had a much higher resolution.

      • A little additional explanation- many modern experiments in sealed metal vacuum chambers do register closer to zero result. But even modern gas phase experiments still register non-zero results.

  4. Pingback: In Which the Universe Revolves Around Robert Sungenis – Part 1 « Subspecies

  5. Pingback: Earth Wars: Revenge of the Geocentrists | Subspecies

  6. Maybe I’m getting my double negatives mixed up, but didn’t “Geocentric cosmology is false” win? The Earth should have continued merrily on its way around the sun.

    Very nice, detailed summary. You may not be able to publish the recording, but surely you can send a copy to a friend, right?

    • Oops, no, that is my bad. Indeed, geocentrism did win out (and there was $500 on the line for Adam should he have defeated Sungenis, based on audience poll). I fixed the error. I confused myself with the double negative!

      And yes, of course, I only signed a waiver saying I would not publish it to Youtube or similar service. Privately showing it to friends is completely allowable!

  7. Pingback: Geocentric Earth lecture « Science Notes

  8. July 9, 2011 at 2:04 am ∞
    Flora,

    Both the debate and the presentation by Dr. Sungenis were recorded. I listened carefully to them both. You should be very ashamed of yourself. You are a spreader of much falsehood.

    Neither the debate nor the presentation were anywhere near to how you present them here. You appear to be some sort of vicious hellcat who has nothing better to do than spend a great deal of time in not only very falsely characterizing the debate and presentation, but going way beyond that to smear Dr. Sungenis’ good name.

    It is as though you take a real passionate glee in spreading your virulent calumny/poison about. I really pray for you that you stop spreading such falsehood. To tell falsehoods with the intention of deceiving is to lie.

    • You have no evidence of this claim. Do I need to manually transcribe the proceedings?

      I’ve been busy writing my thesis, but I would gladly back up my claims once I am finished.

      • I bet you don’t back up any of your claims. Your writing style is that of a person with an anger management problem. You deride Sungenis at every opportunity, even though he has gone out of his way to answer questions from the public and enter into public debate on cosmology.

        ————————————————————————————–
        Some evidence for the ether is provided below –

        Experiments have shown there is a periodic effect measured that changes light speed and has an influence on pendulums. Pendulums have shown a periodic effect in Australia here – http://www.allais.info/panarep/ozwork.htm See the chart – degrees v minutes from beginning near the bottom of the page. Similar experiments were set up in Panama – http://www.allais.info/panarep/panawork.htm, where it was concluded there is a cosmic effect on the pendulum, not only during the eclipse, but all the time, with a period linked to a cosmic effect.

        “I think it is certain that the pendulums are being influenced by causes external to the laboratory, and since there is no clear geophysical culprit, I think that the cause is one or more forces or pseudo-forces of non-terrestrial origin. The Sun and the Moon are obvious candidates as root causes, although conventional textbooks on rigid dynamics do not envisage the possibility of solar or lunar effects upon a physical pendulum. The only reasonable alternative is a cosmic effect, i.e. one not originating within the solar system. [If solar and lunar influences were not effective, I do not believe that planetary effects could be.]

        The acid test will be spectral analysis. It is not clear that we yet have sufficient data, but certainly the characteristic period of a solar effect will be 24 hours or a submultiple thereof such as 12 hours, the characteristic period of a lunar effect will be (about) 24 hours 50 minutes or a submultiple thereof such as 12 hours 25 minutes, and the characteristic period of a cosmic effect will be sidereal, i.e. 23 hours 56 minutes or a submultiple thereof.”

        Maurice Allais also discovered an effect on the pendulum during an eclipse. http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/media18-3.htm

        Apparently vacuum interferometers obtain null results fro aether drift, but gas interferometers consistently detect small speeds of 10km/s. To explain this, a theory is required to incorporate refraction effects to be successful.

        Dayton-Miller (1921) – Assumed the earth was moving through space and transferred the interferometer to Mt Wilson and found when temperature effects were removed, a sine wave pattern emerged due to an aether wind acting to produce a fringe shift for 10km/s wind. The small positive effect varied with each rotation of the interferometer during the day (this assumes the earth is moving, which it isn’t because it is the aether wind moving past the stationary earth), and on a yearly basis. The Lorentz contraction was not compatible with the seasonal change in the wind speed, thereby invalidating Lorentz contraction.

        The geocentric understanding is the firmament ends at the earths surface and the aether forms a vortex around the earth, causing the seasonal and yearly change in the fringe shift. The work of Maurice Allais proved Shankland’s work against Dayton-Miller to be false and demonstrated a periodic displacement of the fringe shift did exist.

        The periodic effects of the aether flow point towards an axis of the aether flow near Draco (near the North Pole – just like the CMB shows us). The aether flow depended upon time of day, season and height above sea level. Some articles are – The ether Drift experiment and the determination of the absolute motion of the earth. Reviews of Modern Physics, vol 5 (2), July 1933.

        Mill, Dayton. The ether Drift experiment at Mt Wilson Solar observatory, Physical Review, 19:407-408, 1922.

        Allais, Maurice, Des regularities tres significatives dams les observations interferometriques de Dayton C. Miller (1925-1926) CR Academy of Sceicne, Paris, t. 327, Serie II b, 1999.

        Allais, Maurice, L’origine des regularities constate dans les observations interferometriques de Dayton C. Miller (1925-1926): variations de temperature ou nisotropie de espace, CR Academy of science, Paris t 1, Serie IV, 2000.

        Allais, Maurice, “The experiments of Dayton C Miller (1925-1926) And the theory of Relativity 21st Century Science and Technology, spring 1998.

        Some online information here – http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/media12-1.htm

        Another interesting website on Maurice Allais concerning the anisotropy of space, which may well overturn the assumption of isotropic space. – http://www.allais.info/allaisdox.htm

        According to the analysis of Allais, the MM did not have a null result (as required by SR). He also found light speed varied with direction, implying an underlying universal rest frame. The earth’s cosmic translation velocity had a computational error in direction. Fringe variations have a sidereal period, with fringe extrema coinciding with the equinoxes. The data analysed by Allais has a high confidence level and statistical significance.

        Hector Munera also performed another version of the Dayton Miller experiment, using helium gas, with k2=0.00007, to test the dependence upon the refractive index. With a corrective factor of 118, Vae = 368 km/s, which is in the ball park of the MM and DM experiments when corrected from refractive reduction.

        Munera, Hector A, An Absolute Space Interpretation of the Non-Null results of the Michelson Morley and Similar experiments” in Apeiron, vol 4, Nr 2-3 Apr-July 1997. – http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_608.pdf

        Munera, Hector – Michelson Morley experiments revisited: systematic errors Consistency Among difference Experiments and Compatibility with Absolute Space, Apeiron, vol 5, Nr 1-2 January-April 1998 – http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/Munera1998.pdf

        Joos also found there was a small fringe shift when corrected from helium refraction is 433km/s. Apparently the results showed a yearly cycle for the aether around the north pole.

        Joos Georg, Die Janaer Wiederholung des Michelsonversuchs, Annalem der Physik S 5 vol 7 No 4 1930. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1…399:4/issuetoc

        Joos Georg, Theoretical Physics (1934), third edtion, London, Blackie, 1958. – http://books.google.com/books/about/…d=vIw5m2XuvpIC

        Joos Georg, and Dayton Miller, Letters to the Editor, Phyical Review, vol 45, p114, 15 Jan 1934.

        http://ether.wikiext.org/wiki/George…l_review,_1934

        Apparently the isotropy of light is a key to interpreting the MM ad MG and DM experiments in light of Special relativity theory. Yet all tests used to check the anisotropy of light were flawed –

        Evidence showing experiments failed to account for anisotropy of light speed.

        http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles…F/V10N2CAH.pdf

        http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/HPS13.pdf

        page 60 counters Roberts on the matter of fringe shift and pg 76 for comments on the Joos test.

        Roberts is also answered here –

        http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_7.htm

        and here –

        http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/media12-2.htm

        Apparently it is thought aberration of light is caused by the motion of the observer, yet there is also more to aberration than merely a relative motion of bodies as shown in this paper by Jones –

        http://iopscience.iop.org/0022-3689/4/1/018

        which is reviewed here –

        http://muj.optol.cz/~richterek/data/…ovski2004a.pdf

        JM

      • You wont provide any evidence of the proceedings at all to back up any of your claims.

        Experiments have shown there is a periodic effect measured that changes light speed and has an influence on pendulums. Pendulums have shown a periodic effect in Australia here – http://www.allais.info/panarep/ozwork.htm See the chart – degrees v minutes from beginning near the bottom of the page. Similar experiments were set up in Panama – http://www.allais.info/panarep/panawork.htm, where it was concluded there is a cosmic effect on the pendulum, not only during the eclipse, but all the time, with a period linked to a cosmic effect.

        “I think it is certain that the pendulums are being influenced by causes external to the laboratory, and since there is no clear geophysical culprit, I think that the cause is one or more forces or pseudo-forces of non-terrestrial origin. The Sun and the Moon are obvious candidates as root causes, although conventional textbooks on rigid dynamics do not envisage the possibility of solar or lunar effects upon a physical pendulum. The only reasonable alternative is a cosmic effect, i.e. one not originating within the solar system. [If solar and lunar influences were not effective, I do not believe that planetary effects could be.]

        The acid test will be spectral analysis. It is not clear that we yet have sufficient data, but certainly the characteristic period of a solar effect will be 24 hours or a submultiple thereof such as 12 hours, the characteristic period of a lunar effect will be (about) 24 hours 50 minutes or a submultiple thereof such as 12 hours 25 minutes, and the characteristic period of a cosmic effect will be sidereal, i.e. 23 hours 56 minutes or a submultiple thereof.”

        Maurice Allais also discovered an effect on the pendulum during an eclipse. http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/media18-3.htm

        Apparently vacuum interferometers obtain null results fro aether drift, but gas interferometers consistently detect small speeds of 10km/s. To explain this, a theory is required to incorporate refraction effects to be successful.

        Dayton-Miller (1921) – Assumed the earth was moving through space and transferred the interferometer to Mt Wilson and found when temperature effects were removed, a sine wave pattern emerged due to an aether wind acting to produce a fringe shift for 10km/s wind. The small positive effect varied with each rotation of the interferometer during the day (this assumes the earth is moving, which it isn’t because it is the aether wind moving past the stationary earth), and on a yearly basis. The Lorentz contraction was not compatible with the seasonal change in the wind speed, thereby invalidating Lorentz contraction.

        The geocentric understanding is the firmament ends at the earths surface and the aether forms a vortex around the earth, causing the seasonal and yearly change in the fringe shift. The work of Maurice Allais proved Shankland’s work against Dayton-Miller to be false and demonstrated a periodic displacement of the fringe shift did exist.

        The periodic effects of the aether flow point towards an axis of the aether flow near Draco (near the North Pole – just like the CMB shows us). The aether flow depended upon time of day, season and height above sea level. Some articles are – The ether Drift experiment and the determination of the absolute motion of the earth. Reviews of Modern Physics, vol 5 (2), July 1933.

        Mill, Dayton. The ether Drift experiment at Mt Wilson Solar observatory, Physical Review, 19:407-408, 1922.

        Allais, Maurice, Des regularities tres significatives dams les observations interferometriques de Dayton C. Miller (1925-1926) CR Academy of Sceicne, Paris, t. 327, Serie II b, 1999.

        Allais, Maurice, L’origine des regularities constate dans les observations interferometriques de Dayton C. Miller (1925-1926): variations de temperature ou nisotropie de espace, CR Academy of science, Paris t 1, Serie IV, 2000.

        Allais, Maurice, “The experiments of Dayton C Miller (1925-1926) And the theory of Relativity 21st Century Science and Technology, spring 1998.

        Some online information here – http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/media12-1.htm

        Another interesting website on Maurice Allais concerning the anisotropy of space, which may well overturn the assumption of isotropic space. – http://www.allais.info/allaisdox.htm

        According to the analysis of Allais, the MM did not have a null result (as required by SR). He also found light speed varied with direction, implying an underlying universal rest frame. The earth’s cosmic translation velocity had a computational error in direction. Fringe variations have a sidereal period, with fringe extrema coinciding with the equinoxes. The data analysed by Allais has a high confidence level and statistical significance.

        Hector Munera also performed another version of the Dayton Miller experiment, using helium gas, with k2=0.00007, to test the dependence upon the refractive index. With a corrective factor of 118, Vae = 368 km/s, which is in the ball park of the MM and DM experiments when corrected from refractive reduction.

        Munera, Hector A, An Absolute Space Interpretation of the Non-Null results of the Michelson Morley and Similar experiments” in Apeiron, vol 4, Nr 2-3 Apr-July 1997. – http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_608.pdf

        Munera, Hector – Michelson Morley experiments revisited: systematic errors Consistency Among difference Experiments and Compatibility with Absolute Space, Apeiron, vol 5, Nr 1-2 January-April 1998 – http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/Munera1998.pdf

        Joos also found there was a small fringe shift when corrected from helium refraction is 433km/s. Apparently the results showed a yearly cycle for the aether around the north pole.

        Joos Georg, Die Janaer Wiederholung des Michelsonversuchs, Annalem der Physik S 5 vol 7 No 4 1930. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1…399:4/issuetoc

        Joos Georg, Theoretical Physics (1934), third edtion, London, Blackie, 1958. – http://books.google.com/books/about/…d=vIw5m2XuvpIC

        Joos Georg, and Dayton Miller, Letters to the Editor, Phyical Review, vol 45, p114, 15 Jan 1934.

        http://ether.wikiext.org/wiki/George…l_review,_1934

        Apparently the isotropy of light is a key to interpreting the MM ad MG and DM experiments in light of Special relativity theory. Yet all tests used to check the anisotropy of light were flawed –

        Evidence showing experiments failed to account for anisotropy of light speed.

        http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles…F/V10N2CAH.pdf

        http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/HPS13.pdf

        page 60 counters Roberts on the matter of fringe shift and pg 76 for comments on the Joos test.

        Roberts is also answered here –

        http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_7.htm

        and here –

        http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/media12-2.htm

        Apparently it is thought aberration of light is caused by the motion of the observer, yet there is also more to aberration than merely a relative motion of bodies as shown in this paper by Jones –

        http://iopscience.iop.org/0022-3689/4/1/018

        which is reviewed here –

        http://muj.optol.cz/~richterek/data/…ovski2004a.pdf

        JM

    • And what “good name” would that be? The fellow is a laughingstock in scientific circles, and with good reason: his science is bad, and is coloured by his religious presuppositions.

      • If Sungenis is a laughing stock in scientific circles, then it should be easy to demonstrate geocentrism is false from science. So please provide the science evidence to demonstrate the invalidation of geocentrism, especially in light of the following selection of evidence in its favor –

        A unique planetary orbital flower pattern around the stationary earth – http://www.geocentricperspective.com/Flower%20Pattern.htm

        The problem of the Venus dichotomy has been resolved within a geocentric model and has not been resolved within a heliocentric model – http://www.geocentricperspective.com/Schroter.htm

        The problem of the weather patterns on earth are clearly in favor of a stationary earth – http://www.geocentricperspective.com/Restoring%20forces.htm

        The problem of negative parallax is in favor of a stellartum that moves around a stationary earth – http://www.geocentricperspective.com/Negative%20parallax.htm

        Cosmic phenomena is in favor of geocentrism, such as –

        1. Quantized galaxy light periodicity showing the galaxies are located in concentric shells around the earth
        2. Gamma ray burst focused on the earth
        3. Quasars located in spherical shells around the earth
        4. BLac and X-Ray bursts having earth centered periodicity
        5. Specroscopic Binaries and Globular clusters – axis of binary stars are pointed towards the earth (Barr effect). Globular clusters are also focused on the earth.
        6. Quantized planetary orbits – a law of planetary distances matches the preferred redshift of quasars with a ratio of 1:1.23.
        7. Sloan digital survey showing the cosmic bodies are organized around the earth in broad shells
        8 . Michelson Morley experiment showing a small fringe shift as an ether drift
        9. Michelson Gale experiment showing a small fringe shift as an ether drift
        10. Sagnac effect showing light moves at c+-v relative to the ether and absolute earth.
        11. Many other experimental outcomes as discussed in GWW

        There have even been symposiums such as the Copernicus Symposium II in 1973, in which a paper was submitted, entitled – Confrontation of Cosmological Theories with Observational Data, in which evidence was presented for a non Copernican universe.

        I also note that the apparently elegant heliocentric model is based upon a problematic Newtonian mechanics as shown here – http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/116413-johnmartin2009-s-discussion-of-modern-physics?p=1904170#post1904170

        I have also invalidated relativity theory here –
        http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/116413-johnmartin2009-s-discussion-of-modern-physics?p=1907731#post1907731

        The posts (including the 58 invalidations) were made in a physics forum where most were avowed relativists and nobody bothered to provide any compelling answers to any of the arguments made after about 1500 viewings of the arguments.

        The upshot is, because Newtonian mechanics and relativity are problematic theories, then modern science has no answer to the many failed attempts to provide experimental evidence for a moving earth. Modern science has no real answer to the small fringe shifts found in the interferometer experiments and no real answer to the periodic motion of pendulums found by Maurice Allias and others.

        Yeh, sure Robert Sungenis is a laughing stock in your eyes, but then again the mountain of evidence in favor of geocentrism points directly to the science establishment being a laughing stock and the Catholic Church being the only real bastion of truth.

        JM

  9. To Flora:
    You say, I have no evidence to back up my claim of your slanderous falsehoods which largely constitute your whole mocking nonobjective and false characterization of the presentation, the debate, and Dr. Sungenis himself. That in itself is a most presumptuous and ignorant claim since I hold within my possession the actual CD recordings which were taken at the presentation and debate. (I imagine that Dr. Sungenis has a copy himself, but if he doesn’t I can easily procure them for him.) Additionally, I guarantee you based on your own admissions that I am much more knowledgeable of the honorable man as well as admirable scholar that Dr. Sungenis is than you apparently ever will be.

    So in answer to your above question about whether you “need to manually transcribe the proceedings” yes, you do, but I doubt that you ever will because they are so dramatically different than what you claim to have really transpired in the presentation and debate. The next time I would advise you not to write up articles that are so thoroughly saturated with defamation of one’s personal presentation, work, and character unless you are thoroughly prepared from the outset to back them up with substantive evidence that can be fact checked.

    To Gem:

    You sound like the typical quick wit who probably poses as a rationale skeptic while at the same time making sure your incense doesn’t go out before the almighty secular god of science, aka scientism. So let’s get real Gem Newman if that’s your real name. What does your good name consist in? That you are not considered a so called laughingstock by a largely atheistic dominated scientific establishment who individually openly admits that they can not accept the notion of the earth at the center of the universe, not on scientific grounds, but due to philosophical pre-dispositions.

    Read the literature, perhaps starting with Sungenis’ own book where he will easily highlight it for you if you don’t believe me on this. For these “true believer” dogmatic close minded atheist types like Einstein, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, etc. a special position in the universe is simply unacceptable for them. Apriori they rule out the very consideration of geocentrism. And these scientific prostitutes are the people that Flora and you apparently stand in awe of. If the truth be known (but not manly people want to know it) the corrupted science establishment has made a laughingstock of itself. (The problem is a dumbed down public is too dumb and or too cowered to laugh.) They are the emperor with out clothes, but only a few brave souls like Sungenis dare to point it out. The rest would rather hang on to their salaried positions in ivory tower acadamialand or wherever else they are ensconced.

    So Gem say hi for me to the rest of your companions in Socarates’ cave as you continue to stare at guru-god Einstein’s fantastic shadows on the wall.

  10. Interesting that of all the astrophysics folks at the U. of Manitoba (http://www.physics.umanitoba.ca/people.html), not a single one of them (for whatever reasons) showed his or her face to debate Dr. Sungenis. (Apparently, at least one of them sat in the audience, however. How brave!) Instead undergrad Adam Cousins had to pull yeoman’s duty. Hats off to you Adam. You did your best and you were a gentleman in your presentation as was Dr. Sungenis.

    • Do you blame them?
      Adam should not have accepted the debate with such short notice and little experience in the field.

      The woman in the audience who was a had Phd. in astronomy was fantastic. She left in the middle, most likely due to the ignorant comments directed towards her from Sungenis. I applaud her and her patience for sticking it out as long as she did.

  11. Nobody forced anyone to debate and no one forced anyone to come to the debate. Jusariou says, “The woman in the audience who was a had Phd. in astronomy was fantastic.” Right, but of course.

    • James, I enjoy this banter with you.

      Thank you for commenting on our (flora and Jusarious) blog.

      I wonder if there is anything your skeptical about other than what we are talking about? For instance, what are your thoughts on Bigfoot, Qray bracelets, Aliens, Meaning of Life, etc.?

      Winnipeg Skeptics are holding the second annual Skepticamp, September 17th. So far all the topics to be presented have nothing to do with Religion making it a zone that may be less awkward to a Theist while being an example of the diversity of Skepticism. I will be Co-Hosting the event as well as presenting a talk on the “Star Trek Utopia, is it obtainable by humanity”. My talk will be less of a talk and more of a directed discussion between participants. I would welcome your view on my topic.

      Check out the Winnipeg Skeptics Meetup for information. Best of all, it’s FREE!

  12. Wow if this is all you have against that man who simply defended GEOCENTRISM, the bad theory by definition, well, the guy won the discussion. 100 to 0. sorry.

  13. Pingback: The Universe Goes Around What? | Egocentricity

  14. Jared Kushner is not going to survive, especially with the disclosures and whistleblower by taylor Scott Amarel.

    taylorscottamarelwhistleblower.gq

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s