Geocentrism: Michelson -Morley experiement

Bob Sungenis talks about the Michelson -Morley experiement when asked about it, his words below,

"We have about 300 pages on the Michelson-Morley experiment. What you will find, Mike, is that MM showed the earth was standing still in space because there wasn’t enough ether resistance to account for an earth going 18.5 miles per second. This is what the quotes at the end of the article I sent you are referring to. (But there was enough resistance to account for an ether resistance equal to a universe rotating around a fixed earth). Hence, in order to escape the results of MM and hold the human race from going back to medieval times, someone had to invent a whole new physics. Einstein did so. Instead of accepting the fixed earth that classical science was showing us, Einstein turned physics upside down. But in doing so, he created other problems, such as unexplained length contractions, time dilations, and mass increases, which result in such things as the Twin Paradox (which no one has ever solved); and many other anomalies you will read about. "


Airey’s failure is pretty interesting.

Einstein created the Twin Paradox? What does that mean? Did Einstein magically change the nature of space-time from the geocentric model to general relativity? If he had all that power over the laws of nature, why didn’t he just create a time-travel machine to make some money on the stock market, or to win World War II sooner?

Michelson-Morley put to rest the idea of a luminiferous ether.

I’m pretty sure the twin paradox is pretty simple to solve: one of the twins must have undergone acceleration.

Relativistic effects on time have been demonstrated experimentally.

In fact this relativistic time dilation is why GPS devices are able. to work.

Ignorance is bliss.


"Didn’t Science Prove that Ether Doesn’t Exist?

Although a little more esoteric to this debate, nevertheless, there is a common objection that often stems from Albert Einstein’s interpretation of the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment. Since the Michelson-Morley experiment assumed the Earth was moving, yet their apparatus could not detect any such movement against what was then understood as “ether,” Einstein concluded that ether did not exist, that is, space is empty; it is a vacuum that does not contain any substance at all. But most scientists today have rejected Einstein’s view and have come to realize that space does, indeed, have substance, and one that reaches to the outer limits of the universe. The days of negating a scientific theory based on its belief in ether are over. As even the Relativist (and 1998 Nobel physics laureate) Robert B. Laughlin admits:

It is ironic that Einstein’s most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise was that no such medium existed…. Einstein… utterly rejected the idea of ether and inferred from its nonexistence that the equations of electromagnetism had to be relative. But this same thought process led in the end to the very ether he had first rejected, albeit one with some special properties that ordinary elastic matter does not have. The word “ether” has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum.

In the early days of relativity the conviction that light must be waves of something ran so strong that Einstein was widely dismissed. Even when Michelson and Morley demonstrated that the earth’s orbital motion through the ether could not be detected, opponents argued that the earth must be dragging an envelope of ether along with it because relativity was lunacy and could not possibly be right…. Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that such matter must have relativistic symmetry.

And he concludes with this important paragraph:

It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with “stuff” that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.[1]

We cite Laughlin knowing full well that in his frequent use of the word “relativistic” he, nevertheless, believes the Earth revolves around the sun, and most likely has never given any particular consideration to a geocentric universe. In any case, his expertise is valuable for this debate since: (a) ether is a constituent part of the geocentric universe, and (b) despite Relativity’s initial rejection of ether, Laughlin is quite candid that Quantum Mechanics has sufficiently demonstrated ether’s existence to the once skeptical Einstein audience. Unfortunately, Laughlin is not so candid regarding the fact that Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are diametrically opposed to one another. We will cover the issue of ether, Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics in more detail in later chapters.

Even among Einstein’s supporters the understanding that space is filled with substance was never relinquished. Louis de Broglie (d. 1987), the Nobel laureate famous for his discovery of the electron’s wave in the 1920s, wrote in 1971 that the concept of ether, or as he calls it “the hidden medium,” needed to be revived. Critiquing the model of space proposed by Erwin Schrödinger in 1926, de Broglie longs for the days of fixed points reminiscent of Descartes’ Cartesian axes and Newton’s absolute space:

Everything becomes clear if the idea that particles always have a position in space through time is brought back…. According to my current thinking, the particle is always located within a physical wave….The movement of the particle is assumed to be the superposition of a regular movement… and of a Brownian movement due to random energy exchanges which take place between the wave and a hidden medium, which acts as a subquantum thermostat. The point of prime importance in this model is that at each moment the particle occupies a well-defined position in space, and this re-establishes the clear meaning which the configuration space had in classical mechanics.”[2]

Even Albert Einstein eventually succumbed to the need for some type of ether. In 1916 he wrote:

…in 1905 I was of the opinion that it was no longer allowed to speak about the ether in physics. This opinion, however, was too radical, as we will see later when we discuss the general theory of relativity. It does remain allowed, as always, to introduce a medium filling all space and to assume that the electromagnetic fields (and matter as well) are its states…once again “empty” space appears as endowed with physical properties, i.e., no longer as physically empty, as seemed to be the case according to special relativity. One can thus say that the ether is resurrected in the general theory of relativity….Since in the new theory, metric facts can no longer be separated from “true” physical facts, the concepts of “space” and “ether” merge together.[3]"

I’m not quite sure what is meant by the phrase, “space filled with substance,” with reference to empty space.

My, admittedly limited, understanding of current thinking is that empty space does indeed have structure, not that it is filled with substance. Consequently, space may be flat, or curved positively or negatively, and the curvature of space is affected by objects within it. (And at distances smaller than the Planck length, the structure becomes chaotic; at that level one cannot distinguish length dimensions from one another or from time dimensions.)

(I suppose one could take the view that, since a particle/anti-particle pair can spontaneously emerge from empty space and instantly annihilate each other, reverting to empty space, that empty space is somehow filled with particle/anti-particle pairs, but that’s not what the ether was thought to be.)

But that is merely a layman’s understanding. If the ether has made a comeback, I’d like to read about it from a physicist or cosmologist without a geocentric bias, who can summarize it for a non-scientist.

Who is Airey? I think you must mean Airy. What do you know about “Airy’s failure” and what do you think it signifies? Why do you find it “pretty interesting”?


Sungenis has been shown over and over again (most recently here and here) to be a scientific ignoramus who makes elementary scientific errors on almost every page of his silly book - and almost every time he opens his mouth. Here we go again (it is virtually certain that any quote from Sungenis on this subject will contain at least one schoolboy howler): claiming that “no one has ever solved” the Twin Paradox shows either breathtaking ignorance or a blithe and dishonest disregard for facts that contradict his views. The Twin “Paradox” has long (since 1911 for heaven’s sake) been explained both theoretically and empirically (the latter by experiments with accelerating atomic clocks) by the fact that one of the twins undergoes substantial acceleration and therefore there is no symmetry.

You (and other Sungenis disciples like Luke) would be well advised to learn some actual science instead of wasting your time with Sungenis’s nonsense.


“Ether” has been discounted since the 19th century. The idea was that, because light needs a medium to travel through, there’s no such thing as “empty space” so outside the atmosphere is a substance called “ether”. What we find is that there is not so much empty space as really non-dense space. There are particles everywhere, but relatively very few of them in what we call outer space. Note that the Voyager probes encountered i the last few years a phenomenon called the Heliopause - where the force of the sun’s solar wind is finally overcome by the interstellar wind.

Without ether, the entire idea of using “resistance” (as in wind resistance) to measure speed is discounted.

We can take a much more simple approach using relative velocity - given a position relative to the sun, what is the time to get to that same position again.

ERRT. Newton did. So did Galileo. If you look at the system as being geocentric, you could explain relative positions of bodies in the sky using retrograde motion, but the system does not flow nearly as well nor as predictably as if it is heliocentric.

Whoever said this hasn’t read a book written in the past 50 years.
None of these phenomena are unexplained. Time dilation has been observed experimentally, which is essentially the same as a Twin Paradox (which we’ve not been able to test since we don’t have craft able to orbit a black hole).

Particles from the sun cause the solar wind.

Cosmic rays bombard the earth.

Electromagnetic radiation permeates space as the cosmic background noise.

There are five hydrogen atoms per cubic centimeter in interstellar space.

And dark matter and dark energy are currently being discussed.


When I first heard of Sungenis’s tilting at acentrism, I visited his site. At the time he had the texts of some exhanges with folks who were taking up his challenge.

One of them was speaking on a point of mathematics, and referred to a “boundary condition at infinity”. In response, Sungenis mocked him and the concept of such a boundary condition.

Mathematical boundary conditions are a standard mathematical construct, I learned about them during my sophomore (junior?) year in college. Boundary conditions at infinity are very important in some calculations.

The fact that Sungenis mocked such a basic mathematical concept demonstrated to me that he is utterly unqualified to be holding forth on this topic. It was equivalent to someone who claimed to be a chef making fun of the idea of salmon mousse.

Based on that, and on other things he’s said, I’ve stopped taking him seriously.

(5) Time Dilation Factor

The next intellectual excrement of the Special Theory of Relativity is the so-called time dilation theory. As the speed increases, time slows down. Of all the falsifications of Einstein’s theories none make a better story than the uncovering of this absurdity. It began in 1972 with the publication of Professor Herbert Dingle’s new book ‘Science at the Crossroads’. Now the thing is that this same professor was for many years one of Einstein’s most devout pupils. On page 105 of his Crossroads he writes: ‘To the best of my knowledge there is no one living who can give objective evidence that he is more competent in the subject than I am.’ Way back in 1922, three years after Einstein’s Relativity theories, Dingle published the first book on the subject called Relativity for All. For fifty years he is associated with all the big-name relativist physicists of the era such as Einstein himself, Eddington, Tolman, Whittaker, Born, Shroedinger and Bridgman. His ‘The Special Theory of Relativity’ became the standard textbook on the subject, and could be found in use in most universities of America and Europe. Indeed, it was he that provided one of the two articles on Relativity in Encyclopaedia Britannica. But Dingle then saw his error.

Dingle on Relativity

‘Far from being too profound for the ordinary reader to be expected to understand it, the point at issue is of the most extreme simplicity.’

The gist of Dingle’s long if simple explanation is that Einstein’s Relativity theory also requires that at great speed each of two measuring rods must be shorter than each other: two masses must attain weights greater than each other: two clocks must work faster than each other: and two twins must age more slowly than each other. Yes, Relativity requires us to accept that, in the case of the twins, for example, where one twin is blasted off into space at the speed of light and the other remains on earth, it makes no difference mathematically which twin ages the slower, for, with Einstein’s theory of light-speed, there is no difference between rest and motion. Thus for the theory to be viable, both twins must get younger (and older) than the other.

‘Unless this [anomaly] is answerable, the theory unavoidably requires that A works more slowly than B and B more slowly than A – which it requires no super-intelligence to see is impossible. Now, clearly, a theory that requires an impossibility cannot be true, and scientific integrity requires, therefore, either that the question just poseH. Dingle, op. cit., p.45.d shall be answered, or else that the theory shall be acknowledged to be false.’ —

Sir Arthur Eddington, who played an important part in promoting Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, once wrote:

‘Beyond even the imagination of Dean Swift; Gulliver regarded the Lilliputians as a race of dwarfs; and the Lilliputians regarded Gulliver as a giant. That is natural. If the Lilliputians had appeared dwarfs to Gulliver, and Gulliver had appeared a dwarf to the Lilliputians – but no; that is too absurd for fiction, and is an idea only to be found in the sober pages of [earthmoving] science.’ —

A.S. Eddington: Space, Time and Gravitation, ch.1, quoted by Gwynne, op. cit., p.15.For thirteen years Dingle challenged the Relativists to rebut his falsification of Einstein’s relativity. Knowing they were on a beating to nothing, the fellows of the Royal Society; the scientific journals in England and America, and even the popular press with the sole exception of The Listener (1969), “ignored, evaded, suppressed and indeed treated in every possible way except that of answering it by the whole scientific world.” Dingle continues his story, recalling the words of Rev. W.J. Platt, who, having read his story in The Listener, sent the following to The Times, which, not surprisingly, they refused to publish:

‘Professor Dingle, who, is recognised as a leading authority on Einstein’s special relativity theory on which physicists acknowledge that they rely, has advanced what he claims to be a fatal criticism of that theory. On such a matter the layman is, of course, not qualified to speak. He is, however, entitled to an assurance that the scientific world remains true to its principle of answering or accepting informed criticism. This appears to be not only, as it has always been, a moral duty of scientists, but in these days, when the experiments perform are of such enormous potential danger, a necessity. According to the uncontradicted assertion in the Listener of October 30th last, however the President of the Royal Society failed to giver an assurance that scientific integrity is still preserved. If earlier statements in the correspondence are true, he could hardly, of course, do so.
May I give a few of these statements? (1) Some of the most eminent workers in modern physics have admitted privately that they either do not understand the theory or regard it as nonsensical: nevertheless, they continue to teach it to students and to use it in high energy experiments. (2) It is stated that the Royal Society has declared privately that Professor Dingle’s fallacy is ‘too elementary even to be instructive,’ but the Society has not stated what that fallacy is, and the journal Nature, which had previously published the criticism without eliciting a refutation of it, has refused to publish a letter from Professor Dingle, asking that the Royal Society shall state the fallacy.’

Enough of this, for obviously the Rev. Platt did not know how ‘science’ has been orchestrated since Kepler and Newton’s time. I was at that lecture at Trinity College in Dublin in 1996 when engineer A. G. Kelly PhD read a paper that, while speculative itself, did show the STR had been empirically falsified many times. Nevertheless, within the audience there were professors who were employed by that same university to teach this nonsense to students. Within minutes of Kelly’s unassailable thesis, these same Relativists were up on their feet telling all and sundry that Kelly ‘really didn’t fully comprehend’ the theory he had just falsified. I have no doubt the next day Kelly was history and the STR was being taught to a new batch of physics students in that same world-renowned university in whose lecture hall the Special Theory was seen for what it really is, patent intellectual nonsense, mathematical magic.

Dingle? You use Dingle to prop up your notions??



Rogerteder, this might explain your point a little better.

‘There had to be an explanation [for the Airy and M/M test result that could not find evidence for any earth movement]. Either the earth was motionless with respect to the ether, or the earth dragged the ether with it, or something. All possible explanations seemed highly unlikely, and for nearly a quarter of a century, the world of science was completely puzzled. It took a scientific revolution to explain the matter, so that the Michelson-Morley experiment is perhaps the most important “failure” in the history of science.’ —Isaac Asimov: Chronology of Science & Discovery, p.388.

After the 1887 Michelson and Morley experiment that showed no interference fringe, ‘either the earth was motionless…or’. Very good, for here we see a well-known scientist and author of many books has to admit the very real possibility that the earth is motionless and the fact that it took a ‘scientific revolution’ to eliminate such a real ‘possibility’.

The Way to a Successful Revolution

Such ‘revolutions’, the occult powers knew/know, were/are best brought about by individuals in whom the public would be conditioned to accept as men of ‘great genius’.

‘The enemies of society are bent on persuading us that mankind is evolving and progressing and that the intellectual capacities of the human being are steadily increasing. This deification of the modern man, and what is being attempted is no less than that, is greatly assisted if the last century or so is shown to have produced intellectuals of unprecedented capacity, capable of opening the eyes of the world to truths which had remained hidden in all previous centuries of his history. The second generality is that it is much easier to impose false beliefs on the world if they are personalised. If a theory is put forward without reference to the person who originated it, there will be a tendency for it to be judged on its merits and then, if it clearly has no merits, for it to be rejected. This is far from being the case if a theory - however ludicrously opposed to common sense - is put forward by a man of universally acknowledged genius. Now the tendency will be for the theory to be examined with respect, if it cannot be understood this will be ascribed to the incapacity of the person examining the theory; if it appears manifestly illogical it will be assumed that the originator has grasped a logic that is beyond the reach of lesser mortals. In short it will gradually become accepted on no better grounds than the authority of the person who has advanced it.’ —N. Martin Gwynne: Einstein and Modern Physics, Briton’s Library, 1985, p.5.

We have seen all this before, especially within the Principia of Sir Isaac Newton. But as genuine empirical science progressed it produced problems for the Earthmovers. The popular press were demanding a resolution to this dilemma that suggested the Church of 1616 could well be vindicated. What they needed was another genius, another personalised revolution to restore the Copernican order. And sure enough, they got their man.

‘Most great works in physics have come from those who combine miraculous physical intuition with sound mathematical skills. The former is far more important than the latter.’ — McEvoy and Zarate, Introducing Steven Hawking, Icon Books, 1997, p.31.

Albert the Miracle Worker

The old ad hominum ploy again. Attack the person and avoid answering his questions.

See here for a thread on Physics Forums on “How exactly to calculate the age difference in ‘Twin paradox’”.

Who attacked Dingle? I attacked the fact that you use him to prop up your absurd arguments. His arguments were poor, and the math and experimental results proved him wrong.

I find it interesting that you fault me for using ad hominem argumentation when in fact I did not, and yet you attempt the “appeal to authority”.by quoting folks who manifestly don’t know what they’re talking about.

You continue to discredit yourself. Find another windmill at which to tilt.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit