Galileo Was Wrong

[Tohu]

I thought geocentrism was moribund.

It seems to be undergoing a resurgence!
www.galileowaswrong.com

[Lurker]

uh... this is a joke right??

right?????

GODS Man!! Say it's a JOKE!!! :eek:

[Van Rijn]

Depends on what you mean by joke. I would bet these guys are serious that they believe it.

Tohu, given that this is the ATM section, were you just bringing that website to our attention because you thought it was humorous, or was there anything there you wanted to defend?

By the way, welcome to BAUT.

[TriangleMan]

That geocentrists exist is not too surprising as some Biblical literalists hold that view. Robert Sungenis is apparantly a Catholic Apologist who believes in geocentrism because of his (and early Church leaders') interpretation of scripture. A few years ago the board also had a persistant geocentrist who used sock-puppets to promote his views and get around bannings.

If you look back in the BAUT archives there are many geocentrist threads. Like creationists, 'true believers' in geocentrism are unlikely to change their views regardless of the evidence presented to them.

[BigDon]

Galileo was wrong t-shirts, cups, hats, click here seems to sum it all up.

[AGN Fuel]

Galileo was wrong t-shirts, cups, hats, click here seems to sum it all up.

Hey Big Don,

Time to resurrect the picture you put on the 'Conspiracy' forum:-

"The internet - it doesn't make you stupid, it just makes your stupidity more accessible to others."

What gets me is are people really so stupid that they will shell out good cash for this crock - and if they are, how on Earth did they ever get (and keep for more than a few hours, at least) any money in the first place? :eh:

[Sticks]

This is my periodic post to point out that not all creationists are geocentrists

Linky (http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/geocentr.pdf)

We now return you to your current programmes

[Celestial Mechanic]

Galileo was wrong t-shirts, cups, hats, click here seems to sum it all up.
Let's not be hasty now! :naughty: Bad Astronomy has a link where you can buy t-shirts, cups, hats and more. (Bad Astronomy has boxer shorts. Top that, galileowaswrong.com! )

The Internet may make one's stupidity more accessible, but only with a continuing infusion of cash.

[Sticks]

Let's not be hasty now! :naughty: Bad Astronomy has a link where you can buy t-shirts, cups, hats and more. (Bad Astronomy has boxer shorts. Top that, galileowaswrong.com! )

The Internet may make one's stupidity more accessible, but only with a continuing infusion of cash.


But Phil's stuff is only available to those of you in the US :neutral:

[trth_skr]

Here's a review:


Galileo Was Wrong, Vol. I Finally Released! (http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2006/06/galileo-was-wrong-vol-i-finally.html)

It is not crazy if you take the time to review the facts.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com (http://www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com)

[Gillianren]

It is not crazy if you take the time to review the facts.

What facts? Geocentrism? Trust me--it's still crazy.

[BigDon]

Excuse me? I like this comment taken from the review page.

This is hilarious. It's basically trying to rubbish Einstein's theory of relativity. The last couple of lines give the game away.

Einstein's theory was forced upon us by observations such as the famous Michelson and Morley experiment. There have been countless tests of Einstein's theories and they have always stood. Every alternative theory has been falsified by numerous experiments.

The fact is that every experiment gives us no option but to believe that every point in the universe will seem to be the centre of the universe, that's the whole point of the theory.

What's to say after that?

[BigDon]

Hi Gillian, you snuck one in on me as I was replying to Trth Skr.

Who I have a ten spot that sez he's a sockpuppet of some banned poster

[JimTKirk]

I find Wikipedia's article interesting on one of the authors...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sungenis

[trth_skr]

Excuse me? I like this comment taken from the review page.



What's to say after that?

Here's what I said (the next comment):

Mark Wyatt (http://www.blogger.com/profile/9577375) said... Read the book.

Mark

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com (http://www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com)

[Celestial Mechanic]

I thought geocentrism was moribund. [Snip!]
No, geocentrism is not dead. It just smells funny. :sick:

[BigDon]

Mark,

Here's what I say: No

Don

[Van Rijn]

Here's a review:


Galileo Was Wrong, Vol. I Finally Released! (http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2006/06/galileo-was-wrong-vol-i-finally.html)

It is not crazy if you take the time to review the facts.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com (http://www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com)

This is the ATM section. If you have some "facts" that you want to defend, state them, and we can go from there.

[Tohu]

It seems that Relativity allows relativistic geocentrism, but not the absolutist Geocentrism espoused by galileowaswrong.com

Theoretically, what kind of observation would disprove Relativity, and what would we expect to see in the absolutist Geocentrist universe they revere?

[Nereid]

It seems that Relativity allows relativistic geocentrism, but not the absolutist Geocentrism espoused by galileowaswrong.com

Theoretically, what kind of observation would disprove Relativity, and what would we expect to see in the absolutist Geocentrist universe they revere?Back in post #3 of this thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=832718&postcount=3), Van Rijn welcomed you to BAUT, and asked if you were going to defend the ATM ideas presented in the website to which you provided a link.

I may have missed it, but you didn't answer that question.

Permit me to re-ask it: are you, Tohu, prepared to defend the ATM ideas you have presented, in this thread?

Before you answer, you may wish to read the BAUT rules (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32864), especially the one that specifically covers this ATM section:13. Alternative Concepts

If you have some idea which goes against commonly-held astronomical theory, then you are welcome to argue it here. Before you do, though READ THIS THREAD FIRST (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=16242). This is very important. Then, if you still want to post your idea, you will do so politely, you will not call people names, and you will defend your arguments. Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner.

People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here; that's what science and scientists do. If you cannot handle that sort of attack, then maybe you need to rethink your theory, too. Remember: you came here. It's our job to attack new theories. Those that are strong will survive, and may become part of mainstream science.

Additionally, keep promotion of your theories and ideas to only those Against the Mainstream threads which discuss them. Hijacking other discussions to draw attention to your ideas will not be allowed.

If it appears that you are using circular reasoning, depending on long-debunked arguments, or breaking any of these other rules, you will receive one warning, and if that warning goes unheeded, you will be banned.For avoidance of doubt, this is not a warning; you are new to BAUT and so are entitled to some slack.

However, we do expect that you will make your intentions clear, in the next day or two.

[Tohu]

Although I am not supporting it, according to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism
there is a geocentric scheme which is not incompatible with current science.

But the one advocated by these Catholic scientists (are their degrees in science?) would seem to be. Pope Benedict seems to view evolution with disfavour. It would be interesting if he openly favoured a return to a Sungenis and Bennett's type Geocentric model and fell out even bigger time with the Vatican Observatory http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=401950&in_page_id=1811

But the "Faithful" would love him!

[trth_skr]

...It would be interesting if he openly favoured a return to a Sungenis and Bennett's type Geocentric model and fell out even bigger time with the Vatican Observatory http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=401950&in_page_id=1811

...

It seems it is Fr. Coyne who fell out, not the Vatican observatory or the Pope. You might find this interesting:

Robert Sungenis, Ph.D. and Bro. Guy Consolmagno, Ph.D. Discuss Geocentrism on the BBC (http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2006/08/robert-sungenis-phd-and-bro-guy.html)

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com (http://www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com)

[trth_skr]

This is the ATM section. If you have some "facts" that you want to defend, state them, and we can go from there.

I will start with a simple summary concerning two facts which Galileo Was Wrong spends a lot of time discussing. Regardless of the status of our theories (which are likely internally consistent), ultimately all falls back to observations. The two facts are observations (more accurately results of simple experiments):

1. We appear to be in the center of the universe. This is backed up with many observations including (but not limited to) [redshift] quantization of quasars, galaxies, b-lac, etc. It is also shored-up with observations of binary stars axial direction preferring earth and CMB multipole alignments with earth's equatorial plane.

Scientists (such as Hawking) state that there are two possibilites for this, both assumptions:

a. We are in the center
b. Everywhere appears to be in the center.

Only b) is considered. Hawking claims this is due to "modesty".

2. No experiment has ever conclusively proven the earth rotates on its axis or translates.

Relativity has been developed to address this by claiming that matter shrinks and clocks change rate in the direction of movement just enough to mask such measurements. Galileo Was Wrong demonstrates the historical development of this as a result of observations which conflicted with the prevailing assumption of Copernicism (in a general sense).

An viable interpretation to 1) and 2) is that the earth is in the center and not moving.

Science will not consider this option, though it is logical.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com (http://www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com)

[publius]

Tohu,

The "model of geocentrism consistent with modern science" is simply General Relativity. Heck, all it is a rotating coordinate system, and one could do that in Newton -- but the psuedo-forces are "absolutely fictitious" classically. If you feel a force, you are accelerating absolutely In GR, well, those fictitious forces can be due to a gravitational field, and one can feel forces but declare one is stationary relative to some gravitational source.

And that's all it is. You choose a rotating coordinate system centered on the earth, declare that is stationary, and, if you like, declare the centrifugal and coriolis forces are a real gravitational and gravitomagnetic field. And, if you like, you can find the stress-energy distribution necessary to produce such a field. For a Coriolis frame, that is a huge rotating cylinder with the the origin on the central axis.

There are those who take great stock in this (many Geocentrists reject modern science altogether and don't care about making it consistent with relativity). But this is nothing but the Equivalence Principle at work, and it's no big whoop. A curved metric in a given coordinate system can be due to acclerating coordinates, or it can be due to a gravitational field and you can't otherwise tell the difference. Unless you look out the window so to speak, and notice mass around you.

My point here is this nothing but a preference of coorinate system. Yes, GR can "allow geocentrism to work", but in a way that's no different from two observers in relative motion trying to decide who is "really moving". It is meaningless.

-Richard

[Van Rijn]

I will start with a simple summary concerning two facts which Galileo Was Wrong spends a lot of time discussing. Regardless of the status of our theories (which are likely internally consistent), ultimately all falls back to observations. The two facts are observations (more accurately results of simple experiments):

1. We appear to be in the center of the universe. This is backed up with many observations including (but not limited to) [redshift] quantization of quasars, galaxies, b-lac, etc. It is also shored-up with observations of binary stars axial direction preferring earth and CMB multipole alignments with earth's equatorial plane.


What is your definition of "center"? Is it arbitrarily picking a point and calling it "center" or do you actually have a definition that is uniquely Geocentric? If so, how would you account for the many objects in space whose motion is little affected by our tiny world?


2. No experiment has ever conclusively proven the earth rotates on its axis or translates.


Would you say that Mars rotates? Jupiter? Saturn? Any object in space? If not, why not? If so, what is the difference between them and earth, beyond an arbitrary choice?


An viable interpretation to 1) and 2) is that the earth is in the center and not moving.


By the arbitrary selection argument, any point in space could be the center and not moving. Why pick earth?

[Tensor]

2. No experiment has ever conclusively proven the earth rotates on its axis or translates.

And, according to GR, no experiment can. But, then again, no experiment can prove the Earth is stationary.

Relativity has been developed to address this by claiming that matter shrinks and clocks change rate in the direction of movement just enough to mask such measurements.

Wrong. Actually, Special Relativity was developed to explain difficulties with Maxwell's equations. GR was developed to fix the difficulties SR introduced to Newton's Theory of Gravity. That GR can explain why we appear to be the center of the universe was a bonus and had nothing to do with it's development.


Galileo Was Wrong demonstrates the historical development of this as a result of observations which conflicted with the prevailing assumption of Copernicism (in a general sense).

And if your claim above (concerning the development of Relavitiy) is accurate, the development in Galileo Was Wrong is wrong.

An viable interpretation to 1) and 2) is that the earth is in the center and not moving.

It's a viable option only becuase GR allows it. That it also allow all other frames to be considered stationary and the center is something Geocentrists either ignore or want to forget.

Science will not consider this option, though it is logical.

In certain circumstances, science considers this to be very valid. Actually, the contortions you would have to go through to match up 3, 4, 5 or more simultaineous observations from our deep space and planetary probes, or explain exactly how the spacecraft velocity can accelerate to match the spin of the universe (not to mention where that velocity goes as those that have come back to near earth for a gravity assist) makes it rather illogical. Especially, when you have a much simpler explanation, that fits all the observations.

In addition, why couldn't the astronauts, on the moon, consider the moon as the center? After all, some of the same observations that are claimed support geocentrism, on Earth, were observable on the moon (slower, tis true, but still there). Or for that matter, we've seen the Earth, Jupiter and the Sun moving around Mars' sky, in the same way Mars, Jupiter and the Sun move around in Earth's sky, so I guess we can claim Mars is stationary also. So, now we have three different places where the same observations, claimed to support a motionless earth, have been seen.

So, we have three centers that can be considered motionless, which points to GR being right in that all frames can be considered motionless and every point is the center. Which has the Earth and those other centers orbiting the Sun as a much simpler and more useful explanation.

Unless you are willing to claim that the space program and those observations are imaginary or made up.

[RobA]

2. No experiment has ever conclusively proven the earth rotates on its axis or translates.

Please describe an experiment that would make the statement "the Earth does not rotate or translate" falsifiable.

[Jens]

An viable interpretation to 1) and 2) is that the earth is in the center and not moving.

Science will not consider this option, though it is logical.


It's an interesting thought, certainly. But here is one question I'd have. If the earth is at the center and not rotating, then that means the entire universe revolves around us every 24 hours. Wouldn't distant galaxies have to be moving at tremendous speeds? I mean, if something is say a billion light years away from us, and traveling in a circle around us every 24 hours, then you're talking about velocities that are like billions of light years per hour. But my understanding is that even particle experiments on earth tend to show that matter can't travel at past the speed of light.

[Tog_]

I've never really looked at Geocentrism before, so I have what I'm sure will be a basic question.

If everything in the solar system revolves around the Earth, why do we only see Mercury and Venus in phases and not at opposition like we do the other planets?

Also, if Geocentrism is real, wouldn't the paths taken by Voyager, Cassini, and Galeleo have been horribly wrong, since they assumed that the Sun was the gravitational center of things in this area?

For that matter, if the Earth is in the middle of everything, wouldn't Earth's gravity be stronger than everything else?

I better stop here.

[Count Zero]

Aberration (http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Saberr.htm) of starlight and of the solar wind, stellar parallax (http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sparalax.htm) and doppler shift of starlight all prove that the Earth is moving. Any defense of geocentrism must address this evidence with something stronger than conjecture that "maybe the rest of the universe is moving in circles instead."

[PhantomWolf]

2. No experiment has ever conclusively proven the earth rotates on its axis or translates.

What about the parallax of stars?

[Thanatos]

2. No experiment has ever conclusively proven the earth rotates on its axis or translates.How about Foucault's pendulum - e.g.,

http://www.calacademy.org/products/pendulum/page7.htm

This may not meet your definition of 'conclusive proof', but is difficult to explain [without a rotating earth model] without invoking my definition of 'magic'.

[Sticks]

Just to reiterate, not all creationists swallow geocentrism as my earlier link shows. However I was disapointed once with the ICR take on this as they refused to commit to helocentrism.

I am with the majority here that supports the Copernican / Galileo system, i.e reality.

[Spock Jenkins]

It's an interesting thought, certainly. But here is one question I'd have. If the earth is at the center and not rotating, then that means the entire universe revolves around us every 24 hours. Wouldn't distant galaxies have to be moving at tremendous speeds? I mean, if something is say a billion light years away from us, and traveling in a circle around us every 24 hours, then you're talking about velocities that are like billions of light years per hour. But my understanding is that even particle experiments on earth tend to show that matter can't travel at past the speed of light.

You'll know how it all works when Voyager bumps into the wall.

[Tohu]

How about Foucault's pendulum - e.g.,

http://www.calacademy.org/products/pendulum/page7.htm

This may not meet your definition of 'conclusive proof', but is difficult to explain [without a rotating earth model] without invoking my definition of 'magic'.

If the theories of Special Relativity and Mach
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle
are correct, can there ever be a 'conclusive proof', even theoretically?

[trth_skr]

All:

I will try and adress all your questions. Obviously It will take some time. I ask (though you obviously are not required to) that you not repeat questions already asked. If you want to add to a question, please reference a previous question then add to it.

Also, It would help if we address mainly what I presented (the two points) initially, and not jump to complete theories to answer them (yet). I will try and answer those points briefly, but would like to build from our observation outwards, knowing that I may use various theories / themes to answer them (relativity, aether, geocentrism, heliocenmtrism, etc.).

This is a big topic and it will take a lot of effort on all our parts to go through it. I do not claim to have all the answers, and will look for the participants to help privide some of the answers. We will see where this leads.

I will write another note like this one stating when I think I have answered all question up to this point. I will call this point "Point 1". You of course may challenge me on whether I have in fact answered those concerns. I will then try and answer up to "Point 2", etc.

Are you all up to challenging conventional wisdom and seeing where we end up? Though I am coming from the position of geocenrtism, I will do my best to keep an open mind. I hope you can keep an open mind to challenges to the prevailing world view.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

[trth_skr]

...The "model of geocentrism consistent with modern science" is simply General Relativity. ...And that's all it is. You choose a rotating coordinate system centered on the earth, declare that is stationary, and, if you like, declare the centrifugal and coriolis forces are a real gravitational and gravitomagnetic field. And, if you like, you can find the stress-energy distribution necessary to produce such a field. For a Coriolis frame, that is a huge rotating cylinder with the the origin on the central axis.

There are those who take great stock in this (many Geocentrists reject modern science altogether and don't care about making it consistent with relativity). But this is nothing but the Equivalence Principle at work, ...My point here is this nothing but a preference of coorinate system. Yes, GR can "allow geocentrism to work", but in a way that's no different from two observers in relative motion trying to decide who is "really moving". It is meaningless.

-Richard

Richard:

I have looked at that here (http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentricity-101-part-i.html), and here (http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentrism-101-part-ii.html) especially (with a bonus here (http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/11/theory-of-specific-absolutivity.html)). Galileo Was Wrong spends a lot of time on it. No one claims it proves geocentrism absolutely true, but it sure does show it possible. It also shows that since the current majority worldview (big bang with inflation) depends on general relativity (GR), then current science really cannot reject geocentrism without cutting its own umbilical cord.

Still GR is not the only perspective. There is Mach, aether, etc. That is why I want to work from our observations outwards.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com (http://www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com)

[Arena]

How does a geo-stationary satellite stay at a fixed altitude if the earth isn't rotating and thus the satellite not in a free-falling orbit?

[George]

...It also shows that since the current majority worldview (big bang with inflation) depends on general relativity (GR), then current science really cannot reject geocentrism without cutting its own umbilical cord.
GR does not favor geocentrism. It favors no frame of reference, therefore it would reject Geocentrism (where Earth must be the center). There is no umbilical cord to cut.

The view of geocentrism makes no sense due to extensive observations. From an old dusty thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=430133&postcount=1), these include:

● Phases of Venus - Galileo found Venus demonstrated phases. Not possible in the Aristotle/Ptolemaic system. However, allowing the other planets to rotate around the Sun, and the Earth centralized, was a possible modification to Geocentrism. [In Geocentrism, Venus can not go behind the orbit of the Sun, so it can not show a gibbous phase.]

● Angular Size of Venus - The apparent size of Venus varies. It is large during it’s crescent phase and smaller during it’s gibbous phase. The size (angular area) increases by as much as 4300%. The intro. to Copernicus' book was quick to point this out as a blatant problem with Ptolemy's geocentrism.

● Venus has a superior conjunction - Geocentrism can not account for Venus going behind the Sun, which it does. [No transit is observable during this time.] Only inferior conjunction is allowable in geocentrism.

● Moons of Jupiter - Galileo found moons orbiting another body (Jupiter). Thus damaging the perfect spheres philosophy inherent in the Aristotle/Ptolemaic system. If smaller objects orbit a larger Jupiter, maybe Earth could orbit the larger Sun.

● Coriolis Effect - A rotating Earth is the only reasonable explanation for this. Therefore, the Earth is not fixed.

● Revolving Universe - The universe can not conceivably revolve around the Earth in 24 hours.

● Rotation Rate Variations - Millisecond variations have been found in the rotation rates based on seasonal mass distribution.

● Doppler Results - Radar measurments of the speed of Mars are far less than the travel rate necessary to go around the Earth each day.

● Stellar Parallax - The Earth must oscillate as in an orbit (and no longer stationary) as the only reasonable explanation.

● Meteors - More meteors are observed after midnite than before due to the Earth’s motion around the Sun.

● Newton’s Laws - Objects will revolve around a barycenter and the less massive ones will exhibit a larger orbit. Refined further by Einstein. This suggests the Earth should exhibit the greater motion if observed from nearly all other reference frames.

● Doppler Shift - A revolving Earth will move toward and, later, away from any given star. This will create a frequency shift in the light observed. Guess what, it does.

● Stellar Aberration - Although the Earth is traveling at only 1/10000 the speed of light, it is enough to produce elliptical paths of stars.

● Cosmic Microwave Dipole - The Earth's motion in space causes slight, but measurable, shift in frequency in the CMB appearance (Doppler).

● Galactic rotations - Similar to the moons of Jupiter argument. Rotations are throughout the heavens and our system, Sol, is revolving around the Milky Way's center.

● Orbital Retrograde - [Planets appear to change their direction of orbital travel.] This is explained with great difficulty in geocentrism but easily with the Copernican model.

● Relativity Contradiction - "... to say geocentrism isn't wrong, you have to accept the premise that any frame of reference is just as valid as any other. But to claim that geocentrism is correct, you have to ignore that very same premise." - The BA. [the link is gone, but I'll find it upon request.] There is a strong element of self-centeredness (pun accidental) that is contrary to the moral fountain from which they claim to drink.

● Causality - This idea is the basis of the prior bullets. It asks why should we accept a frame, geocentrism, which does such a poor job of explaining what is observed, when other frames do not suffer from this problem? It demands reasons for the effects observed, asking - "what is the cause of these strange behaviors?". If there is not reasonable explanation, maybe it is more reasonable to choose another "valid" frame of reference which does not suffer from anomalies.

A bigger problem than Geocentrism is Georgecentrism, or so I've been told. ;)

[Doodler]

You'll know how it all works when Voyager bumps into the wall.


Congratulations, you've successfully regressed beyond geocentrism and back to the crystal spheres of the Greeks.

I believe this represents a new low in post modern rationalizing.

At this rate, we're now two internet generations away from being told that oxygen respiration is a fallacy...:)

[Celestial Mechanic]

Most of the objections in George's post above are removed by dumping Aristotelian/Ptolemaic geocentrism for Tychonic geocentrism. However, Tychonic geocentrism has its own problems.
Tychonic geocentrism works only because it is a sequence of coordinate transformations from cosmological coordinates down to geocentric fixed coordinates. That is, first a transformation to center of mass of the Virgo supercluster, then to the center of mass of the Local Cluster, then to the center of mass of the Milky Way, then to the Solar System barycenter, the Earth-Moon barycenter, and finally the center of the Earth.
Oh, did I mention the Earth-Moon barycenter? Strange, the Tychonistas never show that in their diagrams of the Solar System. Very strange.
This leads to the strange conclusion that, despite the fact that the Universe is allegedly centered upon the Earth, almost everything in the Universe revolves about some body other other than the Earth and rotates about an axis, something which the Earth is somehow incapable of. If the Earth is so damned special, why is it that the Moon and Earth's artificial satellites are the only things in the whole Universe that orbit the earth directly? Why does the Solar System barycenter orbit the Earth-Moon barycenter instead of the Earth? Why do the planets, asteroids, comets and meteoroids (and presumably the Milky Way barycenter) orbit the Solar System barycenter instead of the Earth-Moon barycenter or the Earth itself?

[Celestial Mechanic]

Congratulations, you've successfully regressed beyond geocentrism and back to the crystal spheres of the Greeks. I believe this represents a new low in post modern rationalizing. [Snip!]
I believe that Spock Jenkins was joking here, although a smiley would have helped. :)
Of course, you did use a smiley! :)

[trth_skr]

What is your definition of "center"? Is it arbitrarily picking a point and calling it "center" or do you actually have a definition that is uniquely Geocentric? If so, how would you account for the many objects in space whose motion is little affected by our tiny world?

The idea of centrality is just a general one. It is a consequence of what I will term "postulates" of the theory, whcih include:


1. The earth is stationarya. It does not have a general rotation on its axisi. some rotational twisting is possible due to non-general (i.e., the normal rotation of the universe) forces acting on it, e.g., comets hitting it, etc.

ii. some rotational twisting is possible due to internal forces, e.g., earthquakes.

b. It does not have a general translational pathi. solid body vibratory responses to non-normal forces acting on it are permitted.

ii. some solid body deformations due to internal forces are permitted .

2. The rest of the universe has a general periodic movement around the earth.

Note that these postulates may change, be added to, based on discussion, etc., but I think it is a reasonable starting point.


Would you say that Mars rotates? Jupiter? Saturn? Any object in space?

Yes, objects in space may and do rotate. I am not denying any observations.

...If so, what is the difference between them and earth, beyond an arbitrary choice?

One possible answer is that earth is at the center of the mass of the rotating universe, and is held stably in the center by the universe. Analogy would be a gyroscope. Also, general relativity would provide the posssibilty of such forces were one to pick the earth as a reference frame (there would need to be such forces generated to realize that reference frame).

I recommend reading this dialogue (http://www.galileowaswrong.com/dialogs.pdf) between Robert Sungenis and Stephen M. Barr, wherein some of these concepts are discussed. Additionally, this letter (http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2006/07/sample-from-galileo-was-wrong-sent-to.html) from Sungenis to Barr covers some of it. The letter is actually a part of the book Galileo Was Wrong. (the letter may be in the dialogue).

By the arbitrary selection argument, any point in space could be the center and not moving. Why pick earth?

If you want my personal reasons, then they are

1. It is a viable alternative scientifically as described in my opening post (i,.e., the 2 observations of centrality and non-movement)
2. Can be read about, here (http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentrism-101-part-iii-scriptural.html) and here (http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/10/geocentricity-101-supplement.html) If you want to understand the religous motivation.

For the purposes of purely scientific discussion, let me say it concerns above point 1 and a hypothesis (with the above 2 postulates as a starting point).

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com (http://www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com)

[trth_skr]

And, according to GR, no experiment can. But, then again, no experiment can prove the Earth is stationary.

Per GR, perhaps, but we need to consider morethan GR.


...Special Relativity was developed to explain difficulties with Maxwell's equations. GR was developed to fix the difficulties SR introduced to Newton's Theory of Gravity. That GR can explain why we appear to be the center of the universe was a bonus and had nothing to do with it's development.

History clearly shows that SR was developed after the failure of Michelson-Morley to demonstrate the earth's movement through the aether. In order to accept SR, Einstein had to modify Maxwell's equations. Truthfully it does not matter what the intention was, except to demonstrate that Copernicism was held as a dogma of sciecne, and not easily let go of.


And if your claim above (concerning the development of Relavitiy) is accurate, the development in Galileo Was Wrong is wrong.

We may never prove conclusively what the intents were, and actually it really does not matter for the science. The observations are what they are regardless of what theoretical work was proposed at what time.


It's a viable option only becuase GR allows it. That it also allow all other frames to be considered stationary and the center is something Geocentrists either ignore or want to forget.

It is viable because:

1. We have no absolute reference frame
2. GR supports it
3. Mach's principle supports it
...

The Galileo Was Wrong authors are not ignoring any known fact.

In certain circumstances, science considers this to be very valid. Actually, the contortions you would have to go through to match up 3, 4, 5 or more simultaineous observations from our deep space and planetary probes, ...
In addition, why couldn't the astronauts, on the moon, consider the moon as the center? After all, some of the same observations that are claimed support geocentrism, on Earth, ...
So, we have three centers that can be considered motionless, which points to GR being right in that all frames can be considered motionless and every point is the center. Which has the Earth and those other centers orbiting the Sun as a much simpler and more useful explanation.

Unless you are willing to claim that the space program and those observations are imaginary or made up.

I am not arguing against choosing coordinate systems of interest for engineering projects or research purposes.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com (http://www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com)

[Doodler]

I believe that Spock Jenkins was joking here, although a smiley would have helped. :)
Of course, you did use a smiley! :)


Added slightly after the fact, I put it in the original text un-emoticoned, but researched his posting history afterwards as a CYA gesture. Still figured the original wording would suffice, but a definite refinement of tone was called for. :)

[Gillianren]

One possible answer is that earth is at the center of the mass of the rotating universe, and is held stably in the center by the universe. Analogy would be a gyroscope. Also, general relativity would provide the posssibilty of such forces were one to pick the earth as a reference frame (there would need to be such forces generated to realize that reference frame).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the center of a gyroscope rotate?

[Jim]

You'll know how it all works when Voyager bumps into the wall.

Well, I knew you were being wry. (Your sig gave you away.)

However, you are lucky that I never submitted that short story I wrote back in college where the manned probe to Alpha Centauri hit the wall. Then I'd have to sue for copyright infringement.

[Celestial Mechanic]

Per GR, perhaps, but we need to consider more than GR.
Such as? And I mean within science, not some body of folklore.
History clearly shows that SR was developed after the failure of Michelson-Morley to demonstrate the earth's movement through the aether. In order to accept SR, Einstein had to modify Maxwell's equations.
Wrong. Einstein did not modify Maxwell's equations. Einstein modified mechanics to bring it into conformity with the properties of spacetime as revealed by Maxwell's equations and their symmetries. It is also a bit silly to say Einstein "accepted" SR, since he created it, after all.

[Jim]

Per GR, perhaps, but we need to consider more than GR.

It is viable because:

1. We have no absolute reference frame
2. GR supports it
3. Mach's principle supports it
...


But, if you are esposusing Geocentrism, then you are claiming an absolute reference frame. GR will not support that and you can no longer use GR as evidence of viability.

You not only need to include more than GR, you have to either drop or seriously modify GR.

Also, your argument for the earth as the center of everything (the 2 observations of centrality and non-movement) applies to all other bodies as well. That was Van Rijn's point.

[Celestial Mechanic]

[Snip!] I am not arguing against choosing coordinate systems of interest for engineering projects or research purposes. [Snip!]
But it is quite a different thing to choose a coordinate system and claim that it is the One and Only Sanctified Coordinate System. Why should there even be one?

[trth_skr]

Please describe an experiment that would make the statement "the Earth does not rotate or translate" falsifiable.

I agree (presuming I am reading between the lines properly ;) ) that this presents relativity as an attractive theory. Still, let's say we ran Michelson Morley on mars (with no heavy metal shielding, etc.). What if we got a definitive velocity corresponding to the calulated velocity of mars' orbit of the sun? We know we did not on earth (though we did detect fringes).

One of the hypothesis of Galileo Was Wrong is that the failure of MM (and Airy, plus subsequent and related optical experiments) led to the development of relativity. Relativity (reagardless whether this hypothesis is true) allows man to escape the fact that he cannot measure his presumed velocity through space by providing a tautalogical shrinkage of his instruments (or retarding of his clocks or both) just capable of "masking" the measurement. The tautalogy comes about because we cannot measure it, but we "know" that we are moving through space (because Copernicus said so) so therefor it must be shrinking. Of course a simpler explanation (ala Occam's razor) is that the earth is not moving through space.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com (http://www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com)

[trth_skr]

It's an interesting thought, certainly. But here is one question I'd have. If the earth is at the center and not rotating, then that means the entire universe revolves around us every 24 hours. Wouldn't distant galaxies have to be moving at tremendous speeds? I mean, if something is say a billion light years away from us, and traveling in a circle around us every 24 hours, then you're talking about velocities that are like billions of light years per hour. But my understanding is that even particle experiments on earth tend to show that matter can't travel at past the speed of light.

I have addressed this here (http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentrism-101-part-ii.html). Galileo Was Wrong also adresses this.

Your issue is only in Special relativity. A rotating universe requires general relativity. Also, GR does not posit a formal restriction on the speed of light, anyway. Still, in a rotating universe there is no local violation of luminality anyway.

In an aether based system, velocity of objects is measured relative to the rotating aether, again no issue.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com (http://www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com)

[trth_skr]

In order to not have to address issues which "current" science and geocentrists would not have an issue with, can we come to some general consensus on the following issues?:

1. Superluminality of objects relative to earth is not an issue in general relativity for a rotating universe, nor in aether theories with (or perhaps without) a rotating aether.
2. Special relativity limitations do not apply to a rotating universe (except perhaps approximately in some local frames such as on earth).
3. For Einsteinian relativity, a rotating universe is a general relativity issue, not a special realtivity issue.

I am sure these issues have been discussed at length within these forums.

Perhaps someone can put up or propose a summary statement regarding this, and we can all discuss and agree to it. Then when new people come on and raise this issue, we can point to the summary statement.

Obviously, anyone is still free to disagree with the statement.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com (http://www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com)

[captain swoop]

As far as I have seen Geocentrism is usualy prefered because it supports some religious belief rather than anything else. I lump it in with Intelligent Design and Creationism.

[George]

Most of the objections in George's post above are removed by dumping Aristotelian/Ptolemaic geocentrism for Tychonic geocentrism.
At least you noticed my post, I didn't think I used invisible type. :)

Even in the Tychonic model there are serious problems, namely the last ten in the list: stellar parallax, variation in meteor rates, Newton's law, Doppler shift, stellar aberration, the cosmic microwave dipole, galactic rotation, orbital retrogrades, relativity contradiction (though this is being addressed), and causality.

1. The earth is stationary
a. It does not have a general rotation on its axis...
You're not making things easier on yourself. :)

Add the Coriolis Effect and micro variations in the rotation rate back to the list.

Please, Trth_skr, address these specific arguments.

If the Earth is so damned special, why is it that the Moon and Earth's artificial satellites are the only things in the whole Universe that orbit the earth directly?
Welcome to the real central issue - religion. They can not defend from this position because there is very slim pickens from the Bible that argues for Geocentricity. I prefer..."Before honor, comes humility."[Proverbs 15 & 18] The Earth does not need to be at the center.

[Doodler]

As far as I have seen Geocentrism is usualy prefered because it supports some religious belief rather than anything else. I lump it in with Intelligent Design and Creationism.

ID and Creationism at least put forward a minimal effort (in some form) to explain reality. Geocentrism exists in utter defiance of it.

[Tensor]

Per GR, perhaps, but we need to consider morethan GR.

Why do we have to consider GR at all. Your claim was this:

2. No experiment has ever conclusively proven the earth rotates on its axis or translates.

Even without GR, no experiment can conclusively prove that the earth is stationary. Every experiment can be interpreted to show either the Earth is stationary or it is rotating and in motion around the sun.

History clearly shows that SR was developed after the failure of Michelson-Morley to demonstrate the earth's movement through the aether.

Actually, MM demonstrated that either the Earth is moving and there is no aether or the Earth is motionless. And, just because it was developed after, does not mean you have shown that it was developed to have anything to do with a Copernican system

Truthfully it does not matter what the intention was, except to demonstrate that Copernicism was held as a dogma of sciecne, and not easily let go of.

Can you point to any reference in Einstein's SR paper (http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/) where it mentions anything about copernicism? Or, for that matter, Einstein's paper introducing GR (http://www.alberteinstein.info/gallery/pdf/CP6Doc30_English_pp146-200.pdf)? (Even section 22, which simply shows how GR matches the observations of Mercury's perihelion.) Please explain how either of those papers demonstrate anything about a Copernican system, dogma or not.

We may never prove conclusively what the intents were, and actually it really does not matter for the science. The observations are what they are regardless of what theoretical work was proposed at what time.

Actually, it has a great deal to do with how it is presented. Wouldn't you say it's a bit intellectually dishonest of Sungenis to present false claims to support his dogma? If we don't know what the intent was, and Sungenis provides no proof, then his claim that the intent of relativity was to support a Copernican system is nothing more than a false claim.

I am not arguing against choosing coordinate systems of interest for engineering projects or research purposes.

Go back and read that again. I’m not talking about choosing a coordinate system. I’m talking about how you determine that it is the Earth that is stationary, when some of the same observations that Geocentrists use to support a stationary Earth can be found on other planets and the moon.

[Fortis]

Trth_skr, as you believe that SR was just some kludge to hide the absence of motion of the earth through the luminiferous aether, why do its other predictions work so well? If a positron and electron pair annihilate, the energy of the resultant gamma rays is simply given by E=mc^2.

[trth_skr]

I've never really looked at Geocentrism before, so I have what I'm sure will be a basic question.

If everything in the solar system revolves around the Earth, why do we only see Mercury and Venus in phases and not at opposition like we do the other planets?



All these issues are answered using the modern-Tychonic system. In the modern Tychonic, the universe revolves around the earth. The sun revolves with the universe. The planets (earth not being a planet or wanderer) orbit the sun with Keplerian orbits. All relations between objects in the solar system are exactly the same as the Keplerian heliocentric solar system at any given time. Only the choice of center is different.

Here, go to this web site:

http://www.pwr-tools.com/simsolar/

Download SimSolar for free (30 day trial). Lookat the solar system, turn on the orbits. Now, once you find a view where you can see everything you want, click the box that makes the earth center.All the relationships are the same, except the center changes. Of course the daily rotation is not resolved, only the annual cycles.

By the way, all you are doing when you go from sun-centered to earth-centered is changing corordinate systems. Fundamentally this is the basis for geocentrism. Elucidating a satisfactory mechanism and the physics follows. Note that this software uses circular orbits, but you should get the idea.

Using the inner planets as examples:

Try this:

Start the simulation with sun at the center.

Check "orbits to scale"
Check "Planets to scale"
Check "sun to scale"

You may want to set the speed to about 0.25 (100 is much too fast).

Keep hitting "zoom in" under orbits until you can see a significant space between the inner planets and earth (through mars). You will probably not see beyond mars on your screen, becuse you are to scale. You can hit "larger under planets too scale" if you want bigger points to see.

Now run until you think mars and venus are close.

Hit the STOP button. Look at the objects of interest (i.e., earth, venus, mars). Measure the distances on the screen if you want. Without running, check the earth center box. All you will see is all the planets, earth and sun shifting as earth takes the central position. Now do your measurements again. They should be the same.

Note that Galileo Was Wrong has an excellent animation showing the equivalence of mars' retrograde motion in both the geo and helio centric systems.


Also, if Geocentrism is real, wouldn't the paths taken by Voyager, Cassini, and Galeleo have been horribly wrong, since they assumed that the Sun was the gravitational center of things in this area?

No, the relative motions between planets, sun, and earth are the same. Local (to the solar system and earth) gravitational pulls should be the same, also, since the relations are the same.

For that matter, if the Earth is in the middle of everything, wouldn't Earth's gravity be stronger than everything else?

I better stop here.

No, the proposition is not that the universe is gravitationally bound by earth's gravity. Rather the universe is rotating and earth is [likely] at its center of mass.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com (http://www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com)

[trth_skr]

Aberration (http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Saberr.htm) of starlight and of the solar wind, stellar parallax (http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sparalax.htm) and doppler shift of starlight all prove that the Earth is moving. Any defense of geocentrism must address this evidence with something stronger than conjecture that "maybe the rest of the universe is moving in circles instead."


2. No experiment has ever conclusively proven the earth rotates on its axis or translates.

What about the parallax of stars?

Galileo Was Wrong spends a lot of time dealing with abberation and parallax. I will put something together on it. Briefly parallax is most easily treated with the neo-Tychnoian model (earth at center, universe revolves around earth, planets orbit sun, stars centered on the sun). This is a direct geocentric inversion of the heliocentric model.

Another means is by aether effects. Abberation can be dealt with as an aether effect or a precession of the universe. Creatnig a model that simultaneously accounts for both is more difficult, but not imposssible.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com (http://www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com)

[trth_skr]

How about Foucault's pendulum - e.g.,

http://www.calacademy.org/products/pendulum/page7.htm

This may not meet your definition of 'conclusive proof', but is difficult to explain [without a rotating earth model] without invoking my definition of 'magic'.

Actually, the opposite is true. Here is an excerpt from Galileo Was Wrong:

From Chapter 4 of Galileo Was Wrong (Answering Common Objections):

Doesn’t the Foucault Pendulum Prove the Earth is Rotating? (http://www.astronomy.com/ASY/CS/forums/307655/ShowPost.aspx)

Is ther a size limitation on posts? I wanted to post the entire quote, but I guess you will have to follow the link.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

[Van Rijn]

By the way, all you are doing when you go from sun-centered to earth-centered is changing corordinate systems.


That's what we've been saying - the coordinates you choose to observe from (whether sun centered, earth centered, mars centered or LMC centered) are arbitrary. There is no center.


Fundamentally this is the basis for geocentrism. Elucidating a satisfactory mechanism and the physics follows.


The physics (determining orbits in this case) doesn't depend on anything being the center. It only depends on the forces involved.



No, the proposition is not that the universe is gravitationally bound by earth's gravity. Rather the universe is rotating and earth is [likely] at its center of mass.


What is your evidence that the earth is the center of the universe's mass? That would be difficult to understand given the earth's rather small mass compared to the larger planets, sun, the galaxy, etc.

[Van Rijn]

Galileo Was Wrong spends a lot of time dealing with abberation and parallax. I will put something together on it. Briefly parallax is most easily treated with the neo-Tychnoian model (earth at center, universe revolves around earth, planets orbit sun, stars centered on the sun). This is a direct geocentric inversion of the heliocentric model.


This suggests some confusion about the heliocentric model. In modern cosmology, the sun is not considered to be the center of the universe any more than the earth is. There is no center in the accessible universe. At best, the heliocentric model is a useful approximation when discussing the solar system alone.


Another means is by aether effects. Abberation can be dealt with as an aether effect or a precession of the universe. Creatnig a model that simultaneously accounts for both is more difficult, but not imposssible.


What is the evidence for this "aether"?

[Tensor]

Is ther a size limitation on posts? I wanted to post the entire quote, but I guess you will have to follow the link.

There is a size limitation (I don't know what it is) but it really dosen't matter. You are better off just posting the link (and posting a sentence or two hilighting your point). One(among many)things the mods and admins are serious about is copyright violations. Posting the link is safer and a sentence or two is considered fair use. Post the links, most of us have the technology to click on it. :D

[publius]

Actually, the opposite is true. Here is an excerpt from Galileo Was Wrong:

From Chapter 4 of Galileo Was Wrong (Answering Common Objections):

Doesn’t the Foucault Pendulum Prove the Earth is Rotating? (http://www.astronomy.com/ASY/CS/forums/307655/ShowPost.aspx)

Is ther a size limitation on posts? I wanted to post the entire quote, but I guess you will have to follow the link.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

Mark,

That answer to the Foucault pendulum is quite misguided. You ask what force keeps the plane of the pendulum's swing constant. The "force" is inertia. Without a fixed pivot, the support cannot transmit the force required to keep that plane rotating with the earth. From what I gather, although Geocentrists invoke GR, they don't understand how it would work in a rotating reference frame, and do not understant the notion of inertial frames and inertia in general. From a rotating frame, the force that makes the plane rotate is the coriolis force.

How would GR explain the coriolis force necessary to do this? By a gravitomagnetic field, frame dragging. The centrifugal force would be handled by a anti-radial g field. This is just the Equivalence Principle at work, as I mentioned in the first post. An accelerated observer can declare that he is stationary in a constant g field. And this together gravitomagnetism can mimic the effects of a rotating frame. The general gravitational field can mimic any accelerating coordinate system, no matter how complex.

And to make a Geocentric frame, with the earth non rotating and non translating would require a rather complex universal gravitational field. I say universal because the scope of the field would be over the entire observable universe, and beyond.

If anyone here is interested, we can go through the ridiculous moving mass distribution necessary to make such a field. And bone up on the Coriolis frame forces. :) The mass distribution is basically a cylinder rotating about its axis. And that cylinder would have to be the diameter of the universe, with all the universe inside. And it would have to be enormously dense. An unfathomable amount of mass. And it would have to be rotating near the speed of light (relative to local inertial frame) to produce the ridiculous gravitomagnetic field necessary. 'g' is radial, some k*r, acting just like the centrifugal force. It is zero at the center. B_g is constant.

Precession of the earth's axis of rotation is a complication, as well as the gravitational pull of the sun, moon, and the other planets. To keep the earth stationary, the g part of the universal field will have to just cancel all those other gravitational sources. This means the axis of the cylinder has to be slightly off center so there is enough g to cancel. And it has to be in time with the solar system orbital motion. It may require that cylinder to be slightly "out of balance" with a heavy spot or something to give a slight perturbation to the centrifugal g field.

To handle precession, that cylinder itself will have to be precessing, making B_g precess. The tidal force of the moon are gradually slowing the earth's rotation as well. So that massive cylinder is going to have to be slowing down as well to mimic that. So we've got a slightly off center, perhaps slightly imbalance, precessing, slowing rotating cylinder the size of the universe, with untold mass and momentum to make the gravitational field required to mimim a Coriolis frame. "Magic" is almost apt at this point.

And finally, the earth undergoes little hiccups in its rotation. That ridiculous cylinder would have to have little hiccups as well to account for that. For example, that massive earthquake wherever it was a while back redistributed enough mass to make a detectable little hiccup in the earth's rotation. Well, that cylinder would've had to have a hiccup at just the right time for the gravitational field, propagating at (local) light speed to get here just in the nick of time to coincide with the earthquake. We are just about at the 99.9% "magic" confidence level here.

Unless you want to say the hiccup cause the earthquake, but I'd have to see how hiccups in g and B_g could do that.


-Richard

[trth_skr]

You'll know how it all works when Voyager bumps into the wall.

It appears that Pioneer 10 and other probes are already running into a wall (though they are already past the Schwarchild radius which starts at about Saturn)!

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com (http://www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com)

[trth_skr]

I believe I have provided a first cut answer all the questions of "Point 1 (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=833817&postcount=36)". I will now continue onto "Point 2".

Slow down if you can ;) .

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com (http://www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com)

[BigDon]

If you are joking it helps to use a smiley, otherwise I'm assuming you've given up being reasonable and are spouting word salad. Maybe hoping for a ban to prove your "martyrdom" against unreasoning science.

[publius]

It appears that Pioneer 10 and other probes are already running into a wall (though they are already past the Schwarchild radius which starts at about Saturn)!

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com (http://www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com)

Schwarzschild radius? That has to do with the event horizon of black holes. What you're grasping for is "stationary limit". Consider a Coriolis frame. The "tip velocity" of that frame from the POV of an inertial frame is just
v = rw. Nothing in an inertial frame can exceed c, so r = c/w is a point beyond which nothing can remain stationary in that Coriolis frame. It must move in the opposite direction enough to keep its inertial-relative speed below c.

For small r, the centrifugal g field would go as some k*r, but actually the g field for a stationary object would go to infinty at r = c/w. 'w' for the earth is about 2pi/24hour ~ 7.3 x 10^-5 rad/s. I come up with the stationary limit is about 27AU.

Nothing special about that, if you're in an inertial frame..........

-Richard

[PhantomWolf]

How about we add that anything beyond Neptune would need to be moving faster than light to orbit the earth in a day (including our own Voyager and Pioneer probes) and the Earth's equatorial bulge (matching that on other rotating planets) to the mix as well?

Surely the fact that a rotating moving Earth accounts for all of this very easily and without having to rearrange the physics that works for the rest of the universe, it is a better explanation than one which is "difficult but not impossible" to work out.

[davidlpf]

how about the earths magnetic field.

[Tensor]

It appears that Pioneer 10 and other probes are already running into a wall (though they are already past the Schwarchild radius which starts at about Saturn)!

Ya know, it would help your credibility if you would actually know and understand what the terms actually mean before you make a comment using them. Publius gave you a good explanation of the stationary limit. The Schwarzschild radius is nothing more than where the Schwarzschild metric becomes singular. For simplicities sake, you can think of the Schwarzschild radius as the point the escape velocity of a spherical, static, symmetric mass is equal to c.

[AMDG]

#12 said

...Einstein's theory was forced upon us by observations such as the famous Michelson and Morley experiment...

The MM parable: A modern physicist and his son decided to go for a drive. The father stuck his hand out the car window and said, "I feel no wind on my hand, son - the air must have disappeared!"
"Don't be a silly fizzicist, Dad", said the little boy. "We haven't started moving yet!"

Can a real physicist ever make this dumb mistake in testing for aether motion?
Michelson listed 4 possible interpretations of the MM result in his summary report - the obvious one, a stationary Earth, was not one of them!

"The null result includes the rational option of the Earth being at rest. The refusal to even consider the possibility that this was true, and that Galileo and all science for centuries had been wrong, disproves the posture of modern science being objective.
Even the null result wasn’t really so, as Miller and others showed in later similar tests. There were small daily and annual variations in light speed that have great importance for geocentric theory, as we shall see. " GWW, P. 801

[publius]

If by "fizzicist" you mean someone with only a vague understanding of physics with a propensity for bad analogies based on that misunderstanding, then a modern fizzicist might make such a mistake.

In the Newtonian world at the time, rotation and acceleration were absolute -- if you feel a force you are accelerating. Which means there would be no way to avoid a rotating, translating earth, given the Coriolis frame forces as demonstrated by the Foucalt pendulum, and the fact that Netwonian gravity requires the solar system to orbit around its common center of mass.

Thus the earth had to be in relative motion relative to the sun. It is only if we accept MM --> SR, are we able to come up with GR, which allows us to invoke gravitational space-time curvature in order to mimic a Coriolis frame.

By attacking the isotropy of c, you are attacking the very foundation of what you invoke (GR) to have absolute geocentrism. If the speed of light is not inertially isotropic, then all bets are off.

A physicist knows that. A fizzicist would not. A physcist would know that the original MM experiment was not the last word. The isotropy of c has been tested and tested to greater and greater precision ever since. A physcist would even know how to find the papers on these experiments.

A physicist would understand the notion of experimental error, and how there are little error bars around an expected result, how to calculate those bars, and how to tell if his measured values fit within those bars. A fizzicist would not.

-Richard

[ktesibios]

How about we add that anything beyond Neptune would need to be moving faster than light to orbit the earth in a day (including our own Voyager and Pioneer probes) and the Earth's equatorial bulge (matching that on other rotating planets) to the mix as well?

Surely the fact that a rotating moving Earth accounts for all of this very easily and without having to rearrange the physics that works for the rest of the universe, it is a better explanation than one which is "difficult but not impossible" to work out.

PW, that assumes that the authors of sites like galileowaswrong.com or fixedearth.com are seeking the most parsimonious explanation for the available body of observations.

I don't think that's the case; it seems to me that they are in fact seeking to find some way of hammering and filing the evidence to fit a conclusion predetermined by a personal view of theology.

That's not the way that science works. In fact, it's not science at all. It's more like spinach. (http://www.rcharvey.com/images/rose.gif)

[Doodler]

How about we add that anything beyond Neptune would need to be moving faster than light to orbit the earth in a day (including our own Voyager and Pioneer probes) and the Earth's equatorial bulge (matching that on other rotating planets) to the mix as well?

Actually, a gent who posted here a while back under the moniker JS Princeton worked it out that anything about Saturn and beyond was moving at lightspeed in order to give us a 24 hour universal rotation.

[Celestial Mechanic]

[Snip!] Briefly parallax is most easily treated with the neo-Tychnoian model (earth at center, universe revolves around earth, planets orbit sun, stars centered on the sun).
But why centered on the Sun? Why not the Earth-Moon barycenter? Why not the Earth itself? I thought this was a geocentric system! Doesn't sound very geocentric to me.
This is a direct geocentric inversion of the heliocentric model.
Which is the only reason that it works at all.

[AMDG]

from #19
Theoretically, what kind of observation would disprove Relativity, and what would we expect to see in the absolutist Geocentrist universe they revere?

Most appreciate the fact that relativity cannot be true if geocentrism is, unless one believes contradictories can both be true.

from GWW, P.725
"The Sagnac experiment shows that light speed does not remain constant relative to the motion of its source or observer/detector. The excuses given for this SR contradiction themselves contradict relativity. The proof of aether and disproof of SR theory are purportedly denied using GR theory to arbitrarily add a universal reference frame ("proper time"), which is exactly what the aether is!"

GWW, P 728
"GPS needs universal synchronization of satellites and ground stations; the preferred and ONLY reference frame that provides synchronization is the ECI reference frame. Satellites broadcast precise timing signals to ground receivers to accurately determine their location.
GPS daily operations support Geocentrism beliefs and challenge relativity dogma. All high precision GPS applications correct for the Sagnac effect, indicating that the speed of light is not always constant to the moving observer, the satellite. GPS computations locate moving receivers by including the v +/- c Galilean model. ECI - Earth Centered Inertial - is the standard NASA euphemism for the Geostatic frame."

So GPS will not work unless the location of the master clock's rest frame is on the Earth's surface. In this technology example geostatism triumphs.

GWW recounts more modern experiments that put SR and GR to sleep.
Isn't it dawning on anyone that the GWW CD has the answers to your geocentrism queries?

[PhantomWolf]

The father stuck his hand out the car window and said, "I feel no wind on my hand, son - the air must have disappeared!"

However this requires the aether actually exists, for it to have disappeared. If it does exist, then it can't have disappeared and so the null result simply shows it's not there. Do you have any evidence that aether actually exists?

[PhantomWolf]

PW, that assumes that the authors of sites like galileowaswrong.com or fixedearth.com are seeking the most parsimonious explanation for the available body of observations.

Oh, I guess we can add Occam to the 'being an optimist' pile then, just like Murphy.

[publius]

Please, please don't post any more references to stuff like "fixedearth.com". I went there just to see, and I couldn't make myself stop reading as much as I wanted to. "Copernicanism" is all part of grand Satanic plot to deceive the masses. It's a lie that the universe is a big as it is. Telescopes are rigged-- Hubble's famous Deep Field was just a fake. It's all a giant plot. Time lapse shots showing the stars smeared in circular arcs prove the stars rotate around the earth. It's all a giant conspiracy.


-Richard

[ktesibios]

Please, please don't post any more references to stuff like "fixedearth.com". I went there just to see, and I couldn't make myself stop reading as much as I wanted to. "Copernicanism" is all part of grand Satanic plot to deceive the masses. It's a lie that the universe is a big as it is. Telescopes are rigged-- Hubble's famous Deep Field was just a fake. It's all a giant plot. Time lapse shots showing the stars smeared in circular arcs prove the stars rotate around the earth. It's all a giant conspiracy.


-Richard

[Calvin's dad]
Think of it as building character ;)
[/Calvin's dad]

[Thanatos]

The beauty of this line of reasoning is it is inherently unfalsibiable. No amount of evidence, however compelling, can prove a negative. This is precisely what is central to this argument - the earth does not rotate. However tortuous and convoluted the explanation may be, it is always possible to construct a denial of any alternative propositions. But this approach belies the fundamental principles of the scientific method, which is simplicity: the ability to make testable predictions. Claiming the ability to explain results after the fact is a thinly disguised admission of ignorance, IMO.

[George]

But why centered on the Sun? Why not the Earth-Moon barycenter? Why not the Earth itself? I thought this was a geocentric system! Doesn't sound very geocentric to me.
Great point becasue the only way a Geocentric system can explain parallax and abberation is to relocate the center away from the Earth!

[Fortis]

Trth_skr, any comment about my query regarding the other successful predictions of SR, e.g. e=mc^2.

[AMDG]

#24

The "model of geocentrism consistent with modern science" is simply General Relativity. .........
My point here is this nothing but a preference of coorinate system. .....
-Richard

The model of GC consistent with modern science experiments - and not with modern science's interpretations of the results - is the geometric model of Tycho Brahe (GWW (http://www.amazon.com/Galileo-Was-Wrong-Robert-Sungenis/dp/0977964000/sr=8-1/qid=1159454999/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-2803807-5185522?ie=UTF8&s=books): P.26) and a modified form of Ron Hatch's MLET gauge theory (GWW (http://www.amazon.com/Galileo-Was-Wrong-Robert-Sungenis/dp/0977964000/sr=8-1/qid=1159454999/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-2803807-5185522?ie=UTF8&s=books): P 774) to model the aether for computation. Of course these models will be refined, as more data is gathered.

The choice of coordinate system is a choice of mathematical convenience. But this principle of general covariance does not apply to the underlying system of objects being described by the mathematics, any more than a blanket thrown over building blocks determines their intrinsic architecture.

[JimTKirk]

<snip>from GWW, P.725
"The Sagnac experiment shows that light speed does not remain constant relative to the motion of its source or observer/detector. The excuses given for this SR contradiction themselves contradict relativity. The proof of aether and disproof of SR theory are purportedly denied using GR theory to arbitrarily add a universal reference frame ("proper time"), which is exactly what the aether is!"

<snip>


So are you saying the aether moves through our own atmosphere too? After all the Sagnac experiment was done on the ground in 1913, well before we escaped the atmosphere.:wall:

[AMDG]

from #25
Would you say that Mars rotates? Jupiter? Saturn? Any object in space? If not, why not? If so, what is the difference between them and earth, beyond an arbitrary choice?



All objects above revolve and rotate, except the Earth and the geostats.

The Earth alone is a preferred reference frame for measuring light propagation, as found a century ago in the Sagnac experiment and exhibited every day in the operation of GPS. Both of these have prior citations in GWW (http://www.amazon.com/Galileo-Was-Wrong-Robert-Sungenis/dp/0977964000/sr=8-1/qid=1159454999/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-2803807-5185522?ie=UTF8&s=books).

[BigDon]

Can we get a mod here?

AMDG's "links" are him just spamming his book.

[JimTKirk]

Can we get a mod here?

AMDG's "links" are him just spamming his book.

If you feel that is all he's doing, (I tend to agree) and think there is enough proof, use the Report Post button (red framed triangle on right side).

[BigDon]

Jim, I'm sure the mods are watching this thread closely. They just aren't awake yet.

[Sticks]

If you feel that is all he's doing, (I tend to agree) and think there is enough proof, use the Report Post button (red framed triangle on right side).

Done!

[captain swoop]

All objects above revolve and rotate, except the Earth and the geostats.

But Geosats are moving!

[AMDG]

from #27
......In addition, why couldn't the astronauts, on the moon, consider the moon as the center? After all, some of the same observations that are claimed support geocentrism, on Earth, were observable on the moon (slower, tis true, but still there). .....

The lunanauts would find it impossible to track space probes accurately from the Moon. A lunacentric system requires constant correction because it's not using the absolute geocentric system.

JPL and NASA use the ECI (geostatic) system for all space navigation. Claims that JPL uses only the solar barycentric system for deep space probes have been falsified by the disclosure that JPL tracking programs transform from the barycentric to ECI in their software algorithms. The barycenter is an irrelevant intermediate coordinate system.
As usual, see GWW (http://www.amazon.com/Galileo-Was-Wrong-Robert-Sungenis/dp/0977964000/sr=8-1/qid=1159454999/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-2803807-5185522?ie=UTF8&s=books), P. 775

[publius]

All objects above revolve and rotate, except the Earth and the geostats.

The Earth alone is a preferred reference frame for measuring light propagation, as found a century ago in the Sagnac experiment and exhibited every day in the operation of GPS. Both of these have prior citations in GWW (http://www.amazon.com/Galileo-Was-Wrong-Robert-Sungenis/dp/0977964000/sr=8-1/qid=1159454999/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-2803807-5185522?ie=UTF8&s=books).


I'm getting tired of this "Sagnac effect" nonsense (and the GPS nonsense). The Sagnac effect boils down to the following ridiculously simple situation:

An observer is moving at velocity v toward a mirror some distance 'd' away at t = 0. He fires a laser pulse directly ahead at that point. The beam travels a distance 'd', hits the mirror and travels back toward the moving observer. But the observer has moved toward the mirror by some distance 'vt' in the meantime. The distance the light pulse travels when it comes back to the observer is 2d - vt. And that time t has to equal ct the distance light travelled at c -- > ct = 2d -vt --> t = 2d/(c + v).

If there were a mirror behind him and he fired the laser backwards that time would be 2d/(c - v).

That's all the Sagnac effect is. In the frame of the moving observer, the above times would be modifed by a factor of a gamma, and I'll let the reader do that calculation if interested :), but that observer sees the mirror move in the light travel meantime himself. When the beam hits and bounces back, the distance to the mirror is less than when the beam was fired. He will see the factor of (c + v) or (c - v) drop out himself, bu the distances and times will be modifed by gamma in his frame.

Now, the ill-informed see that "magic" factor of (c + v) and (c - v) and think aha, the speed of light is varying. No, that's just because the distance travelled is less by the amount the observer moved in the light travel meantime.

Either observer will measure that light pulse going by him at c.


-Richard

[Lurker]

Ya gotta love it... lets argue over something that has been established fact for several hundred years...

And then ATM'ers wonder why their stock tends to be of the penny kind rather than blue chip... :)

[publius]

But Geosats are moving!

Cap'n,

Not relative to the rotating surface of the earth. In the Coriolis frame, the centrifugal force just cancels the gravitational force at the geostationary radius. And since there is no velocity, the coriolis force is zero. It just sits there. :)

In an (ETA: *Newtonian-inertial) frame, the satellite is moving of course, free falling under the influence of gravity and nothing else.

These Geocentrists actually believe it is not moving. Those who try to invoke GR (and I don't believe our GWW link dropper is one -- he appears to deny Relativity altogether), believe that centrifugal force is due to a massive universal gravitational field of that rotating cylinder I was talking about.

-Richard

[Tensor]

The lunanauts would find it impossible to track space probes accurately from the Moon. A lunacentric system requires constant correction because it's not using the absolute geocentric system.

That's a nice statement. Please post the equations showing what needs correcting, and by how much. Not a link to purchase a book, but the actual equations.

JPL and NASA use the ECI (geostatic) system for all space navigation. Claims that JPL uses only the solar barycentric system for deep space probes have been falsified by the disclosure that JPL tracking programs transform from the barycentric to ECI in their software algorithms. The barycenter is an irrelevant intermediate coordinate system.

Or JPL uses the Solar Barycenter and the coordinates are only converted to ECI as a convience to the workers at JPL. After all, the antennas are on the Earth and not at the Solar Barycenter.

[Tensor]

Cap'n,

Not relative to the rotating surface of the earth. In the Coriolis frame, the centrifugal force just cancels the gravitational force at the geostationary radius. And since there is no velocity, the coriolis force is zero. It just sits there. :)
-Richard


Actually, none of the geostats just sit there. The do figure eights, circles, ellipses, or move back and forth. Depends on the inclination, eccentricity etc. of the orbit.

[trth_skr]

How does a geo-stationary satellite stay at a fixed altitude if the earth isn't rotating and thus the satellite not in a free-falling orbit?

Take a look at this dialogue, here (http://www.catholic-forum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=875&highlight=geocentrism).

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com (http://www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com)

[publius]

The lunanauts would find it impossible to track space probes accurately from the Moon. A lunacentric system requires constant correction because it's not using the absolute geocentric system.

JPL and NASA use the ECI (geostatic) system for all space navigation. Claims that JPL uses only the solar barycentric system for deep space probes have been falsified by the disclosure that JPL tracking programs transform from the barycentric to ECI in their software algorithms. The barycenter is an irrelevant intermediate coordinate system.
As usual, see GWW (http://www.amazon.com/Galileo-Was-Wrong-Robert-Sungenis/dp/0977964000/sr=8-1/qid=1159454999/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-2803807-5185522?ie=UTF8&s=books), P. 775

As usual, you misunderstand. ECI is *NOT ROTATING* actually. That's the meaning of "inertial". Relative to the earth's surface, ECI is rotating in the opposite direction at about 24 hours per revolution.

ECI is the "stellar inertial" frame for the earth, a frame free-falling with the center of the earth around Mr. Sun (and around the barycenter of the earth-moon system). The z-axis is aligned with the earth's axis. One of the others, x or y is usually aligned with the vernal equinox on the celestial sphere, I think.

In this frame, to the extent the solar and lunar tidal differentials can be ignored, which they can close to the earth, the only influences one need calculate is the earth's own gravitational field. In a rotating frame, one would have to add the centrifugal and coriolis forces, which makes it complicated.

Why does JPL use this. Because this gives us the coordinates of things relative to where we are. Makes sense don't you think?

-Richard

[AMDG]

from #27
Please describe an experiment that would make the statement "the Earth does not rotate or translate" falsifiable.

Sagnac and GPS experiments will cover rotation, for starters.
The following experimenters are listed with their measurement of the Earth's motion through space via the measured anistropy in c:
Dayton Miller - 10 km/s toward galactic pole
CMB - 390 km/s toward Regulus.
Dewitte - 900 km/s

Unless the Earth is disintegrating, how can it move in different directions through space at varying speeds? Can the highly-warped space-time continuum explain this logical stumbling stone?

Geostatism can. It would be logical to take these results as indicating that various parts of the sky are moving towards a stationary Earth at various speeds. In this sense geostatism supports geocentrism.

It is said the Sun's motion in space is given by the CMB data above. But this direction is 40 degrees out of the galactic plane. How can the Sun revolve around the galactic center, if it's been moving out of the Milky Way plane for 4.5 gigayears?

BTW: No one detected the 30 km/s speed of the Earth around the Sun, alleged to be an annual periodic motion supimposed on the linear motion.

per usual, refer to GWW (http://www.amazon.com/Galileo-Was-Wrong-Robert-Sungenis/dp/0977964000/sr=8-1/qid=1159454999/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-2803807-5185522?ie=UTF8&s=books).

[trth_skr]

Most of the objections in George's post above are removed by dumping Aristotelian/Ptolemaic geocentrism for Tychonic geocentrism. However, Tychonic geocentrism has its own problems.

Tychonic geocentrism works only because it is a sequence of coordinate transformations from cosmological coordinates down to geocentric fixed coordinates. That is, ...barycenter, and finally the center of the Earth.
Oh, did I mention the Earth-Moon barycenter? Strange, the Tychonistas never show that in their diagrams of the Solar System. Very strange.
This leads to the strange conclusion that, despite the fact that the Universe is allegedly centered upon the Earth, ...
I will skip Georges first post based on your comments. You are correct, his comments mainly relate to the specific Ptolemaic model. As I pointed out in this post (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=834082&postcount=59), Galileo Was Wrong proposes the modern Tychonic.

I think your rotation concerns are satisfied by the proposition that the entire universe is in rotation. The earth is held stable by forces referred to as "geolock" in Galileo Was Wrong. Here is a quote from Galileo Was Wrong (pg. 600 & 601):

As Martin Selbrede explains it:

It is often objected that if geocentricity were true, and the
rotating heavens were dragging Foucault pendula and weather
systems around, why doesn’t that force pull on the Earth itself
and drag it along, causing it to eventually rotate in sync with
the heavens? It appears that this straightforward application of
torque to the Earth should cause it to rotate in turn, but this
turns out to be an oversimplification. As the heavens rotate,
and the firmament rotates on an axis through the Earth’s poles,
each firmament particle…also rotates with the same angular
velocity. Ironically, this is precisely the reason the Earth can’t
be moved.

(Martin Selbrede, “Geocentricity’s Critics Refuse to Do Their Homework,” The Chalcedon Report, 1994, p. 11. In this 12-page rebuttal of Michael Martin Nieto of Los Alamos National Laboratory, who was hired by Gary North (a Reconstructionist- Theonomist), to attempt to refute geocentrism, Selbrede has written one of the best defenses of geocentrism, using the very principles of Relativity theory)

Selbrede goes on to explain the validity of above proposition by
appealing to an illustration of the same principle crafted by L. I. Schiff
and reintroduced by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler. The authors state:

The gyroscope is rotationally at rest relative to the inertial
frames in its neighborhood. It and the local inertial frames
rotate relative to the distant galaxies with the angular velocity
Ω because the Earth’s rotation “drags” the local inertial frames
along with it. Notice that near the north and south poles the
local inertial frames rotate in the same direction as the Earth
does (Ω parallel to J), but near the equator the rotate in the
opposite direction (Ω antiparallel to J; compare Ω with the
magnetic field of the Earth!).

(The formula to which Misner, et al. refer is stated on the same page (1119), which is:
Ω = -½ Λ × g = (7/8Δ1 + 1/8Δ2) 1/r3 [-J + 3(J × r)r]/r2. )


...Following the analogy to its logical conclusion, Selbrede then
comments how it confirms the geocentric model:

Now reverse the situation. If we want to cause the sphere to
rotate clockwise, we would need to turn the rods at the poles
clockwise, and the ones at the equators
counterclockwise….This picture is clear then: to turn the
sphere, the rotation of the particles (MTW’s “rods”) at the
poles must be the opposite of that at the equator…However, in
the case of a rotating firmament, all the particles are rotating in
the same direction, with the angular velocity common to the
entire firmament. The equatorial inertial drag is in the opposite
direction as the acting near the poles. Using calculus, one
integrates the effect from the center of the Earth outward in
infinitesimal shells, showing that the Earth is in fact locked in
place, the resulting inertial shear being distributed throughout
the Earth’s internal volume. It could be demonstrated that were
the Earth to be pushed out of its “station keeping” position, the
uneven force distribution would return it to its equilibrium
state...

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com (http://www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com)

[AMDG]

from #28 ..... If the earth is at the center and not rotating, then that means the entire universe revolves around us every 24 hours. Wouldn't distant galaxies have to be moving at tremendous speeds? I mean, if something is say a billion light years away from us, and traveling in a circle around us every 24 hours, then you're talking about velocities that are like billions of light years per hour. But my understanding is that even particle experiments on earth tend to show that matter can't travel at past the speed of light.

The aether model integrated with geostatism provides the answer to your excellent question.

The Earth is absolutely at rest, surrounded by a dynamic aether that extends throughout the universe. Since the aether is immaterial and is in fact the medium for light wave propagation, it has no restriction on its speed. So the deep space aether in which the stars are embedded can be moving far beyond c. The stars can only move through the aether at less than c (that is, if we ignore all the superluminal experiments that demonstrate c is not constant.).
Any observed celestial speed from Earth is the speed of the aether with respect to Earth plus the speed of the viewed object with respect to the aether. This is the Galilean transformation, one of the few things Galileo got right ! (:^)>

Hydrodynamic analogy: A powerboat on a lake has a maximum speed as seen from shore. The same boat moving downstream in a fast current can have a much greater speed seen from the river bank.

It's understandable why Einstein and relativists are determined to eliminate the aether from scientific thinking.

Thank you for your question. For more details, see GWW (http://www.amazon.com/Galileo-Was-Wrong-Robert-Sungenis/dp/0977964000/sr=8-1/qid=1159454999/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-2803807-5185522?ie=UTF8&s=books)

[AMDG]

from #29

......If everything in the solar system revolves around the Earth, why do we only see Mercury and Venus in phases and not at opposition like we do the other planets?


You are using the discarded geocentric model of Ptolemy. The Neo-Tychonian model has two Earth satellites, the Moon and Sun. The Sun is orbited by 7 planets - now that Pluto's been demoted (another mod ast mistake ?! ) :o
The inner planet phases are correctly given in the N-T model.

from #29
Also, if Geocentrism is real, wouldn't the paths taken by Voyager, Cassini, and Galeleo have been horribly wrong, since they assumed that the Sun was the gravitational center of things in this area?

For that matter, if the Earth is in the middle of everything, wouldn't Earth's gravity be stronger than everything else?

Geostatism doesn't mean the Earth is the gravitational center of the universe - a reason for using this phrase rather than geocentrism. Since aether is the cause of what we now call gravity - and of inertia - stop thinking gravity; start thinking aether! Calling the Earth the aetheric center of the universe is much better.

Since we know little about the aether, since it was commonly thought non-existent, it would be presumptuous to assume it's stronger/denser/faster around Earth than anywhere else.

For more on the N-T model and the Pioneer anomaly, see GWW (http://www.amazon.com/Galileo-Was-Wrong-Robert-Sungenis/dp/0977964000/sr=8-1/qid=1159454999/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-2803807-5185522?ie=UTF8&s=books).

[BigDon]

Since direct, mature questions in this forum require answers in a timely fashion I have one for the Moderators.

Namely, how is AMDG's numerous false "references" not in violation of BAUT rule #6?

6. Advertising, Solicitation, and Spam

Do not post advertisements of any kind without securing the express consent of the administrators beforehand. Do not use this bulletin board as a vehicle to promote your own website, product, or forum, nor to sell merchandise. These are egregious offenses which will result in the deletion of the offending posts and banning of the user(s) responsible. Do not submit threads/posts containing identical text in multiple forum categories; that's considered spamming the board, and likewise will be dealt with accordingly.

You can put a website in your signature if you wish, but please think carefully before you do so. If you have any doubts that it may break one of these rules, contact a moderator or administrator first.

[trth_skr]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the center of a gyroscope rotate?

If the gyroscope is a solid body, it has to rotate, but I believe the mathematical center of mass of the gyroscope is stabilized by the gyroscope. This is the function of the gyroscope. Now apply this to a fluid (i.e., aether).

See this post (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=834606&postcount=103) for more explicit information.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholci.blgspot.com (http://www.veritas-catholci.blgspot.com)

[antoniseb]

Namely, how is AMDG's numerous false "references" not in violation of BAUT rule #6?

These are a problem. Things like:
For more on the N-T model and the Pioneer anomaly, see GWW (http://www.amazon.com/Galileo-Was-Wrong-Robert-Sungenis/dp/0977964000/sr=8-1/qid=1159454999/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-2803807-5185522?ie=UTF8&s=books).
Are certainly advertisements in our eyes. I think AMDG has gotten a relatively free pass mostly because the yawn factor of this thread has not encouraged a lot of moderator eyes looking at it. But now that you bring it up, I'll be watching it more carefully. Certainly I've been seeing this kind of thing off and on since I was in college and first read an issue of "The Brahean Debator". Their point seems to be that you CAN construct a highly complex explanation for what we see that does not require the Earth to move. They are equally at a loss to prove the Earth doesn't move, and our explanation is a lot easier to work with mathematically. To me they are merely debating for the sake of defending a position we all take as false, and not because there's merit in looking at the world in this other way.

BTW, since AMDG has PM turned off, this is a warning. The next such advertisement will get him suspended for a few days.

[JimTKirk]

<snip> Now apply this to a fluid (i.e., aether).

<snip>

If there is this stuff called aether and it is a fluid as you say, why can't we measure or see it directly like the solar wind?:confused:

[Celestial Mechanic]

I will skip George's first post based on your comments. You are correct, his comments mainly relate to the specific Ptolemaic model. As I pointed out in this post (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=834082&postcount=59), Galileo Was Wrong proposes the modern Tychonic. [Snip!]
Unfortunately you did NOT address any of MY concerns. Namely, why do latter-day Tychonistas ignore the "fact" that the Sun should be orbiting the Earth-Moon barycenter and NOT the Earth in order for their "theory" to be consistent with observations. What is so special about the Earth-Moon barycenter that the Sun would orbit that instead of the Earth directly?

[George]

... To me they are merely debating for the sake of defending a position we all take as false, and not because there's merit in looking at the world in this other way.
Geocentricity is the most wonderful way to see our place in the universe. Mankind should like the idea of being at the center; ask any religion. Unfortunately, it is not representative of the truth. The rotations and translations the entire universe must do to accomodate that view is ludicrous and detremental to the credibility of those who promote it.

To produce the elliptical pattern in stars, i.e. abberation, with a fixed Earth requires the universe to oscillate in translation every year. The question of cauality becomes more apparent; why would a any Creator/Designer want to constantly shift the universe like that?

[Celestial Mechanic]

[Snip!] Martin Selbrede explains it:It is often objected that if geocentricity were true, and the rotating heavens were dragging Foucault pendula and weather systems around, why doesn’t that force pull on the Earth itself and drag it along, causing it to eventually rotate in sync with the heavens? It appears that this straightforward application of torque to the Earth should cause it to rotate in turn, but this turns out to be an oversimplification. As the heavens rotate, and the firmament rotates on an axis through the Earth’s poles, each firmament particle…also rotates with the same angular velocity. Ironically, this is precisely the reason the Earth can’t be moved.[Snip!]
So, if we were to place a rotating object on the rotational axis of the Universe it would:
ultimately be drawn to and stay on the axis; and ultimately have its rotation stopped completely.
Why don't we see a large number of objects frozen on the universal rotation axis?

What prevents the Earth from moving along this axis? More magick?

[trth_skr]

But, if you are esposusing Geocentrism, then you are claiming an absolute reference frame. GR will not support that and you can no longer use GR as evidence of viability.

GR does support geocentrism in that it shows that geocentrism is possible (per GR). And actually, GR can be used directly to model geocentrism if a different metric is used (other than the homogeneous/isotropic FRWW ). If the Lemaitre-Tolman-Bondi metric is used, then a center is possible. GR is capable of having a center, but if you formulate it out (i.e., FRWW), then you have chosen to exclude a center.

Never the less, the main reason to bring up GR is that it supports geocenrtism, not necassarily that it is the desired route to model it.

more[/I] than GR, you have to either drop or seriously modify GR.

I.e., change the metric?

the 2 observations of centrality and non-movement[/I]) applies to all other bodies as well. That was Van Rijn's point.

In the FRWW metric, for sure. In other metrics, maybe not. In reality it has not been demonstrated. Keep in mind that the isotropic principle is an assumption. The isotropic principle states (basically) that everywhere in the universe appears to be center. Here is Stephen Hawking on this issue:



...all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe...

...There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe...

A Brief History of Time, Bantam Books, New York, 1988, p. 42 as quoted in Galileo Was Wrong.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com (http://www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com)

[Sticks]

I have let you guys examine physics of this, but for a brief interlude I would like to address the origin of this doctrine to show why from the faith world geocentrism falls down

The bizarre thing is, from a historical point of view is that the system that Galileo opposed in defending the works of Copernicus, came not from the Bible but from Ptolemy. From the link I gave in my first post on this thread, it seems that the advocates of geocentricity appeal to what is phenominal language and took it literally. Today we do not talk about Earth-Turn we say sunrise or sunset because that is how the phenomenon appears to us. (I do realise the irony of me taking this position given that I am one of those people in the "faith" camp and some of my postings on another subject).

The implication here is that in order for geocentricity to work, you must have massive items, like quasars, blackholes and galaxies, driven by ether (could this be dark matter - but I digress) way past the speed of light. This ignores several fundamental rules of physics, as stated succinctly by my esteemed fellow poster here on BAUT.

I suspect that there is a mindset which says "Nothing is impossible for God" so it must be so. Theologically this is stretching a point way past breaking. First of all, as I said before. Geocentrism is not a doctrine from the Bible, but from a pagan, so why are groups, affiliated to Christianity championing it. Second scripture is wrested out of context to justify this. Third, it totally misunderstands the nature of miracles. Rules do not permit me to go into much details, but the maxim of miracles were that they were a very rare suspension or violation of natural law, for a specific point to confirm a specific message. After a certain period in history, they were no longer needed and now nature is left to do its thing. Geocentricity requires physical laws to be violated all the time with no clear message. If I were setting things up, I would have it as it is, with nature letting things tick over with minimal tampering, if ever.

[trth_skr]

...

Add the Coriolis Effect and micro variations in the rotation rate back to the list.

Please, Trth_skr, address these specific arguments.

...

Coriolis effect: This was addressed by Thirring back in 1918. He showed that in the interior of a heavy rotating shell were exhibited forces analogous to the inertial forces. The demonstration was enough for Max Born to say:





...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space.

Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right.

Max Born, "Einstein's Theory of Relativi