Geocentrism and Relativity

[RichardT]

You didn't explain how astronauts going to the moon look back and see the earth rotating beneath them

But I just did.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

But I just did.

You did not. For it to be observationally equivalent the atronauts have to transition from sitting on the earth watching the universe whizz round them to whizzing around the earth each day. Unless you want to totally through out laws of inertia and angular momentum you need a force to provide this accelaration. Where does the force come from? When does it start taking affect as the astronauts leave earth and why does it not affect earth satellites?

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

But I just did.

So the astronauts became "embedded" within the rotating aether like the rest of the solar system? When did this occur on their voyage and why didn't they detect the acceleration?

 

[BrainHertz]

How could this be possible? The earth's revolution and rotation about it's axis is observationally equivalent to the modified Tychonic system.

Only if you restrict "observation" to include measuring the movement of objects, and exclude measuring any forces. As soon as you start measuring forces you have some problems explaining what's going on in a geocentric model.

Could you run by me again how satellites work in the Tychonic system?

 

[moogoob]

I'm interested to know why, if Geocentrism is a useful model, satellites are launched eastward. If the earth were stationary, it shouldn't matter which direction the launch took place in. Rather, they are launched eastward because the Earth's rotations gives them a slight boost, meaning they can carry less fuel or more weight for the same orbit. And guess what... the calculations work! Most spacecraft only carry just enough fuel to reach orbit, with very little left as backup in case of error.

The physics work.

 

[Washington]

I'm interested to know why, if Geocentrism is a useful model, satellites are launched eastward. If the earth were stationary, it shouldn't matter which direction the launch took place in. Rather, they are launched eastward because the Earth's rotations gives them a slight boost, meaning they can carry less fuel or more weight for the same orbit. And guess what... the calculations work! Most spacecraft only carry just enough fuel to reach orbit, with very little left as backup in case of error.

The physics work.

But, I don't believe there is anything within the geocentric model that says the Earth could not rotate, albeit at a different speed.

 

[SpyridonOCA]

But, I don't believe there is anything within the geocentric model that says the Earth could not rotate, albeit at a different speed.
[/IMG]

One of the claims of Biblical geocentrism is that the earth does not move.

 

[BrainHertz]

I'm interested to know why, if Geocentrism is a useful model, satellites are launched eastward. If the earth were stationary, it shouldn't matter which direction the launch took place in. Rather, they are launched eastward because the Earth's rotations gives them a slight boost, meaning they can carry less fuel or more weight for the same orbit. And guess what... the calculations work! Most spacecraft only carry just enough fuel to reach orbit, with very little left as backup in case of error.

The physics work.

Or, for that matter, why launch sites are always selected to be as near to the equator as feasible. It actually saves quite a bit of fuel...

 

[Washington]

One of the claims of Biblical geocentrism is that the earth does not move.

You're right.

Here are several sites I came across. The first is quite a hoot.

http://www.fixedearth.com/

http://www.geocentricity.com/

http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/geocentric.shtml#earthstands

 

[SpyridonOCA]

Does this explain the stellar parallax under a geocentric model?

At right is a model of Tycho's cosmology, in which the planets orbit the sun, and the sun carries them along in its cycle around the earth. It is similar to the Modified Tychonic Model espoused by many members of the Association. The modified model differs from Tycho's in that the stars are centered on the sun, not the earth, and so they also trace out the yearly cycle about Earth. This explains parallax and aberration and other yearly effects which are not explained in Tycho's original model.
http://www.geocentricity.com/

 

[BrainHertz]

Does this explain the stellar parallax under a geocentric model?

No, for the same reasons stated before. That set of motions produces the same set of positional observations, but doesn't provide any kind of explanation for the movement. What is the source of the forces making all the stars move in synchronized circles? And what happened to gravity?

By the way, did you have any response to the questions about satellites?

 

[RichardT]

Currently studying Le Sage, I'll get back to you when I fully understand what I'm getting into, I'm interested in some of the neo-Le Sage theories of some modern Geocentrists. Currently read the wikipedia article and some of Le Sage's actual works. If I understand it correctly, Geocentrists replace the ultra mundane corpuscules for planck particles. Le Sage derived the inverse square law as well as Newton.

 

[BrainHertz]

Currently studying Le Sage, I'll get back to you when I fully understand what I'm getting into, I'm interested in some of the neo-Le Sage theories of some modern Geocentrists. Currently read the wikipedia article and some of Le Sage's actual works. If I understand it correctly, Geocentrists replace the ultra mundane corpuscules for planck particles. Le Sage derived the inverse square law as well as Newton.

Interesting choice... there's also a Wikipedia page on Le Sage's theory of gravitation, which you might want to check out. What does it have to do with geocentrism, btw?

 

[RichardT]

Interesting choice... there's also a Wikipedia page on Le Sage's theory of gravitation, which you might want to check out. What does it have to do with geocentrism, btw?

I meant to say that I read the page on Le Sage's theory of Gravitation.

 

[SpyridonOCA]

I have an important question for the members of this forum. If the sun revolved around the earth, would that change your outlook on existence?

 

[[serious]]

what the op article ignores is that while the absolute velocity of the earth can't be determined, the acceleration due to it's rotation and orbit can.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I have an important question for the members of this forum. If the sun revolved around the earth, would that change your outlook on existence?

You question makes no sense: the Earth orbits the Sun, and the Sun orbits the Earth. We simply choose for conveniance to consider the Sun as motionless, and the planets fall into elegance around it. We could, for instance, consider the Earth to be motionless, in which case the Sun orbits around the Earth. Of course, the other planets would then orbit the Sun. Hence why it is natural to consider the Sun, not the Earth, as one of the focal points of orbit.

Also consider the notion of binary stars: does star A orbit star B, or vice versa? The answer is neither: they both orbit each other around a common center. Since the Sun doesn't have a sister star to dance with, it becomes a single massive point around which most (if not all) solar planets orbits (depending on which frame you're looking in, of course).

 

[SpyridonOCA]

I'm asking whether your understanding of human existence would be different if earth really were the natural center of the universe.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I'm asking whether your understanding of human existence would be different if earth really were the natural center of the universe.

And I'm explaining why the question makes no sense.

 

[BrainHertz]

I have an important question for the members of this forum. If the sun revolved around the earth, would that change your outlook on existence?

I wouldn't have thought so, no.

What if there was only one planet and one star in the universe? Would that fundamentally change anything?