Geocentrism and Relativity

BrainHertz · Dec 28, 2007

SpyridonOCA said:
I don't know why we aren't able to directly observe the earth's movement around the sun. Haven't space telescopes captured it? Why are we spending billions of dollars on space technology if we can't even capture something so simple?

This is an image of the Tychonic system:

All I want is proof that it's wrong.

As I already stated above, a camera wouldn't give you a unique answer: if you stationed the camera in the vicinity of the Sun, you'd see the planets orbiting it in nice ellipses. On the other hand, if you placed the camera above the Earth, you'd see the Sun and planets doing the complicated dance that Washington posted links to above. If you were to measure stellar parallax, you'd find all the stars doing that same kind of dance too. Is that what you're looking for?

The reason that geocentrism doesn't work is because it requires the existence of a bunch of forces to make everything move that way, for which there is no mechanism. On the other hand, heliocentrism requires exactly one force, namely gravity, and requires it to work in porecisely the way that we know it to actually work.

SpyridonOCA · Dec 28, 2007

BrainHertz said:
The reason that geocentrism doesn't work is because it requires the existence of a bunch of forces to make everything move that way, for which there is no mechanism. On the other hand, heliocentrism requires exactly one force, namely gravity, and requires it to work in porecisely the way that we know it to actually work.

Has there been a scientific study that demonstrated the earth's rotation around the sun?

SpyridonOCA · Dec 28, 2007

Lucretius said:
Thus, using Newton's Law of Gravitation, we can essentially show that it is the Earth that orbits the Sun and not vice versa.

Does this provide an alternative explanation?:

According to Isaac Newton (1642-1727), the centrifugal force of the rotation of the earth caused the earth to bulge at the equator. This bulge is called, "the oblateness of the earth." Hence, as a result of the earth's equatorial bulge, the equator is further away from the earth's center than at the poles. Therefore, the force of gravity is less at the equator than at the poles. This can be illustrated by taking a cup of water and observing it, as the surface of the water appears to be flat. However, once you begin to stir the water and the water circles more speedily within the cup, the surface becomes more and more concave. Notice that the water in the cup is rotating in conjunction with its surrounding area, which in the case of this example would be the universe. Isaac Newton came to the conclusion that the surrounding area represented an absolute, immovable space, which today is known as "an initial frame of reference." However, if this appears to be concrete proof for the motion of the earth, hence a Sun-centered universe, Dr. Bouw offers the following commentary to the contrary:

"Hood discovered that by rephrasing Newton's laws using variables measured relative to interacting particles, 'the law of initeria is no long required.' Also, use of the change in variables allows time and space invariance to include accelerated observers. In short, the use of relative variables means it does not matter which is turning, the earth or the universe: the results are the same. Hood's approach reduces Newton's three laws to one law. In particular, this means that the law of inertia need never be appealed to." (Geocentricity, Gerardus D. Bouw, Copyright 1992, Association for Biblical Astronomy, pg. 226)
http://uk.geocities.com/hesedyahu/TorahCreation/geocentricity.htm

Click to expand...

Washington · Dec 28, 2007

SpyridonOCA said:
I don't know why we aren't able to directly observe the earth's movement around the sun. Haven't space telescopes captured it? Why are we spending billions of dollars on space technology if we can't even capture something so simple?

This is an image of the Tychonic system:

All I want is proof that it's wrong.

If you're expecting to see a photo from outer space that would encompass the orbit of earth from above, the camera would have to be at least 16,400,000 miles above its orbit, and that's with a 160[sup]o[/sup] fish-eye lens. As a comparison, the Moon is only 238,600 miles from Earth. And even if you're only looking for a picture taken from above that only included the Earth and the Sun the camera would have to be about eight million miles above the Earth: 33 times the distance to the Moon.

FishFace · Dec 28, 2007

SpyridonOCA said:
Is anyone able to disprove the claim that geocrentrism is possibly true, due to Einsteins theory of relativity? I don't believe it is important either way, but it's worth thinking about.

Geocentrism isn't "possibly" true - it is true, as long as you measure from the right place. Equally, it's false if you measure from somewhere else.
As someone said, it would be just as true to say the universe revolves around my left nostril, but we use the sun because it makes the sums easier.

BrainHertz · Dec 28, 2007

SpyridonOCA said:
Has there been a scientific study that demonstrated the earth's rotation around the sun?

Yes, there's a large body of work on this, but I honestly don't understand what else it is that you are looking for here. Can you elaborate on what kind of evidence would convince you?

BrainHertz · Dec 28, 2007

SpyridonOCA said:
Does this provide an alternative explanation?:

<rolls eyes>. Not this guy again...

I've responded to quotes from this Dr. Bouw many times before, and every time I've looked into one of his claims that somebody else says something supporting geocentricity, it turns out to be bogus - so forgive me if I seem dismissive of anything he says. Do you have a reference to the original source of the claim?

SpyridonOCA · Dec 28, 2007

BrainHertz said:
Yes, there's a large body of work on this, but I honestly don't understand what else it is that you are looking for here.

(3) SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS. Most scientists know about the Michelson-Morely experiment - that failed to detect any movement of the earth round the sun. This had to be overcome so the Fitzgerald-Lorentz shortening of the apparatus was proposed, and eventually the paradoxical Relativity Theory was invented by Einstein to overcome this problem. However, there are three other experiments that have been deliberately ignored by universities because they support geocentricity -

(a) The Michelson-Gale experiment This detected the aether passing the surface of the earth with an accuracy of 2% of the speed of the daily rotation of the earth! Thus, the Michelson-Morely experiment detected no movement of the earth around the sun, yet the Michelson-Gale experiment measured the earth's rotation (or the aether's rotation around the earth!) to within 2%! This surely speaks volumes for geocentricity.

(b) "Airey's failure" (Reference - Proc. Roy. Soc. London v 20 p 35). Telescopes have to be very slightly tilted to get the starlight going down the axis of the tube because of the earth's "speed around the sun". Airey filled a telescope with water that greatly slowed down the speed of the light inside the telescope and found that he did not have to change the angle of the telescope. This showed that the starlight was already coming in at the correct angle so that no change was needed. This demonstrated that it was the stars moving relative to a stationary earth and not the fast orbiting earth moving relative to the comparatively stationary stars. If it was the telescope moving he would have had to change the angle.

(c) The Sagnac experiment (Reference - Comptes Rendus 1913 v157 p 708-710 and 1410-3) Sagnac rotated a table complete with light and mirrors with the light being passed in opposite directions around the table between the mirrors. He detected the movement of the table by the movement of the interference fringes on the target where they were recombined. This proved that there IS an aether that the light has to pass through and this completely destroys Einstein's theory of Relativity that says there is no aether. It is for this reason that this experiment is completely ignored by scientists. More recently Kantor has found the same result with similar apparatus.
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/geocentr.htm

If, under the theory of relativity, geocentrism is equally as valid as the popular view, I'd like to know why the former is considered stupid or insane. I don't believe that the sun revolves around the earth, but neither have I seen evidence to the contrary.

BrainHertz · Dec 28, 2007

SpyridonOCA said:
If, under the theory of relativity, geocentrism is equally as valid as the popular view, I'd like to know why the former is considered stupid or insane. I don't believe that the sun revolves around the earth, but neither have I seen evidence to the contrary.

All of these are referring to the failure to detect an absolute frame of reference for the motion of light, which is no longer thought to exist. The claim that is being made here is that special relativity is false.

The evidence I've already pointed to which is not consistent with geocentricity is the motions of the planets (which otherwise require forces to make them move in strange ways, together with gravity somehow not applying to them) and stellar parallax, which also shows the stars moving in ways that cannot be explained in a geocentric model.

As has already been pointed out (many times) Tycho Brahe's model was developed because of his failure to observe stellar parallax, from which he concluded that the Earth was stationary. Since we now know that stellar parallax does exist, just at a level below the resolution of his pre-telescope instruments, we have ample evidence to discount his model.

Lucretius · Dec 28, 2007

SpyridonOCA said:
Does this provide an alternative explanation?:

Who is Hood? Bouw is a well-known geocentrist... about the only one.

Washington · Dec 28, 2007

In physics, the center of mass of a system of particles is a specific point at which, for many purposes, the system's mass behaves as if it were concentrated. The center of mass is a function only of the positions and masses of the particles that comprise the system.

The barycenter (or barycentre; from the Greek βαρύκεντρο&#957

is the point between two objects where they balance each other. In other words, the center of gravity where two or more celestial bodies orbit each other. When a moon orbits a planet, or a planet orbits a star, both bodies are actually orbiting around a point that lies outside the center of the greater body. For example, the moon does not orbit the exact center of the earth, instead orbiting a point outside the earth's center (but well below the surface of the Earth) where their respective masses balance each other. The barycenter is one of the foci of the elliptical orbit of each body. This is an important concept in the fields of astronomy, astrophysics, and the like

Two bodies of similar mass orbiting around
a common barycenter. (similar to the 90 Antiope system)

Two bodies with a difference in mass orbiting around
a common barycenter, as in the Pluto-Charon system.

Two bodies with a major difference in mass orbiting around
a common barycenter (similar to the Earth-Moon system)

Two bodies with an extreme difference in mass orbiting around
a common barycenter (similar to the Sun-Earth system)

source

SpyridonOCA · Dec 28, 2007

BrainHertz said:
The evidence I've already pointed to which is not consistent with geocentricity is the motions of the planets (which otherwise require forces to make them move in strange ways, together with gravity somehow not applying to them) and stellar parallax, which also shows the stars moving in ways that cannot be explained in a geocentric model.

There are geocentric answers to these concerns, most of which you've probably already seen. If we cannot know for certain, let us be kind to our geocentric friends.

BrainHertz · Dec 28, 2007

SpyridonOCA said:
There are geocentric answers to these concerns, most of which you've probably already seen. If we cannot know for certain, let us be kind to our geocentric friends.

What does "kind" mean here?

And no, I haven't seen any remotely convincing response to this evidence which is consistent with a geocentric model. Can you elaborate?

Paulos23 · Dec 28, 2007

SpyridonOCA said:
There are geocentric answers to these concerns, most of which you've probably already seen. If we cannot know for certain, let us be kind to our geocentric friends.

If there where any practical use in a geocentric model of the solar system, agencies like this would be using them for calculating navigation and time. However, they are not because the geocentric model doesn't have any practical use, and that agency has been using the Sun centered model (with the Sun orbiting the center of our galaxy) for 170 years.

With 170 years of observations you think they would know what works best.

RichardT · Dec 29, 2007

Has anyone directly observed the earth's rotation around the sun?

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

RichardT · Dec 29, 2007

SpyridonOCA said:
I don't believe that the sun revolves around the earth, yet I would like to see some proof that the earth revolves around the sun. Shouldn't it be possible to capture it all on camera?

Absolutely not.

TemperateSeaIsland · Dec 29, 2007

Quick question to geocentrists where does the rotating aether's influence begin relative to the Earth?

FishFace · Dec 29, 2007

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

But completely fails to explain why on earth the stars wobble backwards and forwards, sustaining forces that should rip them apart.

Frumious Bandersnatch · Dec 29, 2007

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

Richard you never did explain the seasonal variation in the rate the universe out the the farthest star whips around the earth each day.

You also failed to explain why satellites are launched eastward when possible.

You didn't explain how astronauts going to the moon look back and see the earth rotating beneath them or why according the geocentrism the Voyager space probes is now whizzing about the earth at superluminal velocites.

What provided the accelaration to get these things spinning around the earth and why doesn't it affect things like geostationary and retrograde satellites?

It would be possible to observe the earth rotating around the sun from outside the solar system just as we can observe the effects of extra-solar planets revolving around their stars.

trivista · Dec 29, 2007

Never mind.

Geocentrism and Relativity

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Never tell me the odds!

Contributor

Contributor

Mae hen wlad fy nhadau yn annwyl i mi

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Regular Member

Similar threads