Geocentricity and Stellar Parallax

[Chalnoth]

Here's a new question for you, Richard. Why are there 366.25 sidereal days in a year, but only 365.25 solar days?

That is, if we judge days by the movement of the Sun, we see 365.25 days before the Sun returns to the same place in the sky. If, instead, we judge days by the movement of the stars, we see 366.25 days before the stars return to the same place in the sky.

Why is that? Why the one day difference?

 

[Pesto]

The rotation rate never changes, the seasons change with the sun's 365 day revolution that does not resemble an elliptical orbit.



I don't know yet, some Geocentrists have said that the earth actually does move in the case of an earthquake and have found scriptural support for this position.



I'll check it out.

Now could you "check out" posts 151, 188 and 225?

 

[RichardT]

"the required equivalence appears to be guaranteed by the general co-variance of the field equations."

"Let the earth be a coordinate system rotating uniformly relative to the universe. Then centrifugal forces would be in effect for masses at rest in the universe's coordinate system, while no such forces would be present for objects at rest with respect to the earth. Already Newton viewed this as proof that the rotation of the earth had to be considered as 'absolute,' and that the earth could not then be treated as the 'resting' frame of the universe. Yet, as E. Mach has shown, this argument is not sound. One need not view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of the earth; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of the earth, where the earth is treated as being at rest."

-- A. Einstein

Geostationary Satellites stay up because the field equations can be solved from any reference frame.

 

[BrainHertz]

"the required equivalence appears to be guaranteed by the general co-variance of the field equations."

"Let the earth be a coordinate system rotating uniformly relative to the universe. Then centrifugal forces would be in effect for masses at rest in the universe's coordinate system, while no such forces would be present for objects at rest with respect to the earth. Already Newton viewed this as proof that the rotation of the earth had to be considered as 'absolute,' and that the earth could not then be treated as the 'resting' frame of the universe. Yet, as E. Mach has shown, this argument is not sound. One need not view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of the earth; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of the earth, where the earth is treated as being at rest."

-- A. Einstein

Geostationary Satellites stay up because the field equations can be solved from any reference frame.

Thanks for replying. What is the source of your citation?

 

[RichardT]

Thanks for replying. What is the source of your citation?

Thirring was quoting Einstein in one of his papers here:

http://www.geocentricity.com/bibastron/research/translations/thirring/thirring.pdf

 

[RichardT]

I have also asked about astronauts going to the moon. They see the earth rotating under them. Does this mean they are starting to spin around the fixed earth each day? What is accelerating them in this circular path

From their reference frame the earth will be seen as rotating, but from ours the universe is seen as rotating.

? I don't think that was put in the programs to used calculate their flight paths to the moon. I am pretty sure NASA considers the earth to be rotating daily and the moon to be rotating around the earth every 27.3 days not a little more than once each day.

Irrelevant, Einstein's field equations can be solved from any vantage point.

What is the force the puts the astronauts into faster and faster orbits around the earth as they spiral outward so that by the time they reach the moon they are traveling about 2,300,000 km each day on their circular path.

Rotation of distant masses. (planck particles, that are 0.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,002 centimeters each, they are also 40,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 grams per centimeter cubed)

I also asked a long time ago about Voyager 1 which in the geocentric model is now making a circle of about 3.8 light days circumference around the earth each day. How did that come about? What accelerated Voyager to superluminal velocities relative to the earth? How can anything have a superluminal velocity relative to the earth. If it doesn't have a superluminal velocity how do we see it spinning around the earth each day?

Rotation of distant masses. (planck particles, that are 0.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,002 centimeters each, they are also 40,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 grams per centimeter cubed)

 

[Loudmouth]

Irrelevant, Einstein's field equations can be solved from any vantage point.

This only tells us the gravitational forces being felt by the geosynch satellite, which is a net of zero. How can a satellite sit above the Earth and feel zero gravity?

Rotation of distant masses. (planck particles, that are 0.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,002 centimeters each, they are also 40,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 grams per centimeter cubed)

What plank particles? Evidence please.

 

[BrainHertz]

Thirring was quoting Einstein in one of his papers here:

http://www.geocentricity.com/bibastron/research/translations/thirring/thirring.pdf

Not actually a direct quote, which is why I couldn't find it, but I guess it's close enough as a paraphrase (I found your version of the text only on two geocentrist websites...).

According to the Thirring paper, this is from 1914. This is before Einstein abandoned a large component of his work related to rotating frames of reference.

If its ok with you, I'll reply a little later when I'm able to write something more comprehensive...

 

[RichardT]

Not actually a direct quote, which is why I couldn't find it, but I guess it's close enough as a paraphrase (I found your version of the text only on two geocentrist websites...).

I copied the quote from a geocentric site because I can't directly ctrl C ctrl V text from Thrrings paper (probably because it was photo copied), I didn't actually realize that it was slightly different from the quote used by Martin Selbrede.

http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no71/selbrede.html

 

[Quantic]

"the required equivalence appears to be guaranteed by the general co-variance of the field equations."

"Let the earth be a coordinate system rotating uniformly relative to the universe. Then centrifugal forces would be in effect for masses at rest in the universe's coordinate system, while no such forces would be present for objects at rest with respect to the earth. Already Newton viewed this as proof that the rotation of the earth had to be considered as 'absolute,' and that the earth could not then be treated as the 'resting' frame of the universe. Yet, as E. Mach has shown, this argument is not sound. One need not view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of the earth; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of the earth, where the earth is treated as being at rest."

-- A. Einstein

Geostationary Satellites stay up because the field equations can be solved from any reference frame.

You think geostationary satellites stay in orbit because some mathematical equations are solved? Wow! Do you have an explanation for geostationary orbits or not?

You also have mentioned a quote from Fred Hoyle regarding the equivalence of heliocentric and geocentric models. Do you have a source for that? Hoyle was a very knowledgeable astrophysicists, some of his ideas have been shown to be wrong, but I don't think Hoyle was talking about model equivalence, but instead of reference frames placed on the sun or earth. I'd like to see a source for the quote, my feelings may be wrong.

 

[RichardT]

You also have mentioned a quote from Fred Hoyle regarding the equivalence of heliocentric and geocentric models. Do you have a source for that? Hoyle was a very knowledgeable astrophysicists, some of his ideas have been shown to be wrong, but I don't think Hoyle was talking about model equivalence, but instead of reference frames placed on the sun or earth. I'd like to see a source for the quote, my feelings may be wrong.

"We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance."

— Sir Fred Hoyle in Astronomy and Cosmology, 1975, p. 416.

I don't have the cited reference myself. I don't have this book.

http://www.amazon.com/Astronomy-Cosmology-Modern-Fred-Hoyle/dp/0716703513

 

[BrainHertz]

I copied the quote from a geocentric site because I can't directly ctrl C ctrl V text from Thrrings paper (probably because it was photo copied), I didn't actually realize that it was slightly different from the quote used by Martin Selbrede.

http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no71/selbrede.html

Fair enough.

However, the previous point I made is important: the quote is from 1914, before Einstein formuted general relativity, and was writing what he termed the Entwurf theory, which was heavily influenced by Mach, who had particular ideas about absolute rotation (or the lack thereof).

Einstein later abandoned this theory because it was found not to correctly predict the orbit of Mercury, and subsequently formulated what we now know as general relativity. The Machian idea of the average mass of the universe determining rotation deos not appear in GR, and is not generally considered to be compaible with it.

As I said, I'll try to post something longer (with references !) a little later. I'm going to be offline for a while now, though.

 

[RichardT]

What plank particles? Evidence please.

"To further illustrate the difference the geocentric theory can make in viewing the universe, consider the two rivals' views on what space looks like on very, very small scales. At a scale much smaller than nuclear particles, modern science describes space as "foamy." The size of these foamy bubbles or "grains" of space is very small, amounting to only about 0.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,002 centimeter (written as 2x10^-33 cm.) Each grain has a mass of about 0.00002 gram. According to the heliocentrically-based view, the grains spontaneously appears out of nothing, exist for a brief instant (5x10^-44 second), and then vanishes into the nothingness from which it came. Strictly speaking, this violates the first law of thermodynamics which claims that energy can neither be created or destroyed by any natural process. [See Introduction to the Firmament.]

The geocentric theory explains the grains of space without violating any of the laws of thermodynamics. It takes the grains at face value, presuming them to be real. The medium of the grains is tremendously dense (4x10^93 gm/cm^3): so dense that one would have to pack 1039 universes into a cube one centimeter on a side in order to match their density. Geocentric theory has identified the grains as making up the firmament of Genesis chapter 1. It is common among Creationists to assume that the firmament was a canopy of water in one form or another; but whether there ever was a canopy before the flood, it cannot be equated with the firmament simply because Genesis 1:17 tells us that God set the stars in the firmament, not above it as would have to be the case if the canopy was meant. Since God called the firmament "Heaven" (Genesis 1:8) it must follow that the firmament is at least the size of the universe.

The firmament goes a long way towards explaining some of the mysteries of modern science. It readily explains why more massive nuclear particles are smaller than less massive ones. In the every-day realm it explains why, in general, mass depends on volume. It explains why very large objects, such as galaxies and clusters of galaxies seem to be as much as 500 times more massive than is indicated by the amount of light they generate. This phenomenon is called "the missing mass." [For a review see Bouw, G. D. 1977. Creation Research Society Quarterly, 14(2):108.]"

-- Dr. G.D. Bouw

http://www.geocentricity.com/geocentricity/whygeo.html

I just noticed now that when I copy paste the text, the exponents are changed to regular numbers, I fixed this problem by adding "^".

I'm really interested in reading this from Creation Research Society.

Galaxy Clusters And The Mass Anomaly​

Gerardus D. Bouw, Ph.D.​

Various proposals which have been proposed to resolve the so-called "missing mass" or "mass anomaly" in galaxy clusters are reviewed here. Basically, these hypotheses can be broken down into two types of proposals: the missing mass hypotheses and the missing physics ideas. The presence of the mass anomaly has been used, in the past, in support of a young cosmos. The validity of such an approach is reviewed.


http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum14_2.html

 

[Lucretius]

Richard, that is ridiculous nonsense. Quantum vacuum fluctuations do not violate conservation of energy because they occur over brief enough periods to be allowed. Similarly, there are points in EM waves when both energies go to 'zero' for a moment, only to reappear a brief second later. As long as the Uncertainty Principle is satisfied (which it is in both cases) then there is no violation.

Also, quantum foam is not a "heliocentric based theory", it's a quantum theory, and has demonstrable effects (see Casimir Effect) on reality; we can test it.

Quantum tunneling is likewise a demonstrable phenomenon that Bouw would have to likewise call a violation of conservation of energy. It has to do, however, with the fundamental fact that time also behaves granular on a quantum scale, and thusly that any instances perceived to be less than a given instance of time, if it is short enough, allows conservation of energy to be "violated."

Modern science, not Bouw's geocentric rubbish, determines that the quantum foam is real.

 

[RichardT]

Richard, that is ridiculous nonsense.

I notice that according to many here, anything found in the scriptures is "ridiculous nonsense", including the fall, the resurrection, the need for salvation.

Quantum vacuum fluctuations do not violate conservation of energy because they occur over brief enough periods to be allowed.

They appear for 5x10^-44 seconds then disappear. I seriously don't know how the uncertainty principle solves this problem, could you explain more thoroughly and educate me? (I'm sorry)

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

FB: I have also asked about astronauts going to the moon. They see the earth rotating under them. Does this mean they are starting to spin around the fixed earth each day? What is accelerating them in this circular path

From their reference frame the earth will be seen as rotating, but from ours the universe is seen as rotating.

So when and how did they make this transition from a fixed earth to a rotating universe?

Irrelevant, Einstein's field equations can be solved from any vantage point.

Can they now? But do they give the same solutions to calculate the force to be applied and direction to apply it to get a space ship sent from a fixed earth to a moon that rapidly rotates around it a little more than once a day as from a rotating earth to a moon that rotates it every 27.3 days? Why do you think spacecraft are launched eastward from the Kennedy space center?

FB What is the force the puts the astronauts into faster and faster orbits around the earth as they spiral outward so that by the time they reach the moon they are traveling about 2,300,000 km each day on their circular path.

Rotation of distant masses. (planck particles, that are 0.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,002 centimeters each, they are also 40,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 grams per centimeter cubed)

How does this explain anything? If the rotation of these distant masses starts the astronauts spinning with the universe why does it leave geostationary satellites sitting still in one spot over the fixed earth? Why doesn't it stop retrograde satellites dead in their tracks and start them spinning with the rest of the universe?


FB: I also asked a long time ago about Voyager 1 which in the geocentric model is now making a circle of about 3.8 light days circumference around the earth each day. How did that come about? What accelerated Voyager to superluminal velocities relative to the earth? How can anything have a superluminal velocity relative to the earth. If it doesn't have a superluminal velocity how do we see it spinning around the earth each day?

Rotation of distant masses. (planck particles, that are 0.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,002 centimeters each, they are also 40,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 grams per centimeter cubed)

How does this explain anything? How does rotation of distant masses accelerate a space probe to superluminal velocities. Is the the supposed ether the geocentric cranks talk about? How can it have so many magical powers and stil be totally undectable?

PS please use scientific notation. You can write 2x10^-33 cm if that is what you mean or 1.6 x 10^-35 m if you mean the Planck length and 3.6 x 10^93 g/cc if you mean the Planck density. It will save reading a lot of zeros. I guess you don't believe in Hawking radiation since a a Planck particle should last about 10^-44 sec IIRC.

 

[RichardT]

PS please use scientific notation.

With scientific notation you don't get the same feel for the numbers. I put them out this way so that I could see more clearly how dense the particles are. (I could have also created an analogy, it would have worked better, like how one would have to pack 10^39 universes into a centimeter cubed in order to match the density of these particles.)

 

[BrainHertz]

Fair enough.

However, the previous point I made is important: the quote is from 1914, before Einstein formuted general relativity, and was writing what he termed the Entwurf theory, which was heavily influenced by Mach, who had particular ideas about absolute rotation (or the lack thereof).

Einstein later abandoned this theory because it was found not to correctly predict the orbit of Mercury, and subsequently formulated what we now know as general relativity. The Machian idea of the average mass of the universe determining rotation deos not appear in GR, and is not generally considered to be compaible with it.

As I said, I'll try to post something longer (with references !) a little later. I'm going to be offline for a while now, though.

Ok. I think I found a pretty good reference which explains what happened here. Let me know if you want more - there is much more around on this subject if you care to look.

You might want to re-read the original quote first, to get the full context of the references to Mach, whose thoughts Einstein was influenced by at the time. Also bear in mind that Einstein's gereral theory of relativity, which is what is at issue here, was published in 1916.

In 1913–1914, Einstein was convinced for a while that this was a problem not for Mach's analysis but for Newton's theory and that his own theory vindicated Mach's account of the bucket experiment. It only takes a cursory look at Einstein's calculations in support of this claim to see that this attempt to relativize rotation is a nonstarter.

...

Einstein's flawed Machian account of Newton's bucket experiment receded into the background when he finally found generally covariant field equations for the metric field in November 1915. As is clear from Einstein's first systematic exposition of the theory in 1916, he still believed at this point that general covariance guarantees the relativity of arbitrary motion. The Dutch astronomer Willem De Sitter disabused him of this illusion in the fall of 1916 (see Stachel et al, vol. 18, pp. 351–357, for a summary of the debate that ensued between Einstein and De Sitter).

...

This certainly was a clever idea on Einstein's part, but by June 1918 it had become clear that the De Sitter world does not contain any hidden masses and is thus a genuine counterexample to Mach's principle. Another one of Einstein's attempts to relativize all motion had failed.

You might want to read the whole thing:

http://science.jrank.org/pages/11027/Relativity-General-Relativity.html

 

[BrainHertz]

They appear for 5x10^-44 seconds then disappear. I seriously don't know how the uncertainty principle solves this problem, could you explain more thoroughly and educate me? (I'm sorry)

The uncertainty principle says that it isn't possible to measure both of certain linked pairs of properties of bodies or events to greater than some resolution.

One of those pairs is time and energy. As a result, it is possible for particles of a particular energy to appear for a very short period of time and then disappear again, because the energy is still zero within the resolution with which it is possible to measure it.

Not sure if I explained that very well...

Try here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam

 

[Donkeytron]

I notice that according to many here, anything found in the scriptures is "ridiculous nonsense", including the fall, the resurrection, the need for salvation.

They appear for 5x10^-44 seconds then disappear. I seriously don't know how the uncertainty principle solves this problem, could you explain more thoroughly and educate me? (I'm sorry)

Richard -

Do you ever wonder why almost every single person in the entire world disagrees with the "nonsense" you post here from Bouw? I don't mean every single scientist, but every single person? Doesn't that clue you in that something might be wrong in your thinking?