Geocentrism and Relativity

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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...

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

(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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...