Geocentrism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mick silver

so are we moving though the universe all the time , are we fixed to one place ? if the earth does not turn then are we a fixed in place?

---

Yes. In most forms of geocentrism, the earth is stationary. some say that Geostationism is a more accurate term. There is one theory that has the earth spinning in the center. I don't buy into that theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMac

You did not answer my point JQP, you brought up a strawman to the point and knocked it down. GPS satellites use VERY specific math and engineering. The exact same equations in math and engineering are used to get a satellite circling Jupiter (which is in motion, rotating) or in orbit around Earth (also in motion, rotating).

Seriously, this point needs to be addressed specifically. Geocentrists need to put up formula on how and why GPS works within a stationary earth framework and show that the calculations are IDENTICAL to those of a rotating Earth, otherwise, move this theory back to the junk bin where it belongs!

This is the crux of my argument and why Geocentrism does not make sense. We have applied physics, engineering and mathematics that one must ignore for the Geocentric model to work.

You cannot deny this. Math is math regardless of the motives behind the calculator.

Edit to add: for those unaware, GPS technology completely refutes the geocentric model because GPS positioning systems use math based on a rotating earth with specific stars chosen as the fixed point of reference! Not the stationary earth, but as it appears, the stationary stars. Using general relativity in calculating time, global positioning is achieved. None of this is possible under the Geo model, as JQP wrote earlier arguments against the accuracy of general relativity.

Without these specific details, which are the literal antithesis of geocentrism, GPS tech as known by humanity today, would not exist.

---

DMac- I think I was mixing up your point with Horn's video of the earth rotating beneath a satellite. That is what my response was based on.

GPS is a very interesting animal, and it is discussed in Gallileo Was Wrong. I will address it next since you bring it up. Do I recall from previuous comments that you work on the GPS?

For starters here is what one of the readers of the book says (I offer it not as proof, but an interesting comment):

Ironically, aerospace engineers assume an “earth-centered, earth-fixed” coordinate system when launching and flying satellites. The Global Positioning System (GPS) does the same for navigation on earth and in space. In

Galileo Was Wrong, Sungenis and Bennett examine the ‘anomalies’ that arise from the Copernican model, anomalies that are swept under the rug by the same scientists who assume the earth is mobile in order to ‘simplify’ complex problems. A must read for those who can set aside prejudices and a priori assumptions.

Joseph A. Strada, Ph.D.

Aerospace Engineer, NRO

I've so far stayed out of this thread... I've viewed it as retarded almost beyond belief! ;D

OK... for the geocentrists of the forum, I have 2 simple questions:

(1) Geocentrism implies that the Earth is immobile, and that all other objects in the Universe are moving around it. WHAT causes the sun to orbit the Earth? There is obviously not enough mass/gravity inherent in the Earth. Is it "the power of God" or some other similar Deus Ex Machina? As a side question, if the Sun is orbiting the Earth, then why are the other planets apparently in orbit around the Sun instead of also in orbit around the Earth?

(2) With some of the measured motion of other stars and galaxies in relation to the Earth, many of those objects (assuming a fixed Earth) would have to be travelling faster than the speed of light, violating what has been CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED by decades of scientific and engineering discipline as a fundamental physical constant. Does Geocentrism throw out this constant as inconvenient? Or does it just ignore all of the technical advances that have relied upon this constant for their functionality?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaillo

I've so far stayed out of this thread... I've viewed it as retarded almost beyond belief! ;D

OK... for the geocentrists of the forum, I have 2 simple questions:

(1) Geocentrism implies that the Earth is immobile, and that all other objects in the Universe are moving around it. WHAT causes the sun to orbit the Earth? There is obviously not enough mass/gravity inherent in the Earth. Is it "the power of God" or some other similar Deus Ex Machina? As a side question, if the Sun is orbiting the Earth, then why are the other planets apparently in orbit around the Sun instead of also in orbit around the Earth?

(2) With some of the measured motion of other stars and galaxies in relation to the Earth, many of those objects (assuming a fixed Earth) would have to be travelling faster than the speed of light, violating what has been CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED by decades of scientific and engineering discipline as a fundamental physical constant. Does Geocentrism throw out this constant as inconvenient? Or does it just ignore all of the technical advances that have relied upon this constant for their functionality?

---

1. The sun does not orbit the earth in a gravitational sense. The entire universe is viewed as a rotational system. The universe rotates and carries all objects in it in this rotation. The earth for a variety of possible reasons is in a sense trapped in the location it is, immobile. The one explanation I have been using is that of rotational stability- like a top or gyroscope, the universe preserves its center of mass. If the earth were at the center of mass, the rotational stability of the universe would maintain the earth in the center. It is the dynamic power (inertial) of the universe that causes the sun (and other objects) to move aorund the earth, not earth's tiny gravitational field.

As to the 2nd part, as I described earlier in this thread, the planets (earth not included) orbit the sun with typical elliptical orbits in a local system, and the sun and all other objects are carried around in the universe's rotational system (with earth inertially trapped in the center).

2. First, in general relativity or within the framework of Mach's principle, there is no issue. These forms of physics (which today's standard model is based- especially general relativity) specifically state one can pick any point as a reference point,and all other points in the universe, by necessitry of this choice, would in fact be rotating around the chosen point. Once one exceeds the Schwartzchild radus (the radius at which the rotation equals the speed of light), all mass outside this radius must be moving at greater than the speed of light. Scientists often appeal to these "distant rotating cosmic masses".

For what it is worth, when I started investingating htis myself, this was one of my main objections, too! Once I started studying the physics, I came to understand that this is not an issue, except in Newton's cosmology and the more limited special relativity (neither of which which cannot apply to rotating universes by definition).

Also in aether systems, the aether forms the reference frame, and only motion relative to this reference frame is accounted for. Light traveling tangentially say from Pluto would be travelling faster than the speed of light relative to the fixed earth, but not to the aether. On earth we would not see this light. Light travelling from Pluto to earth would travel relative to the aether.

For both aether and relativistic systems the issue is an object overtaking its own light cone, which does not happen in a rotating universe systems.

Please see some of my earlier posts, where I address some of these issues. I would suggest getting Galileo Was Wrong.

Many of these issues are present in the GPS issue that DMac brought up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnQPublic

1. The sun does not orbit the earth in a gravitational sense. The entire universe is viewed as a rotational system. The universe rotates and carries all objects in it in this rotation. The earth foir a variety of possiblke reasons is in a sense trapped in tnhe location it is, immobile...

...It is the dynamic power (inertial) of the universe that causes the sun (and other objects) to moe aorund the earth, not earth's tiny gravitational field.

---

How are retrograde planets accounted for if all objects are being "carried" by the universe's rotation? This makes absolutely NO sense in the context of your explanation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnQPublic

If we look at the universe as an aether, then the aether carries the momentum of the universe with it, but within in any small local area, galaxies can form and rotate, planetary systems can be exist, etc.

---

This post has all the flavor of a creative Creationistas alphabet soup.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HofoK_QQxGc

Quote:

---

Officially, space starts at 62 miles - 100 kilometers. But, there's still traces of atmosphere. The space station, at 200 miles, needs a boost in it's orbit periodically due to atmospheric friction slowing it down. Skylab, originally at 240 miles, crashed to Earth in 1979 because of it.

---

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...9113808AAXF6mu

John, correct me if I'm wrong, but I see three ways we could dis-prove geocentrism:

1) If we were able to observe all matter in the universe, and we saw that in fact we weren't located at the center of mass.

2) If we could detect that we were passing through the ether which was shown to be stationary with respect to the stars.

3) If we repeated the ether experiments like the MM experiment on mars and got the same result as on earth.

Let's follow this Geocentrism concept through logically. If the Earth is the center of the Universe, then all other celestial objects are moving around it. Our NEAREST star (Proxima Centauri) is 4.24 light years away. That means that the orbital circumference is 4.24 X 2 X 3.1415927 = 26.64 Light Years. That star MUST travel that entire distance in only 24 HOURS in order to complete its orbit in one day and "rise" at the same time every night. In order for this to happen, the star must travel at a speed of 1.11 Light Years per hour. In otherwords, it is travelling at a speed of 9,724 TIMES THE SPEED OF LIGHT! Keep in mind, this is the NEAREST star to Earth.

I'm going with.... bullshit.

No offense intended, Mark, but in this case I think your religious beliefs are most likely clouding your rational faculties and judgment. Perhaps the whole "immobile" and "center" thing was meant metaphorically (immobile center of MAN'S universe) instead of literally?

It should be noted that, using the expanding universe interpretation, most scientists believe that there exist entire galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light relative to us.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/que...php?number=575

Not saying I necessarily agree with the expanding universe, just giving an example of galaxies moving faster than c in mainstream science.

As far as the retrograde of planets, all of the gravity laws remain totally unchanged. All you have to do is transform the equations to use earth as the origin. The equations would probably be too large to write, but they would be mathematically equivalent.

I think the real argument comes down to the three ways of disproving this that I posted above.