Geocentrism

Does the Earth move around the Sun?

by Sean Carroll


...But now comes along Einstein and general relativity (GR). What’s the situation there? It actually cuts both ways. Most importantly, in GR the concept of a global reference frame and the more restrictive concept of an inertial frame simply do not exist. You cannot take your locally-defined axes and stretch them uniquely throughout space, there’s just no way to do it. (In particular, if you tried, you would find that the coordinates defined by traveling along two different paths gave you two different values for the same point in space.) Instead, all we have are coordinate systems of various types. Even in Newtonian absolute space (or for that matter in special relativity, which in this matter is just the same as Newtonian mechanics) we always have the freedom to choose elaborate coordinate systems, but in GR that’s all we have. And if we can choose all sorts of different coordinates, there is nothing to stop us from choosing one with the Earth at the center and the Sun moving around in circles (or ellipses) around it. It would be kind of perverse, but it is no less “natural” than anything else, since there is no notion of a globally inertial coordinate system that is somehow more natural. That is the sense in which, in GR, it is equally true to say that the Sun moves around the Earth as vice-versa...

Thursday, June 9, 2011

Geocentrism


If, as relativity claims, we can with equal justification choose any reference frame and call that one “at rest,” with the result that no reference frame is privileged and really “at rest,” then why cannot the Christian say that, since God created man, man is therefore special in the universe; and that therefore, man is justified in claiming that Earth’s frame is truly “at rest,” and the rest of the universe is in motion relative to Earth. In other words, the ancient view that the sun revolves around the Earth, indeed that the entire universe revolves around the Earth, is the correct view. If any reference frame we choose can be regarded as “at rest,” why not choose Earth’s frame? Perhaps God truly did create Earth “at rest,” and Earth is the only body in the universe “at rest.”

Most physicists would say that there are certain astronomical observations that can only be explained if the Earth is revolving around the sun. These observations are what led Copernicus to his sun-centered model of the solar system. But if this is true, and certain observations can only be explained in terms of a sun-centered model, does this not violate Einstein’s assertion that any reference frame can with equal justification be regarded as “at rest?” For does not Copernicus show us that Einstein is incorrect? If scientists wish to uphold Einstein, then there must be some way to explain astronomical observations such that Earth can be regarded as “at rest.” And if so, then the Christian, with his belief in God, is perfectly within his right to assert that the universe is centered on the Earth, and no scientist can legitimately refute the Christian.

For the moment, putting aside the theological/scientific dispute to which my previous assertion gives rise, let’s suppose that the Earth truly is the absolute rest frame, and that the universe revolves around the Earth. What might we expect to be the observational and experimental results of such a situation? What new conclusions might we be led to, what new discoveries might be made? In other words, has no one thought to reconsider the view that the universe revolves around the Earth? It was supposedly definitively refuted by Copernicus. But what if that refutation was itself a mistake? Why not go back and look at the implications of an Earth-centered universe, in light of the centuries of scientific knowledge that have accumulated since such a view was abandoned? Are there any scientists willing to put aside their scientific prejudices and cogitate upon the matter? For if relativity is correct, as they assert, then it must be possible to view Earth as the “rest” frame. Why not go one step further, and pretend that it is the one true rest frame, and all other frames cannot validly be regarded as at rest.

The first thing such a geocentric view explains is the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment. One might even say that Michelson-Morley is proof of the geocentric view. One wonders if this has ever been considered.

The immediate, ready response of the relativist is probably, “Earth is rotating about its own axis, and it’s rotating around the sun. Rotation is acceleration, and accelerating frames are not inertial frames. Therefore Earth is not an inertial reference frame. Einstein’s assertion that all reference frames can with equal justification be regarded as at rest only applies to inertial frames. Thus Earth cannot with equal justification be regarded as at rest. Therefore your argument is invalid.”

But this response presupposes the conclusion. It presupposes that the Earth is rotating about the sun. If we claim the Earth is at rest, then the above response of the relativist is invalid at the outset. Earth is only rotating if you assume it is actually in motion. In the geocentric view, we’re saying Earth is not in motion. We deny any motion in the Earth. The sun and the universe are rotating around the Earth, in such a way that to an Earth-bound observer, it appears the Earth is the one moving. But that’s just an illusion. The Earth is at rest. The Earth is the only true inertial frame, and the entire universe is accelerating around the Earth.

Next the relativist will probably accuse me of being a Christian and dragging God into the argument. This alone, from the viewpoint of the relativist, is enough to discredit my little theory. No further investigation is therefore needed.

But I’m not trying to drag God into this. I’m merely trying to go against currently accepted wisdom and see where it leads. Accepted wisdom says the Earth rotates around the sun. I’m saying maybe it’s time to reconsider the reverse. Accepted wisdom says there is no absolute frame of reference. I’m saying maybe it’s time to consider that there is. Forget dragging God into the argument. Maybe there’s a different reason why Earth is the center of the universe. Why should Science refuse to “go there” just because the territory smacks of God? Who is the fanatic here, holding fast to accepted dogma? The religious person, or the scientist? When you’re stuck in a rut, thinking beyond dogma, beyond accepted wisdom, is the only way to advance from the rut. And it seems to me that Science is currently stuck in a rut. Why then do so many scientists turn up their noses at thinking in directions that depart too radically from their accepted notions? Are scientists so attached to the ideas keeping them in a rut, that they’re unwilling to cast a mere exploratory thought along radical paths? Are they just unwilling, or have they been so thoroughly indoctrinated that they’re completely incapable of such thought?
Clarification: I’m not even saying that everything in the universe is revolving around the Earth. I’m not saying Mercury, Venus, et al, must revolve around the Earth. I’m saying that overall, the entire universe revolves around Earth, it’s all centered on Earth. Locally, there may be objects that don’t revolve around Earth. They may revolve around other bodies, which revolve around other bodies, etc. which themselves revolve about the Earth. The whole universe, overall, revolves around the Earth. The Earth is at absolute rest. No rotation, no motion through space—nothing. Our task is then to figure out why this is so, and what conclusions we might draw from the situation. Maybe if certain theories were reworked slightly, they would support geocentrism, and would be the stronger for it
.
If scientists rule out geocentrism as definitely impossible, then scientists must also concede the following: while we cannot by any experiment determine an absolute rest frame, we can determine frames that definitely cannot be at rest. Thus, there must be at least two categories of reference frames: those that could be at absolute rest but cannot be proven by experiment to be at absolute rest, and those that definitely are not at absolute rest. So we cannot prove by experiment that any frame is at absolute rest, but we can prove that some frames are definitely not at absolute rest. Thus if two frames are in relative motion, it is not equally valid to say that either frame is in motion or at rest with respect to the other, since there will be some frames that can be proven to not be at rest. Thus, again, we come across another error in Einstein’s theory.

So relativists must either accept geocentrism as a valid possibility, or reject it and thus deal a blow to relativity.

"When it comes to Earth's rotation, you might think geophysicists have pretty much everything figured out. Not quite. In order to explain some variations in the way our planet spins, Earth's mantle — the layer of hot, softened rock that lies between the crust and core — must conduct electricity, an ability that the mantle as we know it shouldn't have. Now, a new study (academic paper) finds that iron monoxide, which makes up 9% of the mantle, actually does conduct electricity just like a metal, but only at temperatures and pressures found far beneath the surface."

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/01/electric-material-in-mantle-coul.html?ref=hp

http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.5068

JQP - you mention the Aether quite often. While I am aware of what that word represents can you be more specific on what proof it exists in the first place that you use to base these calculations off of?

Whether I accept the big bang dark matter or evolution is irrelevant to this argument.

Also, and I thank you if you are willing to be so candid; how did you get involved in this argument in the first place? Sungenis has a phd from a non accredited school and primarily studied theology. Yet you are following his beliefs on science. Have you not listened to me - there are no gurus.

I do not seek spiritual advice from the hotdog vendor, even if he says he can make me one with everything.

If anyone was right, it was those against Camillo Borghese, not those against Galileo. Borghese was a serious crook.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Santa

I like the idea that every point in the universe is the center of the universe.

---

Hmmm, that would make every egocentrist correct...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMac

JQP - you mention the Aether quite often. While I am aware of what that word represents can you be more specific on what proof it exists in the first place that you use to base these calculations off of?

---

I am not subscribing to any specific aether theory. Some that are of interest are Planck particle based theories; the epola, which I believe is an extension of the Dirac aether; and Stokes type fluidic aethers. Also, aether is of interest in terms of explanations for gravity (i.e., La Sagean type pushing gravity).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMac

Whether I accept the big bang dark matter or evolution is irrelevant to this argument.

---

Whether you accept relativity is not irrelevant. If you accept big bang /dark matter, then implicitly you accept general relativity. If you accept claims about how the GPS system works, then you implicitly accept claimed corrections from special and general relativity, unless you accept the corrections, but on another basis. If you want to have a frank conversation, you need to be frank also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMac

Also, and I thank you if you are willing to be so candid; how did you get involved in this argument in the first place? Sungenis has a phd from a non accredited school and primarily studied theology. Yet you are following his beliefs on science. Have you not listened to me - there are no gurus.

...

---

I did get involved through Robert Sungenis. At the time he did not have a PhD from any institution. He was pursuing a PhD. from Maryvale, but ultimately they would not accept a thesis on geocentrism, so he changed to another institution. "TPTB" work on many levels, including through educational institutions.

I am not seeking gurus. I have studied this on my own and verified enough of it to convince me.

There are a number of PhD physicists involved in this. Robert Sungenis had the vision to start this, and frankly did a fantastic job researching all the ins and outs of this issue throughout its history. I would strongly suggest you read Galileo Was Wrong. As I said the PDF version is pretty inexpensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMac

If anyone was right, it was those against Camillo Borghese, not those against Galileo. Borghese was a serious crook.

---

I will have to study this. Thanks.

The Ocean of Light - A Falsifiable Thought Experiment


Here is a thought experiment - repeatable by any educated
or uneducated person on the planet ... (1) Go outdoors under the night sky - preferably away
from the city lights - and observe the stars.
(2) Select any one star upon which to focus your attention.
(3) Observe and then determine the nature of this
star_light_energy and you will have to agree that:

• (a) It is much like an incredibly high-speed "groundswell" of light,
  (b) It would appear to be continuously flowing.

(4) Move the location of your eye_socket and repeat (3).
(5) It would be apparent that this high speed groundswell of
star_light is existent in this changed location also.
(6) By a process of mathematical integration, or a simple
process of imagination, it may be easily determined that
this observation (3) is repeatable at *ALL POINTS* in the
known cosmos, and that what we perceive as a continuous
stream of star light is actually a spherical stream with
the center based on its source - that specific star.
(7) Thus through and at all points in the cosmos there exists
a high speed continuous and groundswell_like flux of star_light
from this one little old star.
(8) Multiple this observation by the existence of a billion billion suns
and the staggering congregations of the distant galaxies
(9) Multiple the resultant again by a factor representative
of the amount of energy we perceive with our eyes (ie: the
frequencies of the 'visible' EMR spectrum) compared
to the energy being spherically transmitted at all
frequencies of the EMR spectrum by each source above.
(10) Rather than the classical vacuous spaces of interplanetary,
interstellar or intergallactic realms, in fact the cosmos
is filled by an ocean of light (EMR) fed by the tributary
groundswells of the stars and their galactic hubs.
(11) This 'field of pure energy' is the substrate of the cosmos
and is easily seen to resemble the topography of an ocean that
continuously breaks upon the shores of our remote terrestrial island.
(12)Whether this substrate described above is the aether
or whether indeed it is the aether that bears this luminous substrate
only time and earnest research will tell.

Santa- I replied to your post about ether (how it feels, etc.) and something got messed up. I'm not sure what happened. Sorry. JQP

This summary of standard claims for the GPS was writen by Robert Bennett (PhD Physics), coauthor of Galileo Was Wrong. After the summary he then goes on to evaluate some specific claims related to relativity and geocentrism. I will start with Appendix 7 (Robert Sungenis), which is more direct to this discussion, but will include Robert Bennet's summary so we can discuss where we are starting.

------------------------------------

The Global Positioning System is a satellite based navigation system consisting of a network of 24 orbiting satellites that are eleven thousand nautical miles in space and in six different near circular orbital paths. The satellites are constantly moving, making two complete orbits around the Earth in just under 24 hours at about 3.6 kilometers per second. The satellite orbits are roughly 25,000 kilometers from the Earth’s center, or 20,000 kilometers above the surface, far below the orbits of the geosynchronous or geostationary satellites. The orbital paths of these satellites take them between roughly 60 degrees North and 60 degrees South latitudes.

The satellites contain precise atomic clocks whose rates depend both upon satellite velocity and altitude and are stable to one part in 10^14 over a day’s time, at best accurate to about 10 ns (10^-8 sec). An observer with a Global Positioning System receiver on the ground, in an airplane, or in a satellite, may determine his precise location by obtaining signals from several satellites simultaneously. The Global Positioning System receiver determines its current position and heading by comparing the time signals it receives from the Global Positioning System satellites and triangulating on the known positions of each satellite. The positions of the Global Positioning System satellites are predicted from time delay calculations that set the speed of light to a constant value, c. The U.S. Department of Defense uses radar to map the satellites to reference points on the Earth’s surface; and correction data is sent back to the satellites every few seconds.

If the frame is Earth-centered but does rotate, it is non-inertial and termed ECEF: Earth-Centered, Earth-Fixed. The clock rates are not adjusted for motion relative to each other but all refer to the Earth-Centered, non- rotating Inertial frame, the ECI frame. Ephemerides are expressed in the ECEF coordinate frame, which is Earth-fixed. Global Positioning System stations broadcast the satellite ephemerides (schedule of orbit positions) in an Earth-Centered, Earth-Fixed reference frame rotating once every 24 hours. If used without removing the underlying Earth rotation, GPS would be in error, so the ephemerides are transformed to ECI using theEarth rotation rate. Because of frame rotation, the path of a signal in the ECEF is complex. In the Global Positioning System, synchronization is performed in the ECI frame, which solves the problem of path-dependent inconsistencies. The displacement of a receiver on the surface of the Earth due to the Earth’s rotation in inertial space during the time of flight of the signal must also be taken into account. For example, the greatest distance between satellite and receiver occurswhen the receiver is on the equator and the satellite is on the horizon.

Correction must also be applied by a receiver on a moving platform, such as an aircraft or another satellite, by an observer in the rotating ECEF frame. This is the Sagnac effect, the same principle employed by laser ring gyros in an inertial navigation system.

Global Positioning System Clocks

Cesium atomic clocks operate by counting hyperfine transitions of cesium atoms that occur roughly 10 billion times per second at a very stable frequency provided by nature. The precise number of such transitions was originally calibrated by astronomers and is now adopted by internationa lagreement as the definition of one atomic second. To achieve high location precision, the ticks of the atomic clock must be known to an accuracy of 20-30 nanoseconds. Because the satellites are moving relative to and above ground observers, Relativity must be taken into account.The Global Positioning System is based on the principle of the constancy of

c in a local inertial frame: the Earth-Centered Inertial (ECI) frame.Time dilation of moving clocks is significant forclocks in the satellites as well as clocks at rest on the ground.Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks should fall behind ground clocks by about 7 microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect. General Relativity predicts that satellite clocks will seem to tick faster than the surface clocks by 45microseconds per day. The total relativistic effect is about 38 microseconds per day. This is a huge difference compared to the required accuracy, that is, 38,000 ns as compared to 25 ns, the former being 1,500 times larger.

To compensate for the General Relativistic effect, GPS engineers slow down the satellite clock frequency at pre-launch so that when the satellites are orbiting the clocks will have the same rate as the reference atomic clocks at the Global Positioning System ground stations. A clock whose natural ticking frequency has been pre-corrected on theground for relativity changes in orbit is a “GPS clock.” A Global Positioning System clock can be used to determine local time in the surface frame atany point along the orbit. The satellite clocks are reset in rate before launch to compensate for relativistic effects by changing the international definition of the number of atomic transitions that constitute a one-second interval. With this re-definition, the clocks on board the satellites run at nearly the same rates as ground clocks.Global Positioning System receivers have a built in computer chip that does the necessary relativistic calculations to find the user’s location. Since the ground receivers rotate in ECEF, satellite positionschange with each measurement. So the receiver must perform a different rotation for each measurement made into some common inertial frame. After solving the propagation delay equations, a final rotation mustbe performed into the ECEF to determine the receiver’s position. This complexity – where ground and satellites are both moving – is simpler to describe in an inertial reference frame, ECI, centered at the earth’s center of mass, which center is moving at constant velocity. For the solar system, an International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF) is similarly defined, centered at the solar system barycenter.It can be shown by sample configurations that path-dependent discrepancies in the rotating ECEF frame are inescapable by any practical means, while synchronization in the underlying ECI frame is self consistent.For the Global Positioning System this means that synchronization of the entire system of ground-based and orbiting atomic clocks is performed in the local inertial frame, or ECI coordinate system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnQPublic

Galileo Was Wrong

---

Only a sith deals in absolutes.

Attachment 3420