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 mick silver
Printable View
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 mick silver
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by DMac
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. InGalileo 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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaillo
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.
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
This post has all the flavor of a creative Creationistas alphabet soup.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnQPublic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HofoK_QQxGc
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...9113808AAXF6muQuote:
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.
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.
Gaillo- In general relativity and in a Machian framework, having the universe rotate is not only acceptable but standard operating procedure. In these systems the idea is that you pick a reference point and make it the fixed point in space. Then the rest of the universe has no choice but to rotate around that fixed point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaillo
In an aether based system, the objects of the universe only move relative to the aether.
None of this is an issue. Don't restrict yourself to only Special Relativity, which is clearly inadequate to describe a rotating universe. I think you are speaking too quickly. You need to study this some more.
Retrograde motions are something we do view from earth. The reason Ptolemy modeled them is because he (and others) saw them in the sky. Ptolemy modeled them directly as a means of predicting motions of the heavenly bodies. The system I described is not the Ptolemaic. The system I described in fact is basically a coordinate shift of the helio centric or solar bary-centric to be more precise, and will have the exact same relations as the those systems (it has to mathematically).Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaillo
All the objects are carried in the universe's motion, i.e., they all have the universes momentum acting upon them. But, as I said, this does not preclude local motion. So as the solar system (sun and all planets, not earth) travels with the universe, the planets (again, not earth) orbit the sun in a local motion. This will produce the epicycles from earth's perspective. Think of a bi-central mechanical system: universe center = earth, solar system center = sun. Again, it will have to, it is a coordinate transformation. If coordinate transformation do not work, then NASA would have a much more difficult time sending objects on planetary missions.
Go to this orrery that Sirgonzo420 linked in:
http://www.theplanetstoday.com/
Open the control panel (arrow, top right). crank up the speed (top slider, upper top slider is super powerful, lower is less powerful). Go to the menu (mid right). Make earth the center (currently set to "Sol"). Find an example of Mars retrograde motion. Stop it (move speed sliders to center). reverse it (slide speed sliders left of center). Make the sun the center. Rerun it. You will see the exact same thing, but just from a different perspective.
If you look, you will see the sun going around the earth and the planets going around the sun. This is the neo-Tychonian (minus the stars). All the relationships are the same in either system.
Ok. Sounds good to me for some purposes at least.Quote:
Originally Posted by Horn
Relative to the stationary roundabout [theEarth], the distant stars would have…linear velocities exceeding 3 × 10^8 m/sec, the terrestrial value of the velocity of light. At first sight this appears to be a contradiction…that the velocities of all material bodies must be less than c [the speed of light]. However, the restriction u < c = 3 × 10^8 m/sec is restricted to the theory of Special Relativity. According to the General theory, it is possible to choose local reference frames in which, over a limited volume of space, there is no gravitational field, and relative to such a reference frame the velocity of light is equal to c…. If gravitational fields are present the velocities of either material bodies or of light can assume any numerical value depending on the strength of the gravitational field. If one considers the rotating roundabout as being at rest, the centrifugal gravitational field assumes enormous values at large distances, and it is consistent with the theory of General Relativity for the velocities of distant bodies to exceed 3 × 10^8 m/sec under these conditions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaillo
An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity, William
Geraint Vaughn Rosser, 1964, p. 460
…it is permissible to assume that the Earth is a nonrotating frame of reference. From this point of view, the stars will have a circular
velocity around the Earth that is much greater than the speed of light. A star only ten light-years away has a relative velocity around the Earth of twenty thousand times the speed of light.
Martin Gardner, Relativity Explosion, 1976, p. 68.
...We can also answer the objection by noting that, although it is to our advantage to use modern physics against itself as we do when we point out that General Relativity permits a body to move faster than the speed of light, the celestial mechanics of geocentrism, in fact, does not claim that the stars move faster than light. Geocentrism says only that the universe rotates around the Earth once per day, and in that rotation it carries the stars with it. Thus, compared to the universe within which they are contained, the stars are not moving at all, save for their minuscule independent movements. Mechanically speaking, the rotation of the universe is an integral facet of the geocentric system so as to act as a counterbalance to the inward pressure of gravity. It just so happens that the centrifugal force created by a 24-hour rotation period prohibits the stars and other material in the universe from collapsing
inward (a problem, incidentally, that Newton and Einstein recognized in their respective universes, which Newton attempted to answer by opting for an
infinite universe, and Einstein by his infamous “cosmological constant,” neither of which provided an adequate solution). An advocate of Relativity can raise no objections against geocentrism’s rotating universe since Relativity sees no difference, or has no way to distinguish between, a rotating Earth among fixed stars or stars that revolve around a fixed Earth. The two are relativistically equivalent...
Robert Sungenis, Galileo Was Wrong
vacuum- this is because of their assumption about the nature of redshift. As I pointed out, redshift could occur because we are in a gravitational well (i.e., central or in a low density region of a larger high density space as some researchers are exploring today), tired light theory, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by vacuum
Likely, especially if we know its distribution also. Especially in a non-aether system.Quote:
Originally Posted by vacuum
True, and of course this has been tried (Michelson Morley, and many superior later experiments such as Dayton Miller).Quote:
Originally Posted by vacuum
Possibly, or this could also invalidate the aether hypothesis (at least luminiferous aether).Quote:
Originally Posted by vacuum
Catching a 0 gravity wave outta here, catch me coming out of the other side of the Sun later this year.
Picture me hovering directly over your poles...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVSlB5lbITU&feature=endscreen&NR=1
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...ehind-the-sun/
Can you provide some commentary on this, and what it means? It is interesting, but I'm not sure of the cosmological implications you seem to be implying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Horn
Note that stars near the two celestial poles will make little circles around the pole as the Earth spins. The farther you get from the poles, the bigger the circle. At some point, the circle will be big enough so that it just touches your horizon. Stars inside that circle are said to be circumpolar, and they never set! They just seem to circle the pole endlessly. Note that the stars you see as circumpolar depend on your latitude. If you were at the North Pole, all the stars you can see in the sky are circumpolar, but at the equator, no stars are! At the equator, both celestial poles lie on the horizon, and all the stars in the sky rise and set.
http://www.badastronomy.com/pix/precess.gif
One more thing: have you ever watched a top spin, and seen it wobble? The wobble is due to a force called torque, which is like a twisting pull. When torque is applied to a spinning object, the spin axis will precess, or make a little circle as the top spins. Well, the same thing is happening to the Earth! The gravity of the Moon and Sun provides a torque on the Earth, causing the axis to wobble. The Earth's axis takes 26,000 years to make a complete circle, and as it moves it points to different parts of the sky. It just so happens that right now it is pointing near Polaris (actually, Polaris is about a degree away from the actual North Celestial Pole). In a few thousand years, the Earth's pole will be pointed at the bright star Vega, which is one of the ten brightest stars in the sky. Imagine how hard it will be to convince people that's just a coincidence when that happens!
Bad Addendum
Bad Reader Andrew Sincinito brought to my attention the lyrics of a song by Gerry Rafferty, called "Right Down the Line":
I know how much I lean on you
Only you can see
The changes that I've been through Have left a mark on me
You've been as constant as a northern star
The brightest light that shines
It's been you
Woman Right down the line
I hate to give him more credit than he might deserve, but those lines could be interpreted as "she is as constant as the north star, and she is the brightest light that shines;" he might not have been talking about Polaris. However, he might have meant that Polaris is the brightest star in the sky. If so, we have another victim of Bad Astronomy. If not, well, the lyrics are still kind of Bad. ;-) Incidentally, Mark Bellis of Canada tells me that Joni Mitchell had an even earlier song with similar lyrics in it. I guess this idea goes back pretty far. Matter of fact, Shakespeare made the same error in "Julius Caesar"! So I guess Joni and Gerry are in good company.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PB6XKPFp3Dw
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/badpole.html
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.
Hmmm, that would make every egocentrist correct...Quote:
Originally Posted by Santa
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 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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by DMac
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.
I will have to study this. Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by DMac
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.
Only a sith deals in absolutes.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnQPublic
Attachment 3420
Very interesting that you mention the epola. I just finished reading the book on it, and it seems very convincing to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnQPublic
To his utter consternation, however, in the 1930s and 40s, Hubble discovered an inordinate amount of evidence through his work with the 100-inch telescope at Mount Wilson, California, that Earth was in the center of the universe. As he examined the light coming from stars, Hubble concluded that the spectrum of light, particularly the shift toward the red end of the spectrum, indicated Earth’s centrality quite clearly. But since Hubble was an avowed Copernican, he dismissed the geocentric evidence and countered with the following obstinate alternative:
…Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth.…This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility...the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs... such a favored position is intolerable…. Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position…must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape. [The Observational Approach to Astronomy- JQP]
Notice Hubble’s highly charged language. Although he admits it cannot be disproved, an Earth centered universe is not only “unwelcome” but “must be avoided at all costs” and, in fact, it is a “horror” that is “intolerable.” As noted earlier, one scientist even calls it a “depressing thought.”[Donald Goldsmith, the Evolving Universe- JQP]. Notice also Hubble revealing to us that “space curvature” was invented (by Einstein) in order to escape the geocentric implications from the evidence in his telescope of Earth’s centrality.
(excerpts from Galileo Was Wrong, pg. 61, footnotes and illustrations not included)
The most significant scientific evidence that is challenging Copernican cosmology hails from that gathered by astronomers themselves. In short, they are increasingly confronted with evidence that places Earth in the center of the universe. For example, in a 2008 paper written by three astrophysicists from Oxford, evidence for the centrality of the Earth was the simplest explanation for the practical and mathematical understanding of the universe, far superior to the forced invention of “Dark Energy” to support the Copernican model. ScienceDaily put it in simple terms for the layman:
Dark energy is at the heart of one of the greatest mysteries of modern physics, but it may be nothing more than an illusion, according to physicists at Oxford University. The problem facing astrophysicists is that they have to explain why the universe appears to be expanding at an ever increasing rate. The most popular explanation is that some sort of force is pushing the acceleration of the universe’s expansion. That force is generally attributed to a mysterious dark energy. Although dark energy may seem a bit contrived to some, the Oxford theorists are proposing an even more outrageous alternative. They point out that it’s possible that we simply live in a very special place in the universe – specifically, we’re in a huge void where the density of matter is particularly low. The suggestion flies in the face of the Copernican Principle, which is one of the most useful and widely held tenets in physics. Copernicus was among the first scientists to argue that we’re not in a special place in the universe, and that any theory that suggests that we’re special is most likely wrong. The principle led directly to the replacement of the Earth-centered concept of the solar system with the more elegant sun-centered model. Dark energy may seem like a stretch, but it’s consistent with the venerable Copernican Principle. The proposal that we live in a special place in the universe, on the other hand, is likely to shock many scientists.
...Clifton then shows that the tweaking required to get the Dark Energy model working is wholly unnecessary if one simply rejects the first principle of cosmology, the Copernican principle:
An alternative to admitting the existence of dark energy is to review the postulates that necessitate its introduction. In particular, it has been proposed that the SNe observations could be accounted for without dark energy if our local environment were emptier than the surrounding Universe, i.e., if we were to live in a void. This explanation for the apparent acceleration does not invoke any exotic substances, extra dimensions, or modifications to gravity – but it does require a rejection of the Copernican Principle. We would be required to live near the center of a spherically symmetric under-density, on a scale of the same order of magnitude as the observable Universe. Such a situation would have profound consequences for the interpretation of all cosmological observations, and would ultimately mean that we could not infer the properties of the Universe at large from what we observe locally.
Within the standard inflationary cosmological model the probability of large, deep voids occurring is extremely small. However, it can be argued that the center of a large under density is the most likely place for observers to find themselves. In this case, finding ourselves in the center of a giant void would violate the Copernican principle, that we are not in a special place…
New Scientist wasted no time in laying out the cosmological and historical implications of this study:
It was the evolutionary theory of its age. A revolutionary hypothesis that undermined the cherished notion that we humans are somehow special, driving a deep wedge between science and religion. The philosopher Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for espousing it; Galileo Galilei, the most brilliant scientist of his age, was silenced. But Nicolaus Copernicus’s idea that Earth was just one of many planets orbiting the sun – and so occupied no exceptional position in the cosmos – has endured and become a foundation stone of our understanding of the universe. Could it actually be wrong, though? At first glance, that question might seem heretical, or downright silly….And that idea, some cosmologists point out, has not been tested beyond all doubt – yet.
(excerpts from Galileo Was Wrong, pg. 70-72, footnotes and illustrations not included)
A truly magnificent work. There exists no better exposition of the history and science of geocentrism. Very highly recommended and a must for all those interested in the issues surrounding geocentrism today. The animations of the CD are excellent. They illustrate the daily and yearly motions of the sun and planets about the earth, the seasons, retrograde motion, and parallax in a uniform way. The authors have done a very admirable job all around.
Gerardus Bouw, Ph.D.
Astronomy
Author of Geocentricity
In their over 700-page book, Galileo Was Wrong, Drs. Robert Sungenis and Robert Bennett make a convincing case for the special and central position of the earth in the cosmos, both physically and spiritually. This is, of course, radically at odds from what everyone is taught from childhood; everyone “knows” the earth revolves around the sun. However, from time to time, like the little girl in Hans Christian Andersen’s tale The Emperor’s New Clothes, accepted “wisdom” is challenged; and what everyone “knows” to be true turns out to be merely a concocted fantasy. Drs. Sungenis and Bennett make a powerful case that the “truths” of heliocentric and acentric cosmologies aiming to describe the “fabric” of spacetime may in fact be constructed out of the same type of “cloth” as the outfit of the Emperor. Admirably presented in a format accessible to a scientific layman, the authors dismantle “proofs” of the earth’s motion such as Foucault’s pendulum, stellar parallax, and stellar aberration. In exhaustive detail, the authors also present the results from modern physics (such as interferometer experiments) and astronomical observations, suggesting that in fact the position of the earth may be where it was held to be prior to the “Copernican revolution”; namely, the unmoving center of the universe. The authors provide quotes from eminent cosmologists admitting that this cannot be refuted by observation but is only rejected on philosophical grounds, and raise the disturbing possibility that part of modern cosmology and physics, including Relativity Theory, has been invented out of “whole cloth” precisely to avoid the philosophical implications of a universe with a motionless earth at the center.
While many of the arguments contained within Galileo Was Wrong have been previously presented by other geocentrists, it is unparalleled in the breadth and detail of the information presented supporting a geocentric cosmology and its accessibility to the lay reader. Galileo Was Wrong therefore stands as a unique reference and starting point for future debate among all who are searchers for the truth and willing to entertain the possibility that perhaps the little girl proclaiming the Emperor’s nakedness was correct.
Unfortunately Galileo Was Wrong is likely to be scorned not only by the mainstream scientific community but also by the mainstream creationist movement. But all who believe that man’s creation was not by “accident” would do well to consider the following questions, posed by the authors. Is the earth an insignificant rock, a mere chance artifact of the Big Bang, one out of many planets in one out of many solar systems, of no special position but hurtling with great speed through the cosmos towards no final destination in particular? Or has the earth been specifically designed by a benevolent Creator as the habitation place for man, the highest creation in the physical universe, and therefore placed in the central position in the universe? For an important corollary to the question of whether man came into being only by accident or via the design of an omnipotent and loving Creator is whether the place of his habitation in the universe likewise came into being only by accident or by design of a Creator, and whether its place in the universe has any importance or special significance. As others strive to restore man to his rightful role as the crown of physical creation as opposed to a mere assortment of molecules arising by chance, Drs. Sungenis and Bennett have made a powerful case for restoring man’s central physical position in the universe.
Vincent J. Schmithorst, Ph.D.
Physics
Imaging Research, Ohio
Galileo Was Wrong is an evocative book. It evoked memories which have lain dormant since my undergraduate days: things like the disturbing conclusions of the Michelson-Morley experiments; things like Leibniz’s critique of Newton’s system as shot through with appeals to occult properties; things like the fact that no one, least of all Newton, can explain what gravity is or refute the materialists’ conclusion that it is intrinsic to matter. In their new book, Sungenis and Bennett take no prisoners. They look all of the anomalies in the current cosmological system in the face without fear and come up with conclusions that will startle the followers of Carl Sagan out of their dogmatic slumbers. Truth to tell, Newton was turned into an idol to serve the political purposes of the Whigs, who used him to bring down the House of Bourbon across the English Channel. His cosmological system was used as a justification of the Enlightenment. Now that the Enlightenment is over, it was inevitable that the system upon which it was based should come in for the powerful critique which Sungenis and Bennett provide. Not inevitable, however, was the brilliant way they provide it.
E. Michael Jones, Ph.D.
Editor: Culture Wars
It takes some measure of discipline to collate and assemble, in cogent form, the relevant scholarship touching on the matter of geocentricity. The task is complicated in no small part by the diversity of viewpoint evident among the adherents to this admittedly dissident approach to astrophysics. Well-intentioned but poorly executed attempts along such lines have tended to discredit the geocentric model, and it is not without reason that the opposition focuses attention on such blatant misfires (if they focus attention on the issue at all). This volume, however, achieves a cumulative effect that is formidable. No one geocentrist, aside from the authors, will agree with every scientific tenet in this work, and many geocentrists might detect the absence of their primary concerns or preferred theoretical alternatives, myself included. How could it be otherwise? If the book were to be fully comprehensive, it could never enter print, its completion being diverted by continual data acquisition. It is right, then, that this effort storms the field in the powerful form it already exhibits, and it is my hope that it will become a living document, growing in value as new updated editions are issued.
I am not a Roman Catholic. Some may find it inexplicable that someone like myself, from the Protestant side of the aisle, would write an endorsement for this project. I believe that in the matter before us, we’d have to credit sectarian tunnelvision for giving rise to such perplexity. My appreciation for the monumental labors of Drs. Sungenis and Bennett does not entail my adopting their views concerning the weight of Patristic evidence, for instance (although the difference between us is one of degree), and my endorsement of their work does not imply my repudiation of sola scriptura, among other distinctively Protestant positions. The critical question involves the value of the specific scholarship being presented. Just as the Chalcedon Foundation, a Protestant Christian educational institution, published the work of Notre Dame University’s Prof. Edward J. Murphy due to the importance of his work, so it is fitting and right to extol this particular compendium for so clearly demonstrating that the emperor’s wardrobe is not merely diaphanous, it’s positively massless (or expressed more plainly, the emperor, modern science, is wearing no clothes).
It is with pleasure that I remand this volume into the hands of the reader, whether he or she is an atheistic scoffer, a Roman Catholic inquirer, a Protestant polemicist, an Evangelical skeptic, or is otherwise motivated to re-open an issue heretofore thought, wrongly, to have been settled nearly four centuries ago. I would recommend approaching this work with as open a mind as you can muster. More importantly, I would urge the Christian reader to come to grips with our built-in, and very human, “lust for credibility,” our desire to have “friendship with the world” and retain “the praise of man,” all of which have sapped our resolve and lead to slipperyslope compromises that continue to lead men into the ditch. This is all the more remarkable, insofar as the present volume exposes the dark, seamy underside of modern science and its Janus-like propensity for speaking out of both sides of its mouth simultaneously. For the critic consulting the volume with the sole intent of attacking it, Drs. Sungenis and Bennett have provided the right thing indeed: a big, fat, juicy target. Therefore, let the debate begin in earnest. With documentation this thorough, the opposition can be quickly called on the carpet for misquotation or taking points out of context. Such interaction with hostile critics can only strengthen future editions of this work. If more Christians would raise the bar like these two authors have done, we would more readily perceive that the Word of God is an anvil that has worn out many hammers ... and will continue to do so.
Martin G. Selbrede
Chief Scientist, UniPixel Displays, Inc.
Vice President, The Chalcedon Foundation
Following the rule of St. Augustine, the Catholic Church teaches that we are to interpret the Sacred Scriptures in their literal and obvious sense unless the interpretation is untenable or necessity requires otherwise. The Church also dogmatically teaches that it is not permissible to depart from the early Church Fathers’ interpretation of Scripture when they are unanimous (Councils of Trent and Vatican I). What does this have to do with cosmology? Everything, because in interpreting the plain meaning of Scripture, all of the Church Fathers believed in geocentrism (that the Earth is a motionless body in the center of the universe). Moreover, this view was endorsed by three popes in authoritative decrees which condemned Copernicanism as “heretical” and “opposed to Scripture.” From Quasars to Gamma-Ray Bursts, from Parallax to Red Shifts, and from Michelson-Morley to Sagnac, Drs. Sungenis and Bennett’s book Galileo Was Wrong meticulously applies the scientific mortar to the theological bricks of geocentrism, producing a compelling structure that brings Catholic teaching and modern science to a crossroads. If the Earth is really the center of the universe, then modern man must face his biggest fear – that there is a Creator who put it there, and man is subject to His rule and authority. This results in two more “frightening” consequences: Copernicanism (which was abandoned by Galileo before he died) is one of the biggest deceptions ever perpetrated upon mankind; and, modern man must retool his entire worldview by giving his primary allegiance, not to science, but to the Church, “the pinnacle and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15).
John Salza, Esquire
Author: Masonry Unmasked
It's funny how putting a phd next to someone's name when they agree with you its ok but if they don't it's just another brain washed person :)
Mark - are you familiar with the exchanges between Gary Hoge/Ken Cole and Sungenis? I think both of them have proven geocentrism scientifically false.
In a nutshell, (Hoge) the center mass + rotation of stars and sun/planets doesn't jive. Sungenis did not address it accurately. (Cole) Newton's laws cannot exist in a geocentric universe.
I linked in a discussion where I demonstrated that one of Gary Hoge's arguments was wrong already.Quote:
Originally Posted by DMac
Any comments on the starting point for the GPS discussion a page or two back?
I just wanted to show that a variety of people had taken an interest in this topic, including physicists and scientists.
I've just read that thread from the other forum. WRT GPS, general relativity can be used to explain away any argument I can make without access to some DoD files (gps was built and owned by DoD).Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnQPublic
I will concede that proving geocentrism wrong is a difficult endeavor.
Thanks, DMac. This is at least a start. But there is enough known about the GPS in the public domain to discuss it intelligently. And it is claimed that the GPS does use general relativity and a special version of special relativity. And if "secret" knowledge is kept from us, then we can only discuss what we know.Quote:
Originally Posted by DMac
On GPS specifically:Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnQPublic
GPS requires a minimum of 3 satellites to triangulate position (really at least 4+ to achieve proper timing as proper timekeeping is super important to GPS). When it was implemented by the DoD, using 24 satellites for the GPS system, they said they used fixed points of stars to make initial calculations. Similar to the sun orbit/seasons explanation, the rotation of the universe under relativity can explain it how GPS works as well, so without seeing the secret DoD documents (on specifically how each initial satellite was configured - I've never seen them) we cannot accept what they say as fact to argue in favor of Heliocentrism. After all, this is the is the DoD we're talking about.
Does the Global Positioning System
Prove General Relativity?
The Global Positioning System (GPS), although invaluable in providing us with a very precise navigation system is, nevertheless, understood by science to be a large-scale version of Sagnac’s rotating interferometer, and thus a thorn in the side of Relativity theory. This was proven in 1984 when GPS technician D. W. Allan and a team of international scientists measured the same effect on light as Sagnac did in 1913...
...Allan and his colleagues found that microwave beams sent to an approaching GPS satellite take 50 nanoseconds less time to reach the satellite than beams sent to a receding satellite...
...the GPS requires frequent uploads of “clock corrections” to keep everything in synch. When the clocks are in synch, still, it is an inevitable occurrence that GPS signals directed to an approaching ground station arrive at least 50 nanoseconds prior to signals sent to a receding ground station. Even when making adjustments for the Doppler effect and gravitation redshift, there still remains a margin of error due to the Sagnac effect. If these factors are not taken into account, a GPS could be off by as much as 11 km (6.8 miles) in one day. Relativists, assuming their theory to be correct, explain these differences by claiming they are due to “relativistic” effects (e.g., “time dilation”) upon light moving in a non-inertial frame. This is precisely the explanation that D. W. Allan proposed in 1984. This explanation, of course, is simply begging the question, since one cannot use as proof that which has not first been proven. In any case, here is how one Relativist explains his methodology:
…the simplest approach is to use an approximate solution of the [General Relativity] field equations in which Earth’s mass gives rise to small corrections to the simple Minkowski metric of Special Relativity, and to choose coordinate axes originating at the planet’s center of mass and pointing toward fixed stars. In this Earth-centered inertial reference frame (ECI), one can safely ignore relativistic effects due to Thomas precession or Lense-Thirring drag. The gravitational effects on clock frequency, in this frame, are due to Earth’s mass and its multipole moments. [Neil Ashby, “Relativity and the Global Positioning System,” Physics Today, May 2002, p. 3.]
One wonders, with the assortment of intersecting theories described above, why the author thinks this is “the simplest approach.” Be that as it may, we notice that his proposed solution not only appeals to remedies that are themselves imprecise (e.g., “approximate solution of [GTR] field equations”) or speculative (“Minkowski metric of Special Relativity,” or “Lense-Thirring drag”), but also shows his dependence on an “Earth-centered” inertial frame in order to allow his “relativistic” theories to explain how the GPS functions. The author confirms his objective in another paragraph:
…the leading contribution to the gravitational potential Φ is the simple Newtonian term –GME/r. The picture is Earth-centered, and it neglects the presence of other Solar System bodies such as the Moon and the Sun. That they can be neglected by an observer sufficiently close to Earth is a manifestation of general relativity’s equivalence principle. In the ECI frame, the only detectable effects of distant masses are their residual tidal potentials. [ibid. p4]We notice here that the goal is to obtain an “Earth-centered” inertial frame, and thus he uses Newtonian formulas rather than Relativistic formulas since the latter are much more complicated. So far, the GPS technician has shown that he is partial to a geocentric map, but allows himself the prerogative of translating Earth-centered mechanics into a Relativistic framework to explain the same effects from a non-centered, non-inertial Earth frame. The reason he must do so is that it is next to impossible to make accurate measurements when the objects one is trying to measure keep moving, as the Earth does around the sun in the heliocentric system. Moreover, without giving his reader any details, the technician also allows himself to justify his use of a geocentric frame by employing the same “detectable effects of distant masses” and their “tidal potentials” from the sphere of stars surrounding Earth as geocentric scientists do. In other words, many geocentrists hold that the forces we experience on Earth (e.g., gravitational tidal effects, centrifugal, Coriolis and Euler forces, etc.) are due to the rotation of billions of stars around the Earth as they distribute theirenormous gravitational effects and angular momentum. In fact, in Ashby’s reference to “general relativity’s equivalence principle,” it is conceded by Relativists that a fixed-Earth around which the stars rotate (e.g., geocentrism) is precisely “equivalent” to a fixed-star system and a rotating Earth (e.g., heliocentrism). Thus, Ashby would have to admit that the “fixed stars” to which he referred in the above opening paragraph would not be fixed in an “Earth-centered inertial” frame since, if Earth is in the inertial position, the stars must be moving against that inertia. The author reinforces our analysis of his methodology in another revealing paragraph:
Computations of satellite orbits, signal paths, and relativistic effects appear to be most convenient in an ECI frame. But navigation must generally be done relative to the Earth’s surface. So GPS navigation messages must allow users to compute the satellite positions in a fixed-Earth, rotating coordinate system, the so-called WGS-84 reference frame.
That is, navigators working on the surface of the Earth would find it difficult to keep track of satellites moving against an inertial Earth because the satellite’s positions would constantly be shifting as the satellite orbited the Earth. Thus, the WGS-84
coordinate system was invented. This system makes it appear as if the satellites are moving precisely the same speed as the Earth’s rotation. In other words, the WGS-84 (World Geodetic System of 1984)1410 is the “coordinate system” which is fixed to the Earth. Thus, one could say that the satellites are moving in a one to-one correspondence with the Earth’s rotation, or, from the geocentric perspective, one can say that the Earth and the satellites are motionless. Ashby then explains the WGS-84 reference frame more specifically:
The navigation messages provide fictitious orbital elements from which a user can calculate the satellite’s position in the rotating WGS-84 frame at the instant of its signal transmission. But this creates some subtle conceptual problems that must be carefully sorted out…For example, the principle of the constancy of c [speed of light] cannot be applied in a rotating reference frame, where the paths of light rays are not straight; they spiral.
In reality, the orbits are “fictitious” because the satellites are not really going the same speed as the Earth’s supposed rotation. Along the way, the author has admitted one of the anomalies of Relativity theory, that is, that the speed of light is not constant in a rotating frame of reference. This is the salient fact that the 1913 Sagnac experiment demonstrated, but the author doesn’t seem bothered by the fact that he has no explanation why the constancy of light does not hold up in such cases, except to say that light has a problem staying at c when it is required to move in curved paths. Interestingly enough, in his famous 1905 paper, Einstein attempted to apply his Special Theory of Relativity to systems in rotation, as he did, for example, when he compared a clock at the North Pole with a clock circling the equator. But he found that his theory couldn’t explain how light moved in rotating systems, so the General Relativity theory was invented in order to answer Sagnac’s results. Since General Relativity incorporates the remaining universe, the Relativist could now appeal to the “distant rotating masses” (i.e., the “fixed” stars which suddenly were not so “fixed”) that produce “counter-rotation effects” upon Earth. This explanation, if one recalls, is the same one that Ashby proposed as an explanation for an “Earth centered inertial” system in “general relativity’s equivalence principle” in which the “detectable effects of distant masses are their residual tidal potentials”
[CONTINUED]