Geocentrism

[Skirnir_]

Horn, it's a wonder why they are not burning alleged witches at the stake. If one is not making money wading through their nonsense, why bother?

[Horn]

Ps. I stated before, vacuum.

If you were at the center of mass there would be no gravity.

As it would be distributed equally around you.

You might be torn to shreds by it, but I'm hoping its weaker than you think.

[mick silver]

so are we moving though the universe all the time , are we fixed to one place ?

[JohnQPublic]

Sorry Horn. The Foucalt's pendulum cannot distinguish between a spinning earth in a stationary universe, or a rotating universe with a stationary earth. Let's look at the definition you posted:

"The Foucault pendulum ( /fuːˈkoʊ/ foo-KOH), or Foucault's pendulum, named after the French physicist Léon Foucault, is a simple device conceived as an experiment to demonstrate the rotation of the Earth. While it had long been known that the Earth rotated, the introduction of the Foucault pendulum in 1851 was the first simple proof of the rotation in an easy-to-see experiment. Today, Foucault pendulums are popular displays in science museums and universities."

True if we KNOW the earth is rotating, then the pendulum DEMONSTRATES this rotation to observers on earth. But if we do not KNOW, then it cannot distinguish between a spinning earth in a stationary universe, nor a rotating universe with a stationary earth.

So how does the pendulum work? Basically, the explanation is that the pendulum swings back and forth, and the earth rotates beneath it.


Questions:

1. What is keeping the pendulum from following the earth?
2. What is it that keeps the pendulum swinging in the plane it is swinging?

[JohnQPublic]

Ps. I stated before, vacuum.

If you were at the center of mass there would be no gravity.

As it would be distributed equally around you.

You might be torn to shreds by it, but I'm hoping its weaker than you think.

This is not necessarily true either. Your statements are loaded with unproven assumptions. The first is that gravity is universal (i.e., gravity is a magic force acting between all matter in the universe). This may or may not be true. Second, even if it is universal, and even if it follows Newton's simple law (F=m1m2G/r^2), if the universe is finite, then past the edge of matter, there is no more gravity, and the universe could collapse into itself, or if objects are far enough apart, then there is not this huge force that will tear us apart.

Now general relativity has localized gravity by positing that "warping of space" due to local mass is the explanation for gravity. So thus effect you speak of would not occur under general relativity. In some aether systems, there is no universal gravity. Instead all objects are moved about by aether motion (i.e., George Stokes). In other aether type systems, gravity is a pushing force caused by very tiny corpuscles emanating from outside our region of space creating pressure on objects (except where two objects block the corpuscles), thus pushing themselves together (this is the gravity of Le Sage, which Newton considered, but ultimately did not accept in favor of magic gravity). Funny thing is if you go through the mechanistic mathematical calculations to describe this pushing gravity, you end up with the following equation: F=m1m2K/r^2, where K= a constant. Call K=G, then F=m1m2G/r^2, the exact same equation used for Newton's magic gravity (magic meaning that matter in some mysterious way attracts other matter, also known in philosophy as the "action at a distance" problem). Science cannot distinguish between pushing and attractive gravity, and frankly, science has no explanation for one of the most basic effects we observe (the gravitational effect). Inertia is another effect that science has no explanation for (this is where Mach's principle comes in).

[sirgonzo420]

For anyone interested in listening to a debate featuring Robert Sungenis (www.galileowaswrong.com and www.galilewaswrong.blogspot.com) on the side of geocentrism you may want to check out the following: http://www.aotmclub.com/index.asp?PageID=9&EID=24. Don't be thrown off by the title of the argument: "The Church and the Modern University: Who's the Real Enemy of Science?" Its main content deals with geocentrism.

The debate is not the greatest, but that is not due to a lack of knowledge or debating skills by Dr. Sungenis, but rather due to the somewhat bombastic and even bullying tone of his opponent who apparently took this approach to make up for his somewhat limited and or erroneous knowledge of much of the subject matter. You can also listen to a Q & A after the debate.

James Phillips

Welcome!

[Horn]

Everything spins, JQP. The reason for all things natural to curve.

The result of those "mysterious forces" is the evidence, along with that video of the Earth rotating.

Simple Black and White does exist, even when insisting that it must be a mixed Gray area.

Now you deny a center mass of the Universe at all... I can agree with a moving center point.

Like a top wobble. The Sun does this also to an extent.

[Santa]

But but but, if the earth is standing still while everything else in space is revolving around it,

"where does the spin begin?"

Am I spinning?

Or does the spin begin just over my head?

That rotating toroid is a gorgeous model, by the way....

[JohnQPublic]

Everything spins, JQP. The reason for all things natural to curve.

The result of those "mysterious forces" is the evidence, along with that video of the Earth rotating.

Simple Black and White does exist, even when insisting that it must be a mixed Gray area.

Now you deny a center mass of the Universe at all... I can agree with a moving center point.

Like a top wobble. The Sun does this also to an extent.

Videos of the earth rotating prove nothing. Look at my carousel example. Is the camera rotating arouind the earth or is the earth rotating beneath the camera? The video looks the same either way.

Tops wobble, but their center of mass does not (until they run out of all momentum and fall). Tops wobble around their stationary center of mass, and so could the universe. This is what gives tops (and gyroscopes, bicycle wheels, etc.) their stability- the fact that they maintain their center of mass.

As to the toroid universe, this is one of many possible explanations.

Where did I deny a center of mass?

Are you going to answer my questions about the pendulum?

[Horn]

Where did I deny a center of mass?

The first is that gravity is universal (i.e., gravity is a magic force acting between all matter in the universe). This may or may not be true.

The pendulum is fixed to the Earth.

What you are proposing is the orbit of Earth is the center "wobble" of the Universe.

Given the entire mass of the Universe in relation to, would be observed as absurd.

The observations of everything escaping away is because of the above diagram shape.