Geocentrism

[JohnQPublic]

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.

Who says everything is escaping away? This is one possible assumption about the what redshift is. Another one is described by George Ellis' model of a central earth, and Paul Davies' remarks about it. Paul Davies was editor of the journal, Nature at the time. Paul Davies said:

Often the simplest of observations will have the most profound consequences. It has long been a cornerstone of modern science, to say nothing of man’s cosmic outlook, that the Earth attends a modest star that shines in an undistinguished part of a run-of-the-mill galaxy. Life arose spontaneously and man evolved on this miscellaneous clump of matter and now directs his own destiny without outside help. This cosmic model is supported by the Big-Bang and Expanding Universe concepts, which in turn are buttressed by the simple observation that astronomers see redshifts wherever they look.



These redshifts are due, of course, to matter flying away from us under the impetus of the Big Bang. But redshifts can also arise from the gravitational attraction of mass. If the Earth were at the center of the universe, the attraction of the surrounding mass of stars would also produce redshifts wherever we looked! The argument advanced by George Ellis in this article is more complex than this, but his basic thrust is to put man back into a favored position in the cosmos. His new theory seems quite consistent with our astronomical observations, even though it clashes with the thought that we are godless and making it on our own.

[JohnQPublic]

The pendulum is fixed to the Earth.

Ok. So why does it swing in a plane while the earth rotates below it? Why does the pendulum not turn with the earth? The claim of the museum curators is the pendulum swings in some plane, while then earth rotates below it. From your Wikipedia article:

"The experimental apparatus consists of a tall pendulum free to swing in any vertical plane. The actual plane of swing appears to rotate relative to the Earth; in fact the plane is fixed in space while the Earth rotates under the pendulum once a sidereal day."

So, my question to you is what keeps the pendulum in the plane it swings in is rather than following the earth's rotation?

Well again, according to Wikipedia:

"At either the North Pole or South Pole, the plane of oscillation of a pendulum remains fixed relative to the distant masses of the universe while Earth rotates underneath it, taking one sidereal day to complete a rotation. So, relative to Earth, the plane of oscillation of a pendulum at the North Pole undergoes a full clockwise rotation during one day; a pendulum at the South Pole rotates counterclockwise."

So the answer is the "distant masses of the universe" create an inertial reference frame that the pendulum swings in. I.e., the combined distant masses of the universe have more influence on the pendulum then does the earth.

So I ask you the next question: What if the earth were fixed, and the "distant masses of the universe" were rotating around it? What would the plane of the pendulum do? Well if the distant masses have more influence on the pendulum than the fixed earth, they would cause the plane of the pendulum to rotate. What we see on earth in either case is exactly the same. The floor beneath the pendulum rotates relative to the plane of the pendulum swing. We cannot differentiate between a rotating plane of the pendulum and a fixed floor and a fixed plane of pendulum swing under a rotating floor. Since the pendulum is free to swing in any plane, and we do not know whether the earth is fixed or rotating, it is a matter of relative rotation. Mach and Einstein agreed on this decades ago.

This is pure disinformation. They are stating that the stars are fixed. So of course, if the stars are fixed, then obviously it is the earth that is rotating. But that the stars are fixed has not been established, only stated. Please see my sticky on disinformation tactics. If we mantain an open mind we realize that we cannot distinguish between a stationary earth in a rotating universe and a rotating universe with a stationary earth with a pendulum. The Foucalt pendulum only indicates that a relative rotation is occurring. If the early astronomers built this pendulum, they could state that obviously the earth is fixed, so therefor the rotation is due to the heavens rotating, and the sheeple would buy it.

[JohnQPublic]

...
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.

...

If the universe were a rotating system, and the earth just happened to be in the center, it would not be absurd. It is not absurd that a top rotates, and happens to rotate around its center of mass is it? It is physics.

[Horn]

even though it clashes with the thought that we are godless and making it on our own.

Typical mindset for a moon base who's directive is to blow the Earth up so it (the moon base) can travel to Alpha Centauri, with the offset in centrist's wobble...

"making it on our own"

pfft... gimme some ego centrist Love: sarc. right....



Why is it so hard to travel with Venus?

Attachment 3380

[Horn]

.



With your mysterious Catholic hand, your people I do not understand.

[JohnQPublic]

These are really cool pics and movies, but now you are using disinformation tactics. The universe is much bigger than the sun, so if it is a rotational system, the sun goes with it. Spaceships will still make it to their destinations, as coordinate systems are changed anyway depending on where they are launching from, and where they are going. Can you try and deal with the Foucalt pendulum first, then state your next hypothesis (I guess it is "the smaller revolves around the larger" or something to that effect)? Notice that I am being honest and I am discussing this with you. I am not plugging my ears like Janadele (sorry for picking on you), and saying your points are "anti-geocentric" or something, then ignoring them. I think a lot of the board sees where you are going with this, and it is the same thing the mainstream media and politicians do.

http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthre...n-How-It-Works
4) Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.

“Ron Paul is a crackpot.” “Gold bugs are crazy.” “Constitutionalists are
fringe extremists.” Baseless ridicule is almost impossible to counter because it
is meant to be irrational. It infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to
your advantage. It also works as a pressure point to force the enemy into
concessions.

Do you at least in principle accept that the Foucalt pendulum cannot distinguish between a rotating earth in stationary space and a stationary earth in rotating space? If not why not?

Believe it or not, I am not stupid. I have been studying this for 10 years, and yes, it has totally changed my perspective on things. Please do not slip into cognitive dissonance. If you cannot handle this, take a break from it for a while.

[VX1]

Back to DMac's mention of GPS satellites… they and so many other types (such as weather) are geosynchronous. They had to be launched and placed in orbit at just the right velocity, per their orbital distance to match the spin of the Earth. It must balance velocity, gravity and centrifugal force. What say you?

[JohnQPublic]

Back to DMac's mention of GPS satellites… they and so many other types (such as weather) are geosynchronous. They had to be launched and placed in orbit at just the right velocity, per their orbital distance to match the spin of the Earth. It must balance velocity, gravity and centrifugal force. What say you?

"The best evidence against geocentrism"

In a nut shell, our current scientists tell us that Einstein's general relativity is pretty much true, and they base their cosmology on it. General relativity tells us that we can pick any point in space and make it the reference point, and the physics will adjust to make it so. So, if we pick earth as a reference point, and generate the physics from that reference point in general relativity, then geosynchronous satellites had better still sit where they do, or else general relativity does not work. The small detail that general relativity cannot deal with rigid bodies is an issue, but in theory it should still work.

Also, just replace "general relativity" with "Mach's Principle", and it is an even easier explanation (Mach's principle posits the distant masses of the universe as the source of inertia here). Einstein basically agreed with Mach's principle, and somewhat included it in general relativity (though he localized it). In either case (general relativity or Mach's principle), it is the effect of the distant masses (i.e., other galaxies, stars, matter, etc.) that help hold the satellite near the earth. See the Gron and Eriksen quote I used, and replace "moon" with "geosynchronous satellite" just to get a flavor of how general relativity operates:

Gron and Erickson in General Relativity and Gravitation (vol. 21, no. 2, pages 109-110, in
1989) Explain why the moon ( natural satellite) does not fall to the earth:

"As an illustration of the role of inertial dragging for the validity of the strong principle of relativity, we consider the Moon orbiting the Earth. As seen by an observer on the Moon, both the Moon and the Earth are at rest. If the observer solves Einstein’s field equations for the vacuum space-time outside the Earth, he might come up with the Schwarzchild solution and conclude that the Moon should fall toward the Earth, which it does not. So it seems impossible to consider the Moon at rest, which would imply that the strong principle of relativity is not valid.

This problem has the following solution. As observed from the Moon the cosmic mass rotates. The rotating cosmic mass has to be included when the Moon observer solves Einstein’s field equations. Doing this he finds that the rotating cosmic mass induces the rotational non-tidal gravitational field which is interpreted as the centrifugal field in Newtonian theory. This field explains to him why the Moon does not fall toward the Earth."

Finally, aether based systems can handle this situation by having the aether slow to a stop near the earth, and having a neutral zone in the small band where geosynchronous satellites do operate.

[Santa]

Again, if the earth is fixed, then where does the movement of the rest of the universe begin? The ionosphere? At the core?
There would have to be a point or plane in space that is the start at which the spinning begins... Where would it be?

[Santa]

Finally, aether based systems can handle this situation by having the aether slow to a stop near the earth, and having a neutral zone in the small band where geosynchronous satellites do operate.

Aha! Ok, a neutral zone.... hmmm.

Like a really slippery lubed up zone?