Geocentrism

[JohnQPublic]

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?

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.

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.

[JohnQPublic]

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.

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).

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.

[JohnQPublic]

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

Ok. Sounds good to me for some purposes at least.

[JohnQPublic]

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?

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.

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.

[JohnQPublic]

...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

[JohnQPublic]

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.

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.

[JohnQPublic]

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.

Likely, especially if we know its distribution also. Especially in a non-aether system.

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

True, and of course this has been tried (Michelson Morley, and many superior later experiments such as Dayton Miller).

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

Possibly, or this could also invalidate the aether hypothesis (at least luminiferous aether).

[Horn]

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://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...ehind-the-sun/

[JohnQPublic]

Catching a 0 gravity wave outta here, catch me coming out of the other side of the Sun later this year.



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.

[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.


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.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/badpole.html