Re: Stationary Earth

by **strangelove** Wed Feb 08, 2012 7:10 pm

"Prior to the twentieth century, physics tried to explain how Nature works. Over the twentieth century, and especially in the last half, we got much more ambitious - now we’re uncovering what Nature is. The foundation is an entity I call the Grid. The Grid fills space, and is full of spontaneous activity. In some ways it resembles the old idea of “ether”. But the Grid is highly evolved ether, ether on steroids if you like, with many new features. We have some wonderful ideas waiting to be tested. There are good reasons to think that the Universe is a multilayered multicolored superconductor; that all four known forces can be brought together in a unified theory; that seemingly hopelessly different kinds of matter are just different aspects of one all-embracing stuff. I anticipate that the next few years will be a new Golden Age in fundamental physics."

- Frank Wilczek, Professor of Physics at MIT, Nobel Prize winner of 2004, author of the book "THE LIGHTNESS OF BEING: Mass, Ether, and the Unification of Forces" (Basic Books; September 2, 2008) in a Q&A regarding his book.

LINK: http://www.frankwilczek.com/Wilczek_Q_and_A.pdf

by **strangelove** Wed Feb 08, 2012 7:43 pm

“the telescope did not prove the validity of Copernicus’ conceptual scheme. But it did provide an immensely effective weapon for the battle. It was not proof, but it was propaganda.

....they [most of Galileo's opponents] agreed that the phenomena [steller abberation] were in the sky but denied that they proved Galileo’s contentions. In this, of course, they were quite right. Though the telescope argued much, it proved nothing”

- Thomas Kuhn (Guggenheim Fellow in 1954, and in 1982 was awarded the George Sarton Medal by the History of Science Society), "The Copernican Revolution", 1959, p. 224.

by **strangelove** Wed Feb 08, 2012 8:14 pm

"In Newton’s day, the Ptolemaic system and the Keplerian version of the Copernican system were taught side by side in the universities of the world. But the pendulum of belief had swung irreversibly to the Copernican side. In the minds of most scientists, the heliocentric universe had become fact…Yet there remained a crucial missing element in what was otherwise a complete and compelling picture of the universe: Not one shred of indisputable observational proof existed that the Earth moved through space.Here then was the holy grail of many an astronomer. To prove that the Earth in fact revolved in a wide orbit around the Sun, the parallax of just one star – any star – had to be detected. The hunt for stellar parallax was on."

- Alan Hirshfeld, "The Race to Measure the Cosmos", 2001, p. 47.

Ironically, the "the holy grail of many an astronomer. To prove that the Earth in fact revolved in a wide orbit around the Sun" is claimed by this author to be steller parallax, which is adequately explained in a neo-tychonic geocentric system with the stars aligned [centred] on the sun which revolves around the stationary Earth.

by **strangelove** Wed Feb 08, 2012 8:52 pm

"Newtonian laws operate in a world-model that is very different from everyday intuition. Because Newtonian space is infinite and homogeneous, Earth and its surface are not special places. The directions "up," "down," and "sideways" are fundamentally similar. Nor is rest privileged over uniform motion. None of these concepts matches everyday experience. They troubled Newton's contemporaries, and even Newton himself."

- Frank Wilczek, Professor of Physics at MIT, Nobel Prize winner of 2004, in his book "THE LIGHTNESS OF BEING: Mass, Ether, and the Unification of Forces" page 1. (Basic Books; September 2, 2008).

by **strangelove** Wed Feb 08, 2012 8:58 pm

Certainly, from the standpoint of the special theory of relativity, the ether hypothesis appears at first to be an empty hypothesis. 1n the equations of the electromagnetic field there occur, in addition to the densities of the electric charge, only the intensities of the field. The career of electromagnetic processes in vacuo appears to be completely determined by tliese equations, uninfluenced by other physical quantities. The electromagnetic fields appear as ultimate, irreducible realities, and at first it seems superfluous to postulate a homogeneous, isotropic ether-medium, and to envisage electromagnetic fields as states of this medium.

But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view. For the mechanical behaviour of a corporeal system hovering freely in empty space depends not only on relative positions (distances) and relative velocities, but also on its state of rotation, which physically may be taken as a characteristic not appertaining to the system in itself. In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space. Since he classes his absolute space together with real things, for him rotation relative to an absolute space is also something real. Newton might no less well have called his absolute space ``Ether''; what is essential is merely that besides observable objects, another thing, which is not perceptible, inust be looked upon as real, to enable acceleration or rotation to be looked upon as something real.

"It is true that Mach tried to avoid having to accept as real something which is not observable by endeavouring to substitute in mechanics a mean acceleration with reference to the totality of the masses in the universe in place of an acceleration with reference to absolute space. But inertial resistance opposed to relative acceleration of distant masses presupposes action at a distance; and as the modern physicist does not believe that he may accept this action at a distance, he comes back once more, if he follows Mach, to the ether, which has to serve as medium for the effects of inertia. But this conception of the ether to which we are led by Mach's way of thinking differs essentially from the ether as conceived by Newton, by Fresnel, and by Lorentz. Mach's ether not only conditions the behaviour of inert masses, but is also conditioned in its state by them.

Mach's idea finds its full development in the ether of the general theory of relativity."

- Albert Einstein, an address delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden.

by Grandpa Wed Feb 08, 2012 11:40 pm

Strangelove wrote:

Because that would be admitting that there is a God which is a huge no no in the post Copernican revolution scientific world.

Hubble described that viewpoint as a 'horror' that needed to be escaped.

Ludicrous theories involving shrinking matter, singularities and slowing clocks provided this fantasmagorical escape hatch.

Glad to see you again Gramps. If you could post a link or credit the author of any quoted material that would be great bud.

Whoops. Here is a link http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Michelson-MorleyExperiment.html

by Grandpa Thu Feb 09, 2012 12:01 am

I am very interested in trying to come up with actual experiments that can show the movement or non-movement of the Earth.

I find it strange that it is so difficult to determine.

It can't be done by mere observed motion of stars or planets. Because you have to ASSUME that the stars are stationary and we are moving to believe in a moving Earth. And the reverse is true. You must assume that the stars move and the Earth is stationary to believe in a stationary Earth, if you are just going by observation.

This michelson morley experiment is what I was trying to think up by myself and couldn't quite do it.

Are there more experiments like this??

by **strangelove** Thu Feb 09, 2012 5:40 pm

Grandpa wrote:I am very interested in trying to come up with actual experiments that can show the movement or non-movement of the Earth.

I find it strange that it is so difficult to determine.

It can't be done by mere observed motion of stars or planets. Because you have to ASSUME that the stars are stationary and we are moving to believe in a moving Earth. And the reverse is true. You must assume that the stars move and the Earth is stationary to believe in a stationary Earth, if you are just going by observation.

This michelson morley experiment is what I was trying to think up by myself and couldn't quite do it.

Are there more experiments like this??

From geocentrist Malcolm Bowden:

(3) SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS
Geocentrists are ridiculed as "unscientific" and "getting their science
from the Bible". However, there are four experiments which clearly
point to a geocentric universe. Only the Michelson-Morley is ever
referred to; the other three are hardly ever mentoned in our
universities.
(a) The Michelson-Morley experiment (Enlarged 19 June 2004)
Most scientists know about the Michelson-Morely experiment. It was
carried out to check that the velocity of the earth round the sun was
about 30km/sec as it moved through the aether. When it found hardly any
movement at all, the result stunned the scientific community! Little of
this reached the ears of the public and this result had to be
"explained away".
There is a simple model that can be pictured to explain the reason for the experiment.
Imagine that you are on a lake in a small boat with a very quiet engine
(the earth), and not far away is a huge liner (the sun). You are at the
centre of the lake and the shore is a long way off but you can see
mountains on it etc. You notice that the shore (the stars) is going past
the large ship fairly quickly, and you realise that either (i) you are
circling the large ship OR (ii) the large ship is circling you - and
you cannot immediately tell which one is circling which.You know the
distance between the two ships and timing how long it takes for the
shore to make a complete circle (1 year), you can say that either the
large ship is going round you at 30mph or you are going round it at that
speed.
There is a very simple test that will tell you which one is circling which. What can you do to find out???

The answer is very simple.
You put your hand in the water (the aether)!!!
If you are moving through the water, then it is you going round the
large ship, and you can check your speed through the water to see if it
is 30 mph. If it is, then the large ship must be stationary. HOWEVER, if
you find that you are stationary in the water, then it must be the
large ship that is GOING ROUND YOU.
The MM experiment showed that the earth was (almost) stationary! So
they had to invent the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction, and eventually
Einstein swept the whole problem under the carpet by mathematically
removing the aether (the water). That this brought huge problems into
scientific theories was ignored, and false evidence produced (Eclipse,
travelling clocks, perihelion precession of Mercury) to support the
theory. There have been many attacks upon the theory, but so powerful
are the forces that support it that they have had little publicity or
real damaging effect upon the "scientific" acceptance of the theory even
today.
(b) The Michelson-Gale experiment.
(Reference - Astrophysical Journal 1925 v 61 pp 140-5 - .....) This
detected the aether passing the surface of the earth with an accuracy
of 2% of the speed of the daily rotation of the earth! Thus, the
Michelson-Morely experiment detected no movement of the earth around
the sun, yet the Michelson-Gale experiment measured the earth's
rotation (or the aether's rotation around the earth!) to within 2%!
This surely speaks volumes for geocentricity.

(c) "Airy's failure" (Reference - Proc. Roy. Soc. London v 20 p
35). Telescopes have to be very slightly tilted to get the starlight
going down the axis of the tube because of the earth's "speed around
the sun". Airey filled a telescope with water that greatly slowed down
the speed of the light inside the telescope and found that he did not
have to change the angle of the telescope. This showed that the starlight was already coming in at the correct angle so that no change was needed.
This demonstrated that it was the stars moving relative to a
stationary earth and not the fast orbiting earth moving relative to the
comparatively stationary stars. If it was the telescope moving he
would have had to change the angle.
(Imagine the telescope like a tube, sloped so that the light from one
star hits the bottom of the tube. Even if the starlight is slowed down
inside the tube (using water), it will still hit the bottom of the tube
because its direction is already determined. If it were the tube that
was moving, slowing down the starlight would mean that the angle of the
tube would have to change for the light to hit the bottom of the
tube.)
(d) The Sagnac experiment (Reference - Comptes Rendus 1913 v157 p
708-710 and 1410-3) Sagnac rotated a table complete with light and
mirrors and camera with the light being passed in opposite directions
around the table between the mirrors. The rotation of the whole
apparatus was detected by the movement of the interference fringes on
the target where they were recombined. This proved that there IS an
aether that the light has to pass through and this completely destroys
Einstein's theory of Relativity that says there is no aether. It is for
this reason that this experiment is completely ignored by scientists.
More recently Kantor has found the same result with similar apparatus.

LINK: mbowden.surf3.net/Geocexpl.htm

by **strangelove** Thu Feb 09, 2012 6:24 pm

"But among all the discoveries and corrections probably none has resulted in a deeper influence on the human spirit than the doctrine of Copernicus…. Possibly mankind has never been demanded to do more, for considering all that went up in smoke as a result of realizing this change: a second Paradise, a world of innocence, poetry and piety: the witness of the senses, the conviction of a poetical and religious faith. No wonder his contemporaries did not wish to let all this go and offered every possible resistance to a doctrine which in its converts authorized and demanded a freedom of view and greatness of thought so far unknown indeed not even dreamed of.”

- Johann von Goethe, Zur Farbenlehre, Materialien zur Geschichte der Farbenlehre, Frankfurt am Main, 1991, Seite 666.

[The Copernican Revolution] "..outshines everything since the rise of Christianity and reduces the Renaissance and Reformation to the rank of mere episodes, mere internal displacements, within the system of medieval Christendom. Since it changed the character of men’s habitual mental operations even in the conduct of the nonmaterial sciences, while transforming the whole diagram of the physical universe and the very texture of human life itself, it looms so large as the real origin both of the modern world and of the modern mentality, that our customary periodisation of European history has become an anachronism and an encumbrance."

- Herbert Butterfield, The Origins of Modern Science: 1300-1800, 1957, pp. 7-8.

by **strangelove** Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:37 pm

Scientific papers that provide mathematically viable models for the Geocentric system with some producing the same equations of motion, i.e. the same inertial system, as the heliocentric model:

Gerber, Paul, 1898. Zeitschrift für mathematik physik, 43:93.
Thirring, Hans, 1918. Physikalische Zeitschrift, 19:23.
Lense, J., and H. Thirring, 1918. Ibid., p. 156.
Møller, C., 1952. The Theory of Relativity, (Oxford: Clarendon Press), pp. 318-321.
Birkhoff, G. D., 1944. Boletin de la Sociedad Mathematica Mexicana, 1:1.
Brown, G. B., 1955. Proc. Of the Phys. Soc., B, 68: 672.
Moon, P. and D. E. Spenser, 1959. Philos. Of Science, 26:125.
Nightingale, J. D., 1977. Am. Jrn. of Phys., 45:376.
Rosser, W., 1964. An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity, (London:
Butterworths), p. 460.
Barbour, J. B. and B. Bertotti, 1977. Il Nuovo Cimento, 38B(1):1.
Browne, P. F., 1977. Jrnl. of Phys. A: Math & Gen., 10:727.
Mach, E., 1883. Die Mechanik in Ihrer entwicklung Historisch-Kritisch
Dargestellt, (Prague).
Gödel, K., 1952. Proc. Of the International Congrs. of Math., 1:175.
Eby, P., 1977. General Relativity & Gravitation, 29(5):621.

by **strangelove** Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:07 pm

"In Earth’s neighborhood, the field equations of general relativity involve only a single overall time variable. While there is freedom in the theory to make arbitrary coordinate transformations, the simplest approach is to use an approximate solution of the 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 (ECI) reference frame, one can safely ignore relativistic effects due to Thomas precession of Lense- Thirring drag..."

- Physics Today, May 2002 p. 42

PDF LINK: http://www.ipgp.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf

Translation:

“General relativity allows the physicist to use all kinds of fudge factors to account for the results he sees. [The major fudge factors are the Fitzgerald Contraction and the Lorentz-transformation equations which allow you to change time, length, distance and mass, in order to arrive at the answer you want]. But we are going to dispense with all those “arbitrary” transformations! We are going to use the Earth as the inertial frame of reference! In other words, we’re going to pretend that the Earth is standing still to figure out how the GPS works, and we can do so because the Lense-Thirring results said we could!”

- Unknown geocentric apologist on the 'About scientific (& theological) aspects of Geocentricity' Q&A.

by **strangelove** Fri Feb 10, 2012 3:46 pm

"Generally, however, the transmissions arrive at different times. The navigation messages then let the receiver compute the position of each transmission event in the Earth-fixed WGS-84 frame. Before equations can be solved to find the receiver’s location, the satellite positions must be transformed to a common Earth-centered inertial frame, since light propagates in a straight line only in an inertial frame..."

- Physics Today, May 2002 p. 42

PDF LINK: http://www.ipgp.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf

Translation:

"Calculating the GPS position cannot be solved using HIS equations; rather, he must use equations that are based on a stationary earth that is inertial. Why? Well, he had already told us in an earlier paragraph that “the principle of constancy of “c” [the speed of light] cannot be applied in a rotating reference frame, where the paths of light rays are not straight, they spiral” (p. 44). So rather than admit that his Relativity theory does not really answer the question of light traveling in a rotating frame of reference, he just borrows from Earth-fixed inertial equations, and no one is the wiser!"

- Unknown geocentric apologist on the 'About scientific (& theological) aspects of Geocentricity' Q&A.

by **strangelove** Fri Feb 10, 2012 3:51 pm

"In the equation 3, the leading contribution to the gravitational potential Theta is the simple Newtonian term GM/r. The picture is Earth-centered, and it neglects the presence of other Solar-system bodies such as the Moon and Sun. That they can be neglected by an observer sufficiently close to Earth is a manifestation of general relativity’s equivalence principle."

- Physics Today, May 2002 p. 42

PDF LINK: http://www.ipgp.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf

Translation:

"Even though scientists believe that the earth is kept in its orbit around the sun due to the sun’s strong gravitational pull, and that the tides on earth are caused by the strong gravitational pull of the moon, this scientist claims that such forces can be neglected when sending up satellites. Oh really? If the moon can pull on the earth’s water with such tremendous force, how is it that it can’t pull on a satellite that is 22,000 miles closer to the moon than it is to the earth?

Notice also that he again makes reference to the “Earth-centered” frame of reference. How can he do so this time? Because he has commandeered “general relativity’s equivalence principle.” What is the equivalence principle? It’s the principle that allows them to change frames of reference at will; whatever one suits them will be fine."

- Unknown geocentric apologist on the 'About scientific (& theological) aspects of Geocentricity' Q&A.

by **strangelove** Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:03 pm

"One of the most confusing relativistic effects - the Sagnac effect - appears in rotating reference frames.
(See Physics Today, October 1981, page 20)....Observers in the non-rotating ECI inertial frame would not see a Sagnac effect. Instead, they would see that receivers are moving while a signal is propagating...Correcting for the Sagnac effect in the Earth-fixed frame is equivalent to correcting for such receiver motion in the ECI frame...

- Physics Today, May 2002 p. 42

PDF LINK: http://www.ipgp.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf

Translation:

"Yes, the author is right. It is “confusing.” Unfortunately for him, the reason it is “confusing” is that Relativity has never explained the Sagnac effect, found by Georges Sagnac in 1913, nor its follow up experimental verification performed by Michelson-Gale-Pearson in 1925."

- Unknown geocentric apologist on the 'About scientific (& theological) aspects of Geocentricity' Q&A.

-------

“I pause to note that one may scan Einstein’s writings in vain to find mention of the Sagnac or Michelson-Gale experiments. The same can be said of general physics textbooks and of the 1971 McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology... Such an oversight in these distinguished encyclopedias constitutes a stinging indictment of professional scientific reporting”

- Dean Turner in The Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers p. 44

"The Sagnac effect also occurs if an atomic clock is moved slowly from one reference station on the ground to another...Observers at rest on the ground, seeing these same asymmetric effects, attribute them instead to gravitomagnetic effects – that is to say, the warping of space-time due to spacetime terms in the general-relativistic metric tensor..."

- Physics Today, May 2002 p. 42

PDF LINK: http://www.ipgp.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf

Translation:

"although Relativity cannot account for the Sagnac effect, we are still going to attribute the discrepancies in GPS calculations to Relativistic effects, namely, the warping of “spacetime due to spacetime terms in the general-relativistic metric tensor.” You see, he is locked into a system that doesn’t give him the answers he needs, but since he doesn’t want to admit that they could all be answered by assuming a stationary earth and a revolving aether-type medium, then he will continue to push Relativity as the answer"

- Unknown geocentric apologist on the 'About scientific (& theological) aspects of Geocentricity' Q&A.

by **strangelove** Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:03 pm

"Let the earth be a coordinate system rotating uniformly relative to the universe. Then centrifugal forces would be in effect for masses at rest in the universe’s coordinate system, while no such forces would be present for objects at rest with respect to the earth.

Already Newton viewed this as proof that the rotation of the earth had to be considered as “absolute,” and that the earth could not then be treated as the “resting frame” of the universe. Yet, as E. Mach has shown, this argument is not sound. One need not view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of the earth; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of the earth, where the earth is treated as being at rest."

- Albert Einstein, 1914

by **strangelove** Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:40 pm

"The rotational inertial dragging effect, which was discovered by Lense and Thirring, was later investigated by Cohen and Brill and by Orwig. It was found that in the limit of a spherical shell with a radius equal to its Schwarzchild radius, the interior inertial frames are dragged around rigidly with the same angular velocity as that of the shell. In this case of ‘perfect dragging,’ the motion of the inertial frames is completely determined by the shell."

“…with reference to Newtonian mechanics we talk of inertial force fields in accelerated reference frames. However, according to the general principle of relativity, we may consider the laboratory as at rest. We then talk of gravitational dragging fields. The concept of ‘inertial forces,’ which may be regarded as a sort of trick in Newtonian mechanics, is thereby made superfluous."

"Einstein advocated a new interpretation of the fictitious forces in accelerated systems of reference. The “fictitious” forces were treated as real forces on the same footing as any other force of nature. The reason for the occurrence in accelerated systems of reference of such peculiar forces should, according to this new idea, be sought in the circumstance that the distant masses of the fixed stars are accelerated relative to these systems of reference. The “fictitious forces” are thus treated as a kind of gravitational force, the acceleration of the distant masses causing a “field of gravitation” in the system of reference considered. Only when we work in special systems of reference, viz., systems of inertia, it is not necessary to include the distant masses in our considerations, and this is the only point which distinguishes the systems of inertia from other systems of reference. It can, however, be assumed that all systems of reference are equivalent with respect to the formulation of the fundamental laws of physics. This is the so-called general principle of relativity."

"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."

- Gron and Erickson "General Relativity and Gravitation"

Tanslation:

"Since the Moon always shows the same face to the Earth, then from the point of view of the Moon, the Earth is continually hovering 240,000 miles above the Moon. (As such, the Earth is to the Moon what a GSS is to the Earth). The question would be: “Well, what holds the Earth up in the sky? Why doesn’t it fall to the Moon?” Gron and Eriksen show us the answer, and it is in complete agreement with Einstein, Lense-Thirring, Moller, Misner, Wheeler and Thorne, et al. It is that the “rotating cosmic mass induces the rotational non-tidal gravitational field which is interpreted as the centrifugal field in Newtonian theory.”

- Unknown geocentric apologist on the 'About scientific (& theological) aspects of Geocentricity' Q&A.

by **strangelove** Sat Feb 11, 2012 6:27 pm

About Geocentric Parallax:

"Since in the Geocentric system the star and the sun both go around the earth, then from earth we will see the star in a different position in the sky. The parallax will be the same dimensions as that in the Heliocentric system. The earth lies on the axis of the universe’s daily rotation. In addition to the universe’s daily rotation around the earth, the universe wobbles on an axis inclined 23.5 degrees to the rotation axis. It completes one turn of the wobble in a period of one year. The wobble carries the sun and stars two astronomical units (earth-sun distances) to the opposite side of the earth and results in the following:

Stationary Earth - Page 7 Parall10

The sun and the stars move together in the same plane. The sun is always pointed in the same direction to the stars. The result of stars/sun wobble answers to the parallax shift, star light aberration, the annual Doppler shift, the precession of equinoxes, and the perihelion precession that have been observed."

First, the parallax is explained by the following diagram:

Stationary Earth - Page 7 Parall11

The second movement of the stars relative to the earth is explained by the next diagram:

Stationary Earth - Page 7 Wobble10

The earth is in the center. The DAILY rotation of the stars (or universe) is shown above by the axis marked north, going in the clockwise direction. The ellipses represent the YEARLY motion of the stars (or of the whole universe). The yearly motion is due to the wobble in the universe around the axis from the earth to the point marked “Pole of the Elliptic.”
The YEARLY motion is not a rotation, but a back-and-forth motion. In the course of one year, the line marked Sun-A traces out the cylinder shown.

At the same time, Stars 1, 2 and 3 trace out their respective paths.

The dark circle shows the sun on the first day of winter. The open circle on the other side of the sun’s circuit is its position on the first day of summer, and is the same for stars 1, 2 and 3.

If there were no daily rotation, stars 1 and 2 would always be to the left of the earth, and star 3 would always be to the right.

This is how the Geocentric model explains the “wobbles”.

- Unknown geocentric apologist on the 'About scientific (& theological) aspects of Geocentricity' Q&A.

by **strangelove** Sat Feb 11, 2012 7:49 pm

"...all masses, all motion, indeed all forces are relative. There is no way to discern relative from absolute motion when we encounter them...Whenever modern writers infer an imaginary distinction between relative and absolute motion from a Newtonian framework, they do not stop to think that the Ptolemaic and Copernican are both equally true."

- Ernst Mach, Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwicklung historisch-kritisch dargestellt, eighth ed, Leipzig, p. 222, 1921.

by zone Sat Feb 11, 2012 9:23 pm

i'm lovin all this Doc.

count me among the choir.

by **strangelove** Sun Feb 12, 2012 12:04 pm

Objection:

We see other planets rotate therefore our Earth must do likewise.

Answer:

"Mercury hardly rotates at all, only making three rotations per year. Venus rotates in the opposite direction of the other planets. Uranus and Pluto rotate north/south instead of east/west. The ones that do rotate show a marked centrifugal consequence, such that north/south circumferences are thousands of miles shorter than their east/west circumferences (e.g., Jupiter). Conversely, photographs of the earth from space show no such east/west bulges, but a perfectly spherical shape, which gives evidence that there is no rotation. Satellites are also puzzling. Our moon doesn’t rotate. Some of the moons of other planets rotate, some don’t. In addition, of Jupiter’s 16 moons, four go in the opposite direction to the other 12. One of Saturn’s moons goes in the opposite direction, and two of Saturn’s moons switch orbits every four years.

There are many more such anomalies."

- Robert Sungenis (Author of "Galileo Was Wrong") on the 'About scientific (& theological) aspects of Geocentricity' Q&A.

by PneumaPsucheSoma Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:22 am

Hi, Doc...

I've become involved in a conversation because I briefly indicated my newfound challenge of heliocentricity and support for geocentricity. But with my head still reeling from trying to absorb and correlate all the data, I could use some help with presenting a cohesive outline and summary points.

A critique of stellar parallax and aberration.
Redshift formula.
Barrycenter.
Telescope optics.

Specific questions already in que are related to successful heliocentric positioning of satellites in planetary orbit, Mars lander, planetary ovservational satellites, and trackable relative movements of other planets in earth's system, etc.

I'm just not anywhere near fluent enough yet to address these types of queries. Would you consider providing me a basic outline that steps me through a dozen main bullet points for geo, and the same against helio?

What are the precarious and paradoxical mathematics and measurements of helio based on? What are the issues of skewed empirical data? That type of a listing and outline.

I just don't want to have my novice ineptitude reflected on the facts to a ravening audience. In due time, I should be able to put them all on the trailer myself; but for now, I need a bit of help. You up for it? :-)

by **strangelove** Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:50 pm

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:Hi, Doc...

I've become involved in a conversation because I briefly indicated my newfound challenge of heliocentricity and support for geocentricity. But with my head still reeling from trying to absorb and correlate all the data, I could use some help with presenting a cohesive outline and summary points.

A critique of stellar parallax and aberration.
Redshift formula.
Barrycenter.
Telescope optics.

Specific questions already in que are related to successful heliocentric positioning of satellites in planetary orbit, Mars lander, planetary ovservational satellites, and trackable relative movements of other planets in earth's system, etc.

I'm just not anywhere near fluent enough yet to address these types of queries. Would you consider providing me a basic outline that steps me through a dozen main bullet points for geo, and the same against helio?

What are the precarious and paradoxical mathematics and measurements of helio based on? What are the issues of skewed empirical data? That type of a listing and outline.

I just don't want to have my novice ineptitude reflected on the facts to a ravening audience. In due time, I should be able to put them all on the trailer myself; but for now, I need a bit of help. You up for it? :-)

Hey dude...damn straight I'm up for it! Lolz.

If theres one thing I've learnt when starting these debates its the importance of obliterating any and all raw observational evidence that your opponents bring up.

You make the following statement proudly and confidently:

There is NO KINEMATIC DIFFERENCE between the geocentric and heliocentric models.

**opponents all scramble for google definition of kinematic**

You explain to them that ALL RAW OBSERVATIONS are identical no matter if the Earth is the centre of the system or the sun. All you are doing is shifting your frame of reference from the sun to the Earth. All orbits, distances, speeds, angles etc remain IDENTICAL. You will see exactly the same things from Earth regardless which body is your frame of reference.

Then you direct them to this excellent online orrery:

http://gunn.co.nz/astrotour/?data=tours/retrograde.xml

.....and you tell them to go to the left panel, zoom right into mars and the other inner bodies, slow the spped right down and then change the 'follow object' drop down menu to the sun. They will see that all you have done is changed the stationary reference frame. Everything you see from Earth remains the same. This also gives them the exact model that us geocentrists work with, the 'neo-Tychonian' model. It's a simple change in perspective.

Every observation they can come up with is explained with this change in perspective. This blows the following arguments completely out of the water:

- Steller parralax
- Steller abberation
- Phases of moon, venus or anything else
- Retrograde motion of mars or anything else.
- Transits of inner planets
- Occulations

....or any other observational factor that involves angles, distances, orbits and timing.

Stellar parralax and abberation are big claims by helio's but they whither to nothing. I actually made a big post above with diagrams that explain these. I posted a quote recently from a university physics textbook saying that parallax is no proof of the helio model.They put a tilt in the Earths axis of rotation. We put a tilt in the universes axis of rotation. This combined with the stars being aligned/centred on the sun. Produces the necessary 'wobbles' to produce these effects.

Then you get them to agree with this. They wont, they will prolly get angry...but you try to drive the point home hard.

When it becomes obvious they are not gonna agree with even this simple issue of kinematics...you move onto forces.

And the principle of 'co-variance' is again your weapon. You tell them that any force that is produced by a spinning earth in a fixed universe is also produced by a spinning universe against a stationary Earth. I've got REAMS of quotes from renowned scientists saying exactly that right here in this thread. The best is that Ernst Mach one that says "...all masses, all motion, indeed all forces are relative". thats a beaut. Lense-Thirring effect explains it all.

This blows out of the water:

- Coriolis effect
- Foucault pendulum
- NASA Rockets getting boost from the spinning Earth

...or anything else they come up with to do with the forces that a spinning Earth produces. Easy.

If they ask you for any math or formula you tell them that math only proves that man can balance two sides of an equals symbol. Doesnt prove anything.

Barycentre is easy. They will always bring up Newtonian orbital mechanics which is ONLY true of a 2 body system. We are not in an isolated system. Basically, if all the stars in the universe are arranged perfectly then Earth can be the barycentre.

I have no idea about Telescope optics no-one has ever tried that one on me. Have now idea how optics proves anything, although I suspect a spinning universe can deal with their objection.

Thats it basically.

After you've chipped away all their objections, you go on the offensive and show them the 4 experiments that prove the Earth is stationary and the CBR mapping of the universe and all the other stuff I been posting lately that shows that Earth is the centre of the universe.

Hope that helps....dont hesitate to post here with more queries and maybe also a link to your debate. Heres a recent debate I got involved with. I employ the exact tactics I've outlined here.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread807605/pg1

Cheers PPS.

PS...I just yesterday started up correspondance with one of the authors of 'Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right' so we have some SERIOUS scientific backup guys! Stationary Earth - Page 7 424733

by PneumaPsucheSoma Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:47 pm

Thanx much!! That puts it in an initial cohesive format. I was going nuts finding a starting point and direction. Too much heliocentric thought all my life. LOL.

What chance would there be of me introducing the above framework and ultimately relaying the baton to you for the finish-line sprint? I need to get my feet wet, but I don't wanna drown. :-)

This is unfamiliar territory for me. I usually don't address something until I've got a comprehensive personal grasp of the details. This is just too monumental to let it slide.

Geocentricity also vastly undermines the entirety of big bang evolution and the rest... all in one fell swoop. Yes?

by **strangelove** Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:21 pm

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:Thanx much!! That puts it in an initial cohesive format. I was going nuts finding a starting point and direction. Too much heliocentric thought all my life. LOL.

What chance would there be of me introducing the above framework and ultimately relaying the baton to you for the finish-line sprint? I need to get my feet wet, but I don't wanna drown. :-)

Once you introduce the principle of relative 'co-variance' between the two systems kinematically and regarding forces too, they got nothing left.

Do that first and if you have further problems then post here.

All the documentation you need is on this thread, and also the galileowaswrong blogspot is really useful.

I recommend you backup this thread to your computer.

File-save page as-save as type-text file.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:
This is unfamiliar territory for me. I usually don't address something until I've got a comprehensive personal grasp of the details. This is just too monumental to let it slide.

Geocentricity also vastly undermines the entirety of big bang evolution and the rest... all in one fell swoop. Yes?

EXACTLY. It simply proves God exists. Simplez.

Geocentricity=divine creation=God.

God said all the lies will see the light of day. I truly believe this issue is a doozer, thats why I'm spending so much time on it.

by PneumaPsucheSoma Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:29 pm

Yep, agreed. The amazing thing is how simple it is. Glory to God!

I'll squeal if I get in a pinch.

by **strangelove** Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:56 pm

Quite a well made little youtoob doco series on the historical side of the issue:

by **strangelove** Wed Feb 15, 2012 6:29 pm

Heres what the the universe around us looks like according to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey:

Stationary Earth - Page 7 Cbr_ga10

The empty parts on the side you can ignore, the telescope is blocked from doing a complete survey by the milky way I think.

How....beautiful is that? Earth right in the centre of these concentric rings of galaxies around us!

Remember, objectors will say at every point in the universe you would see this, but a quote I posted says the dipole excludes that possibility. Also it simply doesnt make sense! Imagine if you were on one of those stars in the concentric ring? The universe would not look like this!

by **strangelove** Wed Feb 15, 2012 6:37 pm

Also it simply doesnt make sense! Imagine if you were on one of those
stars in the concentric ring? The universe would not look like this!

by **strangelove** Wed Feb 15, 2012 7:35 pm

More on seasons:

"Instead of the earth tilting 23 degrees the Sun goes around the World every day, following a path in the sky called the ecliptic (the plane of the sun tilting about 23 degrees). The seasons are simply explained by the Sun traversing the ecliptic over a period of twelve months, such that the declination of the Sun (effectively a measure of its height above the celestial equator) will vary slightly from one day to the next. Contemplation of the Figure 1 will illustrate the mechanism by which the Sun reaches its highest position in the sky on the summer solstice, its lowest position on the winter solstice and that it crosses the equator at the points referred to as the vernal and autumnal equinoxes."

- Robert Sungenis on "Geocentric Answers"

Stationary Earth - Page 7 Season10

by **strangelove** Wed Feb 15, 2012 7:50 pm

Remember, objectors will say at every point in the universe you would
see this, but a quote I posted says the dipole excludes that
possibility.

Regarding the “Friedman” option, a recent paper by Yukio Tomazawa asserts it is no longer an option: “In the Friedman universe, one possible interpretation of the coordinates is that the whole space is on the surface of an expanding balloon and has no center… [But] in such a universe, there is no cosmic microwave background (CMB) dipole, even in the presence of a peculiar velocity. In other words, the observation of a CMB dipole excludes such an interpretation of the coordinates for the Friedman universe.”

by Sponsored content