Stationary Earth

Strangelove wrote:

Uhm.....well, you've just confused the heck outta me with your new term and I been researching this thing for years...

.....so I'd say no...bad move.

Okay, good enough. Some other sources have referred to Ptolemaic as Geo, Copernican as Helio, and Tychonic as Geo-Helio. Earth-centered sun; sun-centered planets.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:

Strangelove wrote:

Uhm.....well, you've just confused the heck outta me with your new term and I been researching this thing for years...

.....so I'd say no...bad move.

Okay, good enough. Some other sources have referred to Ptolemaic as Geo, Copernican as Helio, and Tychonic as Geo-Helio. Earth-centered sun; sun-centered planets [AND STARS].

Oh ok...I get it now......nope....still a bad idea.

Okay, let me make sure I get this before I go on.

Einstein just deleted experimentally-substantiated ether to develop Relativity, and substituted curved space and other anomalies via inaccessibly dense initial mathematics that were later simplified. Relativity is built upon the assumptive declaration that there simply is no luminescent ether. And Newton's law of gravitation is lacking in what manner to explain forces?

How concisely accurate is that? Tweakage?

This is HIL-stinkin'-LARIOUS!!!!

Geocentrism (GC) versus Heliocentrism (HC) 
 
GC - Earth is stationary
HC - Earth orbits Sun at 67,062 mph, Period = 365 1/4 days  
 
GC - Earth is stationary
HC - Earth rotates at 1041 mph at the equator, Period = 23 hours 56 minutes, Direction = West to East
 
GC - Sun orbits Earth (Sun is "set" within rotating firmament), Period = 24 hours, Direction = East to West
HC - Sun is stationary
 
GC - Moon orbits Earth at 61,158 mph, Period = 24 hours 50 minutes, Direction = East to West
HC - Moon orbits Earth at 2,288 mph, Period = 29.5 days, Direction = West to East
 
"I don't think there is one person in many, many thousands--regardless of education--who knows that the Copernican Model had to turn the Moon's observable direction around and give it a new speed to accommodate the phases and eclipses."  Marshall Hall
 
GC - Moon does not rotate
HC - Moon rotates at 10.3 mph (what?!!!), Period = 29.5 days, Direction = West to East
(They want you to believe that the Moon's rotation is perfectly synchronized with its orbit so that's why we only ever see one side of the Moon, rather than conclude the obvious - that the Moon is simply NOT rotating. Moreover, they had to slow down the Moon's speed by 58,870 mph AND reverse its direction to W-E to successfully sell their phony heliocentricity system to a gullible public). 
 
GC - Stars orbit Earth ("the stars occupy a shell, referred to as the stellatum, which rotates about the World"), Period = 23 hours 56 minutes 4 seconds, Direction = East to West

Tycho Brahe's Life and Death.

http://zomobo.net/play.php?id=Y6MIKP_mjDQ

Geocentric System Animation
(It's Ptolemaic, but it sure is kewl.)

http://zomobo.net/play.php?id=zqaMlKf9lDA

Okay... My rocket scientist done rocked the boat on me. I'm not sure how to respond.



Posted by RevLogos
Well as the resident rocket scientist, its hard to stay away. But I wasn't sure I wanted to add to it since I wasn't sure of the point of the thread. It is (or was) my opinion that no one seriously supports a geocentric model. So I poked around to see if I could find any Christian web sites that promote it, and sure enough, there are a few.

Posted By PPS
There is a wealth of scientific information on the matter. Though there are biblical implications, this must be a scientific endeavor, but an untainted one.

Posted By RevLogos
It does make an interesting thought experiment especially if we limit ourselves to the same knowledge and observations available at the time of Copernicus or Tycho or Kepler.

Posted By PPS
In actuality, there is no raw observational difference from any era between the Ptolemaic, Copernican, or Tychonic models apart from the consideration of forces. The kinematics are the same, regardless of the frame of reference.

"We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance."

"Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is "right" and the Ptolemaic (stationary Earth) theory is "wrong in any meaningful sense. The two theories...are physically equivalent to one another."

- Sir Fred Hoyle, world renowned astronomer.

Posted By RevLogos
What I think you are trying to say is the "boost" rockets get can be explained by a simple coordinate transformation from an inertial to non-inertial frame of reference. But the boost is still a problem because the initial velocity cannot be hidden. It has to come from somewhere. If not from the rotating earth then it has to be imparted, without acceleration, from some other source. What would cause a rocket to suddenly seem to go faster depending on the launch azimuth and latitude?

The Coriolis effect is more interesting because it reveals more clearly what happens with a change in coordinate systems. In a rotating coordinate system, it appears as a force. But there isn't a force. In an inertial coordinate system, the accelerations caused by the rotation become immediately apparent. The geocentric model needs to come up with an explanation for the force it sees.

Since any theory is just a model to explain observations, the geocentric model should I would think, have some sort of explanation for these things. Without resorting to magic, miracles or Druid conspiracies. When a model cannot fit the observations, one throws it out and develops a new model. A heliocentric model governed by a Newtonian gravitational model does fit all of the observations quite accurately.

Posted By PPS
Lense-Thirring effect (from a spinning universe and the fixed earth).

But before we move on to forces in greater detail, I'd like to organize this simply by approaching kinematics first to establish that all raw observational data can be attributed to either a Helio OR Geo frame of reference.

This topic always muddles kinematics and forces. Many present purely a series of raw obvervations as the foundation for their understanding and acceptance over Helio-over-Geo; OR, like our resident astrohysicist Faithful One, the kinematics and forces are integrated from the beginning.

Ptolemaic, Cornernican, and Tychonic models alike can be, and have been, the basis for predicting movements of all bodies in the Sol system because all those movements are relative from each frame of reference.

"...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.

IOW... Stellar parallax, stellar aberration, phases, retrogrades, occulations, planet transits, etc. are kinematically relative based purely on frame of reference.

Without seeming terse or adversarial, the question is simply, "Are the kinematics the same from either frame of reference or not? Yes or No."

If we can agree on kinematics, we can move on to forces.

"…we have seen, Leibniz and Mach emphasized that the Ptolemaic geocentric system and the Copernican heliocentric system are equally valid and correct….the Copernican world view, which is usually seen as being proved to be true by Galileo and Newton….the gravitational attraction between the sun and the planets, the earth and other planets do not fall into the sun because they have an acceleration relative to the fixed stars. The distant matter in the universe exerts a force, –mgamf, on accelerated planets, keeping them in their annual orbits. In the Ptolemaic system, the earth is considered to be at rest and without rotation in the center of the universe, while the sun, other planets and fixed stars rotate around the earth. In relational mechanics this rotation of distant matter yields the force ..... Now the gravitational attraction of the sun is balanced by a real gravitational centrifugal force due to the annual rotation of distant masses around the earth (with a component having a period of one year). In this way the earth can remain at rest and at an essentially constant distance from the sun. The diurnal rotation of distant masses around the earth (with a period of one day) yields a real gravitational centrifugal force flattening the earth at the poles. Foucault’s pendulum is explained by a real Coriolis force acting on moving masses over the earth’s surface .....The effect of this force will be to keep the plane of oscillation of the pendulum rotating together with the fixed stars."

- Andre K. T. Assis, professor of pphysics at the University of Campinas - UNICAMP, in Brazil.

Posted By RevLogos
No, it isn't.

Of course, one could construct a reference frame centered on the earth and rotating with it, then define everything else with respect to that frame. But that is not the geocentric model. It is not a simple matter of transforming and rotating reference frames. Unless you want it to be, but then that re-defines the Tycho geocentric model.

The geocentric model says the sun and moon orbit the earth once a day. Tycho's version says the other planets orbit the sun. With say, Jupiter orbiting the sun, and the sun orbiting the earth, one is necessarily going to have different motions between the earth and Jupiter depending on which model is chosen.

Couple other problems with the "everything's relative" idea. This idea means it is not possible to express motion outside a frame of one body relative to another. That means it is also not possible to define a center of anything. An earth centered coordinate system is just as valid as a sun centered system, or a system centered upon my nose at all times. It is impossible to state that the earth is at the center of anything. It invalidates the geocentric model.

Let me try another example. I define a coordinate system centered on a tennis ball. I whack the tennis ball into the air. The tennis ball "sees" the earth accelerating away, then returning. This is fine until I say the tennis ball is an inertial reference frame. Now I have to figure out what is causing the earth to accelerate. How can the tennis ball impart such an acceleration to the huge earth?

So, what makes the geocentric model unique, and truly geocentric, is that the non-rotating earth is an "inertial" reference system, meaning it does not move, accelerate, or rotate, under any circumstances, regardless of the point of view. Therefore we have to explain why everything else moves the way it does.

The "Inertial reference system" causes several problems for geocentricity. Inertial normally means the system is not moving or rotating relative to whatever other things you are interested in. So if I am designing a Space Shuttle trajectory, I will use a geocentric, but non-rotating, coordinate system because all I am interested in is the motion of the shuttle with respect to the earth.

[As an aside, I went to a Christian site that promotes geocentricity, and they claim one reason it must be true is that NASA uses a geocentric coordinate system! They neglect to mention a couple of things. One is this geocentric coordinate system does not rotate, and the earth does. The Z axis points out the pole and the other two are fixed to the stars pointing out the equator. The other thing they neglect to mention is that because of precession, NASA has to update the coordinate system from time to time. In the shuttle program we used what was called the "earth mean of 50" or M50 system, which was defined in 1950. For the Space Station a different system was used called J2000, defined of course, in 2000. So this web site was being dishonest. Not very christian like.]

So back to the inertial problem let me try an example. The non-rotating earth must always be a non-rotating earth. So If I transform my point of view to a sun centered system, I see the earth rotating around the sun once a day and I would see the moon rotating the earth about one a day too in a similar orbit to the sun. None of this matches what is actually observed. The sun has to be at a different distance, and something similar to the force of gravity has to be created, but it cannot be Newton's laws because whatever this force is, cannot be proportional to mass. I doubt the geocentric model has any explanations for these apparent motions.

RevLogos wrote:Of course, one could construct a reference frame centered on the earth
and rotating with it, then define everything else with respect to that
frame. But that is not the geocentric model. It is not a simple matter
of transforming and rotating reference frames. Unless you want it to be,
but then that re-defines the Tycho geocentric model.

The
geocentric model says the sun and moon orbit the earth once a day.
Tycho's version says the other planets orbit the sun. With say, Jupiter
orbiting the sun, and the sun orbiting the earth, one is necessarily
going to have different motions between the earth and Jupiter depending
on which model is chosen.

WHY?

What different motions?

The geocentric model ALSO has the planets orbiting the sun. He's confused. Tell him to look at the online orrery again.

RevLogos wrote:Couple other problems with the "everything's relative" idea. This idea
means it is not possible to express motion outside a frame of one body
relative to another. That means it is also not possible to define a
center of anything. An earth centered coordinate system is just as valid
as a sun centered system, or a system centered upon my nose at all
times. It is impossible to state that the earth is at the center of
anything. It invalidates the geocentric model.

No it doesnt, because WE dont believe the 'everythings relative' thing. WE believe the Earth IS the one and only absolute reference frame BUT we are showing helio's that if THEY are going to invoke GRT then we can show them that it easily supports the geo model. Just because we use GRT to support our own position, that doesnt mean we believe in it. We are just using their own science against them.

RevLogos wrote:Let me try another example. I define a coordinate system centered on a
tennis ball. I whack the tennis ball into the air. The tennis ball
"sees" the earth accelerating away, then returning. This is fine until I
say the tennis ball is an inertial reference frame. Now I have to
figure out what is causing the earth to accelerate. How can the tennis
ball impart such an acceleration to the huge earth?

So, what
makes the geocentric model unique, and truly geocentric, is that the
non-rotating earth is an "inertial" reference system, meaning it does
not move, accelerate, or rotate, under any circumstances, regardless of
the point of view. Therefore we have to explain why everything else
moves the way it does.

It's easily explained by the turning aether.

RevLogos wrote:The "Inertial reference system" causes several problems for
geocentricity. Inertial normally means the system is not moving or
rotating relative to whatever other things you are interested in. So if I
am designing a Space Shuttle trajectory, I will use a geocentric, but
non-rotating, coordinate system because all I am interested in is the
motion of the shuttle with respect to the earth.

Why does that cause problems for the geo model?

RevLogos wrote:[As an aside, I went to a Christian site that promotes geocentricity,
and they claim one reason it must be true is that NASA uses a geocentric
coordinate system! They neglect to mention a couple of things. One is
this geocentric coordinate system does not rotate, and the earth does.
The Z axis points out the pole and the other two are fixed to the stars
pointing out the equator. The other thing they neglect to mention is
that because of precession, NASA has to update the coordinate system
from time to time. In the shuttle program we used what was called the
"earth mean of 50" or M50 system, which was defined in 1950. For the
Space Station a different system was used called J2000, defined of
course, in 2000. So this web site was being dishonest. Not very
christian like.]

We have precession in the geo model because the stars are aligned with the sun and the universe is on a 24.5 degree tilt at its axis of rotation.

What does this mean:

"They neglect to mention a couple of things. One is
this geocentric coordinate system does not rotate, and the earth does."

Merely asserting that the Earth rotates does not invalidate the geo model!

RevLogos wrote:So back to the inertial problem let me try an example. The non-rotating
earth must always be a non-rotating earth. So If I transform my point of
view to a sun centered system, I see the earth rotating around the sun
once a day and I would see the moon rotating the earth about one a day
too in a similar orbit to the sun. None of this matches what is actually
observed. The sun has to be at a different distance

WHY doesnt it match what we see?

WHY does the sun have to be a different distance?

HOW can anything be different if we are simply switching our frame of reference?

RevLogos wrote:something similar to the force of gravity has to be created, but it
cannot be Newton's laws because whatever this force is, cannot be
proportional to mass. I doubt the geocentric model has any explanations
for these apparent motions.

The MOTIONS dont need to be explained because the two systems are IDENTICAL kinematically.

And if you wanna talk about gravity, WE actually know what causes it. The Lense-Thirring effect. WE dont have action at a distance. WE have a unified field theory. Ask him what gravity IS. Newton didnt know maybe he does? ASk him if Newtons laws of orbital mechanics is valid in a system consisting of MORE than 2 bodies.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:Okay, let me make sure I get this before I go on.

Einstein just deleted experimentally-substantiated ether to develop Relativity, and substituted curved space and other anomalies via inaccessibly dense initial mathematics that were later simplified. Relativity is built upon the assumptive declaration that there simply is no luminescent ether. And Newton's law of gravitation is lacking in what manner to explain forces?

How concisely accurate is that? Tweakage?

Lets get real simple here.

Experiments proved the Earth was stationary.

The escape hatch was curvature of space which led to the assumption that scientists instruments SHRINK!

This is where the rubber meets the road. This is the lengths fallen man will go to, to deny Gods geocentric creation. Find the arthur eddington quote about the Michelson-Morley experiment and how the theory is that the instruments shrank. Its absurd but if they give it a fancy name like 'Fitzgerald contraction' then no-ones the wiser!

More responses. I'll be hangin' as tight as I can. Any more input before I start responding?

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:More responses. I'll be hangin' as tight as I can. Any more input before I start responding?

Yeah.....Einstein doesnt own relative motion. We can talk about it if we want to without being 'reletavists'. We dont have space bending and wormholes and dark matter and twin paradoxes, but we understand that swapping a reference frame of a system will produce exactly the same kinematics and forces. That concept is not Einsteins property.

No-one responded to the 4 experiments did they?

Lolz....I just read a few of their responses. They just dont get it do they?

They say the orrery is not the geocentric model because for it to wok then the Earth has to rotate!!!!????

Like.....HELLOOOO???

OR.....

The entire universe and everything in it is REVOVLING AROUND EARTH!!!!

Either they are just being really dense or they are intentionally trying to muddy up the debate. Are they professing Christians?

Strangelove wrote:

Yeah.....Einstein doesnt own relative motion. We can talk about it if we want to without being 'reletavists'. We dont have space bending and wormholes and dark matter and twin paradoxes, but we understand that swapping a reference frame of a system will produce exactly the same kinematics and forces. That concept is not Einsteins property.

No-one responded to the 4 experiments did they?

No, and they're convinced Relativity isn't even required to dismiss Tycho-Geo out of hand. I'm just too green to navigate the comparative science side very well. If this was Godhead doctrine or any issue of Greek exegesis, I'd be fine at any depth; but at this point I'm kinda dog-paddling, even if I'm not drowning.

I don't really have an overall strategy to proceed. Of course, my first real engagement on the topic involoves career scientists. ROFLOL.

What next? How do I specifically counter Rev's points? What about GitR's supposed computer modelling?

I know there's ammo laying all around to blast this garbage because I've read the content. I just don't yet know how to get it in the clip and start shooting.

I wanna turn it around on Rev, because I think he's right about the earth rotating being the key. If it's stationary, Helio is toast. Period. No other considerations (not that there actually aren't others). Yes?

No Spinio... No Helio.

Why can't this be in a Greek text for me to translate and exegete? Sheesh!

Strangelove wrote:Lolz....I just read a few of their responses. They just dont get it do they?

Nope. Them and the rest of the world, I guess. I'm at least glad to hear the stastic that approximately 20% of Americans DON'T believe the Helio model; even if they all live in Appalachia with their Uncle Dad.

They say the orrery is not the geocentric model because for it to wok then the Earth has to rotate!!!!????

Like.....HELLOOOO???

OR.....

The entire universe and everything in it is REVOVLING AROUND EARTH!!!!

Nobody gives up Ideological indoctrination very readily. Too much worth and identity attached. One of the key issues we deal with in Recovery is False Belief Systems. Not in a theological sense; in the sense of functioning and coping according to something one believes that isn't true about life or others or ourselves or God.

Either they are just being really dense or they are intentionally trying to muddy up the debate. Are they professing Christians?

Dunno really how to perceive it all. Yes. Rev is even anti-Dispy.

Any help B-slappin' some sense into 'em?

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:What next? How do I specifically counter Rev's points? What about GitR's supposed computer modelling?

You dont need to counter anything until they admit that kinematically the two systems are identical. If they cant admit that then you are not dealing with honest people.

A simple change in frame of reference is NOT going to change any orbits or distances. You must pin them down on that point before you proceed.

Read the thread I did on ATS forum again. I didnt move onto forces until at least one of them admitted this simple fact.

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

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:I wanna turn it around on Rev, because I think he's right about the
earth rotating being the key. If it's stationary, Helio is toast.

Airy's failure?

Strangelove wrote:

You dont need to counter anything until they admit that kinematically the two systems are identical. If they cant admit that then you are not dealing with honest people.

A simple change in frame of reference is NOT going to change any orbits or distances. You must pin them down on that point before you proceed.

Read the thread I did on ATS forum again. I didnt move onto forces until at least one of them admitted this simple fact.

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

Gotcha. I know that... and YOU know that... but NASA boy can't seem to get there; nor can Mr. Science Professor. I'll have to work back and hammer it.

Strangelove wrote:

Airy's failure?

Okay. And the other 3 while we're at it. Thanx.

Do you think they're not getting it because they're not able to picture it and are visualizing it incorrectly?

For me, it was the switchover from helio with counter-clockwise planetary movements to geo with clockwise rotation of the entire system that helped me see the identical kinematics. I think they're not connecting that.

Ok he's almost there...

"While what you said is essentially true, the problem of the forces and what is seen from the Earth still exist. Remember, in a geocentric model, the Earth is said to not only not
revolve, but also not rotate, so what is seen in the sky would not
appear as it does."

Just tell him instead of the Earth rotating its the entire universe rotating around Earth. Simple. That accounts for what is seen in the sky. If he still disagrees, ask him why.

Notice he's still trying to mix forces and bare observations together.

Strangelove wrote:Ok he's almost there...

"While what you said is essentially true, the problem of the forces and what is seen from the Earth still exist. Remember, in a geocentric model, the Earth is said to not only not
revolve, but also not rotate, so what is seen in the sky would not
appear as it does."

Just tell him instead of the Earth rotating its the entire universe rotating around Earth. Simple. That accounts for what is seen in the sky. If he still disagrees, ask him why.

Notice he's still trying to mix forces and bare observations together.

This is almost as exhausting as dealing with Godhead doctrine. :-P

I'm slowly getting acclimated. Stripping forces apart from kinematics is HUGE. The more stubborn and resistant the debate about kinematics, the less inherently credible they are when moving to forces.


Question... In the 10^93 Planck density firmament, can spacecraft travel at determined trajectories by individual navigation?

And... As valiant as I feel about kinematics right about now, I'm tenuous about the forces portion.

4 experiments next. Then what? Keep me on track and on pace. :-)

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:Question... In the 10^93 Planck density firmament, can spacecraft travel at determined trajectories by individual navigation?

I dunno, I've never individually navigated one.

Strangelove wrote:

I dunno, I've never individually navigated one.

Okay... Of course. In my understanding of the (a)ether, only rotational movement seems possible. My initial perception is that a vehicle could not "travel" on a specified directional trajectory within the aether. Is that a consistent thought about the "firmament" or is it absolutely indeterminable?

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:And... As valiant as I feel about kinematics right about now, I'm tenuous about the forces portion.

4 experiments next. Then what? Keep me on track and on pace. :-)

Then you explain that just as kinematics are identical in a system where we change our stationary perspective, so too are forces.

The Foucault Pendulum is a good one to concentrate on. We have plenty of quotes from the experts saying that the pendulum will act in the same way if it was the universe spinning around a stationary Earth.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:Okay... Of course. In my understanding of the (a)ether, only rotational movement seems possible. My initial perception is that a vehicle could not "travel" on a specified directional trajectory within the aether. Is that a consistent thought about the "firmament" or is it absolutely indeterminable?

Well yeah.... the space probes are on specific orbits. All, I believe, east to westward orbits.....in the same direction as the flowing aether of the outer cosmos.

Of course we have the geostationary distance (GSD) where we can hang a satellite motionless, and then below that latitude we have a "secondary aether" which strengthens and flows the other way, west to east producing the jet streams and such like effects. This dual aether flow is what "locks" the Earth in position and stops it from rotating with the universe. Got a quote on it somewhere in this thread. The GSD seems to be where the two opposing flows cancel eachother out.

Dunno if you're following the BF thread, but Rev has recanted except for the earth possibly being center of the entire universe. Problem with GitRDunn. I'm missing what HE's missing. He computer-modeled the Tychonic system on his software and says all the kinematics match. EZ. But... He insists the model show different observations of other planets from Earth than what we actually see cuz Tychonic has a non-rotating earth. What's he missing here?

(His previous post #99 has the info, I think.)

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:Dunno if you're following the BF thread, but Rev has recanted except for the earth possibly being center of the entire universe. Problem with GitRDunn. I'm missing what HE's missing. He computer-modeled the Tychonic system on his software and says all the kinematics match. EZ. But... He insists the model show different observations of other planets from Earth than what we actually see cuz Tychonic has a non-rotating earth. What's he missing here?

(His previous post #99 has the info, I think.)

Dunno mate.

He realizes that in our system we have everything revolving around Earth in 24 hours right?

Strangelove wrote:

Dunno mate.

He realizes that in our system we have everything revolving around Earth in 24 hours right?

Says he does. Says Mars is visible too long from a stationary earth in a Tychonic system, and other similar anomalies.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:Says he does. Says Mars is visible too long from a stationary earth in a Tychonic system, and other similar anomalies.

Well, his model is wrong. Shifting reference frames cannot possibly alter any kinematics......PERIOD.

Tell him to prove it. Post a video of the model or something. Assertion is not good enough.

He's starting to lose face and its just gonna get worse if he keeps this up.

Post the quote from the Chicago university physics textbook that says bare observations cannot tell the 2 systems apart. Ask him if the book is wrong.

Ask him if an Earth that rotates one revolution every 24 hours with respect to fixed stars is equivalent to a starry universe that rotates one revolution every 24 hours with respect to a fixed Earth regarding what will be viewed by an observer stood on Earth?

If not, why not?