Geocentrism

And for anybody who doesn't call people who disagree with them disinformation shills:

The majority of the mass in the solar system is concentrated in the sun. We can measure this mass in a variety of ways, but all of the answers are consistent. And the thing is heavy - the center-of-mass of all the objects in the solar system is within the body of the sun.

Hence, while the heliocentric description of the solar system is still wrong and presumes things that are not true, it is a very good approximation of what it would look like if we used the proper, center-of-mass frame of reference for our calculations. The real center-of-mass is near the center of the sun's mass. The sun is massive in ways that are hard to comprehend.

The same is not true if we used the Earth as a center of mass. The geocentric model, used in this way, would imply movements that we by no means see. The real center-of-mass is way, way far away from the Earth's center. It would be a bad approximation.

For the purposes of Foucault's pendulum, the pendulum is stationary with respect to the universe (or heliocentrists couldn't use it to justify their belief in the Earth moving). But yes, heliocentrists/relativists believe there is no absolute stationary.

I started reading about relativity once, before putting the book away 'cause it didn't make sense. It wasn't until years later I realised the book never made sense because relativity is wrong - its an explanation for why things don't appear as we would expect (i.e. an excuse), and a contradictory one at that.

It depends on the frame of reference, at the poles, yes the pendulum does seem stationary with respect to the universe.
At the equator the pendulum is stationary with respect to the earth so moving with the earthing with respect to the universe.

Your dilemma is how to explain both of these observations with a stationary Earth.

Proof?

How many of these ways require the assumption that the Earth orbits the sun? You mention a variety of methods that consistently give the same sun mass. Please list 5 such ways that do not require the assumption of heliocentricity.

Agreed.
To say the car is moving East, or the world is moving West give mostly the same calculation results. However, one is still incorrect on a global frame of reference.

As above, please give proofs that don't require the preconception of heliocentricity.

Perhaps because the sun is not so massive as you claim?

Do you have proof of this? Or is this using the same calculations/theories that require the preconception that the Earth is moving?

How does a rotating universe/stationary Earth not explain both observations?

For people who appreciate truth:

This gravitationally-lensed quasar is a good place for people to start understanding gravitational lensing and how it applies to the sun. We're actually seeing just two objects - the object in the middle is a galaxy and a quasar behind the galaxy is presented four times because its light is bent around the galaxy in four distinct paths due to the galaxy's great mass.

The sun does something very similar when it passes in front of distant sources of light, although the sun does not weigh nearly as much as a galaxy and therefore does not produce such powerful distortion. But we can both detect and measure the distortion and can use it to calculate masses.

Suppose a ray of light is passing a point mass at a distance r. Then it is deflected at an angle in radians given by

theta = 4 G M c^(-2) r^(-1)

where M is the mass of the object, c is the speed of light, and G is the gravitational constant. Since we can observe theta when the sun passes in front of a light source, and we also have G, c, and r, we can calculate

M = c^2 r theta / (4 G)

and we have the mass of the object. This calculation goes back to 1804, although the guy got it wrong by a factor of 2 at that time.

This calculation presumes nothing about movement and ignores outdated theories like geocentricity and heliocentricity. The only real difficulty is that the sun is not a point mass. Hence, the calculations are much more difficult and don't fall into a pretty formula. Nevertheless, they can and have been done and the mass can be extracted from multiple measurements of angle of deflection.

Please try to picture this. Suppose there are two planets of equal mass. If the are in a stable orbit, one can not be fixed. They will orbit around each other in an ellipse or a circle. Why? Because they are equally attracted to each and the have the same centripetal forces pulling them apart. Right?


Now lets make the mass of one nine thousand times more massive than the other. The smaller one will be circling the larger one while the larger one will oscilate in an eliptical or circular smaller pattern as it is pulled by gravity towards the tiny planet.
The animated gif below shows how two planets of unequal mass would be in a stable orbit. One planet is 3 times the mass of the other. Notice how slow it goes around and how much smaller the orbit is.

Here are some better views: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Movies/eclbin.gif
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Movies/vb4anim.gif

The sun is 9000 times more massive than the earth. If they were in orbit around each other the the sun would have a very small circular obit as it is being pulled on by the gravitational forces and the earth would be in a huge orbit around the sun. The earth can not possibly the massive anchor the all other planets and sun could orbit around as the physics denies this possibility. If you still think the earth is the center of the universe that is your prerogative but no one with a science background will believe you.

Too much information, but nice try.

*shrugs* If people think they're ready for cosmology, they can handle algebra.

Noah, what is rain? There's no such thing as rain. God to Noah: Build an Ark because it will rain. If God is real, show me proof, but God is real, because... If the Earth is moving, show me proof, but it's still as much validated for non-Moving. So which one is it? Isn't it funny that God has you to have faith in Him, and He always seem to leave both options to be in the air? Which one will you choose really, one was written in the Bible, the other isn't. Which one do you believe? What God says regardless of what others say, or will you choose to not believe because and make yourself believe that the Scripture is saying something else.

It looks like 4 stars to me, aligned around a central star. I'm not necessarily saying its not what you say it is, but I am already suspicious because you are explaining why what we see isn't what it appears. Why can't it be what it appears - 5 stars? If it is a quasar presented 4 times, how can this be due to gravity (all our experience of gravity is that it behaves uniformly - the 4 quasars should therefore appear as a ring). If you want to believe it is a single quasar behind a galaxy, it makes more sense to describe the phenomena causing this as something other than gravity.

I have never observed the sun passing in front of a star, and I'm fairly sure few people have, and even fewer of these would have had the equipment on hand to accurately measure light distortion. Assuming that someone did, and that the star light does distort, this doesn't prove the distortion is mass related. Again - no proof this distortion isn't due to electromagnetic phenomena, rather than "universal gravitation".

Assuming mass can bend light to a degree, which I'm not satisfied you have yet proven. Also, don't even the astronomists who pupport to use distortion to measure the mass of Heavenly objects admit that the masses estimated are different to masses estimated using different calculation methods? (One of the reasons for the need for "dark" or invisible matter?)

What known masses has this calculation been tested on, to prove its validity?

So far as I can see, even if the calculation is accurate (and I am yet to be convinced), a phenomena such as starlight bending near the sun or moon has no bearing on whether the Earth moves, or not. Neither does the calculation prove if such light bending does occur, it is due to gravity (some numbers in nature are found in numerous places - it could be so with G).


According to the theory of universal gravitation, I believe, yes.

Again, according to the theory of universal gravitation, I believe this is so. However, one fact you seem to neglect is that on both planets (but particularly the smaller as it is moving further/orbiting faster) there will be significant acceleration toward the other planet (i.e. gravity). We (i.e. people) feel no such acceleration toward the sun on Earth - we only feel what we call gravity (and this toward the Earth, not the sun). To me, this is evidence that the Earth is still (we feel no acceleration), and the sun has negligible gravity pull on most (if not all) mass on Earth (or we would feel stretched, to say the least).

Here is where we start to disagree. Can you prove this?

Again, according to the theory of universal gravitation, I believe this is so.

This assumes that the sun/Earth/planet orbits are due to gravitation, and that the sun is as massive as you say it is. I don't think you have proven either. With regards the planetary orbits, I think the standard geocentric theory today holds that the sun and moon move around the Earth, and the planets orbit the sun.

I think everyone with a science background who endeavours to disprove a stationary Earth must ultimately resort to unscientific and philosophical (religious?) ideas such as relativity/special relativity, with such excuses as experimental apparatus shrinking (Lorentz contraction), to prove why the results seem to indicate a stationary Earth (as their mindsets can't allow that the Earth isn't moving).

God: Noah, it is going to rain. . .a lot.

Noah: Yes, Lord. . .what is rain?

God: So I want you to build an ark.

Noah: Yes, Lord. . .what is an ark?

God: I am sending a great flood.

Noah: Yes, Lord. . .what is a flood?

God: All who are not in the ark will drown.

Noah: Yes, Lord. . .what is drown?

And Noah believed, and built the ark.

I just have to say it again:

This is so like the mind, heart, will and way of God,

to place at the center of his creation

the center of his glory, which is

the salvation and restoration in his Son

of the redeemed, the epitome of his creation,

made in his very own image.