Geocentrism

"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

"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"

"...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.

come on Rachel...youre so amazingly intellectually active.
address the lazy conspiracists on all these recent posts - Hoyle; Einstein....you know. those bums.


"Frame dragging also answers the famous question: If the Earth stood still and the rest of the universe rotated around it instead, would its equator still bulge? According to general relativity and Gravity Probe B, the answer is YES. It doesn’t matter if you are spinning or if the universe is revolving around you. Both situations are equivalent."

- Perfect Spheres to Test Einstein, American Physical Society

Rachel
**i am no longer posting in threads that get longer than ten pages**

so you change the number of your post to 0
on page 17
LOL.
haha...k...bye.
were up to 18 pages now.

"Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest..."

- Lorentz’s 1886 paper, “On the Influence of the Earth’s Motion on Luminiferous Phenomena,” in Arthur Miller’s Albert Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, p. 20.


"A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth's movement. The results were always negative (...) We do not have any means of discovering whether or not we are carried along in a uniform motion of translation..."

- Henri Poincaré , From Poincaré’s lecture titled: “L’état actuel et l’avenir de la physique mathematique,” St.Louis, Sept 24, 1904, Scientific Monthly, April, 1956.


"There was just one alternative; the earth's true velocity through space might happen to have been nil."

- Arthur Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World, 1929, pp. 11, 8


"The failure of the many attempts to measure terrestrially any effects of the earth's motion on physical phenomena allows us to...[Pauli gives up looking for experimental evidence and moves on to the abstract 'escape hatch' theories of Einstein]"

- Wolfgang Pauli, The Theory of Relativity, 1958, p. 4.


"No physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion."

- Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein, 2nd rev. edition, 1957, p. 73.


"This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation... which presupposes that the Earth moves."

- Albert Michelson (Albert A. Michelson, “The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 22, August 1881, p. 125)


“The data were almost unbelievable… There was only one other possible conclusion to draw — that the Earth was at rest....“This, of course, was preposterous”

- Bernard Jaffe, Michelson and the Speed of Light, 1960, p. 76

SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS.

Most scientists know about the Michelson-Morely experiment - that failed to detect any movement of the earth round the sun. This had to be overcome so the Fitzgerald-Lorentz shortening of the apparatus was proposed, and eventually the paradoxical Relativity Theory was invented by Einstein to overcome this problem. However, there are three other experiments that have been deliberately ignored by universities because they support geocentricity -

(a) The Michelson-Gale experiment (Reference - Astrophysical Journal 1925 v 61 pp 140-5 - I forgot to put this reference in my book!) 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.

(b) "Airey'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.

(c) The Sagnac experiment (Reference - Comptes Rendus 1913 v157 p 708-710 and 1410-3) Sagnac rotated a table complete with light and mirrors with the light being passed in opposite directions around the table between the mirrors. He detected the movement of the table 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.

All these experiments are never taught at universities, so consequently, scientists, including most Christian creationists, are ignorant of this evidence for geocentricity. Is it any wonder, therefore, that Christian geocentrists find their most vociferous opponents are fellow Christian creationists to whom geocentricity comes as a shock. They do not want to be tarred with such a heretical brush that will only increase the great ridicule they are already receiving for their stance against evolution?

THE BASIC SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS FOR GEOCENTRICITY
geocexpl.htm

After Michelson-Morley:


“The problem which now faced science was considerable. For there seemed to be only three alternatives. The first was that the Earth was standing still, which meant scuttling the whole Copernican theory and was unthinkable. The second was that the ether was carried along by the earth in its passage through space…The third solution was that the ether simply did not exist, which to many nineteenth century scientists was equivalent to scrapping current views of light, electricity, and magnetism, and starting again.”

- Ronald W. Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times, pp. 109-110, (World Publishing Co., 1971).


“Always the speed of light was precisely the same…Thus, failure [of Michelson-Morley] to observe different speeds of light at different times of the year suggested that the Earth must be ‘at rest’…It was therefore the ‘preferred’ frame for measuring absolute motion in space. Yet we have known since Galileo that the Earth is not the center of the universe. Why should it be at rest in space?”

- Adolf Baker, Modern Physics & Antiphysics, pp. 53-54 (Addison-Wesley, 1972).


“It is both amusing and instructive to speculate on what might have happened if such an experiment [Michelson-Morley] could have been performed in the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries when men were debating the rival merits of the Copernican and Ptolemaic systems. The result would surely have been interpreted as conclusive evidence for the immobility of the Earth, and therefore as a triumphant vindication of the Ptolemaic system and irrefutable falsification of the Copernican hypothesis. The moral of this historical fantasy is that it is often dangerous to believe in the absolute verification or falsification of a scientific hypothesis. All judgments of this type are necessarily made in some historical context which may be drastically modified by the changing perspective of human knowledge.”

- G. J. Whitrow, The Structure and Evolution of the Universe, p. 79 (Harper, 1959).

here`s the argument against MM:

“The Michelson-Morley experiment has thus failed to detect our motion through the aether, because the effect looked for – the delay of one of the light waves – is exactly compensated by an automatic contraction of the matter forming the apparatus.”

- Sir Arthur Eddington, Space, Time and Gravitation, p. 20


..the experiment failed to pick up the delay of one of the light waves.....cuz...de MM apparatus....SHRUNK!

well i am going to break my policy once to respond to this... after all if you keep responding to people you supposedly put on ignore months ago...i suppose i can get away with making one exception to my policy...

anyway...i made that decision and added that line to my signature -after- i posted in this thread...when i added that line to my signature...it updated my signature on all of my posts...

a fourth grader could have figured that out zone...

and this is a good example of the reason i am not taking you all that seriously any more...and why i will not be responding to your ignorant geocentrist arguments...

the fact is that stuff an elementary school student could figure out eludes your grasp...the stuff you pontificate on is way over your head...this thread is case in point...

you are clearly a waste of my time...mine and everyone else's...you simply aren't capable of interacting on the intellectual level of everyone else here...

the best way you could contribute to this forum would be to unplug your computer...maybe you can make that your 2014 resolution...

Now I know why it is that sometimes when I get out of bed in the morning, I don't know if I'm coming or going.....

you mean....it's beneath you to explain how ignorant Lorentz; Hoyle; Whitrow; Barnett; Mach; Erickson; et al...including Uncle Albert are?

you could link to your peer reviewed paper maybe?

you'd be surprised how much knowing you has done for me.

oh now - you don't really think you speak for everyo.....well - ya, you probably do think so.
that ego is something to behold.

well - that may very well be true.

now rachel, i know you've been humiliated several times after opening your mouth about things you thought you knew...but there's no need to be sick with hatred.

work on it dear. it's unbecoming....you need all the help you can get.

Rach's post made me laugh, too.

So, in spite of the clear evidence refuting the theory of heliocentricity, Rachel not only still supports it, but calls others who reject the theory on the basis of such evidence "conspiracy theorists"? Such irony. Isn't there a psychological term for the projecting of one's own insecurities and shortcomings onto others?


I guess Rach hasn't heard of the debate tactic where you quote evidence or facts conceded by an opponent, while still rejecting their erroneous interpretations of said evidence. Here ya go, Rach. Happy reading.

Hostile witness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hopefully next time you see an example of this, you'll understand that the poster, rather than being too lazy to read his own link, was instead showing that even those who disagree still concede some of the irrefutable facts.

yup: Hasbara
http://www.middle-east-info.org/take/wujshasbara.pdf

Upon reading all 18 pages of this thread...

here's the rest of Eddington's book, which you can peruse at your leisure, wherein he uses general & special relativity to show that the ether is meaningless.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/29782/29782-pdf.pdf

you may note that Eddington does not discuss wether the Earth is the center of the universe.

If we're teaching children the theory that Earth orbits the sun is fact (and that the sun happens to be much larger than it appears), surely this warrants also teaching about such experiments as the aforementioned, unless there is something to hide? With regards to university education, my guess would be yours was the exception rather than the rule. Not that anyone should put great store in institutional education, as most (if not all) are centres of indoctrination, but civil engineers are required to deal in hard, empirical evidence (or the bridge/building will fall, despite all the fancy theories invented to say it shouldn't). For this reason, I would venture Malcolm Bowden's education is more suitable than most to provide criticism on the theory of heliocentrism (if education is to be a qualifying factor for critics).

My understanding is that the existence of ether is not mandatory for geocentric theory (it can exist and probably does, but is not required). I also understand that for heliocentric theory, ether must not exist. Are you saying this is incorrect?

Both results are also consistent with a stationary Earth, right?

And also consistent with the Earth being still and the stars rotating around it, as we observe. Such an explanation has the benefit of requiring a lot less conjuring of unscientific (untestable and unprovable) theories as "Special Relativity".

Again, the Michelson-Morely result is consistent with a stationary Earth. The speed of light in the direction of Earth's (alleged) orbit was the same as the speed perpendicular to Earth's (alleged) orbit. Note also that here, belief (or not) in ether doesn't trouble the geocentric theory, but would require further explaining (i.e. additional "theories"/hypotheses) for a heliocentric theory.

I think the experiments are as much support for a stationary Earth as for Special Relativity. A stationary Earth has the advantage of being consistent with scripture, and not requiring the imaginary shrinking of experimental apparatus (Lorentz contraction!? Lol. ) to explain results. Note that if one assumes heliocentricity to begin with, one will interpret one's results around this assumption. This in no ways makes the original assumption (e.g. heliocentricity) correct.

Has Lorentz contraction ever been proven, or is it only imagined?

Agreed.

Incorrect. If it were possible for you to stand upon, or follow, the trajectory of 4th moon of Neptune, you would experience significant acceleration as it moves. We experience no such acceleration on Earth, as Earth is stationary.

So if we want to go overseas, why can't we treat the Earth as rotating, and use a balloon? Or is that where heliocentric theory can't meet practice?

If a boat or an airplane accelerates, the passengers can feel it. If the Earth is constantly accelerating by gravity around the sun (as required by heliocentric theory), why can't we feel it?

I'm not convinced either of these are possible, but as I've tried to explain, a stationary Earth is more than just a frame of reference (although according to Einstein and Relativity, this would be quite acceptable). Stationary Earth means absolutely stationary, not relatively stationary with respect to Earth.

That is so according to the mind, heart, will and way of God,
who created for his own glory,
through the glory of his Son,
who would redeem the crown jewel of his creation,
set at its very center with all creation orbiting around it,
who would restore it to his original creation
by giving his own life in atonement for it.

What marvelous unity, wisdom, beauty and glory of the divine plan!