Geocentrism

[ddallen]

The dynamical description of the geocentric Universe

Luka Popov

University of Zagreb, Department of Physics, Bijeniˇcka cesta 32, Zagreb, Croatia
E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract. Using Mach’s principle, we will show that the observed diurnal and annual
motion of the Earth can just as well be accounted as the diurnal rotation and annual
revolution of the Universe around the fixed and centered Earth. This can be performed
by postulating the existence of vector and scalar potentials caused by the simultaneous
motion of the masses in the Universe, including the distant stars.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.7290v1.pdf


Stellar parallax in the Neo-Tychonian planetary system

Luka Popov

University of Zagreb, Department of Physics, Bijeniˇcka cesta 32, Zagreb, Croatia
E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract. The recent paper published in European Journal of Physics [1] aimed to
demonstrate the kinematical and dynamical equivalence of heliocentric and geocentric
systems. The work is performed in the Neo-Tychonian system, with key assumption
that orbits of distant masses around the Earth are synchronized with the Sun’s orbit.
Motion of Sun and Mars have been analysed, and the conclusion was reached that the
very fact of the accelerated motion of the Universe as a whole produces the so-called
“pseudo-potential” that not only explains the origin of the pseudo-forces, but also the
very motion of the celestial bodies as seen from the static Earth. After the paper was
published, the question was raised if that same potential can explain the motion of the
distant stars that are not affected by the Sun’s gravity (unlike Mars), and if it can be
used to reproduce the observation of the stellar parallax. The answer is found to be
positive

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.7129.pdf

This is an extension of an elegant mathematical proof first proposed by Tycho Brahe in the 16th century. Unfortunately by using the mathematics I can also prove that every planet in the solar system is at the centre - so there is a problem.

A very simple proof of a heliocentric solar system is an experiment that is sometimes given to science students. If the solar system was geocentric then, if we were to look at Venus we would see very little apparent diameter changes as it orbited, but we do see changes in its apparent diameter - so it is not orbiting the Earth but the sun.
This gives us two possibilities a) the solar system is heliocentric or B) all the planets orbit the sun - but the sun orbits the earth.
One of the big proofs that a is correct is the apparent retrograde notion of Mars - this could not happen in a geocentric solar system and finally all our space probes - including Voyager have shown us a heliocentric system - the mathematics that govern their travel to the planets , and beyond, confirm a heliocentric system

 

[Married_Richenbrachen]

This is an extension of an elegant mathematical proof first proposed by Tycho Brahe in the 16th century. Unfortunately by using the mathematics I can also prove that every planet in the solar system is at the centre - so there is a problem.

But the planets appear to move. The Earth does not.

A very simple proof of a heliocentric solar system is an experiment that is sometimes given to science students. If the solar system was geocentric then, if we were to look at Venus we would see very little apparent diameter changes as it orbited, but we do see changes in its apparent diameter - so it is not orbiting the Earth but the sun.

This gives us two possibilities a) the solar system is heliocentric or B) all the planets orbit the sun - but the sun orbits the earth.

According to scripture, (b) was the correct answer. Don't worry, I'm not usually good at multiple choice, either.

One of the big proofs that a is correct is the apparent retrograde notion of Mars - this could not happen in a geocentric solar system

Why not? Please elaborate. I think this could happen in a geocentric solar system just as easily as in a heliocentric solar system.

and finally all our space probes - including Voyager have shown us a heliocentric system - the mathematics that govern their travel to the planets , and beyond, confirm a heliocentric system

Ha, ha, ha. You mean those same "space probes" that were allegedly launched by that space agency that got caught out lying about sending men to the moon? Ha, ha, ha.

 

[ddallen]

But the planets appear to move. The Earth does not.
If you are in a moving train and look out the window - the landscape around you appears to be moving and you do not - it is all relative
According to scripture, (b) was the correct answer. Don't worry, I'm not usually good at multiple choice, either.
I am not sure if scripture does state this - I could be wrong though - nearly every creation scientist I know points out the scripture supports a heliocentric system
Why not? Please elaborate. I think this could happen in a geocentric solar system just as easily as in a heliocentric solar system.
The apparent retrograde action is due to the relative angular velocities of the planets in orbit, as such - every so often we overtake Mars and it appears to us - that it is moving backwards
Ha, ha, ha. You mean those same "space probes" that were allegedly launched by that space agency that got caught out lying about sending men to the moon? Ha, ha, ha
All the proof is that men did go to the moon - a laser reflector was left there and is now used in experiments all over the world. For NASA not to have faked the lunar landings would have involved a major global conspiracy, that would have to have included the Soviet Union. All the so called evidence of a conspiracy has been debunked and proven false many times.

 

[Married_Richenbrachen]

But the planets appear to move. The Earth does not.
If you are in a moving train and look out the window - the landscape around you appears to be moving and you do not - it is all relative

But we don't feel the Earth moving, either. There is nothing to tell us that it is the Earth moving, except godless scientists. It makes much more sense from our position, without any information to the contrary, to describe the sun as moving, not the Earth.

According to scripture, (b) was the correct answer. Don't worry, I'm not usually good at multiple choice, either.
I am not sure if scripture does state this - I could be wrong though - nearly every creation scientist I know points out the scripture supports a heliocentric system

What did the Earth orbit between days 1 and 3, until God created the sun on day 4? Having a fixed sun with orbiting Earth doesn't seem to be consistent with scripture.

Why not? Please elaborate. I think this could happen in a geocentric solar system just as easily as in a heliocentric solar system.
The apparent retrograde action is due to the relative angular velocities of the planets in orbit, as such - every so often we overtake Mars and it appears to us - that it is moving backwards

So why would this not occur on a geocentric Earth while Mars is orbiting the sun? Mathematically, its the same situation, just viewed from a different stationary vantage point.

Ha, ha, ha. You mean those same "space probes" that were allegedly launched by that space agency that got caught out lying about sending men to the moon? Ha, ha, ha
All the proof is that men did go to the moon - a laser reflector was left there and is now used in experiments all over the world. For NASA not to have faked the lunar landings would have involved a major global conspiracy, that would have to have included the Soviet Union. All the so called evidence of a conspiracy has been debunked and proven false many times.

I'm not sure about the laser reflectors. I understand this reflective property of the moon was known before man was alleged to have landed on it (see non-Christian reference web site - http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo2.html).

I don't think that a major global conspiracy would have been required to fake the moon landing, but nonetheless, I do believe there is a major global conspiracy.

When you say the evidence of a conspiracy has been debunked, I'm assuming you're relying on the reputation and respectability of NASA. I did, until I realised it was that which was causing me to believe them. When I assessed the information without considering where it came from, I found that NASA couldn't reasonably answer the charges against it of hoax. To be honest, I'm not even sure it is possible to land on the moon. Landing on the moon might be as difficult as landing on the sun.

For me, the most convincing evidence that the moon landing was a hoax is below. Me and a couple of mates could have rigged something like this up for a few hundred bucks. Yet NASA want us to believe they landed on the moon with it? Haw, haw, haw.

There's also the matter of the previous Apollo astronauts who were burned to death, after their chief publicly ridiculed NASA and claimed a moon landing would be a *long* time away. His family alleges his death was murder.

 

[ddallen]

But we don't feel the Earth moving, either. There is nothing to tell us that it is the Earth moving, except godless scientists. It makes much more sense from our position, without any information to the contrary, to describe the sun as moving, not the Earth. Everything is relative: if I put you in a plane during a smooth flight - you would not be able to tell that the plane was moving. To you it would appear that you are at rest.
Calling scientists godless is a gross generalisation, it is also thanks to those scientists that you enjoy the technology the world has to offer.
What did the Earth orbit between days 1 and 3, until God created the sun on day 4? Having a fixed sun with orbiting Earth doesn't seem to be consistent with scripture.
a) the book of genesis is a tale and not fact. b) even if we were to accept creation - on day 1 God said let there be light, sounds like He made the sun first

So why would this not occur on a geocentric Earth while Mars is orbiting the sun? Mathematically, its the same situation, just viewed from a different stationary vantage point.
No - the retrograde motion only happens because we orbit faster that Mars and so periodically we overtake it in its orbit

You cannot bounce a laser of the moon and observe its return - the moon is not that reflective - I looked at that website - it is riddled with mistakes and a lack of scientific understanding. It also quotes National Geographic - NOT a peer reviewed scientific journal. As to the moon landing - you state that the charges of a hoax cannot be answered - please state some of the reasons you think it was a hoax

 

[Married_Richenbrachen]

Everything is relative: if I put you in a plane during a smooth flight - you would not be able to tell that the plane was moving. To you it would appear that you are at rest.

Can you prove this? The stories I have read about people being kidnapped (and blindfolded), they can tell the car is moving. I'd guess the same situation in a plane, or on Earth. You can feel the acceleration. The Earth should be constantly accelerating toward the sun (I believe) in the heliocentric model. There would also be a change in acceleration the closer one got to the poles (heliocentrists hold that the Earth is also spinning on an axis).

Calling scientists godless is a gross generalisation, it is also thanks to those scientists that you enjoy the technology the world has to offer.

Scientists who invent daft theories are generally godless. Scientists who actually invent things of use tend to be those who don't believe in the daft theories, or at least, don't let these daft theories stop them from inventing what they want to invent. Nikolai Tesla was the inventor/utiliser of the AC electricity the whole world uses today, about 100 years ago. He also envisaged a wireless internet (not just for information, but for power), but this project got shut down before he could bring it to fruition. This man believed in an ether, which today we know would imply that the Earth is stationary. Albert Einstein didn't invent anything (to my knowledge). He just popularised relativity, which made excuses for why experiments seemed to imply the Earth was still (i.e. he implied there is no ether).

a) the book of genesis is a tale and not fact. b) even if we were to accept creation - on day 1 God said let there be light, sounds like He made the sun first

Aha. This is where our problem is. If you can't accept the bible as God's inspired word, I understand that your science (from the aforementioned godless scientists), will not agree with my science (which requires that the bible is God's inspired word, and is thus infallible). God made the Heavens and the Earth first, then He created the light. There was no sun until day 4 (i.e. the light obviously wasn't sunlight).

No - the retrograde motion only happens because we orbit faster that Mars and so periodically we overtake it in its orbit

Again, I don't think you're understanding the situation mathematically. There should be no difference in models, whether the Earth orbits the sun, or the sun the Earth. This is something you would know from Einstein's relativity.

You cannot bounce a laser of the moon and observe its return - the moon is not that reflective

Apparently, they were doing it in 1963, and certainly before the moon landings.

- I looked at that website - it is riddled with mistakes and a lack of scientific understanding. It also quotes National Geographic - NOT a peer reviewed scientific journal. As to the moon landing - you state that the charges of a hoax cannot be answered - please state some of the reasons you think it was a hoax

Perhaps the website is riddled with errors. We all tend to make mistakes, but that doesn't mean we're wrong about everything. I'm not big into peer reviewed scientific journals. They tend to be boring, and the peer review process tends to censor out a lot of truth.

My two favourite reasons for the moon landing being a hoax are the photograph I posted (previously), and the fact that the first batch of Apollo astronauts were mysteriously burned to death after their lead astronaut starting making noises to the media that NASA would never get a man to the moon.

 

[zone]

Everything is relative

indeed

could you explain for me (a caveperson) how 'time' could affect both light and gravity

...

The Universal Energy Field:

Today, quantum physicists lead the way in bringing back together the fields of science and religion. This is an outgrowth of their work with identifying the “God particle”. New theories and paradigms in science like the “string theory” sound more like the thoughts of philosophers and poets of old.

Core - Energy Fields: Universal, Human, Earth and All Forms of Life

^ Panentheism/Pantheism ^ Kabbalah ^ Big Bang Cosmology = REINCARNATION

but, this was always the plan.

 

[zone]

As to the moon landing - you state that the charges of a hoax cannot be answered - please state some of the reasons you think it was a hoax

do you know much about photography (and film)?

22. Excellent "moon fotos" without moon photographer - foto compositions "on the moon" < click

 

[zone]

This is an extension of an elegant mathematical proof first proposed by Tycho Brahe in the 16th century. Unfortunately by using the mathematics I can also prove that every planet in the solar system is at the centre - so there is a problem.

A very simple proof of a heliocentric solar system is an experiment that is sometimes given to science students. If the solar system was geocentric then, if we were to look at Venus we would see very little apparent diameter changes as it orbited, but we do see changes in its apparent diameter - so it is not orbiting the Earth but the sun.
This gives us two possibilities a) the solar system is heliocentric or B) all the planets orbit the sun - but the sun orbits the earth.
One of the big proofs that a is correct is the apparent retrograde notion of Mars - this could not happen in a geocentric solar system and finally all our space probes - including Voyager have shown us a heliocentric system - the mathematics that govern their travel to the planets , and beyond, confirm a heliocentric system

did you come across the interactive site on this thread wherein you can:

SELECT the body from which you wish to "observe" the planetary motions?

just select EARTH. and slow the speed to as slow as possible.
then please tell me what doesn't work

 

[ddallen]

indeed

could you explain for me (a caveperson) how 'time' could affect both light and gravity

...

The Universal Energy Field:

Today, quantum physicists lead the way in bringing back together the fields of science and religion. This is an outgrowth of their work with identifying the “God particle”. New theories and paradigms in science like the “string theory” sound more like the thoughts of philosophers and poets of old.

Core - Energy Fields: Universal, Human, Earth and All Forms of Life

^ Panentheism/Pantheism ^ Kabbalah ^ Big Bang Cosmology = REINCARNATION

but, this was always the plan.

I assume you are talking about gravitational time dilation. Time does not affect gravity - gravity affects time - the lower the graviation potential - the slower time passes - this has been proved experimentally. As for light I assume you are referring to the fact that the faster you accelerate the slower time flows - this too has been proved experimentally

 

[ddallen]

The earth does spin - that is why geosynchronous satellites have to travel at ~11,000 kph to maintain their position.
Lasers were first produced/demonstrated in 1960 - There is no way that by 1963 one was powerful enough to reach the moon - also the photodetectors needed to detect the returning light had not been invented at that stage

 

[Married_Richenbrachen]

I assume you are talking about gravitational time dilation. Time does not affect gravity - gravity affects time - the lower the graviation potential - the slower time passes - this has been proved experimentally. As for light I assume you are referring to the fact that the faster you accelerate the slower time flows - this too has been proved experimentally

I'll believe it when I see it.

The earth does spin - that is why geosynchronous satellites have to travel at ~11,000 kph to maintain their position.

If geosynchronous satellites really are moving that fast, it could be that they are keeping speed with the Heavens, which are rotating about the Earth. I find it easier to believe these satellites are probably little more than blimps above a stationary Earth - they rise to a specified height and stay there almost motionless, until they run out of power and come back down to Earth.

Lasers were first produced/demonstrated in 1960 - There is no way that by 1963 one was powerful enough to reach the moon - also the photodetectors needed to detect the returning light had not been invented at that stage

I'm not saying Wikipedia is a reliable source - it is designed to support mainstream lies. However, even Wikipedia admits that the moon laser reflection experiments were going on prior to the alleged moon landing. My own belief - I doubt they even got unmanned probes to the moon, and the reflectivity of the moon at certain locations is an inherent property of the moon itself (bold formatting mine). Note that 1962 is 7 years before the alleged moon landing.

Lunar Laser Ranging experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The first successful tests were carried out in 1962 when a team from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology succeeded in observing reflected laser pulses using a laser with a millisecond pulse length."

 

[Graybeard]

ooooookay....just finished reading(except all the links provided) the entire thread, took me some hours, now I'm on my way to stick my head in the fridge for a while!
(but I still believe the moon landings)

 

[Graybeard]

so I've soaked my head for a few hours in the fridge to cool the brain down and I must confess that I am now divided on the the issue of Geocentric vs Heliocentric....what the heck now!...does it really matter?....not to my personal faith I don't think, but nevertheless would be great to know the Truth.

 

[Graybeard]

Question Been thinking about this a bit,How is it that if one throws a ball it goes straight,but if the earth is rotating underneath a ball that is thrown,shouldn't the ball drift to the west? I mean it's not next to the moving earth,it's in the air which is not as dense at the ground,so shouldn't it's trajectory appear to change in relation to us?

probably because the ball would still be moving the same speed with the Earth, but what about this thought......if the Earth is spinning at a great speed, shouldn't there be wind all the time?.....I mean like on a windless day there should be wind as the Earth moves because the air is less dense we should feel ourselves zooming through it, but then again because the Earth has been spinning for so long wouldn't the air around us be travelling at the same speed? I dunno

 

[Graybeard]

[video=youtube;AfI06XtYe74]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AfI06XtYe74[/video]

Earth From Space Clearly the Earth does not move

how come the stars also appear to be not moving

 

[Married_Richenbrachen]

ooooookay....just finished reading(except all the links provided) the entire thread, took me some hours, now I'm on my way to stick my head in the fridge for a while!
(but I still believe the moon landings)

I had no reason to doubt the moon landings until I realised the Earth was stationary. I'd read (some of) the evidence that the moon landings had been a fraud, but I saw no reason to doubt NASA's claims.

Once I realised the Earth was stationary, a possible motive for hoaxing the moon landings became clearer to me. I was then easily convinced by the evidence I already knew.

so I've soaked my head for a few hours in the fridge to cool the brain down and I must confess that I am now divided on the the issue of Geocentric vs Heliocentric....what the heck now!...does it really matter?....not to my personal faith I don't think, but nevertheless would be great to know the Truth.

I find the issue similar to the Creation/Evolution debate. While I believe one can be a Christian and still believe in Evolution (e.g. theistic evolution), I think doing so makes it harder for unbelievers to see the truth, and also opens one up to theological problems and false doctrines. Probably with Creation/Evolution moreso, but I believe to a degree with Heliocentrism too. There's also the issue that Heliocentrism is part of the Kabbalistic religion (e.g. sun worship), but I don't know very much about this.

probably because the ball would still be moving the same speed with the Earth, but what about this thought......if the Earth is spinning at a great speed, shouldn't there be wind all the time?.....I mean like on a windless day there should be wind as the Earth moves because the air is less dense we should feel ourselves zooming through it, but then again because the Earth has been spinning for so long wouldn't the air around us be travelling at the same speed? I dunno

Yes. If the Earth were spinning, there should be wind all the time, unless there were some magical force attaching the air to the Earth. This wind would be in a direction opposite to the Earth's rotation, and would also presumably decrease with altitude until it became zero. In actuality, we find that wind speed varies greatly in magnitude and direction with altitude. So the wind speed at one altitude could be a totally different magnitude and direction to a wind speed at another altitude.

In addition, if a force did exist attaching the air to the ground, balloons would be able to ascend until the point where the wind speed was lower, and cover great distances due to the Earth's rotation alone (up to the Earth's circumference in 24 hours). This can't be done.

how come the stars also appear to be not moving

I'm not sure what you meant by this question, so haven't tried to answer it. Stars, like the sun and moon, should move across the sky every day/night.

 

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by Graybeard

how come the stars also appear to be not moving






I'm not sure what you meant by this question, so haven't tried to answer it. Stars, like the sun and moon, should move across the sky every day/night.

I was referring to the stars in the video clip

 

[RickyZ]

Question Been thinking about this a bit,How is it that if one throws a ball it goes straight,but if the earth is rotating underneath a ball that is thrown,shouldn't the ball drift to the west? I mean it's not next to the moving earth,it's in the air which is not as dense at the ground,so shouldn't it's trajectory appear to change in relation to us?

The ball had the earth's rotational momentum when it was thrown. If it stayed airborn long enough it would. It is my understanding that the western rails on Japan's bullet trains need replacing more frequently because at the speed the trains travel the earths rotational forces have more effect.

 

[Married_Richenbrachen]

I was referring to the stars in the video clip

Myself, I'd say the video was fake. I don't trust anything from those space agencies, and I don't think anyone else has permission to get up so high. I hadn't noticed about the stars before - good observation. I watched the Earth for the first bit, then just enjoyed the music.

Zone or someone else might have a more scientific explanation.

The ball had the earth's rotational momentum when it was thrown. If it stayed airborn long enough it would. It is my understanding that the western rails on Japan's bullet trains need replacing more frequently because at the speed the trains travel the earths rotational forces have more effect.

If this were the case, balloonists could travel to the other side of the Earth simply by attaining an altitude, and waiting 12 hours. They can't.

With regards the bullet train rails, there are other valid explanation for an alleged Western rail wear than the Earth's rotation.