Geocentricity 101, Part 1A

[trth_skr]

**Geocentricity 101, Part I, Basic Concepts

**
**

Mark Wyatt

August 1st, 2005

**Acknowledgements: The material presented here is a summary of research firstly based on the dialogues of Robert Sungenis, as well as correspondence with him. Also, the works of other geocentric researchers (esp. Gerardus Buow, Walter Van Der Kamp) were consulted. The details were discussed, debated, etc. with scientists in various forums. Additional research was carried out within scientific literature and on the internet to better understand the underlying physics. Robert Sungenis and Dr. Robert Bennett are writing the book, “Galileo was Wrong”, due out this year (2005), which should provide far greater detail than this introduction.

---

There are many possible explanations for explaining the cosmos we observe. Geocentricity is one of the many explanations.

If one treats the motions in the heavens as relative motions (whether Galilean relativity, Einstein’s General Relativity, or other types), one can create a model of the cosmos which is consistent with observations from many (if not any) reference points. This is basically stating that a coordinate transformation can be made from some to any other coordinate system (say x, y, and z axis) with its origin placed arbitrarily in space. If this coordinate transformation is done correctly, then the relative motions of the observed objects in the heavens will be consistent with the relative motions from any other correctly applied coordinate system at a different location. This is basic vector mathematics and is not controversial. To state it more simply if one observes the relative motions of objects in the heavens (let’s say we pick earth, our sun, and say one distant galaxy) from a spot on the surface of the moon, one can consider this the origin of a coordinate system (say CS1). If one then observes the motions of the same objects from a location on Mar’s surface, this represents a coordinate system transformation to a new coordinate system (Say CS2). Since we can think of ourselves as sitting at the origin of whatever coordinate system we choose, this point becomes fixed in space, and the universe appears to revolve around us at this point. If one plotted the relative motions from CS1 and CS2 relative to their respective origins, the paths of the observed objects would seem very different. In fact though, they would be consistent. If one transformed a coordinate system from CS1 to a thrid coordinate system (CS3, say on the surface of Alpha Centuri), and one did the same coordinate transformation from CS2 to CS3, the resulting paths of objects realtive to the origin of CS3 should be identical.

Let’s take an example. Let’s start at CS1, viewing the path of the earth. Assuming we pick a location on the face of the moon with view to earth, we would see the earth rotating in place on about a 23.12 hour period (this accounts for a 24 hour rotation + the 27.3 day period of the moon orbiting the earth). Ignoring any ellipticity in the moons orbit, basically the earth appears not to be translating, but only rotating. The sun would have more complicated motion. It would appear to have a 27.3 day cycle (the lunar orbital period), and would spend much of the time eclipsed by the earth, or behind us. The distant objects would rotate on 27.3 day periods, apparently on a sphere.

Now let’s transform to CS2, the surface of Mars. To be sure we can always see the earth. let’s fix CS2 on Mar’s North pole, and allow Mars to rotate on our z-axis (a rotating Mars reference frame, z-axis pointing north). In some cases, the earth will move behind us, but we can look over our shoulders at it. The earth will appear to have a bizzare motion, sometimes moving towards us, sometimes moving away. The path will be curved, often making loops. Pretty similar to watching Mars from earth.

Now if we transformed from CS1 to CS3 (sitting out in space say on one of Alpha Centuri’s poles, with the star permitted to rotate on its axis if it wants to) we would see the moon travelling around the earth, the earth apparently travelling around the sun, etc., all apparently in fixed space. Now keep in mind that if the universe was rotating with Andromeda in it, we just stoppped the rotation by fixing our coordinate system on Andromeda. If we transform from CS2 to CS3, we get the same result. This is what is meant by the observed motions are consistent.

www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

Continued From Above

In the case of a geocentric model, we will place earth at the center of the universe, and fix it (allow no rotation or translation). The universe will revolve around the earth. In a geocentric model, we are stating that this is the true reality of the universe, and we want to go beyond the fact that we can perform a coordinate transformation to achieve this model. There is no controversy regarding the observations. All the observations man has collected up to the space age have been a fixed earth model. Ptolemy’s model of the universe had high observational accuracy, and was based on fixed earth observations. Ptolemy’s observations are still consistent with space based observations (coordinate transformation). Ptolemy’s model was transformable to different locations on the fixed earth. Finding the physics to describe why the paths were as they were in Ptolemy’s model is difficult.

Corpenicus created a heliocentric model using the same basic observations of Ptolemy. In his model, the sun was the center of the universe. As in Ptolemy’s model, the planets had circular orbits around the sun. Corpenicus, just like Ptolemy had to add epicycles to match the model to observations. In order to gain the same accuracy as Ptolemy’s model, Corpencius required 90 epicycles more than Ptolemy. An example of an epicycle is illustrated here for a Ptolemaic system (http://webpages.charter.net/middents/Ptolemy’s%20Model.htm).

Tycho Brahe proposed the Tychonic geocentric model. In his original model, the sun and stars revolve around the earth every 24 hours. The planets orbit the sun with circular orbits. The Tychonian system is as accurate as the Corpenican, except it does not predict parallax.

In modern geocentric theories, the modern-Tychonian or neo-Tychonian model are used. The modern-Tychonian system is the same as the original, except the planets orbit the sun with elliptical orbits. In the neo-Tychonian system the further extension of the modern-Tychonian that the stars are centered on the sun, is added. The neo-Tychonian system directly predicts parallax. Parallax can also be created in the modern-Tychonian system by providing for a precession of the universe. The results of either modification are essentially the same.

No one argues that from an observational perspective all these systems are equivalent. It is simply a matter of relative motion. The observed motions in the various models are consistent between models to some degree o accuracy. Clearly there are geocentric (i.e. modern-Tychonic type), heliocentric (i.e., Keplerian type), and acentric (i.e., Kepler like with no center) which can match all known observations, including parallax, abberation, motion of the planets, etc. According to modern physics, the systems are equivalent, also. This led Sir Fred Hoyle (Nicholas Corpenicus, 1973) to state:

“The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view … . Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is “right” and the Ptolemaic theory “wrong” in any meaningful physical sense.”

Similarly, Max Born in his famous book,“Einstein’s Theory of Relativity”,Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345 says:

*"…Thus we may return to Ptolemy’s point of view of a ‘motionless earth’…One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein’s field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. *

Thus from Einstein’s point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right."

Einstein himself also says:

“The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, ‘the sun is at rest and the earth moves,’ or ‘the sun moves and the earth is at rest,’ would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS. – Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.)”

These quotes do not explain the physics, but state that according to Einstein’s General Rrelativity, the systems must be equivalent (else General Relativity is wrong!) Another way of stating this is to say that there are no preferred reference framesin the universe. I.e., one should be able to formulate the forces and motions of the universe consistently from any reference frame in the universe, treating that referenceframe as fixed.

In the next section, we will look at some fio the physics of a geocentric universe.

www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[Liberian]

trth_skr:

Continued From Above

In the case of a geocentric model, we will place earth at the center of the universe, and fix it (allow no rotation or translation).

Trth_skr,

Once again you have not addressed the exact meaning of “we will place the earth at the center of the universe, and fix it (allow no rotation or translation).” One part of the earth moves relative to another partof the earth because of seafloor spreading, earthquakes, and tides. Which points on the earth are actually fixed?

…

These quotes do not explain the physics, but state that according to Einstein’s General Rrelativity, the systems must be equivalent (else General Relativity is wrong!) Another way of stating this is to say that there are no preferred reference framesin the universe. I.e., one should be able to formulate the forces and motions of the universe consistently from any reference frame in the universe, treating that referenceframe as fixed.

The statement that “there are no preferred reference frames” is, I think, made too strongly. The reference frame in which the earth moves around the sun (well, the earth-moon barycenter moves around the earth-sun barycenter), the sun moves within the galaxy, and so on, is easier to work with than a geocentric reference frame. The former frame does not have all the centripetal and Coriolis terms that the latter frame has. As such, it would be “preferred.”

• Liberian

 

[trth_skr]

Liberian:

Trth_skr,

Once again you have not addressed the exact meaning of “we will place the earth at the center of the universe, and fix it (allow no rotation or translation).” One part of the earth moves relative to another partof the earth because of seafloor spreading, earthquakes, and tides. Which points on the earth are actually fixed?

This was Part I. I said “In the next section, we will look at some fio the physics of a geocentric universe.”

I will try and adress this. Don’t make it too complicated. The earth is fixed by being at the center of mass of and stabilized by a rotating universe.

Liberian:

The statement that “there are no preferred reference frames” is, I think, made too strongly. The reference frame in which the earth moves around the sun (well, the earth-moon barycenter moves around the earth-sun barycenter), the sun moves within the galaxy, and so on, is easier to work with than a geocentric reference frame. The former frame does not have all the centripetal and Coriolis terms that the latter frame has. As such, it would be “preferred.”

• Liberian

Just because there are different opinions about what reference frames may be easier to work with, does not meet the definition of “preferred reference frames”. This term basically means any frame is sufficient to describe the universe from; though granted, some frames are more complicated than others.

“…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.”

Gron and Erikson, General Relativity and Gratavitation

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[Liberian]

trth_skr:

Just because there are different opinions about what reference frames may be easier to work with, does not meet the definition of “preferred reference frames”. This term basically means any frame is sufficient to describe the universe from; though granted, some frames are more complicated than others.
%between%

Mark,

Please pardon the tone of the question, but how much dynamics have you done in practice? I mean setting up and solving the differential equations to calculate the positions and so on of the bodies involved. The equations get ghastly very quickly, and ANYTHING that will simplify them will be grasped at like the proverbial drowning man’s straw. Saying that “there are different opinions about what reference frames may be easier to work with” does not begin to describe the situation.

• Liberian