Geocentrism: why doesn't it just die and be done with?

[buffalo]

Just had a thought. So the Earth doesn’t move right?

So if we launch one Satellite (A) into geostationary orbit, and another satellite (B) to the same height, but counter to the Earth’s rotation.

So A is going to look down at the Earth and see no movement. B is going to see the Earth moving at, say, 17,000MPH.

So, under a Geocentric view, how would one account for the increased momentum of B?

A simpler way to put it would be, using the same amount of fuel, launching East is going to generate a different orbital speed as seen from the ground than if launched toward the west. How would that be accounted for?

Imagine yourself on a merry go round. This merry go round has a radius of say light years. You are at the center inside a hollow shaft. You are not spinning, but everything around you is. Now step onto the platform, now you are spinning. Now walk in the direction of spin and then walk against it.

 

[rossum]

Imagine yourself on a merry go round. This merry go round has a radius of say light years. You are at the center inside a hollow shaft. You are not spinning, but everything around you is. Now step onto the platform, now you are spinning. Now walk in the direction of spin and then walk against it.

So, how high can we build a skyscraper before the top is sheared off by the spin? How can mountains get as high as they do? Why do rockets not take a sudden and unexplained jump sideways when they reach the transition altitude?

This is a completely unsatisfactory explanation.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

So, how high can we build a skyscraper before the top is sheared off by the spin? How can mountains get as high as they do? Why do rockets not take a sudden and unexplained jump sideways when they reach the transition altitude?

This is a completely unsatisfactory explanation.

rossum

Interesting question.

How high can we build a skyscraper on a spinning earth before it is sheared off?

Why would they?

 

[mellestad]

Imagine yourself on a merry go round. This merry go round has a radius of say light years. You are at the center inside a hollow shaft. You are not spinning, but everything around you is. Now step onto the platform, now you are spinning. Now walk in the direction of spin and then walk against it.

Right, so there is a radius of light years, which is convenient since we don’t have any probes out that far, but what does that have to do with the satellite orbit question I asked?

I’m not going to ask about the mechanism of this supposed action, or what reason you have to believe it exists because I know it is simply created on the fly to support the presupposition that the Earth doesn’t move.

But I would like a good answer to my question, because that is something empirical. We can measure fuel consumption when these things go up, and we can measure their relative velocity. In a geocentric model fuel usage should correspond directly to the relative motion of the satellite to the Earth since that is the only source of velocity.

Or heck, in general, why do we launch from the equator? In a geocentric model you’d be able to launch from anywhere and the energy necessary to reach orbital velocity would be the same.

 

[mellestad]

Interesting question.

How high can we build a skyscraper on a spinning earth before it is sheared off?

Why would they?

Ignoring the meat of his question doesn’t make it go away

 

[buffalo]

Yup. Even looking at several quasars here on earth in scales of distance it is essentially one point. Say there is a Mass x distance away. The effect can be large enough to distort our view of all three. And then what if there are several masses? And what if they are biased to one side or the other.

The observations of the rotation being affected by earthquake is withing the normal daily fluctuations. And if you look at my earlier link, they say the Chilean earthquake had no effect at all.

One point I forgot to add since quasars were brought up:

Redshift analysis shows the earth is the center point of all observed quasars.

 

[rossum]

One point I forgot to add since quasars were brought up:

Redshift analysis shows the earth is the center point of all observed quasars.

Observation from the top of the Empire State Building shows that the Empire State Building is at the centre of what can be observed from there.

Do you really think that such a ludicrously bad argument will convince anyone? Just spend a few seconds thinking about the meaning of the word “observed” in your post.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Ignoring the meat of his question doesn’t make it go away

You beat me to it.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Right, so there is a radius of light years, which is convenient since we don’t have any probes out that far, but what does that have to do with the satellite orbit question I asked?

I’m not going to ask about the mechanism of this supposed action, or what reason you have to believe it exists because I know it is simply created on the fly to support the presupposition that the Earth doesn’t move.

But I would like a good answer to my question, because that is something empirical. We can measure fuel consumption when these things go up, and we can measure their relative velocity. In a geocentric model fuel usage should correspond directly to the relative motion of the satellite to the Earth since that is the only source of velocity.

Or heck, in general, why do we launch from the equator? In a geocentric model you’d be able to launch from anywhere and the energy necessary to reach orbital velocity would be the same.

Since both systems are the same, launching from the equator gives boost that is not found at the poles. The centrifugal force can come from a rotating body or from a rotating universe around it. The same goes for the equatorial bulge.

 

[buffalo]

Observation from the top of the Empire State Building shows that the Empire State Building is at the centre of what can be observed from there.

Do you really think that such a ludicrously bad argument will convince anyone? Just spend a few seconds thinking about the meaning of the word “observed” in your post.

rossum

The galactocentric data also shows galaxies arranged in concentric shells around the earth. You can argue with the data if you wish. I have posted the paper several times before.

 

[FMX500]

I don’t even know what Geocentrism is…

 

[DavidPalm]

Since both systems are the same, launching from the equator gives boost that is not found at the poles. The centrifugal force can come from a rotating body or from a rotating universe around it. The same goes for the equatorial bulge.

So when you launch from the moon, you get the expected boost from the moon’s rotation on its axis:

the [Apollo] landing site had to be within a narrow strip within 5 deg of latitude of the lunar equator. A higher latitude site would involve a less propellant-efficient trajectory, and propellant economy was a priority for the first landing. (Apollo: the definitive sourcebook, p. 284)

(Of course, if you’re Bob Sungenis then you believe that the lunar landings were a hoax and never happened anyway, so that’s one way to “deal with” the evidence )

But when you launch from the earth the boost doesn’t come from the earth’s rotation on its axis, it comes from the whole universe revolving around the earth.

Same with equatorial bulges. On every other body this happens because they rotate on their axis. But for the earth it just so happens to come from the whole universe revolving around the earth. And this is the “most likely” explanation because…well, we know now that we aren’t going to get an answer to that question.

 

[buffalo]

So when you launch from the moon, you get the expected boost from the moon’s rotation on its axis:
the [Apollo] landing site had to be within a narrow strip within 5 deg of latitude of the lunar equator. A higher latitude site would involve a less propellant-efficient trajectory, and propellant economy was a priority for the first landing. (Apollo: the definitive sourcebook, p. 284)(Of course, if you’re Bob Sungenis then you believe that the lunar landings were a hoax and never happened anyway, so that’s one way to “deal with” the evidence )

But when you launch from the earth the boost doesn’t come from the earth’s rotation on its axis, it comes from the whole universe revolving around the earth.

Same with equatorial bulges. On every other body this happens because they rotate on their axis. But for the earth it just so happens to come from the whole universe revolving around the earth. And this is the “most likely” explanation because…well, we know now that we aren’t going to get an answer to that question.

The forces are the same. It can’t be that hard to understand.

 

[mellestad]

The forces are the same. It can’t be that hard to understand.

It is hard to understand, because you are saying, “Things work exactly like the math of a non-geocentric model, only the the math is totally wrong, and my alternate idea is totally right, even though I have no idea how the math works.”

We see a duck. It looks like a duck, it moves like a duck, it quacks like a duck and we can make precision models of other ducks based on observation and they all act the same. We can do amazing things with our model of the duck and when we apply those models to real ducks, it seems to work very well. Our theory of the way this duck operates has allowed us to do amazing things.

Then you come by and say, “Guys, come on, that’s totally a tiger…that acts just like your duck model and looks like your duck model and I can’t make any models or predictions about the tiger idea, but come on, it’s obviously a tiger!”

 

[FMX500]

It is hard to understand, because you are saying, “Things work exactly like the math of a non-geocentric model, only the the math is totally wrong, and my alternate idea is totally right, even though I have no idea how the math works.”

XD

 

[rossum]

The galactocentric data also shows galaxies arranged in concentric shells around the earth. You can argue with the data if you wish. I have posted the paper several times before.

Weren’t you telling us earlier that distant objects weren’t where we thought they were because of gravitational lensing?

All you have to do is to repeat the calculation from a distant galaxy and see if the same shells appear round that galaxy or not. Simple way to show geocentrism.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Weren’t you telling us earlier that distant objects weren’t where we thought they were because of gravitational lensing?

All you have to do is to repeat the calculation from a distant galaxy and see if the same shells appear round that galaxy or not. Simple way to show geocentrism.

rossum

That is the idea. That the data shows that if one looked from another galaxy there would not be concentric rings. That makes earth unique.

 

[rossum]

That is the idea. That the data shows that if one looked from another galaxy there would not be concentric rings. That makes earth unique.

The reference again please.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

The reference again please.

rossum

Statistics of redshift periodicities

 

[rossum]

Statistics of redshift periodicities

Thank you for that, an interesting paper. A little more internet research shows a definite maybe on the cause.

At least one paper has looked at an alternative centre and found a similar effect: On the investigations of galaxy redshift periodicity. From the abstract:We also discussed the redshift discretization in two different structures: the Local Group of galaxies and the Hercules Supercluster. … In both structures we found weak effects of redshift periodization.
If the Hercules Supercluster exhibits the same concentric structure as the Local Group then there is nothing special about the Local Group that does not also apply to the Hercules Supercluster. Whatever is causing the effect here is also causing it there. An interesting question in astronomy, but not evidence for geocentrism.

Maybe evidence for Hercules-centrism though. Come back Zeus, all is forgiven.

rossum