Heliocentricism

[MrS]

johnshelby:

, or would they
have the opportunity to be the center, just as we are?

I hate to think another “race” could be as self-centered as we are.

 

[johnshelby]

MrS:

I hate to think another “race” could be as self-centered as we are.

lol… but, we do it with such “grace”…

 

[trth_skr]

johnshelby:

…

no, you don’t understand… they would all have to be in on it…
…
or, that’s the way i see it…

No, not true.

I explained it to someone else, here:

You believe that the fuel requirements for interplanetary travel would be different for the heliocentric and geocentric cases. I disagree with this. Form the heliocentric perspective, you are going to have to synchronize your speed tom leave earth and enter a static spece field. In the other you are gong to make the same effort to synchronize your speed to a rotational universe field.

Think about the heliocentric case for a moment. …When NASA launches from earth and goes to mars, do they account for the fact that in the current view the solar system is rotating around the center of the milky way, and the milky way is rotating in a local cluster and the local cluster is rotaitng in a super cluster and…?

*No, of course not. They are concentrating on relative motion WITHIN the solar system. This seems to work. The geocentric case and heliocentric case deal with the same relative motions and relative distances. Once the space ship has left the earth and is travelling towards mars, it does not know that the universe is rotating around the earth every 24 hours. Once this issue is removed, it is basically travellling in a local heliocentric system (sun and planets, earth not counted). *

Let’s say we launch to the east to go to mars. In the heliocentric case we burn at a fuel rate that gets us to say 1000 mph. relative to the earth. Relative to space we are going 2000 mph, right? This is because from the perspective of “space” the earth is rotating W to E 1000 mph. 1000 + 1000 = 2000.

*Now in the geocentric case, we burn at a rate that moves us 1000 mph relative to the earth (same observation). Relative to space we are going 2000 mph, right? This is because space is rotating E to W at 1000 mph. 1000 + 1000 = 2000. *

Same burn rate. Same relative speed to the ground (what we observe) and space. Different but consistent perspectives.

*In either the heliocentric or geocentric cases, once we leave the earth’s gravitational attraction, then the space ship moves in a solar system (Keplerian or modern Tychonic, respectively). *

*In the heliocentric case, the solar system is static. In the geocentric case, it is revolving around the earth on a 24 hour basis with the universe. But since this revolving universe acts like its own local reference frame, the spaceship does not know it is revolving- i.e., all objects of interest are all revoving together as a group, including the space ship. The space ship moves apparently straight from earth to mars, but in reality it (and mars) are on a “turntable”. But since both the spaceship and mars are on the same turntable, the spaceship still travels straight to mars from its perspective. *

In the turntable analogy for geocentrism, the earth is stationary at the center. In the heliocentric case, the turntable is static and the center turns. In either case, once you leave the center, it makes no difference as long as you synchronize the relative motions correctly. In either case (say Keplerian heliocentric or modern Tychonian geocenrtic) all the objects in the solar system maintain the same relative positions and distances. In both cases, the leaving of the center has slightly different but consistent explanations, but the same net result.

Get this program (free):

SimSolar

Watch the planets go around the sun (plus earth). This is the Corpenican system.

Make the universe earth centered.

Watch the sun go around the earth and the planets (not including earth) go around the sun. This is the Tychonain system.

All the distances, spatial relations, etc. are the same. This would work for the modern-Tychonian / Keplerian also.

This is a coordinate transformation (see Part I of Geocentricity 101). As long as the transformation is done correctly, the “driver” of the space ship will end up doing all the same things (thrusting, turning, etc.) regardless of whether NASA chose a sun, earth, mars, etc. based coordinate system.

Mark

---

Scientism is a god. It fidgets in the modern pantheon because of the presence of the True God, who accepts no other gods.

 

[trth_skr]

MrS:

Don’t read me wrong… I do agree with you.

Additionally, Truth and Reason will always go hand in hand. And it is reasonable (to me IMHO) that the earth is the center, and God The Son came to earth to save us.

Helio Geo

I believe the Fathers understood our centralness in this way. The Scriptures imply so strongly that the centralness extended into the physical (why not).

Mark

---

Scientism is a god. It fidgets in the modern pantheon because of the presence of the True God, who accepts no other gods.

 

[trth_skr]

johnshelby:

lol… but, we do it with such “grace”…

Yes, the grace of God .

As to aliens, I think this is a possible deception, possibly demonic. Robert Sungenis has had some interesting things to say on this. If in time of great political crisis, all of a suuden our government makes alien contact… beware…

Mark

---

Scientism is a god. It fidgets in the modern pantheon because of the presence of the True God, who accepts no other gods.

 

[johnshelby]

you have no idea how wasted all that was on me… lol

ok, how bout the north star?

 

[johnshelby]

trth_skr:

Yes, the grace of God .

As to aliens, I think this is a possible deception, possibly demonic. Robert Sungenis has had some interesting things to say on this. If in time of great political crisis, all of a suuden our government makes alien contact… beware…

Mark

---

Scientism is a god. It fidgets in the modern pantheon because of the presence of the True God, who accepts no other gods.

well, it might be…

but, i’d be just as careful trying to prove God in a laboratory…

 

[JimG]

Poor Foucault! In 1851, he thought that his demonstration using the Foucault Pendulum proved the rotation of the earth on its axis.

But according to geocentrists, all it does is prove the rotation of the universe around the earth every 24 hours. For equal effects, the earth must rotate once in 24 hours on its axis, OR the universe at its farthest periphery must rotate once every 24 hours around the earth.

The earth rotating doesn’t involve relativistic (faster-than-light) speeds. The universe rotating does. Are we to ignore the relativistic mass effects and time-dilation effects required in the geocentric theory?

Earth rotation has atmospheric effects which affect our weather. Surely the weather patterns would be different if the earth were motionless. But I’m sure that geocentrists will assure us that equivalent effects are accomplished by the universe rotating about the earth. But where does the earth leave off and the universe begin? Is the atmosphere part of the universe?

 

[trth_skr]

JimG:

Poor Foucault! In 1851, he thought that his demonstration using the Foucault Pendulum proved the rotation of the earth on its axis.

Hey, he got it half right! It is detecting rotation.

JimG:

But according to geocentrists, all it does is prove the rotation of the universe around the earth every 24 hours. For equal effects, the earth must rotate once in 24 hours on its axis, OR the universe at its farthest periphery must rotate once every 24 hours around the earth.

The earth rotating doesn’t involve relativistic (faster-than-light) speeds. The universe rotating does. Are we to ignore the relativistic mass effects and time-dilation effects required in the geocentric theory?

Please read Part II of Geocentricity 101. I explain all this there.

JimG:

Earth rotation has atmospheric effects which affect our weather. Surely the weather patterns would be different if the earth were motionless. But I’m sure that geocentrists will assure us that equivalent effects are accomplished by the universe rotating about the earth. But where does the earth leave off and the universe begin? Is the atmosphere part of the universe?

No, general relativity says we have to be able to describe the universe from any reference frame. So if we describe the universe from a fixed earth (one of many possible reference frames), then if it gives different “answers”, general relativity itself does not work. The weather would have to be the same; though the explanations may be different (i.e., instead of earth rotating, it would be ascribed to distant rotating cosmic masses).

Mark

---

Scientism is a god. It fidgets in the modern pantheon because of the presence of the True God, who accepts no other gods.

 

[JimG]

I come at this as a layman, not a scientist. But my understanding of the equivalency of reference frames was that two frames of reference are equivalent if they are either motionless or traveling at a uniform velocity. Rotational velocity is not considered uniform motion—it is acceleration.

Suppose we use the thought experiment of two identical twins. One remains on earth, the other travels at 99% of light speed to a distant galaxy, then turns around and comes back. When the twins reunite, the “traveling” twin will have aged only a few months or years; while the stay-at-home twin will have aged centuries.

But—what about relativity? Couldn’t the stay at home twin claim that it was really him who accelerated away from the traveler, and then back again? After all, the traveler would perceive the earth as moving away from him at 99%C. Shouldn’t their motions be equivalent? No. The stay at home twin experienced no acceleration or deceleration, no turning; he didn’t feel any G’s in his body. There is a real difference, and a real difference in the physical effects, including the time dilation effect. Their experiences will be different.

By the same token, if the far galaxies have rotational velocities around the earth far exceeding the speed of light, I don’t really think it is equivalent to the earth rotating at a much smaller speed. I doubt the true equivalency of the frames of reference.

 

[trth_skr]

JimG:

I come at this as a layman, not a scientist. But my understanding of the equivalency of reference frames was that two frames of reference are equivalent if they are either motionless or traveling at a uniform velocity. Rotational velocity is not considered uniform motion—it is acceleration.

Suppose we use the thought experiment of two identical twins. One remains on earth, the other travels at 99% of light speed to a distant galaxy, then turns around and comes back. When the twins reunite, the “traveling” twin will have aged only a few months or years; while the stay-at-home twin will have aged centuries.

But—what about relativity? Couldn’t the stay at home twin claim that it was really him who accelerated away from the traveler, and then back again? After all, the traveler would perceive the earth as moving away from him at 99%C. Shouldn’t their motions be equivalent? No. The stay at home twin experienced no acceleration or deceleration, no turning; he didn’t feel any G’s in his body. There is a real difference, and a real difference in the physical effects, including the time dilation effect. Their experiences will be different.

By the same token, if the far galaxies have rotational velocities around the earth far exceeding the speed of light, I don’t really think it is equivalent to the earth rotating at a much smaller speed. I doubt the true equivalency of the frames of reference.

You are talking about Special Relativity, not General Relativity. The first paragraph of the Supplement to Part III of Geocentricity 101 says:

It is clear that no one has come up with a reasonable argument against the science part of the issue. The common objection being actually mixing up special and general relativity.

Please read Part II of Geocentricity 101. If you take some time to read it, I think you will see that your issues are covered.

General relativity was developed by Einstein so relativity would not be limited to motionless or constant velocity systems.

Mark

---

Scientism is a god. It fidgets in the modern pantheon because of the presence of the True God, who accepts no other gods.

 

[Magicsilence]

Do the heliocentrists have an explanation as to why two different planets of the same (roughly) size can orbit the sun at different places. Doesnt logic dictate that either the one closer will get pulled in to the sun, or the other will fly off into the universe.

Also, why doesnt the moon get pulled into the sun?

Ok, for you wizz techs it might seem simple, but for a pauper like me, its confusing. Do you have an answer?

Um, trth skr, that simsolar thing is cool, but the geocentric view is crazy. How do you explain the crazy “orbit” of venus. Is it as Sungenis says, an aether that hauls everything round? I hold to it, but dont understand it. Perhaps you could post the relevant part fo your explanation?

In Christ.

Andre.

 

[Magicsilence]

Thought of something else.

Is there an explanation as to why the earth constantly spins? What provides the energy?

In Christ

Andre.

 

[JimG]

Magicsilence:

Thought of something else.

Is there an explanation as to why the earth constantly spins? What provides the energy?

In Christ

Andre.

A spinning or rotating earth is not part of geocentric theory. In geocentric theory, the earth does not rotate. Although apparently other planets do. A rotating earth is part of standard astronomical theory and arises, as far as I know, from the manner in which planets are formed, from rotating clouds of matter. But perhaps someone with an astronomical background could explain it better.

Maybe this link would help: curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=329

 

[trth_skr]

Magicsilence:

Do the heliocentrists have an explanation as to why two different planets of the same (roughly) size can orbit the sun at different places. Doesnt logic dictate that either the one closer will get pulled in to the sun, or the other will fly off into the universe…

The physics which apply in heliocentric theory are the same that apply in geocentric theory. In either case, planets (in the geocentric case, earth is not a planet) orbit the sun based on an exchange of gravitational potential and “centripital” acceleration. In other words, planets further from the sun have less gravitational attraction (mass also plays a role here), and are moving in larger orbits. If the orbits are stable they will continue, if not they will either decay into the sun, or fly off into space (depending on whether gravitation or acceleration dominate). Kepler’s three laws are a good guide as to how the orbits operate. Clearly, our observations indicate that our solar system is in a stable configuration.

In the heliocentric system there are 9 planets orbiting the sun. In the modern Tychoinian (geocentric) there are eight planets orbiting the sun. Since earth is stabilized at the center of the rotating universe, the sun ends up going around it (with the rest of the universe).

Magicsilence:

Also, why doesnt the moon get pulled into the sun?

There is an equilibrium between all the bodies in the solar system. Since the moon is closer to the earth and has a centripital acceleration around it, it stays with the earth. There are empirical relationships attempting to determine when a satellite will stay with its host and when it will not. I am not sure how successful they are overall. You could use numerical simulations to determine this as a reasonable approximation.

Magicsilence:

Um, trth skr, that simsolar thing is cool, but the geocentric view is crazy. How do you explain the crazy “orbit” of venus. Is it as Sungenis says, an aether that hauls everything round? I hold to it, but dont understand it. Perhaps you could post the relevant part fo your explanation?

In Christ.

Andre.

SimSolar is simply a Corpenican solar system. When you choose earth centered, all you are doing is transforming the coordinate system from sun centered to earth centered. All the motions are exactly the same. If you study it enough you will see that.

When you are in earth centered, try and watch the sun going arouind the earth. Now, once you can see that that is occuring, try and see that as the sun is going around the earth, the planets (mercury, venus, mars, jupiter, saturn, urnaus, neptune, pluto) are in fact going around the sun. This is the Tychonian solar system.

If you try and watch the planets going around the earth, then you will see what appear to be odd movements, especailly of the close planets (venus and especially mars- i.e., retrograde motion). If you study it as I say, you will realize that this occurs because mars (or venus) is going around the sun as the sun is going around the earth. The odd movement is a consequence of this double rotation.

Magicsilence:

Is there an explanation as to why the earth constantly spins? What provides the energy?

In theory, the rotations on axis and orbits of planets around the sun and/or moons around planets are all part of an equilibrium process. They maintain those motions because they have reached an equilibrium state. In theory also, there is no resistance in space to cause the motions to decay (possibly over eons they will slow). In either heliocentric or geocentric scenarios this is an issue. In the geocentric case, the entire rotation of the universe is an equilibrium process which then imparts angular momentum to various bodies in the universe. In the heliocentric case, it is proposed that an initial explosion (i.e., big bang) supplied the energy to start the whole thing. In the geocentric system we can say God started the rotation. In the heliocentric case they can say God caused the initial bang.

Mark

---

Scientism is a god. It fidgets in the modern pantheon because of the presence of the True God, who accepts no other gods.

 

[Magicsilence]

In the geocentric system we can say God started the rotation.

I thought geocentrism focused on a stationary earth? Are you referring to the motion of the aether?

Thanks for all the answers. I have another question though, .

If i remember correctly, the geocentric view holds that the speed of light is not set, but instant, so to speak.

Doesnt the light of the sun take 8 minutes or there about to reach earth. Hasnt this been proved.

Also, do you account for the obvious trangression of the law of gravity by God, or a firmament He put there that is there that swirls around?

Thanks again.

In Christ.

Andre.

 

[trth_skr]

Magicsilence:

I thought geocentrism focused on a stationary earth? Are you referring to the motion of the aether?

I am talking about the rotation of the universe. If there is an aether it is likely rotating with the universe. Only the earth is stationary.

Magicsilence:

Thanks for all the answers. I have another question though, .

If i remember correctly, the geocentric view holds that the speed of light is not set, but instant, so to speak.

Doesnt the light of the sun take 8 minutes or there about to reach earth. Hasnt this been proved.

Remember geocentrism is using the same physics as heliocentrism- same speed of light, same distances to planets, etc.

Magicsilence:

Also, do you account for the obvious trangression of the law of gravity by God, or a firmament He put there that is there that swirls around?

Thanks again.

In Christ.

Andre.

There is no transgression of the law of gravity. Why do you say there is?

Mark

---

Scientism is a god. It fidgets in the modern pantheon because of the presence of the True God, who accepts no other gods.

 

[Magicsilence]

Sun orbiting the earth? Isnt that proposal trangressing the law of gravity?

 

[MrS]

Magicsilence:

Sun orbiting the earth? Isnt that proposal trangressing the law of gravity?

NO

Nor is it trangressing the reality that all is relative.

 

[JimG]

If every frame of reference is equal, then how could geocentrism be any more “true” than standard cosmological theory which is essentially acentric, and a lot simpler?