So, we're supposed to believe geocentrism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BlindSheep
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
trth_skr:
Neither system can be proven. This is true.

Kepler’s three laws are applied to the sun and planets as they revolve around the earth with the universe. So this is consistent. Kepler’s and Newton’s laws are too general, without specifically applying to a rotating universe situation to say that geocentrism is impossible. In other words, just by quoting the general form of the laws does not disprove geocentrism. These laws apply in geocentrism locally just as in heliocentrism.

That is why I say that neither system can be proven, and the rest is theology.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
Click to expand...
 
Assuming geocentrism, and a stationary earth, how do you explain:
  • A general lengthening of the day over time.
  • The Keplerian orbits of the other planets about the sun, but not the earth.
  • The coriolis force on the earth.
  • The flipping of the magnetic poles
 
40.png
stanley123:
Assuming geocentrism, and a stationary earth, how do you explain:
…
Click to expand...
I don’t have all the answers, but I will try and offer some possiblities.

A general lengthening of the day over time.
possible cause: universe is expanding reqiuring longer period of rotation to maintain stability.

The Keplerian orbits of the other planets about the sun, but not the earth.
universe is rotating. earth stable at center (maintained by gyroscopic stabilization). Sun travels with entire universe. planets orbit the sun (i.t., the Tychonic system).

The coriolis force on the earth.
I explained this in Part II: due to distant rotating cosmic masses. I used the Rosser example, but also Thirring demonstrated this (mathematically in 1918). This lead Max Born to say:
Born:
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.
Click to expand...
The flipping of the magnetic poles

According to Scientific American I have, the flipping is caused by instabilities in core convection, driven by Corliolis forces. Since the distant rotating cosmic masses cause Corliolis forces, this explanation is possible in the geocentric case, also.

Marl
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
40.png
trth_skr:
IThe coriolis force on the earth.
I explained this in Part II: due to distant rotating cosmic masses. I used the Rosser example, but also Thirring demonstrated this (mathematically in 1918).
Click to expand...
the article mentions centrifugal forces, but I missed the coriolis force. Why, for example, assuming a stationary earth, would air, moving from high to low pressure in the northern hemisphere, be deflected to the right. But in the southern hemisphere, air moving from high to low pressure is deflected to the left?
 
Is it not a bit of a stretch to say that all the other planets follow the three Keplerian planetary laws of motion, but not the earth?
 
40.png
stanley123:
the article mentions centrifugal forces, but I missed the coriolis force. Why, for example, assuming a stationary earth, would air, moving from high to low pressure in the northern hemisphere, be deflected to the right. But in the southern hemisphere, air moving from high to low pressure is deflected to the left?
Click to expand...
The Corliolis force is an inertial force.

As for air, it is caused by the Corliolis and other inertial forces. In order for general relativity to be valid, the forces predicted for the fixed earth case would have to be analogous to those predicted in say a fixed sun case (i.e., like Newton’s heliocentrism). The universe rotates the opposite direction that one presumes the earth does in the heliocentric case, but the relative motion between the earth and space are the same.

According to general relativity it does not matter whether the earth is stationary and space rotates, or space is stationary and the earth rotates. It is the relative motion that counts. It is very complicated, actually, but Einstein did formulate it this way.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
40.png
stanley123:
Is it not a bit of a stretch to say that all the other planets follow the three Keplerian planetary laws of motion, but not the earth?
Click to expand...
Again, it is not. You are making that presumption from a presupposition of acentric vacuum space.

If one models a fixed earth in gemeral relativity (GR), GR will end up providing all the forces required to support that position. I.e., it will provide forces generated by the rrotating cosmic masses that:
  1. Hold the earth stable
  2. provide the various forces we feel on the earth
  3. etc.
This does not explain ‘how’ (mechanistically), but it does answer ‘what’ (forces). A possible ‘how’ is gyroscopic stabilization (as described by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler in Gravitation). A gyroscope uses the power of the rotating system to stabilize its center of mass. This is the ‘goal’ of the gyroscope. If there is a mass imbalance in the system, the gyroscope will precess to maintain the center of mass from rotating or translating. If the gyroscopic system is perturbed externally, the gyroscope will precess to maintain the center of mass from rotating or translating.

What this means is, if the earth is at the center of mass of the universe, then the entire power of the rotating universe will be used against any small pertubations (like that infintessimally small sun relative ot the universe). So you are trying to pit Kepler’s and Newton’s laws (which presume a static space not ‘caring’ about what the objects do) against a rotational system which attempts to stabilize its center of mass, and having almost infinitely more power available to satisfy this goal than the sun does to rip the earth away from the universe’s rotation.

If we go another step further and consider that quantam mechanics tells us that space is not empty, but potentially compsed of Planck level particles (with denisty as high as 10^94 g/cc), which is then rotating, and carrying most of the momentum of the universe with it, this also changes the picture. I.e., this is the aether.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top