A defence of helio-centricism

Originally posted by ArmorOfGod
The trajectory calculations are the same for both models. I already showed you theres no kinematic difference.

You can call NASA and ask them for yourself.

No they aren't and I can prove it with NASA's diagram of the stereo satellites right here:

stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov...

This figure plots the current positions of the STEREO Ahead (red) and Behind (blue) spacecraft relative to the Sun (yellow) and Earth (green). The dotted lines show the angular displacement from the Sun. Units are in A.U

The red dot A and the blue dot B represent the current positions of Stereo satellites A and B which are orbiting the sun. Their orbit is roughly the same distance from the sun as the Earth's orbit.

These orbits would not be maintained as shown if the sun revolved around the Earth as the Earth would need a large gravitational field to cause the sun to orbit the Earth which would change these orbits ...so there IS a difference which is physical and not philosophical...You can call NASA to confirm this.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


The problem is ArmorOfgod relies on his book of fairytales as proof so if he was correct (he isn't) then I would also have to believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny,the Tooth Fairy and many others as they are also in books and told to children by their parents now parents wouldn't lie to their kids about Santa etc would they

Thats what happens when people dont think for themselves and let religion do their thinking!!!!

Yet they are quite happy to use technology to promote their silly ideas, technology they have due to science and not religion.

Last night I heard a British comedian - Jimmy Carr, tell a joke on this subject - "Would you believe 20% of Americans don't know the Earth revolves around the Sun? ..... The other 80% thinks it's pulled around by Jesus in a chariot"

Sorry, Its not nice to mock others religious beliefs on a public forum, it's just co-incidental...

Originally posted by EasyPleaseMe
Last night I heard a British comedian - Jimmy Carr, tell a joke on this subject - "Would you believe 20% of Americans don't know the Earth revolves around the Sun? ..... The other 80% thinks it's pulled around by Jesus in a chariot"

Sorry, Its not nice to mock others religious beliefs on a public forum, it's just co-incidental...

Unfortunately, the 20% of Americans and Britons who believe in Geocentrism is NOT a joke. I didn't believe that statistic the first time I heard it but I looked into it, and to my shock and amazement, it's true (or at least pretty darn close, I think one study was 19% which is close enough to 20% to call it 1 in 5). Among Russians, it's even higher.

Of course the 80% part of the joke was the joke, but I wish the 20% part was too, but it's not. Among scientists the divide is more like 99.99+% to less than 0.01%, which really draws a sharp contrast in the scientific education level of the average American, compared to scientists.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Yes unfortunately the first 20% isn't a joke. The US is gaining a reputation as religious extremist country over here, with some I have heard comparing it to some Islamic nations. The joke I posted is an example.

I have heard many people over her (UK) say they can't believe we let someone that believes in God run the country! (Blair - I think he kept it quiet) I'm sure we wouldn't let someone with any other imaginary friend out of the high security hospital

The US is a great place full of great people but it does have some serious societal and religious issues holding it back in many ways, from my point of view of course.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
in the bible when they are speaking of the sun moving... they are speaking in an early man way and human man perspective of viewing the sun "rise" and "set" over the plane of view and horizon...

Yes because thats the way the sun moves.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
If the earth is the only thing of importance, why did god create infinite x eternal infinite amounts of energy and other stars, galaxies, why does the universe exist and not just earth on its own? ( My guess is he works in mysterious ways)

I never said the earth is the only thing of importance.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
do you think the earth is flat? do you think the sun is the size of a silver dollar? do you think the stars you see in the night sky are the size of your pinky nail?

Nope.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
how do you explain seasons?

A helical orbit of the sun around the Earth which is induced by a 'wobble' in the turning of the universe which takes one year to complete its period, due to a 23.5 degree incline of its axis of rotation.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
These orbits would not be maintained as shown if the sun revolved around the Earth as the Earth would need a large gravitational field to cause the sun to orbit the Earth which would change these orbits ...so there IS a difference which is physical and not philosophical...You can call NASA to confirm this.

Wait a sec, your point is very confusing. You are kind of muddling two points into one here.

First:

"Earth would need a large gravitational field to cause the sun to orbit the Earth"

In a Machian universe the turning mass of the perfectly arranged trillions of stars produces gravitational effects on Earth and infact makes it the BARYCENTRE. So theres no problem there at all.

Next:

"which would change these orbits"

No it wouldnt. Thats like saying the planets would change their orbit if the Earth was the centre of the universe. They wouldnt, they would continue orbiting the sun which in turn orbits the Earth.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Among scientists the divide is more like 99.99+% to less than 0.01%, which really draws a sharp contrast in the scientific education level of the average American, compared to scientists.

If you surveyed expert scientists, I bet you the majority would say scientifically, its uncertain whether the sun orbits the Earth or vice versa because with regard to kinematics and forces the two systems are identical.

Of course if you asked them which system they BELIEVE in that would be a different matter.

Originally posted by ArmorOfGod

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
These orbits would not be maintained as shown if the sun revolved around the Earth as the Earth would need a large gravitational field to cause the sun to orbit the Earth which would change these orbits ...so there IS a difference which is physical and not philosophical...You can call NASA to confirm this.

Wait a sec, your point is very confusing. You are kind of muddling two points into one here.

First:

"Earth would need a large gravitational field to cause the sun to orbit the Earth"

In a Machian universe the turning mass of the perfectly arranged trillions of stars produces gravitational effects on Earth and infact makes it the BARYCENTRE. So theres no problem there at all.

Next:

"which would change these orbits"

No it wouldnt. Thats like saying the planets would change their orbit if the Earth was the centre of the universe. They wouldnt, they would continue orbiting the sun which in turn orbits the Earth.

Geocentrism, as advocated by creationists or other religiously fundamental people, is certainly wrong.

How, you may ask? What is going on is that you can do a change of reference frame to a geocentric one, and by Einstein’s mathematics of relativity the math must still work out. I readily admit that. This means that, physically, geocentrism is just as valid as, say, heliocentrism.

But note the words "just as valid". Also, by relativity, it cannot be any more valid; geocentrism is just another change of frame (although to a non-inertial one).

What Geocentrists are saying is that geocentrism is the one, true frame. They must say that because that is what is says in the bible. Now pay attention here, because this is the important bit: to say Geocentrism isn’t wrong, you have to accept the premise that any frame of reference is just as valid as any other. But to claim that Geocentrism is correct, you have to ignore that very same premise.

Geocentrism as the One True Way is therefore self-contradictory. It doesn’t work.

Source

Originally posted by ArmorOfGod

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Among scientists the divide is more like 99.99+% to less than 0.01%, which really draws a sharp contrast in the scientific education level of the average American, compared to scientists.

If you surveyed expert scientists, I bet you the majority would say scientifically, its uncertain whether the sun orbits the Earth or vice versa because with regard to kinematics and forces the two systems are identical.

That's where you're wrong.

You recall I agreed with you earlier about the observations being the same between the geocentric and heliocentric models, at least for things that a planetarium shows. If you completely ignore the question of what force might make the sun orbit the Earth every 24 hours, it could be said to be equivalent observationally.

However I never agreed about the forces being the same because they aren't, and they cannot be the same. There is simply no reason explained by forces why the Sun would orbit the Earth every 24 hours and you've failed to show any reason, you just believe it to be so. In contrast to this we have the orbits of the STEREO satellites I mentioned earlier...this is a matter of mathematical calculation of the gravitational forces, and if the sun is orbiting the Earth, the math for the orbits of satellites like Stereo A and B simply doesn't work. If you think you can show that it does, feel free.

Originally posted by Confusion42
Geocentrism, as advocated by creationists or other religiously fundamental people, is certainly wrong.

How, you may ask? What is going on is that you can do a change of reference frame to a geocentric one, and by Einstein’s mathematics of relativity the math must still work out. I readily admit that. This means that, physically, geocentrism is just as valid as, say, heliocentrism.

But note the words "just as valid". Also, by relativity, it cannot be any more valid; geocentrism is just another change of frame (although to a non-inertial one).

I appreciate your honesty sir.

This is the point I was trying to make. One model can not be "more valid" than the other due to relativity's principles. Thats why heliocentrism cannot be defended using the OP's argument. Once everyone agrees to that, I can start a new thread showing how scientific evidence proves the geocentric model is correct.

Originally posted by Confusion42
What Geocentrists are saying is that geocentrism is the one, true frame. They must say that because that is what is says in the bible. Now pay attention here, because this is the important bit: to say Geocentrism isn’t wrong, you have to accept the premise that any frame of reference is just as valid as any other. But to claim that Geocentrism is correct, you have to ignore that very same premise.

Geocentrism as the One True Way is therefore self-contradictory. It doesn’t work.

Yes but, what you need to remember, is that geocentrists actually believe that relativity is a load of old twaddle, and we only use its arguments against relatavists because they have to accept its principles. We believe in ONE true frame of reference which is the stationary Earth, and we can prove it with actual scientific experimentation.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
That's where you're wrong.

You recall I agreed with you earlier about the observations being the same between the geocentric and heliocentric models, at least for things that a planetarium shows. If you completely ignore the question of what force might make the sun orbit the Earth every 24 hours, it could be said to be equivalent observationally.

However I never agreed about the forces being the same because they aren't, and they cannot be the same. There is simply no reason explained by forces why the Sun would orbit the Earth every 24 hours and you've failed to show any reason, you just believe it to be so. In contrast to this we have the orbits of the STEREO satellites I mentioned earlier...this is a matter of mathematical calculation of the gravitational forces, and if the sun is orbiting the Earth, the math for the orbits of satellites like Stereo A and B simply doesn't work. If you think you can show that it does, feel free.

According to relativity, in the same way that observations are relative, so too are forces.

Ernst Mach:

"...all masses, all motion, indeed all forces are relative. There is no way to discern relative from absolute motion when we encounter them...Whenever modern writers infer an imaginary distinction between relative and absolute motion from a Newtonian framework, they do not stop to think that the Ptolemaic and Copernican are both equally true."

- Ernst Mach, Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwicklung historisch-kritisch dargestellt, eighth ed, Leipzig, p. 222, 1921.

It is not a problem for the Earth to be the barycentre of the universe as long as all the stars (mass) were arranged perfectly around us. In this way the sun can easily orbit the Earth. Newtonian orbital mechanics only deals with a TWO BODY isolated system.

If you dont agree that all forces are the same in the two systems we are debating, then you need to research the Lense-Thirring effect.

All the high priests of the hypothetical science religion have admitted that forces are the same no matter which model you choose.

"Let the earth be a coordinate system rotating uniformly relative to the universe. Then centrifugal forces would be in effect for masses at rest in the universe’s coordinate system, while no such forces would be present for objects at rest with respect to the earth.

Already Newton viewed this as proof that the rotation of the earth had to be considered as “absolute,” and that the earth could not then be treated as the “resting frame” of the universe. Yet, as E. Mach has shown, this argument is not sound. One need not view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of the earth; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of the earth, where the earth is treated as being at rest."

- Albert Einstein, 1914

You see my friend, I actually have a working model that unifies ALL FORCES (gravity, coriolis, centrefugel, euler) which is the turning aether.

You have no mechanism for what produces gravity. You have no medium for the effects of inertia, so you have the acausal fallacy of 'action at a distance' (foucault pendulum is a good example).

Let me show you that NASA's calculations do not take into account the mass of the sun.

"In the equation 3, the leading contribution to the gravitational potential Theta is the simple Newtonian term GM/r. The picture is Earth-centered, and it neglects the presence of other Solar-system bodies such as the Moon and Sun. That they can be neglected by an observer sufficiently close to Earth is a manifestation of general relativity’s equivalence principle."

- Physics Today, May 2002 p. 42 (Relativity and the Global Positioning System)

Translation:

"Even though scientists believe that the earth is kept in its orbit around the sun due to the sun’s strong gravitational pull, and that the tides on earth are caused by the strong gravitational pull of the moon, this scientist claims that such forces can be neglected when sending up satellites. Oh really? If the moon can pull on the earth’s water with such tremendous force, how is it that it can’t pull on a satellite that is 22,000 miles closer to the moon than it is to the earth?

Notice also that he again makes reference to the “Earth-centered” frame of reference. How can he do so this time? Because he has commandeered “general relativity’s equivalence principle.” What is the equivalence principle? It’s the principle that allows them to change frames of reference at will; whatever one suits them will be fine." - Robert Sungenis.

They use a geocentric model.

Originally posted by ArmorOfGod

"Even though scientists believe that the earth is kept in its orbit around the sun due to the sun’s strong gravitational pull, and that the tides on earth are caused by the strong gravitational pull of the moon, this scientist claims that such forces can be neglected when sending up satellites. Oh really? If the moon can pull on the earth’s water with such tremendous force, how is it that it can’t pull on a satellite that is 22,000 miles closer to the moon than it is to the earth?

l.

Earth's gravity has a greater influence on the satellite because its closer and far more massive than the moon but in case you haven't notice through time lots satellites come crashing back to earth!

As for geostaionary orbits please read

A perfect stable geostationary orbit is an ideal that can only be approximated. In practice the satellite drifts out of this orbit because of perturbations such as the solar wind, radiation pressure, variations in the Earth's gravitational field, and the gravitational effect of the Moon and Sun, and thrusters are used to maintain the orbit in a process known as station-keeping.

More here and not in any bible!!!!!

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by ArmorOfGod
"In the equation 3, the leading contribution to the gravitational potential Theta is the simple Newtonian term GM/r. The picture is Earth-centered, and it neglects the presence of other Solar-system bodies such as the Moon and Sun. That they can be neglected by an observer sufficiently close to Earth is a manifestation of general relativity’s equivalence principle."

- Physics Today, May 2002 p. 42 (Relativity and the Global Positioning System)

Translation:

"Even though scientists believe that the earth is kept in its orbit around the sun due to the sun’s strong gravitational pull, and that the tides on earth are caused by the strong gravitational pull of the moon, this scientist claims that such forces can be neglected when sending up satellites. Oh really? If the moon can pull on the earth’s water with such tremendous force, how is it that it can’t pull on a satellite that is 22,000 miles closer to the moon than it is to the earth?

The moon can and does pull on the satellite. You seem to be having reading comprehension difficulties so let me clarify. The water that is affected by tidal forces is actually ON the Earth. The satellites orbiting it aren't on the Earth, and the closer they get to the moon, the more they are affected by the moon's gravity. wmd_2008 has it right.

An analogy that doesn't use gravity would be sound. You could play a little radio in your bedroom in Europe or the USA at such a low volume level that someone knocking at your front door may not even be able to hear it.

In contrast to that, you could record all the noises in the Japan Tsunami where the water was making cars crash into each other and crashing entire buildings, which was a much louder event. So if you're in South Carolina listening to your radio softly, are you going to claim that your soft radio volume was louder than the tsunami in Japan just because you can't hear the tsunami from Japan?

Of course it makes a big difference how close you are to the source of anything, be it an omnidirectional sound source, or gravity. You seem to be not getting this rather simple fact. So you mistranslated the quote. To put his quote in sound analogy, he's saying the soft radio playing in your bedroom in South Carolina sounds louder to you than the noise of the tsunami crashing cars and building in Japan, as long as you are in your bedroom. That's how his quote can be interpreted.

But if you go halfway between south Carolina and Japan, you have a much better chance of hearing the loud tsunami in Japan, than the soft radio in SC. This isn't really that hard to understand. Translating that to the gravity analogy, The loud sound of the tsunami would be like the strong gravity of the sun, and the softer radio would be a weaker gravitational source like the Earth.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Earth's gravity has a greater influence on the satellite because its closer and far more massive than the moon but in case you haven't notice through time lots satellites come crashing back to earth!

As for geostaionary orbits please read

You and your mainstream source say the moon effects satellites, but the cutting edge physicist says that calculations NEGLECT any influence of the sun and moon. Therefore, they pretend the Earth is stationary and ignore any effects of the sun and moon when sending up GPS satellites.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The moon can and does pull on the satellite. You seem to be having reading comprehension difficulties so let me clarify. The water that is affected by tidal forces is actually ON the Earth. The satellites orbiting it aren't on the Earth, and the closer they get to the moon, the more they are affected by the moon's gravity. wmd_2008 has it right.

An analogy that doesn't use gravity would be sound. You could play a little radio in your bedroom in Europe or the USA at such a low volume level that someone knocking at your front door may not even be able to hear it.

In contrast to that, you could record all the noises in the Japan Tsunami where the water was making cars crash into each other and crashing entire buildings, which was a much louder event. So if you're in South Carolina listening to your radio softly, are you going to claim that your soft radio volume was louder than the tsunami in Japan just because you can't hear the tsunami from Japan?

Of course it makes a big difference how close you are to the source of anything, be it an omnidirectional sound source, or gravity. You seem to be not getting this rather simple fact. So you mistranslated the quote. To put his quote in sound analogy, he's saying the soft radio playing in your bedroom in South Carolina sounds louder to you than the noise of the tsunami crashing cars and building in Japan, as long as you are in your bedroom. That's how his quote can be interpreted.

But if you go halfway between south Carolina and Japan, you have a much better chance of hearing the loud tsunami in Japan, than the soft radio in SC. This isn't really that hard to understand. Translating that to the gravity analogy, The loud sound of the tsunami would be like the strong gravity of the sun, and the softer radio would be a weaker gravitational source like the Earth.

You can claim to your hearts content that the moon's gravity effects the satellite, but the professional says it doesnt. They ignore the moons alledged forces completely. And use a fixed Earth model to boot.

Originally posted by ArmorOfGod

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Earth's gravity has a greater influence on the satellite because its closer and far more massive than the moon but in case you haven't notice through time lots satellites come crashing back to earth!

As for geostaionary orbits please read

You and your mainstream source say the moon effects satellites, but the cutting edge physicist says that calculations NEGLECT any influence of the sun and moon. Therefore, they pretend the Earth is stationary and ignore any effects of the sun and moon when sending up GPS satellites.

I suggest you check the orbit height for gps before you spout more bible cr4p!

Originally posted by wmd_2008
I suggest you check the orbit height for gps before you spout more bible cr4p!

How does the orbit height for gps help your argument?

Whatever height a satellite is at, it is explained in the geocentric system. It produces exactly the same forces as your system, except I can explain exactly what gravity is...and have a fully fledged unified field theory.

reply to post by ArmorOfGod


WHATS that the bible

Seeing as the helio and geo models are kinematically identical...

And seeing as forces produced would be identical in both systems....

I guess defending the helio model wasnt as easy as most people thought?

Whats left?

4 physical experiments that prove the Earth is stationary.

- Sagnac Experiment
- Michelson-Morley
- Michelson-Gale
- Airy's Failure