Originally posted by AngryManatee
The concept of epicycles was pretty much given up on because the multiplacation of epicycles to explain all sorts of different phenomena led to a system that was practically unworkable. Things were at risk of colliding into each other pretty much 🤣
😆 god keeps them apart.
Transfinitum; Please learn something about math. We can look at how the universe and then use math to calculate what it would look like from another point of view.
"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS [coordinate system] 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 [coordinate systems]."
---"The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, New York, Simon and Schuster 1938, 1966 p.212
I am sure you can use your vast knowledge of "math" to help poor Einstein out here. Knock yourself out. We're all waiting………………..
Originally posted by Transfinitum
No other arguments of a scientific nature have been advanced, but I would welcome any others. I will be happy to respond to them.
So how would you explain mars' orbit, which has tendencies to move in a retrograde fashion at times?
>>The same way Albert Einstein just explained it to you above, and I have explained several dozens of times on this thread: If one can explain a motion from within a heliocentric coordinate system, then one MUST BE ABLE to explain the same motion from within a geocentric coordinate system. The alternative is that Relativity is wrong. If your position is that Relativity is wrong, please say so, and provide us with your "mathematical" reasoning. We are all waiting for your "mathematical" brilliance to rescue us from Einstein's insistence that whatever one can show from coordinate system A, MUST, as a matter of MATHEMATICAL CERTAINTY, be able to be equally shown from coordinate system B.
Now, for those of you with some desire to actually see this for yourselves, construct the following:
Take a quarter, for Earth. Draw a circle around it, representing the Sun's orbit in the geocentric system. Have a half-dollar for the Sun. Draw a circle around the Sun, representing Mars' orbit.Let Mars be represented by a dime. Move the Sun around its circle, while moving Mars simultaneously around its circle. Notice that at a certain point Mars goes "retrograde" as it traces its orbit around the Sun, as seen from Earth.
VOILA! You have just seen why every argument Galileo made in favor of heliocentrism was wrong, and Einstein had to invent an entirely new form of physics, Relativity, to explain the failure of all experiments to disclose any motion of the Earth, either in space, or diurnally about its own axis.
Also, how would you explain the observation of the different phases of Venus? Namely a full phase?
>>Exactly the same way as I have answered each and every one of these scientifically illiterate notions that motions cannot be equally represented regardless of coordinate system.
In this particular case, there are no less than three different ways in which the phases of Venus can be shown in a geocentric system:
The planetary orbits are made into elliptical paths around the Sun, as Kepler did to improve the Copernican system;
The sun's motion is placed in one epicycle and the planet's epicycles are centered on the Sun (this was essentially Tycho Brahe's model);
The Earth is lined up with respect to the stars rather than respect to the Sun.
All three solutions make the paths cycloidal with respect to the Earth, and all will account for the phases of Venus.
*****************************************************
This is a motion that has purplexed geocentrist supporters, but the heliocentric model explains it quite nicely.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
>>
The planetary orbits are made into elliptical paths around the Sun, as Kepler did to improve the Copernican system;
The sun's motion is placed in one epicycle and the planet's epicycles are centered on the Sun (this was essentially Tycho Brahe's model);
The Earth is lined up with respect to the stars rather than respect to the Sun.All three solutions make the paths cycloidal with respect to the Earth, and all will account for the phases of Venus.
*****************************************************
Concerning Tycho's model, you do know that it's not considered to be a traditional geocentric model and is often called the heliogeocentric model?
Here's some other stuff. Hold your breath for a sec. This concerns three satellites that are orbiting the planet: Inmarsat 3-F2, Marisat 3, and Brasilsat 1.
If the earth is rotating, then we can explain the motion of these satellites quite easily: They aren’t actually moving in these crazy patterns, they just appear to move that way (to a person standing on the ground) because the ground over which they’re moving is moving, too. All three satellites are really orbiting the earth in nearly perfect circles and in synch with the earth’s rotation. In that case, Inmarsat 3-F2’s orbit goes like this:
Because Inmarsat 3-F2’s orbit is almost perfectly circular, it moves at a nearly constant velocity, in synch with the rotation of the earth. And because its orbit is almost perfectly aligned with the equator, the satellite always appears to be directly above the equator. Therefore, as this satellite orbits in synch with the earth’s rotation, it appears to hover over a single spot on the equator. That’s easy enough to understand, right?
But how, then, do we account for the figure-eight pattern traced out every day by Marisat 3? Like this:
This satellite’s orbit is significantly inclined with respect to the equator, so every day as it follows its orbital path, it goes up above the equator and then down below the equator. Because it orbits in synch with the earth’s rotation, it appears (to a person on the ground) to be moving straight up and straight down, tracing out an up-and-down line over the earth. But there’s one additional factor to consider. This satellite’s orbit isn’t perfectly circular, it’s slightly elliptical. That means that the satellite will speed up and slow down slightly as its orbit carries it slightly toward and away from the earth. But as it speeds up, it will temporarily be going faster than the earth is rotating, and it will appear to move slightly to the east relative to the ground. As it slows down, it will temporarily be going slower than the earth is rotating, and it will appear to move slightly to the west relative to the ground. Because it’s moving slightly east-and-west as it’s also moving significantly north-and-south, it traces out a perfect figure-eight over the surface of the moving earth.
Finally, Brasilsat 1’s zig-zag ground-track is caused by an orbit that is significantly inclined with respect to the equator. If Brasilsat 1 were truly orbiting in synch with the earth’s rotation, it would trace out a straight line up-and-down every day. But this satellite is no longer in a truly geosynchronous orbit. It’s now orbiting slightly farther from the earth, which means it’s moving just slightly slower than the earth is rotating. Therefore, as the satellite traces out its up-and-down motion, it’s also constantly lagging behind the earth’s rotation, and therefore moving to the west relative to the ground. That’s what makes it trace out a zigzag path, like a pen on a seismograph.
So, if the earth is rotating, the motion of all three satellites relative to the ground can be easily explained. Now, let’s consider a geocentric universe.
Non-Rotating Earth
In a geocentric world, the earth is stationary, and therefore those three satellites aren’t orbiting the earth at all. In that case, their motion over the ground isn’t apparent, it’s actual. In other words, Inmarsat 3-F2 is just hovering over its spot on the equator, not moving much at all. Meanwhile, Marisat 3 is actually moving in a figure-eight pattern, around and around, once each day. And while Marisat 3’s going around in graceful circles, Brasilsat 1 is moving in a constant zigzag toward the east. This satellite, then, really is orbiting the earth, but it takes it a month or so to complete a single orbit.
Here’s the rather obvious problem with this scenario: There's no known physical explanation that can account for this motion. First, there's no known force that can make satellites hover over the ground without falling. Second, whatever force is acting on these satellites should be the same for all three, and should therefore cause all three to move (or not move) in the same way. What accounts for their radically different motion?
Consider: In order to make a satellite actually move in a figure-eight, like Marisat 3, you’d have to have a force that’s constantly changing the direction from which it pulls the satellite. If you imagine the satellite floating in space and being pulled along behind a huge magnet that was tracing out a figure-eight you’ll see what I’m talking about. There has to be some actual force that exerts a constantly shifting pull on the satellite (while, of course, also suspending it above the earth) in order to make it move like that. But Inmarsat 3-F2, which is exposed to exactly the same forces that Marisat 3 is exposed to doesn’t move at all. And of course, a completely different set of forces would be required to move Brasilsat 1 in the path it’s following.
Obviously, this is not possible.
arguing aimlessly again. you dont understand what i am saying. lets say the universe has an event horizon
which is the limit of space-time fabric{beyong which u can either not travel or will just be transported back to another point inside the fabric}
and the universe is EXPANDING.
Enough said. I will now snip and dismiss all such idle speculation. If you don't have evidence, then I just snip and delete. Time's a wastin.
Just as things are only THEORIZED to be unable to move faster than light in a vacuum.
lmao, you post false claims. almost EVREY1 in the scientific community disagrees with the geocentric model,
>>Of course, you confuse "popular acceptance" with "truth", a very common logical error among the victims of today's education system. In truth, every scientific discovery in history began life as the unique discovery of one mind, in possession of a truth which contradicted what everyone else "knew" to be true. Once upon a time, almost everyone in the scientific community agreed with geocentrism. Almost everyone agreed with the necessary existence of ether. Almost everyone agreed that Newtonian physics constituted an irrefutable model of reality.
Now most people in the scientific community disagree with all three things, but stick around. In fifty years it will all have changed again. Already, the electron/positron lattice first discovered by Paul Dirac constitutes empirical proof for the existence of a substance which is functionally indistinguishable from what the 19th century physics consensus called "aether".
This is the nature of science. It changes, all the time, and only recently have fools begun to confuse it with Divine Revelation, as if our present theories were somehow different from all the ones they replaced, and would last forever.
often quoting it as the prime example of relegious dogmatism being disproven by science. fabrics and ether are not the same.
>>You poor fellow. "Aether" is a scientific, not a religious, hypothesis. If you wish to play word games, setting up "fabric" as if it were "different" than ether, first you must define both. Instead, you define neither, hoping no one will notice your con.
bending has little to do with UNMOVEABLE FRAMES OF REFERENCE{which is the definition of ether} .
>>Bunk. Many theories of ether invoke an ether in motion. You simply, again, don't know what you are talking about.
space is context and dimensions.
>>Oh? Define"context". Define "dimensions". Is time a "dimension"? How about the ten little bitty packed up dimensions they invented to get String Theory to work (which it still doesn't)? Are they "space" too? Or are they just figments of a mathematicians' attempt to get the darned equation to balance?
You go off into never never land, because you stopped doing science a long time ago. You have a wonderful new Eastern religion going here, one that might even attract a few converts if you market it right.
But I got no time for religious discussions.
The question is scientific disproof of geocentrism and chum……….
You ain't got one.
Subsequent discoveries have completely discredited the notion of a "vacuum" in space. All mainstream physicists now accept the argument given by Stephen Hawking in "A Briefer History of Time":"[T]he uncertainty principle means that even "empty" space is filled with pairs of virtual particles and antiparticles.......if empty space were really completely empty- it would mean that all fields, such as the gravitational and electromagnetic fields, would have to be exactly zero." (pp 122-123)
In direct contradiction to your assertion, the notion of a "vacuum" is what has been debunked, and the "ether" is very much alive, whether one calls it a
"quantum space-time foam", or a "Dirac sea", it is still precisely what the ether has always been- the physical structure filling all of space.
*********************************************************
only problem is, those things are not ethers. you dont know the definition of ether. it is a uniform REFERENCE frame against which all thing move in space and time.
>>How inconvenient for you, that your absurd tendency to appropriate terms as if you alone were empowered to define them, runs up against a rather serious roadblock here today. Allow me to introduce the physicists Morley and Michelson, who conducted the most exhaustive set of experiments ever undertaken to establish the properties of the ether, and who, contrary to your assertion above, found evidence of a RELATIVE MOTION of the Earth and the ether, in the form of fringe displacements on an interferometer. The title of their paper, you see, constitutes the refutation of your claim above. It is:
"On the Relative Motion of the Earth and The Luminiferous Ether", Article xxxvi, The American Journal of Science, Eds. James D. and Edward S. Dana, Number 203, volume xxxiv, November 1887"
A devastating quote for your entirely self-serving "definition" above follows:
"But since the displacement is proportional to the square of the velocity, the relative velocity is probably less than one-sixth the Earth's orbital velocity and certainly less than one fourth".
Now this devastates your position in two specific ways. First, we see that scientists of the caliber of Michelson and Morley do not agree with your assertion that the ether is "a uniform reference frame against which all things move in space and time", since they are smart enough to realize that the motions are RELATIVE- one cannot determine from the experiment whether it is the Earth, or the ether, that is moving. Hence the title "On the Relative Motion…"
The second, truly devastating point against your position, is the fact that the fringe displacements DO EXIST. Think about that for a moment. If there were no ether, there ought to be no displacements. But the displacements exist. Even worse for the heliocentrist, the displacements are far smaller than would be expected if the Earth were in fact orbiting the Sun……
These shocking facts constitute a devastating refutation of the notion that the Earth is in motion, and another devastating refutation of the notion that the ether has been "debunked", since the inconvenient FACT remains: SOMETHING is causing those displacenent shifts. By the way, similar displacements have been found on subsequent experiments over the last hundred and twenty years.
So much for your assertion above.
****************************************
and that has been debunked.
>>>The only thing that has been debunked is your appropriation of terms and definitions.
******************************************************************
what you are describing are theories which try to explain what space is. i dont htink i ever said that space was empty, i just said that things inside space are different from space itself and different rules apply.
quote:
"Compensate" for the velocities? What are you trying to say here? There is no "compensation" required. The theory itself allows velocities of any value whatever in the presence of gravitational fields, and the existence of the ether allows the actual "work" of superluminal velocities to take place within the rotation of "space " (ether), in the geocentric system, or the "expansion of space" (ether) in General Relativity.Physics can accomodate both models.
*************************************************************
lmao, your so inconsistant. first u say that gravity is a function of mass.
>>I never said "gravity is a function of mass". I said that Einsteinian Relativity allows objects to exceed "c" in gravitational fields. STRIKE ONE.
********************************************
then you say that gravitic fields are responsible for the FTL speed movement of celestial bodies in geocentric orbits,
then when i ask you to explain where these fields are emenating from{mass as i see it}
"Hans Thirring begins by citing Einstein's 1914 paper. Einstein defines K as a Galilean-Newtonian coordinate system, and K1 as a coordinate system rotating uniformly relative to K. Since this directly represents the earth (K1) and the universe (K) in Dr. Nieto's antigeocentric cosmology, I will substitute these identifications for K and K1 in italics in Einstein's text to make Einstein's position clear to every reader:
"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. [The geosynchronous satellite is precisely such an object, at rest with respect to the earth, but viewed as having a centrifugal force acting on it with respect to the universe (MGS).] 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."
In quite precise language, Einstein taught that the centrifugal force on an object in the earth's rest frame (the condition satisfied by the hovering geosynchronous satellite) is inadmissible as evidence of the rotation of the earth, for in the earth's frame that force arises from "the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses." This 1914 teaching of Einstein is rather old news…"
So, again. You simply haven't bothered to read my earlier posts, and you therefore yammer on about "space time foam" and assorted fictitious entities which I have no intention of dealing with, since they are not scientific evidence of any kind.
Cheers!
quote:
Originally posted by Transfinitum
Is this serious? I have shown in multiple posts that it is not always the less massive body revolving around the more massive one. Read any of my above posts keyword, barycenter.
****************************************************************
Oh im well aware of barycenter (i use the term center of mass in my previous post). Everything in the solar system including the sun, revolves around the solar system's barycenter.
This barycenter is on or near the sun because the sun contains the bulk of the solar system's mass.
The sun is nearly stationary (wobbles in its place) relative to the barcenter of the solar system.
Or B: A motion of the ether against the Solar system as a whole, oriented along an axis perpendicular to the Drago system.
No experiment can presently distinguish between the two possibilities- although other evidence strongly suggests that (B) is the actual occurrence :-)
**************************************
But thats not what i want to know.
>>I can imagine.
******************************
What i want to know is what mechanism COMPELS a more massive sun to orbit (and not just wobble in its place like in the heliocentric theory) a less massive earth,
In the geocentric system, Earth is at that Universal barycenter, and the Sun, consequently, is COMPELLED to orbit around it, just like every other object in said Universe.
******************************
according to your retarded geocentric theory? It certainly isnt gravity because it is subject to an object's mass.
>>Apparently, your education in physics has not yet progressed to the point where you grasp the physics governing the behavior of rotating shells of matter, and objects at their barycenters. One might call that "retarded". But I would prefer to assume you are simply "centrifugally challenged".
Albert Einstein is about to explain how it works for you, so listen up:
"Let K [the Universe] be a Galilean-Newtonian coordinate system [a system of three dimensions extending to the edge of the Universe] and let K' [the Earth] be a coordinate system rotating uniformly relative to K' [the universe]. Then centrifugal forces would be in effect for masses at rest in the K' coordinate system [Earth], while no such forces would be present for objects at rest in K [the universe]. Already Newton viewed this as proof that the rotation of K' [the Earth] had to be considered as 'absolute', and that K' [the Earth] could not then be treated as the 'resting' frame of K [the universe]. Yet, as E. Mach has shown, this argument is not sound. One not need view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of K' [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 K' [the Earth], whereby K' [the Earth] is treated as being at rest. If Newtonian mechanics disallow such a view, then this could very well be the foundation for the defects of that theory…."
---Albert Einstein, cited in Hans Thirring, "On The Effect of Rotating Distant Masses In Einstein's Theory of Gravitation", Physikalische Zeitschrift 19, 33, 1918
Now please read the above- especially the last sentence- very carefully, and if you can grasp its significance, then you will have learned something today.
You're welcome.
*****************************
Originally posted by AngryManatee
Concerning Tycho's model, you do know that it's not considered to be a traditional geocentric model and is often called the heliogeocentric model?Here's some other stuff. Hold your breath for a sec. This concerns three satellites that are orbiting the planet: Inmarsat 3-F2, Marisat 3, and Brasilsat 1.
If the earth is rotating, then we can explain the motion of these satellites quite easily: They aren’t actually moving in these crazy patterns, they just appear to move that way (to a person standing on the ground) because the ground over which they’re moving is moving, too. All three satellites are really orbiting the earth in nearly perfect circles and in synch with the earth’s rotation. In that case, Inmarsat 3-F2’s orbit goes like this:
Because Inmarsat 3-F2’s orbit is almost perfectly circular, it moves at a nearly constant velocity, in synch with the rotation of the earth. And because its orbit is almost perfectly aligned with the equator, the satellite always appears to be directly above the equator. Therefore, as this satellite orbits in synch with the earth’s rotation, it appears to hover over a single spot on the equator. That’s easy enough to understand, right?
But how, then, do we account for the figure-eight pattern traced out every day by Marisat 3? Like this:
This satellite’s orbit is significantly inclined with respect to the equator, so every day as it follows its orbital path, it goes up above the equator and then down below the equator. Because it orbits in synch with the earth’s rotation, it appears (to a person on the ground) to be moving straight up and straight down, tracing out an up-and-down line over the earth. But there’s one additional factor to consider. This satellite’s orbit isn’t perfectly circular, it’s slightly elliptical. That means that the satellite will speed up and slow down slightly as its orbit carries it slightly toward and away from the earth. But as it speeds up, it will temporarily be going faster than the earth is rotating, and it will appear to move slightly to the east relative to the ground. As it slows down, it will temporarily be going slower than the earth is rotating, and it will appear to move slightly to the west relative to the ground. Because it’s moving slightly east-and-west as it’s also moving significantly north-and-south, it traces out a perfect figure-eight over the surface of the moving earth.
Finally, Brasilsat 1’s zig-zag ground-track is caused by an orbit that is significantly inclined with respect to the equator. If Brasilsat 1 were truly orbiting in synch with the earth’s rotation, it would trace out a straight line up-and-down every day. But this satellite is no longer in a truly geosynchronous orbit. It’s now orbiting slightly farther from the earth, which means it’s moving just slightly slower than the earth is rotating. Therefore, as the satellite traces out its up-and-down motion, it’s also constantly lagging behind the earth’s rotation, and therefore moving to the west relative to the ground. That’s what makes it trace out a zigzag path, like a pen on a seismograph.
So, if the earth is rotating, the motion of all three satellites relative to the ground can be easily explained. Now, let’s consider a geocentric universe.
Non-Rotating Earth
In a geocentric world, the earth is stationary, and therefore those three satellites aren’t orbiting the earth at all. In that case, their motion over the ground isn’t apparent, it’s actual. In other words, Inmarsat 3-F2 is just hovering over its spot on the equator, not moving much at all. Meanwhile, Marisat 3 is actually moving in a figure-eight pattern, around and around, once each day. And while Marisat 3’s going around in graceful circles, Brasilsat 1 is moving in a constant zigzag toward the east. This satellite, then, really is orbiting the earth, but it takes it a month or so to complete a single orbit.
Here’s the rather obvious problem with this scenario: There's no known physical explanation that can account for this motion. First, there's no known force that can make satellites hover over the ground without falling. Second, whatever force is acting on these satellites should be the same for all three, and should therefore cause all three to move (or not move) in the same way. What accounts for their radically different motion?
Consider: In order to make a satellite actually move in a figure-eight, like Marisat 3, you’d have to have a force that’s constantly changing the direction from which it pulls the satellite. If you imagine the satellite floating in space and being pulled along behind a huge magnet that was tracing out a figure-eight you’ll see what I’m talking about. There has to be some actual force that exerts a constantly shifting pull on the satellite (while, of course, also suspending it above the earth) in order to make it move like that. But Inmarsat 3-F2, which is exposed to exactly the same forces that Marisat 3 is exposed to doesn’t move at all. And of course, a completely different set of forces would be required to move Brasilsat 1 in the path it’s following.
Obviously, this is not possible.
Concerning Tycho's model, you do know that it's not considered to be a traditional geocentric model and is often called the heliogeocentric model?
Here's some other stuff. Hold your breath for a sec.
Any motion which can be described within coordinate system A, MUST BE ABLE to be described EQUALLY from within coordinate system B.
So let's get to it.
*********************************************
.
This concerns three satellites that are orbiting the planet: Inmarsat 3-F2, Marisat 3, and Brasilsat 1.>>>
If the earth is rotating, then we can explain the motion of these satellites quite easily:
They aren't actually moving in these crazy patterns, they just appear to move that way (to a person standing on the ground) because the ground over which they're moving is moving, too.
>>>They would describe precisely the same patterns, whether the Earth were rotating, and the satellites rotating in synch with it, or whether the Earth were stationary, and the satellites were affected by the gyroscopic and inertial forces of the distant masses of a rotating Universe. You learned that from Thirring/Einstein earlier today.
********************************
All three satellites are really orbiting the earth in nearly perfect circles and in synch with the earth's rotation.
>>Or, alternatively, the satellites are actually moving in accordance with laws of inertia governed by a rotating universe above a non-rotating earth.
********************************************
In that case, Inmarsat 3-F2's orbit goes like this:
Because Inmarsat 3-F2's orbit is almost perfectly circular, it moves at a nearly constant velocity, in synch with the rotation of the earth.
And because its orbit is almost perfectly aligned with the equator, the satellite always appears to be directly above the equator.
Therefore, as this satellite orbits in synch with the earth's rotation, it appears to hover over a single spot on the equator. That's easy enough to understand, right?
>>Baby simple.
But how, then, do we account for the figure-eight pattern traced out every day by Marisat 3? Like this:This satellite's orbit is significantly inclined with respect to the equator, so every day as it follows its orbital path, it goes up above the equator and then down below the equator.
>>Gee. Maybe because it is actually going up above and then down below the equator? Huh? Ya think?
Because it orbits in synch with the earth's rotation,
>>Or, because it simply moves north and south, instead of east and west…..
it appears (to a person on the ground) to be moving straight up and straight down, tracing out an up-and-down line over the earth.
>>>Amazing. Almost as if it were going up and down (north and south).
But there's one additional factor to consider.
This satellite's orbit isn't perfectly circular, it's slightly elliptical.
>>>What orbit? It is stationary above the earth, and therefore there is no proof whatsoever that it is "orbiting".
That means that the satellite will speed up and slow down slightly as its orbit carries it slightly toward and away from the earth.
>>What orbit? You are assuming it is orbiting. So far all you have proven is that it is moving up and down above and below the equator, and up and down in altitude.
That means that the satellite will speed up and slow down slightly as its orbit carries it slightly toward and away from the earth.
>>Relative to what?
it will temporarily be going faster than the earth is rotating
and it will appear to move slightly to the east relative to the ground.
As it slows down, it will temporarily be going slower than the earth is rotating,
and it will appear to move slightly to the west relative to the ground.
>>Or, it will actually move slightly to the west relative the ground.
Because it's moving slightly east-and-west as it's also moving significantly north-and-south, it traces out a perfect figure-eight over the surface of the moving earth.
Finally, Brasilsat 1's zig-zag ground-track is caused by an orbit that is significantly inclined with respect to the equator.
>>>Oh my dear heaven. We are now going to get yet a THIRD example?
If Brasilsat 1 were truly orbiting in synch with the earth's rotation, it would trace out a straight line up-and-down every day.
>>Or, if Brasilsat 1 were truly stationary above the Earth with respect to east-west motion, it would trace out a straight up-and-down line every day…..
But this satellite is no longer in a truly geosynchronous orbit. It's now orbiting slightly farther from the earth, which means it's moving just slightly slower than the earth is rotating.
>>Or, it means that it is simply slightly farther from the earth, hence closer to the distant rotating masses which Einstein just taught you would create the same forces you ascribe to the "orbit" ……..
Therefore, as the satellite traces out its up-and-down motion, it's also constantly lagging behind the earth's rotation,
and therefore moving to the west relative to the ground. That's what makes it trace out a zigzag path, like a pen on a seismograph
>>Or, it really is moving to the west above a stationary earth, and that's what makes it trace out a zigzag path, like a pen on a seismograph…..
So, if the earth is rotating, the motion of all three satellites relative to the ground can be easily explained. Now, let's consider a geocentric universe.
Non-Rotating EarthIn a geocentric world, the earth is stationary, and therefore those three satellites aren't orbiting the earth at all.
>>>Yawn.
In that case, their motion over the ground isn't apparent, it's actual.
>>Yuppers.
In other words, Inmarsat 3-F2 is just hovering over its spot on the equator, not moving much at all.
Meanwhile, Marisat 3 is actually moving in a figure-eight pattern, around and around, once each day.
And while Marisat 3's going around in graceful circles, Brasilsat 1 is moving in a constant zigzag toward the east. This satellite, then, really is orbiting the earth, but it takes it a month or so to complete a single orbit.
Here's the rather obvious problem with this scenario: There's no known physical explanation that can account for this motion. First, there's no known force that can make satellites hover over the ground without falling.
>>But of course there is. Einstein just taught you that today, so let's review:
"Let K [the Universe] be a Galilean-Newtonian coordinate system [a system of three dimensions extending to the edge of the Universe] and let K' [the Earth] be a coordinate system rotating uniformly relative to K' [the universe]. Then centrifugal forces would be in effect for masses at rest in the K' coordinate system [Earth], while no such forces would be present for objects at rest in K [the universe]. Already Newton viewed this as proof that the rotation of K' [the Earth] had to be considered as 'absolute', and that K' [the Earth] could not then be treated as the 'resting' frame of K [the universe]. Yet, as E. Mach has shown, this argument is not sound. One not need view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of K' [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 K' [the Earth], whereby K' [the Earth] is treated as being at rest. If Newtonian mechanics disallow such a view, then this could very well be the foundation for the defects of that theory…."
---Albert Einstein, cited in Hans Thirring, "On The Effect of Rotating Distant Masses In Einstein's Theory of Gravitation", Physikalische Zeitschrift 19, 33, 1918
Notice, please, that Einstein has just told you that the centrifugal force on an object in the earth's rest frame (precisely the description of a satellite in geostatic orbit, btw) CANNOT be used as evidence of a rotating earth, but instead could just as correctly be attributed to the inertial effects of distant rotating masses.
Strike One.
***********************************************************
Second, whatever force is acting on these satellites should be the same for all three, and should therefore cause all three to move (or not move) in the same way. What accounts for their radically different motion?
Consider: In order to make a satellite actually move in a figure-eight, like Marisat 3, you'd have to have a force that's constantly changing the direction from which it pulls the satellite.
>>Nope. As the satellite which is launched off-equator departs from the equatorial neutral zone, it is perturbed by the effects of the rotating universe, and is hence brought back across the equator once each twenty four hour period (the period of rotation of the distant masses).
If you imagine the satellite floating in space and being pulled along behind a huge magnet that was tracing out a figure-eight you'll see what I'm talking about.
>>Or, if you imagine a satellite moving across a neutral zone of inertial force and being brought back across that zone by inertial forces each twenty four hours, you will see what I mean…..
***********************
There has to be some actual force that exerts a constantly shifting pull on the satellite (while, of course, also suspending it above the earth) in order to make it move like that.
But Inmarsat 3-F2, which is exposed to exactly the same forces that Marisat 3 is exposed to doesn't move at all.
>>That's because Immarsat stays in the equatorial neutral zone, Marisat doesn't, so Marisat is exposed to inertial forces which Inmarsat isn't.
************************
And of course, a completely different set of forces would be required to move Brasilsat 1 in the path it's following.
>>Not at all. The same inertial forces effect both satellites once they move out of the equatorial zone.
Obviously, this is not possible
Tell Gary Hoge that I said hello ; )
Originally posted by Transfinitum
[B
>>Nice try, but no cigar. My compliments to you for using arguments from Catholic websites. You know what they say about the advantages of a Catholic education!Tell Gary Hoge that I said hello ; ) [/B]
Ctrl-V is the best thing to use when you have more important matters to attend to irl 😉. Still, the fact of the matter is that heliocentrism is the better choice for explaining solar system-mechanics, especially concerning the act of space travel within the solar system. Remember, in scientific study parsimony is preference, and this was a principle that even Ptolemy acknowledged.
Upon further googling, it appears that this geocentric theory that you claim is related to Tycho's is called geocentricty.
Moar copypasta: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/2/part14.html
Originally posted by AngryManatee
Upon further googling, it appears that this geocentric theory that you claim is related to Tycho's is called geocentricty.Moar copypasta: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/2/part14.html