Transfinitum
Angelus Domine Nuntiavit
Originally posted by AngryManatee
But see the problem with that is that based on the heliocentric model, the earth has an axial tilt, which means that the motion in which it rotates is not lined up with the path which it rotates around the sun, which explains the lengthening of days and the change of seasons, but it brings into question the idea of other celestial bodies having influence on our bulging shape.
>>Again. Basic Relativity. Thirring's paper- which is one of the most famous in the history of Relativity, btw- shows that the same physical forces arise, whether an object is:
1. At the barycenter of a rotating universe, OR
2. Rotating on its own axis while orbiting another, more massive body, in a non-rotating, acentric universe, OR
3. Rotating on its own axis, while orbiting another, more massive body which is itself at the barycenter of a rotating universe.
So it is important to reiterate, that each and every objection you are raising here, based on the idea that one reference frame or the other "has to be" the "right" one, from the standpoint of Relativistic physics, involves the implicit assumption that Relativity is not only wrong, but that it is obviously, screamingly, massively wrong- that is, something as obvious as whether the moon experiences an axial centrifugal force could determine whether one or another reference frame is "right", while another is "wrong".
I am sure you can appreciate that if Relativity were that easily disproven, it would never have lasted fifteen minutes, much less one hundred years.
Originally posted by AngryManatee
Considering the moon has the most noticeable gravitational influence over our planet
(tides and whatnot), it would be logical to say that it would be the most responsible for the formation of any bulges. Only one problem, the moon is slightly off earth's ecliptical orbit, and it does not orbit around our celestial equator.
>>This is why the axial centrifugal force is not derived from the gravitational influence of the moon on the earth, but rather from:
1. The rotational velocity of the Earth (greater at the equator) in the heliocentric model), OR
2. The greater concentration of the universal rotating mass toward the Earth's equator, relative to its poles (geocentric model).
Notice that in BOTH models, it is the "distant masses" of the Universe, and NOT the gravitational influence of the moon, which is responsible for the axial centrifugal (as well as the Coriolis and Euler) forces.
Originally posted by AngryManatee
So my next question, why would the earth form an equatorial bulge along its own celestial equator, as opposed to the path(s) in which the planets/sun/ moon orbit around it?
>>The answer is as above, to repeat: The axial centrifugal (as well as the Coriolis and Euler) forces arise, in the geocentric model, not as a specific consequence of gravitational influence of Solar System objects, but instead as a consequence of the masses of a rotating Universe, more concentrated toward the Earth's equator than its poles, attracting the relatively greater mass of the Earth's equator, as opposed to any point nearer the poles.
The axial centrifugal (as well as Coriolis and Euler) forces arise, in the heliocentric model, not as a specific consequence of gravitational influences of Solar System objects, but instead as a consequence of greater rotational velocity at the Earth's equator resulting in an increase of mass, which in turn is "attracted" by the "distant masses" treated as "gravitational potentials" in Einstein's equations.
I leave aside for the moment a detailed treatment of the difficulties involved in asserting that a steady rotational velocity equates to an "acceleration" -we have covered that extensively in the debate with Sleepy about Newton's bucket. Suffice it to say that the geocentrist is not required to derive the axial, centrifugal, and Coriolis forces as mere "fictional" forces, arising from a treatment of deviation from straight-line (relative to what?) motion as "acceleration", even if it is of uniform velocity. I wish I could get you to see how important this is- we have built a physics that has tremendous difficulties explaining forces arising in rotating reference frames- and the geocentrist points out that this is because we have proceeded from the ASSUMPTION that any motion which departs from a straight line (again- RELATIVE TO WHAT???) will be treated as if it were an "acceleration", even if it is uniform.
Why?
Because it doesn't work mathematically otherwise 🙂
In the geocentric model these forces have a physical, logical cause: the distant rotating masses. No "fictional" notions of "acceleration" being used to treat even uniform non-linear motion (sorry, but again I ask- non-linear with reference to what ????) as an "acceleration" to get the maths to work out right.
I very much appreciate the excellent questions you are asking, but I would ask you to spend a moment considering the observation I have made above about the consequences of Relativity Theory for ANY argument which is based on the implicit assumption of a "preferred" reference frame for calculating gross physical forces.
Obviously, if relativity were wrong on the level of gross physical forces like these, it would have been easily falsified immediately.
Instead, it was extremely difficult to falsify, and in fact could only be falsified by putting objects into space which could provide us with empirical proof that there DOES exist a "preferred reference frame", one in which the speed of light is constant, while it is NOT constant in other reference frames.
The falsification is being completed now, as we observe deep space structures in our Universe which directly contradict the assumoptions of "Big Bang" Relativity, and as we observe a geocentric orientation in the Cosmic Microwave Background which is the death knell for our Standard Theory cosmology.