A friend of mine provided this quote and pretty much sums up everything regarding geocentrism:
You cant prove geocentrism using Newtonian mechanics (do you really expect an object 333x massive as the earth like the sun to revolve around it?) and the centre of the universe means sh!t in General Relativity (since everyting is "relative", might as well say that the universe revolves around the moon.) hence claiming that the earth is the centre of the universe is useless.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
The Foucault pendulum experiment is a manifestation of the Coriolis force. This same force is responsible for the east-to-west motion in atmospheric winds and weather patterns. The first thing to understand is that the same forces which are responsible for the Foucault pendulum effect have been rigorously derived mathematically from models where a rotating mass acts upon a stationary center (Geocentrism). But let's begin by asking a simple question, If the Earth is truly rotating underneath the Foucault pendulum, then what force is holding the pendulum in the same plane as the Earth rotates beneath it? This is what is called in physics an "unresolved force". For the Geocentric explanation of this force, allow me to quote Albert Einstein (a fellow who is reputed to know a thing or two about these matters...) in his letter of June 25th, 1913 to the physicist Ernst Mach: "(1) If one accelerates a heavy shell of matter "S", then a mass enclosed by that shell experiences an accelerative force. (2) If one rotates the shell relative to the fixed stars about an axis going through its center, a Coriolis force arises in the interior of the shell, that is, the plane of a Foucalt pendulum is dragged around." Needless to say, the Foucault pendulum constitutes no proof whatsoever of a rotating Earth.
the coriolis effect has also been observed on mars as an indentical force as to what it is on earth...surely the both cant be the stationary centre with all mass rotating around it
also your point earlier about read shift...red shift occurs when a light source moves away from the observer...surely if all objects were rotating around a geocentric earth then no red shift would be observed and surely if you compensate for this by saying...for example...that some of these rotating objects may have an eliptical orbit and as such red shift could be observed...then the opposite of red shift would be observed....but isn't in the case of individual objects...only in regards to galaxies which are rotating towards our vantage point...or the andromeda galaxy which is moving towards ours
hence red shift is evidence of an expanding universe away from earth rather than orbiting around it
also i believe the theory of relativity was based on the lorentz transformations which used the now defunct idea of aether being the only true stationary thing in the universe and if the earth was geocentric then it would be the only thing that remained stationary in relation to aether but was disproved
Originally posted by Templares
A friend of mine provided this quote and pretty much sums up everything regarding geocentrism:You cant prove geocentrism using Newtonian mechanics (do you really expect an object 333x massive as the earth like the sun to revolve around it?) and the centre of the universe means sh!t in General Relativity (since everyting is "relative", might as well say that the universe revolves around the moon.) hence claiming that the earth is the centre of the universe is useless.
Basic physics will disclose that no matter how much mass exists, it will rotate around the center of mass (barycenter); and this center of mass will be motionless no matter how much mass is revolving around it. This principle can be observed in everyday life by simply observing the behavior of a gyroscope.This center of mass is not necessarily the most massive object, but the center at which the combined masses "balance out". You have no point here.
Originally posted by jaden101
the coriolis effect has also been observed on mars as an indentical force as to what it is on earth...surely the both cant be the stationary centre with all mass rotating around italso your point earlier about read shift...red shift occurs when a light source moves away from the observer...surely if all objects were rotating around a geocentric earth then no red shift would be observed and surely if you compensate for this by saying...for example...that some of these rotating objects may have an eliptical orbit and as such red shift could be observed...then the opposite of red shift would be observed....but isn't in the case of individual objects...only in regards to galaxies which are rotating towards our vantage point...or the andromeda galaxy which is moving towards ours
hence red shift is evidence of an expanding universe away from earth rather than orbiting around it
also i believe the theory of relativity was based on the lorentz transformations which used the now defunct idea of aether being the only true stationary thing in the universe and if the earth was geocentric then it would be the only thing that remained stationary in relation to aether but was disproved
the coriolis effect has also been observed on mars as an indentical force as to what it is on earth...surely the both cant be the stationary centre with all mass rotating around it
also your point earlier about read shift...red shift occurs when a light source moves away from the observer
also i believe the theory of relativity was based on the lorentz transformations which used the now defunct idea of aether being the only true stationary thing in the universe and if the earth was geocentric then it would be the only thing that remained stationary in relation to aether but was disproved
Originally posted by leonheartmm
[B]Your assertion that the Earth rotates on its axis is just that, an assertion. You have no proof for that and to save youtime I will tell you no experiment has ever proven it. Through centuries, scientists attempted experiments designed to
measure this alleged motion of the Earth. All such experiments failed to detect it. The Theory of Relativity itself was
formulated to explain the failure of any terrestrial experiment to detect either the motion of the earth rotating on its
axis or the expected 30 km per second motion of the earth in its supposed annual orbit around the sun. I invite your
attention to the famous Michelson-Morley interferometer experiments, which directly led to Einstein's theory of
Relativity. As far as your assertion of the universe being "too massive" you are simply wrong. Basic physics will
disclose that no matter how much mass exists, it will rotate around the center of mass (barycenter); and this center of
mass will be motionless no matter how much mass is revolving around it. This principle can be observed in everyday
life by simply observing the behavior of a gyroscope. As for your quite correct observation that the relative velocity of
objects at a certain radius from Earth would exceed the speed of light, you must understand that Einstein's Relativity
establishes "C" (or the speed of light) as a limit only in vacuum; and only in the absence of a gravitational field. It is
quite consistent with General Relativity for objects to appear to move at a velocity greater then "C" when a sufficiently
strong gravitational field is present. Also - and this is crucial - even Big Bang Theory allows stars to greatly exceed
"C" when seen from Earth. This apparent contradiction is explained in Big Bang Theory by recourse to the notion that
"space" itself is somehow "expanding" faster than "C" and carrying the stars along with it. I leave it to you to judge the
plausibility of that explanation. But it is the case that in the Geocentric model it is not the stars, but rather the
electron-positron lattice, which is moving faster than "C" and likewise carrying the stars along with it. Take your
pick, physics can accommodate either model.
oh NO s , meisa has been trumped by a smart creationist. lol. not really. the speed of SPACE EXPANSION is a vague
term, it may be explosion or implosion. the argument doesnt hold because expansion is only really talked about in
TERMS of space. the phenomenon described by me takes place INSIDE space. things have only been THEORISED to
move faster than light in gravity field. however, do consider, thet it may not really happen as any real bending in
space itself wont matter to observers actually INSIDE this very space. also, simply put, if the earth is not rotating than
every galaxy cluster/nebula/quaysar and every other stellar object even billions of light years away is rotating in
their orbit every 24 hours. now do the math, circumference = 2 pi x radius.
2 pi is around 6.2 and radius is say 1 billion light years. so the circumfernce{distance travelled in a day is 6.2 billion
light years. {it wud take light in a vacume 6.2 billion light years to travel this distance. 1 light year is around ten
trillion kilometres i think} and this celestial body travels this distance in only 24 hours. that is mcuh much much
much faster than the speed of light. so reletivity actually proves you wrong here my friend. it is the EARTH rotating
not the entire universe around it . furthermore, if you wanna talk about gravitic field of such high intensities and
distances. than you have to assume{through tthe uniform orbits of all celestial bodies as u say, orbitting the earth}
that the earth is the point cetre of this gravity. yet no such gravitic field is noticed around this region specifically. if
there were, it wud be the single most massive blackhole is existance with an even horizon beyond human
comprehension. furthermore, no such gravitic field which wud indicate the space stretch allowing for such high speed motion is ever detected in the areas of space where these objects are seen. if indeed there were, light wud be sufficiently bended or lensed or red shifted for physycists to notice a considerable anomoly{ofcourse at the speeds we are talking anout, the gravitic field wuld be so strong infact that there wud be near zero probability of photons to escape from it, since it wud lie at almost the edge of the even horizons of super blackholes.
your whole hypothesis from top to bottom is ridiculous here. and its odd for sum perosn who can quote such extensive knowledge of physics to be unable to understand this contradiction. [/B][/QUOTE]
you have not replied to this. also, einstien was WRONG in that specific citation about the ether as he was wrong when he said "god does not play with dice" concerning the theory of quantum mechanics. you shud realise that a lot of time has passed since the days of einstien. reletivity took away the concept of absolute space and absolute time, hence, no ether. the idea of ether, as traditionally percieved has been debunked at the basic level.
on more point i forgot to add in the above quoted reply was the fact that to exactly compensate for the faster than light velocities, you wud need such precise MOVING points of super gravity placed numerously and exactly in the places mentioned for the stars that physics itself wud disprove such a dynamic combination forever working for all obects in space. it wud be like saying, that god makes everything happen in the world but when infact you try to observe what is happening, he immedietly changes the arrangement of things as to make it look like physical forces were resoinsible for it and then changes it back when you rent looking.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
If you accept Relativity, you cannot claim Heliocentrism. Perhaps this fact has not sunk in yet among some. I encourage you to read my first sentence ten times very slowly until it does. I, on the other hand am defending Geocentrism. Since the defenders of Heliocentrism here accept relativity; they suffer from a terrible, apparently unrecognized logical contradiction in their world view. I suffer from no such contradiction, since I claim that there is both a "preferred reference frame" and a center of the universe, and that both of those are exactly the same thing, Earth. Every single argument advanced so far to prove the motion of the Earth has been thoroughly demonstrated not to do so. On your point of Newtonian mechanics, you mention mass; let me point out that the less massive heavenly body will not always revolve around the most massive one, This center of mass is not necessarily the most massive object, but the center at which the combined masses "balance out". You have no point here.
But i do have a point.
The sun is vastly more massive than every other body in the solar system, and so its centre is nearly at the centre of mass of the solar system and nearly stationary with respect to it, but not quite. Jupiter and the other planets makes it wobble a little in its place. So heliocentrism, within the context of the solar system, can be seen as a close approximation to the Newtonian case.
Science pick the sun as their "preferred reference frame" within the solar system and as the center of the solar system (not the universe) because of the law of gravity, not because of some arbitrary whim. Its more believable than some cockammie theory from an outdated 2000 year old book saying that the earth remains stationary and everything else revolves around it . . . . for no reason, other than some unexplained supernatural power.
Hell even your fellow crackpot creationist thinks that geocentrism is bad.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/geocentrism.asp
"While the intentions of the geocentrists are good, they offer a very easy target of criticism for our critics. We should establish some distance between the mainstream creation movement and the geocentrists."
Please post your citation for the Coriolis force having been observed on Mars. I am particularly interested in the precise values observed and how they were obtained. Also be sure to include observed measurements and values for the centrifugal and axial centrifugal forces. I look forward to your citation; it should be quite interesting.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2002/pdf/1728.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2004JE002250.shtml
you also state yourself that the coriolis effect is observed "if a body is rotating" and mars rotates roughly the same speed as the earth...40 minutes more if i remember
Originally posted by leonheartmm
oh NO s , meisa has been trumped by a smart creationist. lol. not really. the speed of SPACE EXPANSION is a vagueterm, it may be explosion or implosion. the argument doesnt hold because expansion is only really talked about in
TERMS of space. the phenomenon described by me takes place INSIDE space. things have only been THEORISED to
move faster than light in gravity field. however, do consider, thet it may not really happen as any real bending in
space itself wont matter to observers actually INSIDE this very space. also, simply put, if the earth is not rotating than
every galaxy cluster/nebula/quaysar and every other stellar object even billions of light years away is rotating in
their orbit every 24 hours. now do the math, circumference = 2 pi x radius.
2 pi is around 6.2 and radius is say 1 billion light years. so the circumfernce{distance travelled in a day is 6.2 billion
light years. {it wud take light in a vacume 6.2 billion light years to travel this distance. 1 light year is around ten
trillion kilometres i think} and this celestial body travels this distance in only 24 hours. that is mcuh much much
much faster than the speed of light. so reletivity actually proves you wrong here my friend. it is the EARTH rotating
not the entire universe around it . furthermore, if you wanna talk about gravitic field of such high intensities and
distances. than you have to assume{through tthe uniform orbits of all celestial bodies as u say, orbitting the earth}
that the earth is the point cetre of this gravity. yet no such gravitic field is noticed around this region specifically. if
there were, it wud be the single most massive blackhole is existance with an even horizon beyond human
comprehension. furthermore, no such gravitic field which wud indicate the space stretch allowing for such high speed motion is ever detected in the areas of space where these objects are seen. if indeed there were, light wud be sufficiently bended or lensed or red shifted for physycists to notice a considerable anomoly{ofcourse at the speeds we are talking anout, the gravitic field wuld be so strong infact that there wud be near zero probability of photons to escape from it, since it wud lie at almost the edge of the even horizons of super blackholes.
your whole hypothesis from top to bottom is ridiculous here. and its odd for sum perosn who can quote such extensive knowledge of physics to be unable to understand this contradiction.
I am sorry that I have not been able to respond to you yet. I am very busy and am the only person defending Geocentrism on this thread. I will try to get you a response in a timely manner. Until then, thanks for waiting.
Originally posted by Templares
But i do have a point.The sun is vastly more massive than every other body in the solar system, and so its centre is nearly at the centre of mass of the solar system and nearly stationary with respect to it, but not quite. Jupiter and the other planets makes it wobble a little in its place. So heliocentrism, within the context of the solar system, can be seen as a close approximation to the Newtonian case.
Science pick the sun as their "preferred reference frame" within the solar system and as the center of the solar system (not the universe) because of the law of gravity, not because of some arbitrary whim. Its more believable than some cockammie theory from an outdated 2000 year old book saying that the earth remains stationary and everything else revolves around it . . . . for no reason, other than some unexplained supernatural power.
Hell even your fellow crackpot creationist thinks that geocentrism is bad.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/geocentrism.asp"While the intentions of the geocentrists are good, they offer a very easy target of criticism for our critics. We should establish some distance between the mainstream creation movement and the geocentrists."
geocentrism doesnt really exist anymore except in the history books. transfinitism seems to be the only one in the world who thinks this way 🙁
Originally posted by Transfinitum
I am sorry that I have not been able to respond to you yet. I am very busy and am the only person defending Geocentrism on this thread. I will try to get you a response in a timely manner. Until then, thanks for waiting.
Do you also believe the world is flat and sitting on a large tortuous?