Relativity is wrong...

Just to be sure.I demand to know which forum rule says that a person is supposed to produce the calculations, on his own, from a specific paper, that he linked to, and explained what it does.Basicly it is saying that I am supposed to re-do the experiment that scientists have done.Where does it say that? Where?

Since SO doesn't want to do math, I did some.Distance from the Earth to the Sun: 149,598,000,000 metersThis makes the Sun's presumed orbit around the Earth have a circumference of 9.3995e11 meters.This means that, given a 24 hour day, the Sun is moving at 10,879,073.56 meters/second.That's 3.6% of the speed of light, btw.The mass of the Sun is 1.99e30 kgCentripetal force = m*v^2/rThe force that the Earth would need to exert on the Sun to keep it bound given that mass and speed would be 1.57e33 Newtons.The Earth and Sun only exert 3.98e13 Newtons of gravitational force on each other.That's twenty orders of magnitude. Where does this extra force come from?If the Earth is indeed the center, and the Sun came flying by at a distance of 1AU at a speed of 3.6% c, would the Sun orbit the Earth? Or would the Earth be torn from it's stationary position like a golf ball tied to a rapidly moving bowling ball?What anchors the Earth is its position as the "center?" Is there an anti-Sun that exerts an equal but opposite force on the Earth while orbiting on the exact opposite side of the Sun, while remaining completely invisible and not gravitationally affecting any other body in the solar system?SO claims that the "forces balance out." What forces? How do they balance? Oh wait...you don't have any numbers and you won't do math, so you can't actually show that the "forces balance out." We have to take your word for it.Not that any of this really matters. It took me more time to type this than to do the research and math, so no big deal. Dr. Adequate and others have already annihilated SO's position so thoroughly that I just wanted to rub it in with some more large numbers.

So you don't know what factors are relevant to the force exerted on a body inside a rotating shell by a rotating shell? The speed of rotation of the shell? The mass of the body inside? For example. Have you read the paper you cite? I am not asking you to. I am asking for an equation that describes the force on a body inside a rotating shell. Why is that so hard? Have you even read the paper you are citing? Or have you decided that the Earth must be at the centre of the universe and then grasped around for anything that you think can support that position?One equation: F=.........?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi Smooth Operator,I'm sorry things are turning out the way they are, but we try to hold everyone equally accountable to the Forum Guidelines. The goal is to have discussions with more light than heat, more information than bickering. Either you'll figure out how to comport yourself in a manner consistent with the Forum Guidelines, or you won't.If other participants feel I'm being unduly harsh they can appeal your suspension and treatment over at the Report discussion problems here: No.2 thread. Otherwise, see you in a week.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

So the Sun is not only spiraling back and forth increasing and decreasing its distance to the Earth to cause the seasons as you quoted earlier: and But its entire orbit is tilted as well.And to top it off to create the Midnight Sun/Polar Night affect the Sun would actually have to be spiraling far above and below the Earth's axis.Is it that every time a new method of determining the Earth to be moving i.e. Doppler affect, parallax, etc. you and your geocentrically deranged brethren have to invent an elaborate scheme to fit this observational method into your already labyrinthine geocentric model?So exactly how many layers of complexity are you going to add onto this already contrived, convoluted model?On this I have to difer to Rahvin's eloquent and beautiful written passage about geocentricity's head-on collision with Occam's razor and the principle of parsimony: It seems you are hell bent on shoe-horning 1% of observational evidence to fit your ridiculously complex model of the universe and rejecting the 99% of evidence that uncategorically disproves this model. You are treating this reference frame as if it is a tangible object. It is not. A "frame of reference" is just terminology used to mean what is being considered in the context of position, orientation and motion in the dimension of spacetime. In this context the spacecraft can see the motion of the Earth as it travels around the Sun based upon its moving position to the background of the Sun, planets and stars. This in conjunction with the other methods of determining the Earth's motion is enough to conclude that the Earth is moving and is not the center of the Universe. I have no clue what you are talking about and it seems you don't as well. Again a frame of reference is not a tangible object. You can't treat it as such. There is no "outside the frame of reference" unless you are talking about outside spacetime itself. You can refer to a "limited frame of reference" if you mean that you are only considering the position, motion, orientation of objects within a specific area i.e. the Solar System and disregarding everything else. I am not sure if this is what you are talking about. We are talking about what is the center of the Solar System. Not what is the center of the galaxy or the Universe, neither of which is the sun? If we are just referring to the Solar System; than the Sun is pretty close to the center of the Solar System. Near enough where the center of mass/gravity for the entire Solar System never strays further than the inner atmosphere of the Sun just outside of its photosphere. The center of mass for the Solar System doesn't shift (unless we are taking into consideration all the outside forces on it, than it more accurately revolves around the center of the galaxy). Rather the center of mass of the Sun wobbles around this center of mass of the Solar System as the various planets tug on the Sun. The Sun is close enough to the Solar System's center of mass to call the Sun the center of the Solar System when speaking in general terms. In an elementary school class this is how the Solar System is described due to the complexity of the subject of center of mass/gravity but as one progresses in knowledge more granularity in astronomy and astrophysics reveals the intricacies of orbital physics and the evidence that even the Sun itself wobbles around a center of mass not necessarily at the very center of the Sun itself. Either way all the planets revolve around the Sun.All your nitpicking over the "center" issue here is doing nothing to bolster your case for geocentricity.I think the term being a "pseudo-pedantic ass" that lyx2no uses in another thread describes you well here. And you call me simplistic. I think the Solar System is a bit more complex than that. You have asteroids, comets, meteors, debris, the Oort cloud, Kipper Belt, and so on. However in simplistic terms I agree. [Banging head into wall] Is it me or are you just a revolving door regurgitating the same concepts that other people including myself have brought up and already resolved?In fact this is something I originally mentioned when you first brought up the "center of the solar system" issue here Message 178: Spectrum analysis and other research on stars reveal that the Sun and other stars consist of much of the same elements and operate the same way.What do you think these stars are? Is God poking holes in his universe model and the light from his desk lamp shining through these pin pricked holes? So are you saying that the tens of millions of visible stars are each independently moving in different directions caused by this "universe wobble"? So what is causing this wobble? How does this jive with your shell of stars model? You already said that stellar abberation was cause by the shell of stars wobbling. However, parralax is an apparent shifting of nearby stars independent of stellar aberration caused by shifting a shifting frame of referrance. This is totally independent and a different movement of stars than stellar abberation. Additionally perceivable parallax is only apparent in relatively nearby stars not distant ones while stellar aberration occurs in the light from all celestial objects. Again you have been found lacking in your explanations. We can determine red-shifting and blue-shifting of stars as the Earth revolves around the Sun. So in your model not only are all the stars rotating in circles around fixed points in space (stellar aberration), shifting back and forth laterally (parallax) but they are all moving closer and further to Earth. How are the stars, planets, Sun, meteors, comets, etc all independently moving yet rotating around at the same time? How the hell is that supposed to work? What is holding these objects in place yet allowing them to move at the same time? Nearby objects are zipping by at speeds over 1/4 the speed of light and other objects are zipping at speeds at multiples of the speed of light. Newtonian physics is in utter shambles in your geocentric model. Your model collapses under the weight of its own unnecessary complexity and contradictory forces, motions, etc.I am at a loss of words, however, Isaac Asimov's quote on pseudoscience adequately reflects my sentiments here: Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : Correct spelling & grammerEdited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

"In the beginning, the Universe was created.

​

This has made a lot of people mad and been widely regarded as a bad idea." Douglas Adams

Hi Smooth Operator,You sound honestly surprised that there is a problem with your participation here, so let me very briefly provide some explanation that might help you understand my position a little bit better.My standard for judging whether someone is discussing constructively is if they explain their position sufficiently well that I could explain it to someone else. Your problem is primarily that you explain very little. Here are a few examples from your Message 1: And that's just Message 1.What you need to do is provide enough elaboration for your point to be understood. The way you're conducting yourself more resembles evasion than constructive discussion.You probably disagree with my characterization, but there's nothing I can do about that. What's important is that permanent suspension will be the result unless you're able to conform to the Forum Guidelines and constructively participate in discussions.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

your last quote is from?

LOL. Sorry I screwed that up. Last quote is from Isaac Asimov, one of my favorite sci-fi authors and beloved atheist scientist.

---

"In the beginning, the Universe was created.

​

This has made a lot of people mad and been widely regarded as a bad idea." Douglas Adams

I've revised my post completely, after more thought on the matter.

I don't think equations will help the matter.Note that I've changed my previous response considerably after some further thought on the matter. See Message 333 or Message 366 for the changes. Yes, and my revised thinking shows that a midnight sun is possible with such a transformation -- it's just that there is no explanation for the necessary forces, without inventing new and more bizarre ad hoc counters.So, yes, you are right about it being a mathematical possibility - this still is not proof that it is true.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : links

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi cavediver, I've had some further thoughts on this problem. This is explained by the oscillation of the sun up and down during the year, while at the same time orbiting the earth daily. See Message 333. There are two different motions involved.Google Sites: Sign-in

quote:

---

The sun's path, fixed or "set" within the rotating firmament, spiral-orbits the Earth north-south and clockwise from the Tropic of Cancer to the Tropic of Capricorn in six months and then alters course laterally to spiral-orbit south-north and continues clockwise for the next six months. Seasons result from the yearly helical oscillation of the sun's path around the untilted stationary Earth.

​

​

​

Yearly spiral pathway of the sun as it orbitally revolves around the STATIONARY Earth daily.

---

Notice that on the summer solstice (~June 22) the sun is always ~23.44° above the equator, while on the winter solestice (~December 22) the sun remains ~23.44° below the equator, which also explains the seasons.They also have an explanation for the analemma.This is, of course, a purely mathematical hypothetical model, it does not provide a model of the forces involved (ie what causes the unique oscillation of the sun up and down), and thus it cannot predict forces between objects nor paths of travel for things like satellites as a result, especially geosynchronous satellites.This still does not explain the oblate spheroid shape of the earth, and now we have another tidbit of curiosity to add to the mix: how does this explain geostationary orbits:Below is the image at: The Celestia Motherlode: Satellites What holds them in place?Geostationary orbit - Wikipedia

quote:

---

A geostationary orbit (or Geostationary Earth Orbit - GEO) is a geosynchronous orbit directly above the Earth's equator (0 latitude), with a period equal to the Earth's rotational period and an orbital eccentricity of approximately zero. From locations on the surface of the Earth, geostationary objects appear motionless in the sky, making the GEO an orbit of great interest to operators of communications and weather satellites. Due to the constant 0 latitude and circularity of geostationary orbits, satellites in GEO differ in location by longitude only.

​

Geostationary orbits are useful because they cause a satellite to appear stationary with respect to a fixed point on the rotating Earth. As a result, an antenna can point in a fixed direction and maintain a link with the satellite. The satellite orbits in the direction of the Earth's rotation, at an altitude of 35,786 km (22,236 mi) above ground. This altitude is significant because it produces an orbital period equal to the Earth's period of rotation, known as the sidereal day.

---

And why is it easier to launch a satellite to the east than to the west? The escape velocity should be the same regardless eh?Enjoy.Note: how to tell when you are dealing with a nut -- in the middle of discussing something in a seemingly sane manner, a totally irrelevant conspiracy theory is introduced:

quote:

---

JFK Murder Solved - watch killer fire then ditch weapon.

---

LOL.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

so...is this SO joker really really serious when he says that the sun moves around the Earth?Despite the fact that we have cameras up there now, in space, orbiting and landing on other planets, and even gazing at the sun itself?Is he aware that - and I really don't know the actual math either way but the point is many, many people do - NASA, ESA and so many other organizations have used real math, with real calculations on them, based in the theories of universal gravitation and a heliocentric universe to put actual physical objects not only up into space, but to land them on mars, fly them around the solar system (yes, solar, not geo-system or whatever abberation it would be called), fly past the other planets, inspect the sun itself?He is obviously calling every single geosynchronous satellite a lie, every picture from every other world, worldlet, moon, moonlet, asteroid or star a lie, every single calculation done by every single employee who has calculated how to send objects hurtling through the void based on a system he says can't be real?I mean - if he can get his head far enough into a dark enough place to do that, mere facts will never dislodge a braincell.How does he refute the mountain of proof?

Part of the problem is that you still can model the Universe while choosing the Earth as its arbitrary immobile center. It is compeltely possible to do so, just as it is possible (as I alluded in my sarcastic reply earlier) to model the Universe with you, personally, as an arbitrary immobile center. When you walk, you are stationary, and the Earth moves beneath you, etc.This causes untold issues with parsimony, but it's not actually falsifiable. Innumerable additional forces and factors would need to be introduced to actually explain the bizarre motions of planets and stars in such a model, or to explain why you are the immobile center of the Universe and I am not given that we are functionally identical so far as astronomy and physics are concerned.SO's issue is that he simply doesn't care about parsimony. he doesn't care that his hypothesis means that gravity doesn;t work the way we think it does, that it has bizarre exceptions. He doesn't care that the Sun would have to be moving at a significant fraction of c to orbit the Earth every 24 hours given its known distance from the Earth, or how much force would be needed to keep such a fast-moving Sun anchored to the Earth rather than simply throwing the Earth like a satellite in a gravity-assisted slingshot. His response is little more than "the aether did it" or "the stars aren't actually stars, they're suspended inside of a shell I have no evidence for that rotates in a bizarre fashion around the Earth for reasons I cannot explain using mechanisms I cannot describe, and you can't say I'm wrong because you weren't there.I maintain the position that DevilsAdvocate liked so much earlier: So far the commonly accepted models of the Universe, including relativity, have proven to be far more parsimonious than SO's fantasies while also remaining extremely accurate.

Only a brief comment since I'm moderating.When you think about it, it's incredible that we can model the universe with any arbitrary object as its stationary center. What to me is incredible about SO's position is his selection of the Earth as the center on the one hand while disclaiming any religious motivation on the other. Why the Earth if it hasn't the special significance of creation by God as the home of his most beloved creation, us?--Percy

I started a whole thread to explore that topic.SO has been reluctant to discuss his true motivations.Perhaps he will return and enlighten us, but when he claims its the science that convinced him, I begin to wonder to what fringes he had to go to find "science" that supported that position, while the masses of overwhelming mountains of humongous data supporting the opposite position are so conveniently ignored.There has to be a reason for one to adopt and foster such a fringe position--and its not an adherence to mainstream science!

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.