Relativity is wrong...

...he said that? oh for the love of dog...that's just creationism dressed up as ID in a poor attempt to give it credence. I'm not surprised.the objections that I'd like to hear from him though, although I know the answer he'd give (if any), are about how we've managed to perfectly model the universe to such a degree that we've landed on the moon and mars and titan and venus, slammed things into asteroids, inspected the sun and have successfully sent two probes out of our solar system.How did we manage to do that without a damn good understanding of the mechanics?ie, either somebody has all the answers as to how to correctly interpret things according to his weird and insane ramblings, we're bloody lucky (yeah, right) or things really do work how we think they do.I'd like to see NASA's real calculations since obviously the Earth is at the center of the universe. and probably flat.You're wondering about his answers, still?He'd say all the data's faked. Or he wouldn't answer.

He claims that we haven't *really* observed that stuff as nobody has *really* seen it.He can't support the idea that his beliefs are not derived from religious ones.He's a liar.

quote:

---

Since SO doesn't want to do math, I did some.
Distance from the Earth to the Sun: 149,598,000,000 meters

​

This 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 kg

​

Centripetal force = m*v^2/r

​

The 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?

---

Well this is where you are wrong. The Earth is not exerting this kind of force. It doesn't have to. The outer shell is the one that is supposed to do it.

quote:

---

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 did, and as I already said. Teh Paper doesn't specify the numbers. It only gives out the equations.

quote:

---

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?

---

You could have done this by yourself. But since you didn't here you go:http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/9905/no4.gifAs you can clearly see. In this model the forces are indistinguishable from Newtonian ones. And everything that happens around the same as we see it today. Therefore, this speific Machian model of the universe is the same as the one we observe today.Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.

Where is this shell? How have you detected its presence? Surely you have some corroborating observational evidence that forces you to include it while adhering to parsimony? What is it made of? How does it anchor the Sun, and why does it move in such a bizarre way (moving "up" and "down" relative to a few degrees off of the Earth's axis)?Why does the Sun, whose gravitational force is observationally proven fact, not yank the Earth out of it's stationary resting place like a moving bowling ball tethered to a stationary golf ball?Why are we able to travel beyond the Sun? For example, modeling the Sun's orbit around the Earth, our space probes Voyager 1 and 2 (among others) are at certain points of the year about 15 light-hours distant from the Earth, on the other side of the Sun. If there's a shell, how did those probes get on the other side of it without detecting it? They're about to leave the solar system completely by the way (by 2015 as I recall), with no "shell" in sight.Is your "shell" immaterial and undetectable? How do you know it's there then? Why is your extremely complicated model that introduces a plethora of unexplained mechanisms and new astronomical bodies that are otherwise undetected a better model than the one currently accepted by basically every astronomer on the planet?What reason is there to model the Earth as the center of the Universe, as opposed to me? Or Mars? Or the Sun? Or an arbitrary point a random distance away in a random direction? Is your choice to consider the Earth the center of everything completely arbitrary, or do you have an observation, empirically tested and independently verified reason to consider the Earth the center of the Universe?

Hi Smooth Operator,Over the next few days, let's say until Saturday morning, I'll offer suggestions for how to contribute more constructively to discussion. If at the end of that time I haven't seen any improvement then you'll be permanently suspended.Cocnerning this: You needed to explain how the outer shell keeps the sun in orbit around the Earth.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

quote:

---

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:

​

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.

---

Yes, exactly. Do you have a problem with that? My model explains everything we observe today. There is nothing that it does not explain.

quote:

---

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?

---

Well the problem is that you are the one that thought those experiments somehow had no explanation in a geocentric model. That is your problem. It's your problem you thought that theEarth was moving.

quote:

---

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:

---

My model is simpler than your model. Every movement you asign to the Earth I asign to the rotating cosmos and to the orbiting Sun. It's the same thing. Where my model comses on top is that I haven't got a 15 billion light years large univers, unobserved black holes, unobserved, dark matter or unobserved dark energy, or unobserved curved space, etc...

quote:

---

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.

---

As I said. All observations can be explained from a geocentric position. And you have no evidence that the Earth is moving. All the evidence you have can be interpreted as the movement of the background. Not the Earth itself.

quote:

---

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.

---

No, it isn't. Becasue if you picked a reference frame with Earth as static, well than guess what? You would see the Earth as standing still and have the entire universe rotate. So how do you know you picked the ight reference frame? You don't, becasue if relativity is true, youc an pick any one you want. And thus make anything moving or standing still.

quote:

---

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.

---

I know you have no clue. It's been like this from the start. You simply dont' understand that motions are relative if relativity is true. That means that to say that "Earth is rotating around the Sun", is as true as to say "Sun is rotating around the Earth". The observable motions only depend on a reference frame you pick to observe teh motions.

quote:

---

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.

---

But regardles of what you pick, other objects in space still influence our solar system. Therefore you can't jsut pick few objects that are the closest and construct a model in which all objects orbit the heaviest one. Because you are than discarding all other forces that influence the reality.

quote:

---

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.

---

However you put it, why pick the few object near the Sun? Are other objects in space not influencing the solar system? They are. If they are, than you can't say that solar system with just few planets represents reality.It's like taking into account only the kitchen, and saying all the other rooms in your house do not consume any electricity. You still have to pay the bill, even though you chose to see electricity was spent only in the kitchen.

quote:

---

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.

---

First of all, nobody ever observed the Oort cloud. It's an invention out of nothing.Second, still, all that matter means nothing if we take into account all the other matter in the unverse.

quote:

---

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.

---

Spectrum analasys is meningles since we don't even know what stars are. A radio that gives of sound of a rock falling down, sounds like a rock falling down. A real rock falling down sounds the same. They are wastly different. And we don't even know how is the Sun burning up.

quote:

---

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?

---

I don't know what they are. Nobody does.

quote:

---

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?

---

Yes, that is what I'm claiming. And nobody knows what is causing the wobble. It's like asking what's casuing the universe to function.

quote:

---

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.

---

The stars do not have to be perfectly following the rotating shell. They are rotating, but the shell of stars is not thin. It's quite large. That is why we see near stars, and distant stars. And that is why when looking at them, with respect to near stars, the distant ones have a parralax.

quote:

---

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.

---

No we can't. Red shifting can not be explained as a dopller effect. I already explained that.

quote:

---

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.

---

They are doing the same thing as if you would, and other people in a traing that was going in a circle. You would basicly all be going in a circle, thus rotating, yet, you would be free to walk around in the train coach as well. There are no contradictions.

quote:

---

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?

---

Do you have to have any religious motivations to perform an interferometry experiment? No, obviously not. Well those kind of experiments is what made me change my mind about Earth's position in the universe.

quote:

---

You needed to explain how the outer shell keeps the sun in orbit around the Earth.

---

It's very simple. It's done by the gyroscope effect. Since the shell is rotating it is pushing the Sun towards the center of the shell. But at the same tiem the Sun is also orbiting inside the shell, and it is being pulled to the ends of the shell. Those two opposite forces cancel each other out.Not only that, but since the shell has a wobble, the Sun does too. That is why it goes up and down, like a spiral arounf the Earth. And that explains the seasons.

quote:

---

Where is this shell? How have you detected its presence? Surely you have some corroborating observational evidence that forces you to include it while adhering to parsimony? What is it made of? How does it anchor the Sun, and why does it move in such a bizarre way (moving "up" and "down" relative to a few degrees off of the Earth's axis)?

---

We have evidence of electromagnetic anisotropy coming from space. And it is coming in a way that it would seem that the universe is a 3D sphere that is rotating. And while it is doing so it is twisting on the electromagnetic radiation. Not only that but it looks that we are in teh center of this 3D sphere. Nobody knows what it is made of, it could be anything.Maybe we can help . . . : Page Not Found : Arts, Sciences & Engineering : University of Rochester

quote:

---

Why does the Sun, whose gravitational force is observationally proven fact, not yank the Earth out of it's stationary resting place like a moving bowling ball tethered to a stationary golf ball?

---

Becasue it doesn't have enough force to do so. There is a lot of force exerted on all objects in the universe. The rotation of the shell keeps the Earth in the center.

quote:

---

Why are we able to travel beyond the Sun? For example, modeling the Sun's orbit around the Earth, our space probes Voyager 1 and 2 (among others) are at certain points of the year about 15 light-hours distant from the Earth, on the other side of the Sun. If there's a shell, how did those probes get on the other side of it without detecting it? They're about to leave the solar system completely by the way (by 2015 as I recall), with no "shell" in sight.

---

Why shouldn't we be able to travel beyond the Sun? And when did I say that there is a shell around the Sun? Never. The shell is beyond the stars. It's supposed to be the end of the universe.

quote:

---

Is your "shell" immaterial and undetectable? How do you know it's there then? Why is your extremely complicated model that introduces a plethora of unexplained mechanisms and new astronomical bodies that are otherwise undetected a better model than the one currently accepted by basically every astronomer on the planet?

---

It's not immaterial. We have evidence that something is twisting the polarized light. It could be the rotation of the shell. Nobody knows for sure. And no, my model is vastly simpler than any other. There are no unobserved dark matter, dark energy, black holes etc. in my universe, and it's much smaller.

quote:

---

What reason is there to model the Earth as the center of the Universe, as opposed to me? Or Mars? Or the Sun? Or an arbitrary point a random distance away in a random direction? Is your choice to consider the Earth the center of everything completely arbitrary, or do you have an observation, empirically tested and independently verified reason to consider the Earth the center of the Universe?

---

It's a logical conclusion. From all the interferometric experiments from Michelson-Morley, and Michelson-Gale. It would seem that the Earth is not moving, and that the universe is rotating around it.

Purely out of curiosity, if what we observe is so important to us, and what we observe is every body/mass in the universe moving through space and time, why would we ever imagine, even for the merest fraction of a second, that the planet we inhabit should be any different?

quote:

---

Purely out of curiosity, if what we observe is so important to us, and what we observe is every body/mass in the universe moving through space and time, why would we ever imagine, even for the merest fraction of a second, that the planet we inhabit should be any different?

---

Because if we were at the center of a rotating cosmos, it's a logical conclusion, that we would not be moving anywhere. Actually, what I wanted to say is that this is our starting point. Our starting observation. That we are not moving, and that everything else is moving around us. This starting idea can be wrong, but we need evidence for that first.

If it's as self-evident as you seem to think it is, why have virtually all scientists come to the opposite conclusion?

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Sorry, but that makes no sense at all. We look out into the cosmos and what we observe, without exception, are planets and stars moving through space and time. Our only logical starting point, therefore, is that all planets and stars move through space and time.To propose otherwise suggests a predisposed notion that planet earth ought to be at the centre of the universe rather than any rational analysis of what is observed, hence your opening statement, Because if we were at the center of a rotating cosmos

The paper does not even mention a shell. How can it take account of any forces exerted by a shell without mentioning it? What am I missing here?Newtonian gravity combined with Newtons second law would not have a static Earth at the centre of the universe. Even if it started out in the centre. It would move as the forces of other orbitting bodies acted upon it.Unless it is held in place by an ethereal blue turtle swimming against the aether with the Earth taped to it's back.