Relativity is wrong...

quote:

---

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

---

Because they used the wrong assumption. They are already starting witht he assumption that the Earth is moving. And than they interpret all the observations in the view of a moving Earth.

quote:

---

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.

---

What we actually see, is that all objects are going in a circle. Where is the center, we don't know. But it seems that the center is the Earth.

quote:

---

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

---

Do you see stars and other planets going in a straight line? No, no you don't. You see them going in a circle. Do you not see the Sun going around the Earth? Does in not orbit us once every day? Do you not see that? Yes, you do. You do not see the Sun just moving anywhere. We see the Sun circling the Earth every single day.The same goes for the Moon. Does it not? Or are you saying that it is the Earth that is going around the Moon? Obviously it's the Moon that's going around the Earth. And why would the same not apply to the Sun.

quote:

---

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?

---

Of course it does not mention the shell! That's in the other paper. This one explains how the physics of a Machian universe work. And they work just fine.

quote:

---

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.

---

That's what you say. The Lense-Thirring effect says that we would have the same physics as we have today. Not only that, but we would have explanations for coriolis forces too.

quote:

---

"it... turns out that inertia originates in a kind of interaction between bodies, quite in the sense of your considerations on Newton's pail experiment... If one rotates [a heavy shell of matter] 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 Foucault pendulum is dragged around (with a practically unmeasurably small angular velocity)."

---

This comes from the Mach's principle that Einstein incorporated in his theory of relativity.Mach's principle - Wikipedia

None of this explains how the Earth remains fixed at the centre of the Universe.F=ma=GMm/r^2 - Newtons law of gravitation and Newtons 2nd law combined.Even if the earth starts at the centre of the universe the ever changing directions of the gravitational forces exerted by the bodies (Sun , moon etc. etc.) acting on the Earth as they orbit would cause a force on the Earth which would cause it to move. Even a slight force.Thus it would not stay at the centre. Unless you can explain otherwise?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

quote:

---

None of this explains how the Earth remains fixed at the centre of the Universe.
F=ma=GMm/r^2 - Newtons law of gravitation and Newtons 2nd law combined.

​

Even if the earth starts at the centre of the universe the ever changing directions of the gravitational forces exerted by the bodies (Sun , moon etc. etc.) acting on the Earth as they orbit would cause a force on the Earth which would cause it to move. Even a slight force.

​

Thus it would not stay at the centre. Unless you can explain otherwise?

---

Imagine a very heavy object. A block of steel. Now, if you need exactly 1,000 N of force to move it, and you only use 1 N of force, will you move the object? No, obviously not. All the other orbiting objects in the universe are exerting too little force on Earth to move it anywhere.Now, since you say this can not work, I want you to show me how a relativistic space, and heliocentric universe can. Show me equations that model the universe and show that it won't fall apart.

Who is saying anything about a heliocentric universe? Theonly thing heliocentric is the solar system. The entire milky way galaxy is not the center, The entire galactic cluster, of which the Milky Way & the Andromeda galaxy are part of, is not the center. Where is the center? Unknown. But it definitely is not the earth. The earth is nothing but a miniscule planet revolving around a miniscule star in a average galaxy.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

quote:

---

Who is saying anything about a heliocentric universe? Theonly thing heliocentric is the solar system. The entire milky way galaxy is not the center, The entire galactic cluster, of which the Milky Way & the Andromeda galaxy are part of, is not the center. Where is the center? Unknown. But it definitely is not the earth. The earth is nothing but a miniscule planet revolving around a miniscule star in a average galaxy.

---

Acentric or heliocentric, I don't care what you call it. I want to see how relativity explains why it won't fall apart.And do you have any evidence that Earth is just a miniscule planet revolving around a miniscule star in a average galaxy? You said that the Earth is DEFINITELY not the center. Well, where is you DEFINITE evidence?

So in your model of the universe, you choose to place the earth at the centre and have everything else revolve around it. What, therefore, would you expect to observe if you were to be transported to another planet, in some far flung corner of the universe? How would what you observe differ from what you see when you look out into the skies every night on this planet?

And we see exactly the same phenomena of celestial objects going around in circles on the moon, on Mars, and every other celestial body that rotates.However, we do not see this effect from spacecraft, etc that are not rotating around an axis.Please explain.Oh yes, I already know, the mystical undetectable revolving universal shell which you can provide no evidence of its existance.If you cannot provide evidence for its existence, guess what. It probably doesn't exist. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Evidence is wasted on you.We have provided evidence throughout this entire thread. You just choose to ignore it.Go back and reread all the posts and you will see the evidence.Though to entertain you I will throw out one more piece of evidence that I am not sure if anyone brought up. As an amateur astronomer I thought this would be an interesting one to discuss.The procession of stars through the sky every night. What I mean is that if you observed the stars every night you would see that the same stars do not show up in the same position at the same time every night. You will se a slow procession of stars as time goes by. That is each star rises 4 minutes earlier each night, about 2 hours earlier in a month.If the Earth were the center than that means your entire sphere would be spinning around once every 24 hours around the Earth. The movement I talk about would be independent of the daily rotation of the sphere. How can a sphere of stars rotate around the Earth in 24 hours yet slowly shift through the night sky (and day sky if we could see it) in circuit over the course of 365 days? Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Hi Smooth Operator,I wanted to let you know as early as possible today about your membership status here at EvC Forum. As you recall, you were at risk of permanent suspension. That is no longer the case.I'd like to thank you for placing a greater emphasis on making your positions clear over the past couple days. Anyone can advocate any position they please here at EvC Forum, but only as long as they support their position with evidence and argument. Rhetorical tactics that get in the way of understanding are strongly discouraged here. We instead emphasize clear and succinct explanations and arguments that are supported by evidence.Moderators will continue to provide feedback as they do for everyone in all threads, and with that in mind I would like to comment on this: Hopefully you're not playing rhetorical games with the word "definite." Evidence that the Earth is neither the center of the universe or solar system has been provided throughout this thread. There's no particular specific approach to responding that you have to take, but you do have to respond somehow. You can't just pretend no evidence was presented.Perhaps you believe the evidence is inadequate, and in that case it is incumbent upon you to explain how. Just to pick one post at random, in Message 365 DevilsAdvocate provided evidence, but you never responded. So one possible approach you could take would be to explain how the presented evidence is inadequate. Perhaps it is inconclusive or has been misinterpreted.Another approach would be to take the presented evidence and show how there are stronger interpretations of it that indicate a geocentric universe.Also, it would be helpful if you could see your way clear to abandon the argument that the superficial appearance from the Earth's surface that the sun orbits the Earth is evidence for geocentrism. It sort of takes the argument back to the stone age. That one can be fooled about who is in motion is known to everyone. There's a jarring subway train experience that is probably familiar to most. I can't count the number of times I've been sitting in a New York subway train looking out the window and believing we were beginning to move because the windows of the adjacent train had begun moving by, only to jarringly discover that it was the other train that was moving as it disappears to reveal a stationary platform.I'm simply requesting, not demanding, that you abandon this argument. You do not have to abandon it, but if you continue to use it then please do not pretend you're unaware that a rotating Earth produces the same apparent motion of the sun in the sky. This would be consistent with the clarity and openness necessary for moving a discussion productively forward.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

If you apply a 1N force to a block of steel (or whatever other "heavy" object you have in mind) in space where there are no frictional forces what do you think happens?Why would F=ma apparently not apply in your model? And do you really think the gravitational force between the Earth and the Sun is so insignificant?Your whole model assumes that the earth is somehow resolutely pinned to the centre of the universe. But you provide no means at all of equilibriating all the gravitational forces acting on the earth such that it retains this position. Your silly model fails even on it's own silly terms. It isn't even internally consistent. Even if we conveniently ignore all of the other observational difficulties others have pointed out.It is turtles and duc tape. The only possible explanation.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Wow.Just.Wow.F=ma.

quote:

---

I wanted to let you know as early as possible today about your membership status here at EvC Forum. As you recall, you were at risk of permanent suspension. That is no longer the case.

---

Great, I'm glad we worked this out.Anyway, I just wanted to say that this will be my last post here for about a week or so. I have exams coming up, and I really have to study. When I come back I will give detailed responses to everyone's post.So, I'll see you all in a week. Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.

Good luck with the exams. I'm sure you're ready but a little luck doesn't hurt either.