Relativity is wrong...

Correct me if I am wrong, but it is possible to do a coordinate transform and add rotations and epicycles to effectively put the earth motionless at the center. It could be done for Mars! Charon! It's all relative as the sly Smooth Operator will say.This transform would, of course, result in horrible equations of motion for use in sending a Huygens probe to land on Titan, possibly bogging down the Arithmetic Unit in the computations to a point of uselessness, especially if there is a correction term needed to be sent to the guidance system.But - It Is Possible. It's just that no one in their right mind would use such a transformed coordinate system for anything but trolling science forums such as this one.I'm sure cavediver, whose credentials are far superior to mine, could produce some tasty multi-volume derivations of the secular advance of the argument of perigee for Titan's orbit around Saturn, relative to Big Ben in England.instead, in the field of Orbital Mechanics, practitioners have found the equations produced by the legion of scientists before far more convenient than such a rotating coordinate system, let alone one that results in a universe pulsating with myriads of little epicycles about the earth.however, lest Smooth Operator be emboldened by discovery of text to the contrary, for certain kinds of satellite measurements made by earth-based detectors, an earth-centered rotating (ECR) coordinate system is often used to record the observations in rawest form. These observations are then collected and all converted into a common form. Suffice it to say that the ECR coordinates are never used for objects not in orbit around the earth, such as Titan.Smooth Operator hits cavediver and the rest of us with this: Unbelievable indeed. This is not a debate that Smooth Operator is engaged in - this is a troll.(In fact, during the Northern hemisphere's winter the distance to the Sun is smaller than it is during the Northern Hemisphere's summer. But this is not a detail SO would want to use.)

---

- xongsmith

No it isn't.Is this how you debate, gainsaying?Your model has large objects travelling in orbit 365 times faster than heliocentrism. Your model requires the weak gravitational influence of the earth to be able to keep an object in orbit at 91 million miles away which is travelling at phenomenal speeds.This is not basically the same. It is very different. The speed alone is different by two orders of magnitude - factor in that in heliocentrism the the acceleration due to gravity on the surface of the sun is an order of magnitude greater than the earth's and it quickly becomes clear that they are far from even remotely similar. You obviously have no actual answer to this trivial point. It's the kind of physics 16-18 year olds are asked to do so I don't see why you demur with handwaiving unless you know that you have to abandon basic physics to make the model work.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Negative, the Earth rotating on it's axis gives rise to day and night. Not summer and winter.

---

Or, maybe it's the Sun that is moving around the Earth once every 24 hours?

quote:

---

Which would mean the seasons are entirely dependant on the distance from the sun. However since the two hemispheres expierence winter and summer seperate from each other, we know this can not be the case. Instead the seasons are defined by, the tilt of Earth's axis relative to the plane of revolution.

---

No, that's not the case. It's not only the distance, it's the movement on the Sun up and down too.http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/1633/seasons.gif

quote:

---

Your model has large objects travelling in orbit 365 times faster than heliocentrism. Your model requires the weak gravitational influence of the earth to be able to keep an object in orbit at 91 million miles away which is travelling at phenomenal speeds.

---

And who say's that the Sun is as large, or as far away as you think it is? Maybe it is, I don't know, but the rotation of the universe has the most effect on it's position.

quote:

---

This is not basically the same. It is very different. The speed alone is different by two orders of magnitude - considering the inverse square law and it becomes even more dissimilar. You obviously have no actual answer to this trivial point. It's the kind of physics 16-18 year olds are asked to do so I don't see why you demur with handwaiving unless you know that you have to abandon physics to make the model work.

---

No, you are just making it look like it's a big problem. Obviously it's not the same. But it's BASICLY the same, since we are discussing rotations and orbits. It's not like we are discussing apples and oranges. We are talking about the same thing, but our objects are switching their places. That is all. No big deal.What is the problem you are trying to raise anyway? That the heliocentric and geocentric models are not the same? Yes, I know. Now what?Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.

Hey xongsmith, It could be done for the earth's moon, with all the forces of the universe exactly balancing to hang the earth motionless over one special place.What this means is that any one such transformation is no better than any other, and thus there is no proof that one could be correct. Enjoy.

---

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) • • •

and then again, xongsmith, what about tides and the shape of the earth? The tides are due to gravitational pull of sun and moon, each effect marching around the surface of the oceans with the movement of these objects.The oblate spheroid shape of the earth is due to the spin of the earth around it's axis, a shape that is constant except for the minor perturbations of the tides, which are minor by comparison.The average distance from the center of the earth to the sea surface at the equator is always larger than the average distance from the center of the earth to the sea surface at the poles.You need a uniform force in the plane of the equator to pull the earth into the shape it has. The sun cannot do this, the moon cannot do this, the rest of the solar system cannot do this, the relatively uniform distribution of the rest of the universe cannot do this.A spinning earth can do this. Water runs downhill, meaning it seeks equilibrium with gravitation and any other forces. What pulls water uphill at the equator? There is no source of gravitational pull outside the earth to cause this uniform distribution around the globe. Can your transformation solve the oblate spheroid riddle? We can measure the microgravitational flux on the surface of the ocean, and we find that gravity is stronger at the poles than at the equator, so some other force is holding the water at the equator so that it doesn't flow to the poles until surface gravity is equalized.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : microgravitational flumox

---

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) • • •

You said that you were happy to accept that the sun is 91 million miles away. I was pointing out that saying this causes significant problems to your model. By all means give me the actual figures your model proposes. You have figured that much out, right? No. We aren't just talking about the same thing but switching places. That wouldn't work either but what you are proposing is much more dramatic than that.I say the earth rotates the sun every 365.25 days.
You say the sun rotates around the earth once per day.If the sun is 91 million miles, you are proposing it covers the same distance the earth covers 365 times as quickly. This changes things significantly. They are as completely different scenarios as we can get in orbital physics without invoking relativity.So here are some basic facts that you presumably agree with:1. The acceleration due to gravity on the earth's surface is approximately 10ms^-22. The force exerted by gravity diminishes by distance following an inverse square law.So - if the sun is 91 million miles away, the attraction it has pulling it to the earth as a result of gravity is unmeasurably small - right?So what is causing the sun to accelerate towards the earth at such a rate to maintain its very high speed orbit?If you still don't get it, allow me to discuss it heliocentrically.In heliocentrism, it is proposed that the earth orbits the sun at a speed of 30kms^-1 and in so doing manages to orbit the sun at a distance of 91 millions miles (approx) once every 365.25 days.If we were to speed the earth up so that it completed that same orbit in a single day, it would have to be going about 365.25 faster or about 11,000kms^-1. I think doing the maths will support the conclusion that the earth would be catapulted out of the solar system.Now, what is stopping the sun, which if you accept the 91 million miles figure is travelling at 11,000kms^-1 from catapulting out of the solar system in your model?

Hi cavediver (can I borrow your helmet to knock my head against the wall?) Up where there are men who moil for gold?Combine your midnight sun with the water on the surface of the earth forming an oblate spheroid and you have(1) a mysterious force that pulls the water away from the center of the earth at the equator in comparison to the poles, a force that is always in the plane of the ecliptic, and(2) a mysterious force that lifts the sun entirely up from this plane, but somehow doesn't move a drop of water.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : better

---

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) • • •

quote:

---

You said that you were happy to accept that the sun is 91 million miles away. I was pointing out that saying this causes significant problems to your model. By all means give me the actual figures your model proposes. You have figured that much out, right?

---

No, I'm not happy, but we have no other numbers so yes, I'll accept 91 million miles for now, untill better number come around. And why do you keep calling this a problem for my model? Yes, the speed is obviously different, but that's it.

quote:

---

1. The acceleration due to gravity on the earth's surface is approximately 10ms-2

​

2. The force exerted by gravity diminishes by distance following an inverse square law.

​

So - if the sun is 91 million miles away, the attraction it has pulling it to the earth as a result of gravity is unmeasurably small - right?

---

Yes, let's agree on that for now.

quote:

---

So what is causing the sun to accelerate towards the earth at such a rate to maintain its very high speed orbit?

---

The rotation of the universe.

quote:

---

If we were to speed the earth up so that it completed that same orbit in a single day, it would have to be going about 365.25 faster or about 11,000kms-1. I think doing the maths will support the conclusion that the earth would be catapulted out of the solar system.

​

Now, what is stopping the sun, which if you accept the 91 million miles figure is travelling at 11,000kms-1 from catapulting out of the solar system in your model?

---

The force that is exerted from the rotation of the universe. The outer shell of the universe is rotating and it is exerting force on the Sun to not get of it's tracks.

How does the outer shell rotating exert a force on the sun?

quote:

---

How does the outer shell rotating exert a force on the sun?

---

The same as it is exerting force on the pendullum. The speed of rotation is much stronger the more we are away from the center of the Earth. So the influence will be stronger.This is called Mach's Principle. It's been also coopted into general relativity. But the Lens-Thirring experiment has actually modeled the geocentric universe. It shows that a rotating shell of matter will produce forces inside that mimic coriolis and centrifugal forces which can explain why the pendullum swings in such a fashion. So if the Earth was in the center of such a giant rotating shell it would have the same forces as if it was rotating. And of course the shell would exert it's force on other planets including the Sun.

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)."

---

Mach's principle - Wikipedia

Fantastic, so how can you be sure that the force exerted by this rotation in your model is the right size if you don't know how massive the sun is, or its distance? Have you worked through any of the maths?

quote:

---

Fantastic, so how can you be sure that the force exerted by this rotation in your model is the right size if you don't know how massive the sun is, or its distance? Have you worked through any of the maths?

---

No, but others have.http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/1536/models.gifIf you are interested read The Geocentricity Primer.http://www.geocentricity.com/...s/a_geocentricity_primer.pdf

Th first link exlains absolutly nothing. It doesn't have any kind of reference to any work done, no math, nothing.The second link is religious, proving once again that your argument has a religous basis for it. It is not science, it is psuedo-science garbage. The author is fucking anonymous.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Th first link exlains absolutly nothing. It doesn't have any kind of reference to any work done, no math, nothing.

---

No, it gives references. The full references are in the second link. The first one is just a screen capture from the book in the second link.

quote:

---

The second link is religious

---

No, the second link contatins both religious and scientific arguments for geocentrism. And if you are not interested in religious arguments than you should just ignore them. I didn't read them either.

quote:

---

proving once again that your argument has a religous basis for it

---

No, it proves that you do not care what I have to say. You already made up your mind. It also proves that I quoted somebody who has both religious and scientific arguments for geocentrism. But as I stated, you don't have to read them if you are not interested in them. I didn't bother to read them either.

quote:

---

is not science, it is psuedo-science garbage.

---

The religious part is obviously not science. But the scientific part is science. That's obvious.

quote:

---

The author is fucking anonymous.

---

The author is Gerardus Bouw.