Relativity is wrong...

So tell me, what is the mass and diameter of the sun? How far away is it?

Oh. So you accept Newtonian gravity. You accept the concept of inertial mass. But you don't consider the relative masses of different bodies in the "solar" system particularly important with regard to what orbits what. I am beginning to suspect that you may not have thought this through very well. So in your model the Earth is stationary and static with all other bodies in the universe exerting equal but opposite cancelling gravitational forces upon the Earth at the centre point. Is that correct?If one of these bodies (e.g. the Sun) gets a bit closer to the Earth and exerts a slightly greater force how is this precarious equilibrium maintained?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

SO, 'replying' to my repeated questions on parallax: Maybe I'll win the Boston Marathon next year, Smooth.Please propose a mechanism that would make a subset of stars do this little wiggle in your loonyverse with us stationary at the middle. Please be sure to account for the fact that the wiggle takes a year, where your imaginary whirling of the spheres takes a day.Or go away, troll.

RAZD asks: The gravitational field in a rotating universe wont be isotropic. It wont even have a constant G in the equation within the equatorial plane of rotation, as things further away from the center will have compensating terms to cancel out centripetal elongation along the line of sight of an earth bound observer. Even stranger will be the effect on the speed of light. It will also be affected so that distant galaxies, whirling huge distances around us every day are not constrained along the direction of this colossal orbit by such mundane things as a speed limit. (The word "mundane" oddly enough comes from another word for earth in older languages).Then there is the GR matter of frame dragging. This can also be built into the rotating model, to account for that.In other words, we can come up with a horrible transform.
This could be done.But I'm not gonna do it.

---

- xongsmith

Everyone's doing an excellent job (mostly) keeping frustration in check. Just wanted to let everyone know I'm still keeping an eye on things.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

It's coming to me now that Uranus (97.77 degree tilt off orbit axis) will be hard to wave away with the anisotropic gravitational field causing the earth's oblateness. Uranus also is oblate about it's axis as it would be spinning on it's own, no matter where it is relative to the Earth-Centered Rotating frame of reference. But there is also no observable oblateness along the earth's axis due the anisotropic gravity that would be needed squash the earth. I suppose Smooth Operator could argue that the anisotropy is related to the strong force and likewise quickly diminishes with distance.This just adds more unimaginably intractable complications to the transform needed. So I'm even *less* willing to do it now.

---

- xongsmith

quote:

---

Where does the Theory of Evolution say anything about abiogenisis?

---

It doesn't, but 99% of evolutionists accept abiogenesis, and that's how they argue for it. So my point still stands. But we are going off topic with this one...

quote:

---

No the writings of the people he mentions say nothing about the probability. As a matter of fact I do not think any of them were Geocentrists.

---

You don't? Hmm... would that maybe have anything to do with the fact that they aren't? And the fact that Bouw mentioned that? And the fact that I said it already? And the fact that I made a screen capture of the portion of the book that says it? And the fact that I gave you the number in the book to read it? And the fact that you didn't bother to read it, because if you did, than you would not ask for evidence of them being geocentrists, when I already said they were not.

quote:

---

I would love to hear some evidence that they were. Please show where any of these people advocated for a geocentric view of the world. Also, it would be nice to know what their standing in the scientific community is. It seems Bouwe has taken there research and modified it to show evidence for his preconceived beliefs.

​

Can you show that these people were advocating geocentrism? Just because Bouwe says it doesnt make it true. I cannot find anything on them where they advocate geocentrism.

---

You are wrong as shown above. They are not geocentrists, but they have shown that geocentric math works. Please be more careful in the future.

quote:

---

Again it does not show that geocentrism is as probable as heliocentrism, it merely shows that geocentrism is possible.

---

Yes, it is possible, as much as heliocentrism. It just depends on right math to model it. The point remains that only one can really be true in the end.

quote:

---

Do you deny the existence of trigonometry, surveying, or two eyes in mammals?

​

Or is it all three?

---

The real question is do YOU deny them!?

quote:

---

Then you need to show how this is possible. Your model does not address any of the problem areas that arise with this scenario.

---

There are no problems. Name me one.

quote:

---

Yet you give no reason why the Sun should move up and down. There should be a reason why the sun, an object that posses 90% of all the mass in the solar system exhibits this property. Yet no other objects in the solar system do the same thing. I've noticed with others you try and claim that the Sun's rotation is dependant on the rotation of the Universe. So I am curious. Just how big do you think the Universe is? Do you accept the standard 13.7 billion light-years?

---

Of course not. Universe is much smaller. I don't know how small, but there is no reason to believe that it's much bigger than our solar system. I would make a wild assumption that it's as twice as big, but that is like I said, a wild assumption. But no, there is no need for a large 15 billion LY big universe either.And why wouldn't the Sun spiral around the Earth, if the Earth can spiral around the Sun, and the Moon can spiral around the Earth?

quote:

---

So tell me, what is the mass and diameter of the sun? How far away is it?

---

I believe I already said I don't know.

quote:

---

Oh. So you accept Newtonian gravity. You accept the concept of inertial mass. But you don't consider the relative masses of different bodies in the "solar" system particularly important with regard to what orbits what. I am beginning to suspect that you may not have thought this through very well.

---

Or maybe I did, but you forgot that teh rotating shell of the universe exerts forces that are stronger than gravity. So the motions of the planets and the Sun have more to do with this rotation, than Earth's gravity.

quote:

---

So in your model the Earth is stationary and static with all other bodies in the universe exerting equal but opposite cancelling gravitational forces upon the Earth at the centre point. Is that correct?

​

If one of these bodies (e.g. the Sun) gets a bit closer to the Earth and exerts a slightly greater force how is this precarious equilibrium maintained?

---

It's not a very strong force. The much stronger force is exerted by the rotation of the cosmos. So the equilibrium is always there since other planets and the Sun exert almost no detectable force relative to Earth.

quote:

---

Please propose a mechanism that would make a subset of stars do this little wiggle in your loonyverse with us stationary at the middle. Please be sure to account for the fact that the wiggle takes a year, where your imaginary whirling of the spheres takes a day.

---

The outer shell does rotate but with a wobble. It takes this wobble to be noticed exactly one year. So the stars can make this pattern in the sky.

You're just making shit up to fit your preconceived notion of a geocentricity rather than doing science and following the evidence where it leads.All you've got is apologetics... and that is for religiously based arguments (like yours).Note: it is based on religion, as in religious belief.

The rotating shell?How does the rotating shell exert a force? How can we detect and measure this force?

Hello SO OK, no force present to describe the motion of a spiraling Sun. The phases of Venus. The paralax of distant stars. Retrograde motion of planets. Observations of other solar systems. Those are just a few. I realise that other posters have already brought these up, however I fail to see anywhere in your posts where you answer any of these problems that are present for a geocentric universe. You mean other than the observational evidence, provided by WMAP. Where exactly do all the other stars in our Galaxy fit, if the universe is only twice the size of our solar system? Where do all the other Galaxies fit? Because of the mass of the Sun. You would need a very large force to cause the Sun to change directions. Yet you do not propose any such force.

---

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX