Relativity is wrong...

What a strange thread. If the sun is 91 million miles away it must be experiencing an enormous acceleration due to gravity from the earth to maintain orbit. It must be considerably higher than the approximately 9.8ms^-2 I'm experiencing right now. How does this work?

In your model, the sun must be accelerating towards the earth much more than the earth needs to be accelerating towards the sun in heliocentrism. So you can't pull the 'its the same' trick, unfortunately - you've already stipulated they aren't the same.Do the maths, and you'll see it. If I'm wrong, show your working. Orbital physics is hardly rocket science.abe:Home experiment to confirm this for yourself: Spin a bucket on a rope of 1m around in a circle. Now spin a human on a rope of 1m in a circle 365 times faster. You will note that the two are not symmetrical situations.abe2: I note that you think the earth is probably the most massive object in the solar system. If so, you can repeat the above experiment with a bucket both times and you will still see that I'm right. There is no way the earth's paltry and measurable gravitational influence can keep an object in orbit at that range at the speed it has to be travelling at. Sorry.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

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.

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?

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

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?

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

I would have thought you would have looked it up.If you don't know these rudimentary pieces of information, then it is difficult to proceed with a debate. You said the maths had already been done, and referred me to a 160-odd page pdf file. I was under the impression that you've actually read it yourself. It doesn't give any figures for the distances or masses of the Sun?If yes, what are they?
If no, then the link you referred me to isn't an example of someone having already done the maths.Which is it?

Principia is pretty old, I can find that fairly easily . If you are going to argue that relativity is wrong by virtue of there being a better explanation - you're going to need those numbers. This is a debate site. I'm interesting in debating. You cannot find the information that is rudimentary for your position. I can find this level of information for my position and I can do the maths to derive many of the numbers myself if need be. You have two choices if you want to claw back from losing this debate:a) Derive the numbers yourself.
b) Find out the numbers from the copious geocentric sites you've linked to (are you seriously suggesting that no online geocentrist has a figure for the mass of the sun worked out!!??).The alternative, is being clearly defeated. Of course, if you pick this alternative, I am predicting you will do so gracelessly by ignoring this message, or by continuing to deny your position is hopeless.I'm happy with any of the above - and I'm very used to the last one. Catch you later.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

See smilie face. It isn't the age that's at issue, right? It's the fact that it is obscure and very few, if anybody puts it online or in the library. This is probably because very few people find merit in it. This is either because it fails or because everybody is wrong. This being a debate you'll excuse me for not taking your word that this paper exists and is the physics bombshell you claim.Likewise - you won't take my word that I have a paper from 1979 which demonstrates a critical flaw in Rosser's paper but I can't find it right now. Without knowing something as straightforward as the mass of the sun - you simply can't establish which model of the solar system is more accurate. This is painfully obvious to everybody. Then debate. Stop just gainsaying me, and claiming "it's the same" when it's not. Explain why not knowing the mass of the sun is not vitally important in establishing that the sun orbits the earth 365 times faster than heliocentrists propose the earth orbits the sun.I would dearly love to read your explanation why a body's mass is not relevant to establishing the mechanics of its orbit. Then why did you not say this when I asked? Why did you say "I don't know" in Message 235 when I asked "what is the mass and diameter of the sun? How far away is it? "So now we have established that we can work out the force required to keep the sun in orbit around earth at the speed you propose it goes at.Then we can work out if that same force is consistent with the orbits of the other planets.So - in geocentrism - do the other planets have the same masses? Could you look up their distance from earth so we can check geocentrism works? I am not winning anything - I'm just trying to understand your model. You, however, are losing the debate. You started with a thesis and have yet to support it in the face of the problems that I have pointed out (not to mention all the others that have been brought up). That is a textbook loss.So - either you give me the numbers to your preferred model (you have to do this, since if I provide numbers and find flaws you can just say that isn't your model), or the debate is over with you having failed to demonstrate that relativity is wrong or geocentrism can work.Of course, you've already had plenty of time to produce some numbers and you haven't. I'm still willing to bet that this latest message falls under the "continuing to deny your position is hopeless" umbrella. Can you prove me wrong?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Fantastic - you have your esteemed reference. So how much force is being generated by this rotating shell to accelerate the sun towards the earth enough to keep it in orbit?

How do you know that it looks like it is enough without knowing what it is?

quote:

---

You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough --William Blake

---

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I'm just asking for the numbers, not the proof.In heliocentrism the earth is accelerating towards the sun at approximately, 5.9 x 10^-03 ms^-2F=maF = 6 x 10²⁴ x 5.9 x 10^-03
F = 3.5 x 10²² NORF = G Mm/ r²F = ((6.7 x 10^-11)(2 x 10³⁰)(6 x 10²⁴))/ ((1.5 x 10¹¹)²)F = 3.6 x 10²² NAccounting for rounding errors, I have given you the force required to keep the earth in orbit around the sun in heliocentrism using two different equations.You don't need to calculate it, but surely someone has calculated the amount of force needed to keep the sun in the orbit you are proposing it is in?I'm going away for a week so it is likely this is the end of my participation in this topic. I think I have succeeded in showing that you aren't really in a position to make the case you are wanting to make due to your lack of expertise in this area. Maybe, just maybe, you'll question what makes you certain of your position given your admitted lack of relevant expertise in determining whether the geocentric model you are suggesting can work.Take care, see you in another topic.