Relativity is wrong...

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.

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.

You have provided no force that will keep the Earth at the centre of the universe regardless of other competing forces without also resulting in other masses clumping together at the centre of the shell. Why is the Earth the only body that is forced to the centre? If Newton's second law applies and Newton's law of gravitation applies then there are numerous forces that would disrupt the Earth from it's static position at the centre of the universe unless you can show that an equal but oppoiste force is always present at all times. This you have not done. Only if you assume that the Earth is fixed by duc tape and turtles at the centre of the universe. I have proposed no alternative model. I have simply exposed the assumptions and flaws in yours.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Actually I have read up on the Lense-Thirring effect. The question is have you?Frame-dragging - WikipediaIf you think that this magically provides a solution to all your problems with regard to maintaining equilibrium despite multiple continually changing forces acting on the Earth then you are wrong. If you think this explains why the Earth sits resolutely at the centre of your imaginary universe unmoved by any of these forces then you are also wrong.Try again. Maybe read up on the Lense-Thirring effect yourself and then tell us exactly how you think this is the answer to these problems?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Why not? well because it doesn't even offer an answer as to how the Earth is kept in a stationary position at the centre of the universe immune from all of the other forces acting upon it. Why do you think this is even a possibility?Newtons second law and Netwon's law of gravitation are against you (not even to mention that the Lense-Thirring efect is a GR effect that relies on relativity being true)Your whole model is a silly sham.

Is it not the case that black holes are one of those relatively rare instances where pure mathematical "conjecture" resulted in the hypothesis and eventual discovery of physical phenomenon for which there was no previous physical evidence or explanotary requirement at all?Where the mathematical model accurately predicted something for which there was no purely physical evidence based reason to even consider?

Hey I am on your side on this one!! I think I have made that argument elsewhere. Message 64 and Message 127I did say "relatively rare" to appease the doubters!

So describe to me the source of this force that is ever changing in both magnitude and direction such that it always counters the competing gravitational forces acting on the Earth? Because the Lense-Thirring effect most certainly does not claim to do that.Thus the Earth would not remain at the centre of the universe even in your own overly simplistic and rather stupid model.As such your model continues to be internally inconsistent and pointless.

So why is the Earth at the centre of the universe and nothing else?Why does you silly model not result in all matter clumped together at the centre of the universe?

What? Your massive force overriding all other competing gravitational forces holds the Earth at the centre of the universe. Your massive and overriding force acts on "everything" but actually has no effect on all of the other matter in the universe at all because "2 objects can't be at the same place in the same time"?What? You think asking why the force that your entire model relies upon, the force that acts on "everything", actually acts only on the Earth and nothing else is a silly question?Why is the Sun and every other body in the universe not hurtling towards us if your "Lense-Thirring" force pushes all things to the centre of the universe? Which, in your la la land, is apparently where we are.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

And yet if a force pushing "everything" to the centre of the room existed we would expect the tables, chairs etc. etc. to be clumped together at the centre of the room rather than distributed around that room. No? So then we have "magic". A phenomenon that is the the result of General Relativity to begin with (the Lense-Thirring effect) is cited as evidence against relativity itself.You then cite this force acting on "everything" as responsible for holding the Earth in the location that you decide it must occupy at the centre of the universe. But for some reason it does not also push the Sun or any other planets towards this centre.Are you advocating magic? Or are you going to show how all competing and ever changing forces are continuously balanced to result in your ludicrous model where the earth but nothing else is at the centre of the universe?SO - If you see no other flaw in your argument will you at least concede that your position amounts to deciding what is true and then making the "facts" and "evidence" fit around that rather than the other way round?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Why does the Sun (or any other body) not get pushed to the centre of the universe? Why does the Sun (or any other body) not get pulled towards the outer shell? How are you constantly balancing all the different forces? Your model is unworkable. The fact that at any given time you are selectively applying the force you want to the body you want to achieve the result you want.The model does not add up. And it certainly cannot predict planetary orbits. Which some might see as something of a weakness.....Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

No. Not that I am aware of. You are simply assuming that the two forces balance each other out no matter where any body is in the universe. A feat of mathematical wizardry that just does not add up.How do you justify the two forces always being equal but opposite despite the bodies being acted upon being in continual motion and thus positions? You are simply making it up to justify nonsense. Does any more need to be said......?Take the Sun. According to your nonsensical model it is acted on by the gravitational effect of the Earth resolutely glued to the centre of the universe. And the Lense-Thirring effect also pushing it to the centre of the universe. And the gravitational force of the outer shell pulling it away from the centre of the universe.The closer to the Earth the Sun is the stronger the first of these two forces are. The further from the outer shell the Sun is the weaker any counter force is. Thus at the point the Sun is closest to the Earth in it's orbit the attractive forces are strongest and the pulling away force is weakest. You have said that the Lense-Thirring effect is strong enough to overcome any gravitational forces that may be present.Thus the resultant force would have had the Sun spiralling into the Earth many moons ago. And in fact every other body close to "the centre of the universe".And yet according to your bogus assumptions all the forces miraculously balance out perfectly as if by magic to result in exactly the orbits that are predicted by sane Newtonian Heliocentric models of the Solar system.Try again.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

If the forces specific to your model cancel each other out perfectly how do you know any of them are actually there? A heliocentric model in conjunction with Newtonian gravity can mathematically predict the orbits of all the planets in the solar system. General Relativity can do so even more precisely.You cannot even mathematically show what forces act on any given body in your model. You simply assert that the forces acting are whatever you need them to be to prop up your contrived nonsense. Which is why you may not fully appreciate the irony of you making that statement.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

And yet the forces are undetectable. Because they cancel each other out perfectly. At all points in your spehere. Despite the fact you can only assert this rather than show it by any calculation of forces. I did. But since then you have introduced a host of other forces which arbitrarily act in exactly the ways you need them to behave to sustain your silly model whilst remaining entirely undetectable as forces in themselves.So the Earth sits resolutely at the centre of your speherically shelled universe. Held in place against all of the ever changing gravitational forces acting upon it by the "Lense-Thirring" force acting towards the centre of the shell. A force we cannot detect acting on the Earth or anything else despite it being able to overwhelm all gravitational forces no matter how massive.In addition each and every body in the universe no matter where it is in your shell or how massive it is acts exactly as it would without any gravitational effect from your shell. Making the gravitational effects of your shell undetectable. Despite the fact you also claim that it is the gravitational effect of the shell that stops all of the matter being gravitationally attracted to form a massive clump over time.The contradictions and baseless contrived ad-hoc assertions here are mounting up SO. Can you see them yet?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.