Relativity is wrong...

quote:

---

I am not going to battle symantics here.

​

Radar is not a direct method for measuring the Sun. You cannot bounce electromagnetic energy off of the Sun and measure the time it takes for it to return.

---

I never said you could. But it's good enough for now.

quote:

---

Um, no that is not what the theories of general/special relativity state. They state that all laws of physics behave the same way in all frames of reference and everything is moving relative to each other. That is there is not static, fixed reference point to measure absolute velocity.

---

Exactly, and that is why there is NO center ANYWHERE. No center to the universe, no center to the solar system. No center whatsoever. Centers are as relative as motions.

quote:

---

The theories of relativity say nothing about things not having centers of gravity. The solar systems center of gravity is the Sun. Though the Sun itself ever slightly wobbles around centers of gravity/mass aka barycenters, which are inside the Sun itself.

---

Umm... no. Center of gravity is not the same as absolute reference frame center. If you don't have that than you have no center. Yes, you can have a center of gravity, but that's not a real center. Anyway, the Sun is not the center of our solar system also, since it is turning around our solar system's center of gravity, which is about 500,000 km above the Sun. So teh Sun itself is not the center of our system any way you look at it.

quote:

---

To calculate the actual motion of the Sun, you would need to sum all the influences from all the planets, comets, asteroids, etc. of the solar system (see n-body problem). If all the planets were aligned on the same side of the Sun, the combined center of mass would lie about 500,000 km above the Sun's surface.

---

Center of mass - Wikipedia

quote:

---

This is in fact one method we can determine extrasolar planets revolving around other Stars.

---

There are no extrasolar planets. The first one was "directly" observed last year. So all the other ones were a pure invention.

quote:

---

Obvious to who? The 30 scientifically-illiterate people in the world that believe the Earth is the center of the Universe around which everything revolves?

---

So, people who disagree with you are scientifically-illiterate? Since when do you decide who is scientifically-illiterate, and who is not?

quote:

---

Nothing is absolute. You need to define what you mean by this statement. If another star approached the solar system and pulled the planets away by its gravitational tug than the Sun would no longer be the center of our Solar System.

---

It's not the center even as we speak now. If relativity is true, it's also moving inside our own system.

quote:

---

Relative to what? You are throwing around words you do not understand. Please explain what you are talking about.

---

Relative to other objects in our system. The supposed center of our system is 500,000 km away from the Sun's surface. It is orbiting around that point because that is the center of mass of our solar system.

quote:

---

Does the universe revolve around the Earth or not? You have gone from the Earth is the center of the universe around which everything revolves to anything is the center. You are so ambiguous I can't figure out what the fuck you are talking about. Hence why I call you a troll just trying to stir up the pot here.

---

Well you are probably dyslexic so you don't know what I'm talking about. If you want to know, I'm explaining to you how the universe functions if relativity is true. Any point you pick is the relative center of the universe in that case. If geocentrisam is true, than obviously, that is not the case. Than the Earth's center is the center of the universe.

quote:

---

Your explanations of scientific phenomena are worse than my 4 year old's attempts to rationalize why she should stay up past her bed time. Logic and rational thinking are lost on you.

---

Dyslexia - Wikipedia

quote:

---

There is no 'absolute reference frame' in spacetime. I am only looking at the Solar System and the affects of gravity on the objects in the solar system. Therefore considering this frame of reference the planets revolve around the Sun. The effects of the planets on the Sun itself is negligible enough to generalize this as saying the planets orbit the Sun not vice versa as the Sun itself is rotating around a center of mass at the center of the Milky Way galaxy as our galaxy hurdles outward with the rest of the galaxies as spacetime itself accelerates its expansion. That is the current cosmological model as agree upon by the majority of science.

---

Again, you are wrong about this. If you are looking for the center of mass of our system, than it's 500,000 km away from the Sun. Which Sun is also orbiting around.And no, the majority of scientists mean nothing to me. The majority of scientists thought that Sun revolved around the Earth 500 years ago, so why did we change? If the majority is ALWAYS right, than what's the point of discussing anything?

quote:

---

Don't pretend to now agree with me. This is not the position you originally promoted. Are you abandoning your geocentric model of the Earth being the center of the uniiverse because it fell apart?

---

No, I'm still a geocentrist. I'm just explaining to you that if relativity is true there is no center to anything. Center is what you pick to be the center.

quote:

---

So if you are saying that everything is 'relative' than do agree or disagree with Einstein, Lorentz, Planck, Hubble, Hoyle and others whose scientific contributions have resulted in our modern understanding of the nature of the universe.

---

I obviously disagree witht hem.

quote:

---

You are assuming these galaxies are touching. Using several different distance-measuring methods i.e. measuring red-shift or using a standard candle such as the cepheid variables in other nearby galaxies, super nova, etc astronomers determine these galaxies are not the same distance from the Earth.

---

But you are assuming that redshift is a measure of distance and the speed of recession in the first place. I'm not assuming anything. I see them touching. It could be an optical illusion, but there is nothing to assume here. Hey, than again, anything can be an optical illusion.

quote:

---

Pardon? Why do the other planets in our Solar system orbit the Sun and not the Earth?

---

I'm not sure they do. aybe they do, maybe they don't we don't know. If they do, than that's becasue of Sun's gravity.

quote:

---

Oh. I thought observation said not? Which is more massive in your version of the "Solar" system, the Earth or the Sun?

---

Observations have only indicated movement. But we can't say for sure what is turning around what. In my model the Earth is more massive. But of course, I'm not sure.

quote:

---

Surely all objects undergoing forces suffer a change in motion to some degree. Newtons second law etc. etc. No? What is special about the Earth?

---

It's in teh center of the universe, so the forces cancel each other out.

quote:

---

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.

---

It's basicly the same, but not identical obviously.

quote:

---

Speak to me of parallax, Smooth.
Tell me why only a subset of stars near the ecliptic make little back-and-forth squiggles once a year, while some of their brethren near the ecliptic poles make little circles, and some in between those extremes make ellipses.

​

Why is that? Why was it only proven to happen 170 years ago? How can it happen if the earth isn't the one moving relative to the so-called "fixed stars?"

---

Maybe because they are moving in this way. I've already explained the parallax, look it up.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

quote:

---

Yeah not religious.

---

Yeah not religious what? Bouw can have any religious ideas for all I care. This has absolutly no impact on me. Neither does it have any impact on the scientists that derived the equations that a geocentric universe can work without braking down. Besides you are going off topic.

quote:

---

What the fuck does this mean?

---

Figure it out for yourself.

quote:

---

If this is the case than how can you believe in geocentrism, that is the Earth is the center around which the universe rotates. You contradict yourself.

---

I'm not accepting this view as true. I'm just describing it to you. This would be the case if relativity were true. But I do not accept it.

quote:

---

I never said it was. There is no absolute frame of reference. The reason why scientists accept that the planets of the solar system orbit the Sun and not the Earth is that the Sun has a greater mass and thus a greater gravitational influence on the Earth and the other planets then then the Earth and other planets have on it. Thus the center of gravitation/mass for the Solar System is closer to the center of the Sun than it is to the rest of the planets. How do we know this?

​

We have measured the diameter of the Earth and all the other planets both through direct ground based observation and by sending spacecraft to these other bodies in the Solar System. We have even sent spacecraft to very close proximities to the Sun. I think if the Sun were smaller than the Earth than these spacecraft would indicate this.

---

You can't measure the size of something you are not standing on, or have never came in touch with. Becasue you do not know how far away it is from you.

quote:

---

A center is a center. It is ludicrous to say something has a center and then say it is not a real center?!? Either something has a center or it does not. It is like saying that a sphere has a center but not a real center. If a sphere does not have a 'real' center than it does not have a center at all.

​

In this picture there is a clear definitive center of mass/gravity however we can rotate the sphere in any direction and therefore it has no absolute frame of reference. We can turn this sphere in any direction and it would look the same.

---

But in your view, the universe does not look like that, thus has no center.

quote:

---

Incorrect, this would only be the case if all the planets lined up on one side of the Sun at one specific time. Otherwise, the barycenter (center of gravity/mass) for the Sun and the rest of the planets in the Solar System shifts or more accurately wabbles about as the planets rotate around the Solar System. Due to its mass, the planet Jupiter causes the greatest deviation of the Sun around the center of mass. BTW, I am the one that originally stated that the center of gravity of the Solar System is not exactly in the middle of the Sun not you. This is not a point of contention with me.

---

I am correct in saying that the center of solar system is relative if relativity is true. You are the one who said the Sun is the center, which is obviously false. Yes it can shift more or less, but the point is, the Sun itself is not the center. The maximum distance the center ever comes from the Sun is 500,000 km, but yes, it can be closer. So how ever you look at it, you were wrong in saying that the Sun is teh center of solar system.

quote:

---

Also, you just contradicted yourself in saying that the Earth is the center of the solar system and the universe. If the Earth is the center how can the center of gravity be so close to the Sun?

---

No I didn't, I was only explaining how things would work if relativity was true.

quote:

---

By all intensive purposes it is if you are just looking at the frame of reference of the Solar System by itself. Saying the sun is the center of the solar system is a rough generalization of the model of the solar system since no other celestial body is closer to this center of mass/gravity than the Sun and everything in the solar system revolves around this center of mass.

---

Including the Sun. The Sun also revolves around that center of mass. So saying that Sun is the center is wrong.

quote:

---

Now it seems you are trying to back peddle your way out of your previously advocated geocentric view of the universe. Keep back peddling and you will concur with 100% of the scientific communities acceptance of a Sun centered Solar System.

---

No, again, I do not accept this view. I'm just explainig it to you. I'm explainig how it would work if relativity was true.

quote:

---

Show me a professional scientist who works in the field of astronomy for the last 100 years that does not agree that the Earth rotates and revolves around the Sun.

---

Every single one. They are either relativists that believe that boh the Earth and the Sun orbit the center of mass of our solar system, or are geocentrists but are not outspoken.

quote:

---

How does saying everything moves in relation to each other contradict that the Earth is revolving around the Sun? This is like saying that because to a race car drive it appears he is stationary and everything is moving backwards that he is not really going around in circles on a racetrack. It all depends on our frame of reference. Einstein's TOR did not say there is no frames of reference but rather there is not absolute frame of reference. If we scale back our frame of reference of the racetrack we indeed see that it to is moving because it is rotating along with the Earth as well as revolving around the Sun and the Sun is itself along with the Solar System revolving around the Milky Way galaxie etc. It all depends on what frame of reference we are using.

---

Becasue that means that earth is revolving around the common center of mass in the solar system together with the Sun. And Sun not being the center, but very close to it.

quote:

---

If we use the frame of reference of just the solar system than we can indeed state that the planets are orbiting the Sun (or near it enough to generalize it as such).

---

Than just say that it's near the Sun, and not the Sun itself that everything in our solar system is orbiting.

quote:

---

No, the 500,000 km away is the maximum deviation of the Sun if all the planets line up on one side like I said previously.

---

Yes, it can be closer, but the point remains that the Sun is never the center.

quote:

---

True, if the universe is truely boundless (endless). I am not sure if science has uncategorically determined if this is the case or not maybe cavediver can help out with this.

​

If this means the Earth is the center of the universe not just the solar system than you are correct.

​

True by your definition of the term geocentrism.

​

BTW, when we talk about centers of gravity we are basically saying that we are considering the gravitational forces of relatively nearby and/or very large objects, objects whose gravitational force are vertually neglible due to there size and/or distance are basically taken out of the equation since the nearby/large objects gravitational forces nullify (cancels out) these other gravitational effects.

---

Yes, we agree on this.

quote:

---

They did not use the scientific process 500 years ago. They weren't even called scientists but rather natural philosophers and the like. Science has been much refined in the last 500 years and now has an extremely high success rate. Do you use a car, computer, microwave, cell phone, etc. Than you might want to thank the scientists who made the discoveries necessary for you to enjoy these luxuries.

---

Of course they used the scientific process. But it was different than than it is now. It is constantly changing. It doesn't mean they were not doing science in those days. Everything we have today was built on those foundations. If we would say that those people are not scientists than let's just get rid of Newton's gravity and say that everyone who builds upon it is building upon pseudo-science. This is clearly the wrong way to look at advencement in science.

quote:

---

When did I say the majority is ALWAYS right?

---

By saying that we should listen to the majority of scientists you assume they are always right. It's a logical necessity. If you are not assuming that, than there is no logical necessity to listen to them blindly.

quote:

---

However considering the success of the heliocentric model of the solar system you do have to take this into consideration.

---

What success? The only reason it was advanced over the geocentric one is because it explained the phases of Venus. Which geocentric model also describes. But this was supposed to be the ultimate evidence against geocentrism.So what success are you talking about?

quote:

---

That is only true if you considering the entire frame of reference of the cosmos not if you are looking at small frames of reference i.e. that of the Solar System.

---

Why? No reason whatsoever. You can pick whatever frame you want.

quote:

---

I said red shifting is one method of measuring distance and speed. Standard candles is another method which supports and does not contradict the measuring rod of red shifting.

---

Standard candle is what redshift is calibrated on. It's the luminosity of an object.

quote:

---

So what is your explanation for red shifting. BTW, hypotheses are useless if they cannot make predictions.

---

There are lot's of explanations for redshift. One of them is that light from stars is coliding with H2 and thus slowing down.

quote:

---

We also showed that the presence of large amounts of the hard-to-detect molecular hydrogen in interstellar space could provide an alternative explanation to the Big Bang theory, by explaining the observed redshift as a result of the delayed propagation of light through space, caused by the collision of photons with interstellar matter.

---

Discovery of H2 in Space Explains Dark Matter and Redshift

quote:

---

You are using him to support your arguments. Where he gets his arguments is very relevant to the debate if you are using him as a source.

---

Yes, that is true. That is why you should ahve bothered to read this.http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/1536/models.gifHe specifically mentions that none of his sources is a geocentric Christian.

quote:

---

He obviously is deriving evidence to support his beliefs of a geocentric universe and the infallibility of the bible.

---

... from non Christians. He is deriving his evidence from non-geocentric non-Christians.

quote:

---

That is not how science works.

---

Oh, well, off to hell with Newton the creationist and Bible follower, and his Laws of Motion, and gravity...We can't use them anymore since they are tainted by the Bible...

quote:

---

And?

---

Just saying that light bending can be explained without relativity and space-time.

quote:

---

Heh, do you even know what a logical fallacy is? Try this experiment: Make object A (the sun) orbit a fictional point on your floor (the centre of the universe), then make object B (the earth) orbit object A. You're telling me you can't see them both orbiting different points? Weird assumption, and not based on reality at all.

---

But you see them moving! I asked you relative to which object are you statinary. You said to both. That is not possible. If you were statinary to both, you would see them both stationary. You can only be stationray to one if one is still and the other is orbiting around it.

quote:

---

Everywhere we look. We see moons orbiting the planets, we see planets orbiting stars, except, in your case, the earth. What's your explanation for this? Why is the earth the only object in the universe not orbiting a more massive object, yet a more massive object is orbiting it?

---

Again how do you know the Sun is more massive? But even if it was no matter, I explained it by Mach's principle and a rotating cosmos. Read my responses to Modulous on the previous page.

quote:

---

Please provide the original source.

---

Original source for what? The cited papers? I don't have them. I actually tried to find the Rosser lecture few days ago mentioned in the book, but it was printed in 1964. A bit too outdated for me to be able to find it online.