Geocentrism 101, Part II
Geocentricity 101, Part II Basic Physics
Mark Wyatt
August 3rd, 2005
Acknowledgements: The material presented here is a summary of research firstly based on the dialogues of Robert Sungenis, as well as correspondence with him. Also, the works of other geocentric researchers (esp. Gerardus Buow, Walter Van Der Kamp) were consulted. The details were discussed, debated, etc. with scientists in various forums. Additional research was carried out within scientific literature and on the internet to better understand the underlying physics. Robert Sungenis and Dr. Robert Bennett are writing the book, "Galileo was Wrong", due out this year (2005), which should provide far greater detail than this introduction.
----------------------------------------------------------
Review of Part I
In part I, we discussed the basic principles of geocentrism. We discussed coordinate systems, and briefly touched upon relative motions within the cosmos. Part I basically stated that one could perform a coordinate transformation to any point in space and as long as one had a map of relative motions and observations of heavenly bodies from the originating coordinate system, one could map out what those motions and observations would appear to be in a new coordinate system. For this reason one could simulate what the motions of the solar system looked like from the sun's perspective (this is called heliocentrism). One could also map out what those motions looked like from the earth (i.e., geocentrism). Of course one could choose Mars, a specific asteoid, etc. It was also pointed out that all the observations made by man up to the space age were basically equivalent to earth based observations. This means that the motions of the planets, moon(s), asteroids, comets were geocentric observations. This means that the phases of Jupiter's moons, phases of Venus, parallax, abberation, etc. were geocentric observations. It is in fact impossible to differentiate between geocentrism and any other proposed center (i.e, heliocentrism, acentrism) based on observations. George Ellis, a cosmologist in Cape Town, South Africa made this point in a Scientific American article:
“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,...For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”.
W. Wayt Gibbs, "Profile: George F. R. Ellis," Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55.
Finally, it was proposed that the real issue for geocentrists (and heliocentrists and acentrists, etc.) is to propose a physical model that accounts for the observations. It was put forth that Einstein's General Relativity states that there are no preferred reference frames in the universe. In other words, one can choose any point in space and consistently describe not only the motions and observations, but the actual forces in the universe from the chosen point. A series of quotations from Einstein and other scientists to this effect were presented in relation to geocentrism. It was not claimed that this proves geocentrism.
----------------------------------------------------------
First let us discuss briefly physical theories. Many physical theories are approximate and empirical. An example is Newtonian mechanics, especially Newtonian gravitation. With the example of gravitation in mind, it can be stated that Newtonian theory has no physical explanation for gravity. Yet it does tend to work, at least for most cases we have yet enountered . An example of a more descriptive physical theory for gravitation is Le Sage's corpuscular theories (and related theories, i.e., graviton theories, etc.) . While Newton relates the gravitational attraction of two objects to the masses and the inverse square of the distances, Le Sagean theory relates the attraction to a sea of proposed corpuscles moving at very high velocites through space. The corpuscles impinge upon objects equally on all sides, except where a second object blocks the first. Where the objects interfere, there is less corpuscular "pressure", thus the objects move towards one another. Interestingly, within reasonable limits, the equations for Le Sagean gravitation reduce to Newton's equations for gravity. I will call the less descriptive type of theory "empirical" and the more descriptive theories "mechanistic".
Probably the most used theory in general cosmology today is Einstein's General Relativty (GR). Though it is considered a very powerful theory, it is in fact empirical, especially in its treatment of gravity. GR's treatment of gravity can be viewed as geometric. In the geometric interpretation, gravity is imagined to be a distortion of an underlying grid. Space is represented as distorted by massive objects. The idea is that as other objects approach, they will "roll down the distortion". Of course there is still a force implied, otherwise why would an object feel the need to "roll down"? So this is just a way of representing gravity. Ultimately, in fairly static space-time (i.e., such as our solar system represented as heliocentric), the gravity in Einstein's General relativity will reduce to Newtonian gravity (much like in the case of Le Sage's gravity). Empirical theories are probably the most used today, because it is not necassary to elucidate all the details (of gravity for instance). As long as the theory is valid, and for practical problems this is acceptable.
Let us start by viewing geocentrism from the perspective of GR. After a general description within GR, we can see what explanations have been proposed for rotating universes. Then we can briefly discuss some more mechanistic possibilities.
One may ask 'if no one believes in geocentrism, why would they model a rotating universe with earth at the center?'. Well first some researchers may be open to geocentrism. Secondly, researchers want to validate the principles of GR. One of the principles is that there are "no preferred reference frames" in the universe. This means that we can pick any center, make a coordinate transformation to that center and describe the universe from that point. It means that the interactions of all the gravitational attractions and other forces in the universe will balance in such a way that the center we picked will physically act as the center. This means that if we pick a fixed earth (non-rotating, non-translating) then all the forces in the universe will act in such a way that when we solve the Einsteinian equations, we will find that there will be a balance of forces in the universe that will include the features of:
1. A rotating universe
2. An earth (or other chosen center) fixed in the center
3. Forces opposing the rotation of the center.
4. All observations in the universe will be consistent with observations from solutions at a different center.
I.e., if we chose earth as center, and we currently believe the earth is rotating, and we are able to describe the motions of geosynchronous satellites from the rotating earth perspective (or say from a fixed sun perspective), and we reformulated Einstein's equations on a fixed earth, there must exist analgous forces causing the same observations of geosynchronous satellites. If not, then GR is incorrect. This is one reason why relativists create models of rotating universes on a fixed earth. They want to demonstrate that GR produces forces analogous to what we observe in our presumed rotating earth universe. This principle is called the "strong" principle of relativity. Neither Newtonian theory nor Einstein's Special Relativity have the strong principle.
Let's start with a related example. Gron and Erikson gave an example of an observer seeing the earth from the surface of the moon. Now from this location, the earth appears to be rotating below the moon. It is just hanging in space and turning. Why does the moon not fall to the earth? They explain that the reason is because we had neglected to include the rest of the universe in the picture! They, and GR, are proposing the universe is Machian (after Ernst Mach of Mach Number fame). Mach proposed that every object in the universe is attracted to every other object. He proposed that inertia is due to resistance of movement of an object to all the other objects in the universe. Like Leibniz, he proposed that space was really not something, but rather just a relationship between objects in the universe.
But what is the relationship between the rest of the objects in the universe and our coordinate system (i.e., fixed moon)? Well the rest of the universe (cosmic mass) is rotating around this coordinate system (and thus around the earth and moon). Somehow this rotating universe is creating forces which [from our coordinate system's perspective] keep the earth from falling to the moon. Gron and Erikson (General Relativity and Gravitation) explain it in this quote:
"...we consider the Moon orbiting the Earth. As seen by an observer on the Moon, both the Moon and the Earth are at rest. If the observer solves Einstein’s field equations for the vacuum space-time outside the Earth, he might come up with the Schwarzchild solution and conclude that the Moon should fall toward the Earth, which it does not. So it seems impossible to consider the Moon at rest, which would imply that the strong principle of relativity is not valid.
This problem has the following solution. As observed from the Moon the cosmic mass rotates. The rotating cosmic mass has to be included when the Moon observer solves Einstein’s field equations. Doing this he finds that the rotating cosmic mass induces the rotational non-tidal gravitational field which is interpreted as the centrifugal field in Newtonian theory. This field explains to him why the Moon does not fall toward the Earth."
But, one objects, we know why the moon does not fall to the earth. It is because the moon is orbiting the earth and rotating... This is true from the perspective of a coordinate system fixed say on the north pole of the earth and allowing the earth to rotate around it. In this case the cosmic masses are not rotating, and their influence is less (but not zero, inertia still exists). This is the realm of Newtonian mechanics and Special relativity. This is the key to GR- it is Machian. One can pick any center and reformulate the entire universe from the perspective of this center and consistently describe the universe. In fact per GR there is no reality beyond a perspective. This is a philosophical position. Actually doing this (modelling the entire universe) is difficult, but this is the principle that GR is built upon. If it turned out that there actually were a center to the universe, then it is still possible that the GR solution to this center's perspective is valid. All other solutions (i.e., for other centers) would be considered hypothetical ones considering the other centers as candidate centers. If we found a portal to a known fixed reference outside the universe, and knew we could spend a limited amount of time there (I.e., if God granted us this), our best bet would be to solve Einstein's GR equations for a number of candidate centers. Then we could go to this observation post, and see which one most accurately describes the observed universe. Of course we cannot do this.
Let us look at an example dealing specifically with the earth. Rosser treats an observer (O') on earth with earth as the center (earth functions as a "roundabout"), and describes why there is no issue with the stars moving greater than the speed of light. He then points out that when the rotating roundabout (i.e., the rotating earth) is treated as being at rest (ie., fixed earth, also the "stationary roundabout"), the forces from the rotating cosmic masses become huge, and create the forces (which for instance keep geosynchronous satellites apparently hovering above the fixed earth) which hold the earth fixed against a rotating universe.
"Relative to the stationary roundabout [the Earth], the distant stars would have a velocity rw [radius x angular velocity] and for sufficiently large values of r, the stars would be moving relative to O' [the observer] with linear velocities exceeding 3 x 10^8 m/sec, the terrestrial value of the velocity of light. At first sight this appears to be a contradiction…that the velocities of all material bodies must be less than c [the speed of light]. However, the restriction u [less than] c = 3 x 10^8 m/sec is restricted to the theory of Special Relativity. According to the General theory, it is possible to choose local reference frames in which, over a limited volume of space, there is no gravitational field, and relative to such a reference frame the velocity of light is equal to c . However, this is not true when gravitational fields are present. In addition to the lengths of rods and the rates of clocks the velocity of light is affected by a gravitational field. If gravitational fields are present the velocities of either material bodies or of light can assume any numerical value depending on the strength of the gravitational field. If one considers the rotating roundabout as being at rest, the centrifugal gravitational field assumes enormous values at large distances, and it is consistent with the theory of General Relativity for the velocities of distant bodies to exceed 3 x 10^8 m/sec under these conditions." (An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity, W. G. V. Rosser, London, Butterworths, 1964, p. 460)
As an aside, I want to briefly touch on the issue of fixed light speed (3X10^8 m/s, or 300,000,000 m/s). GR does not have a specific limitation on the speed of light. Special Relativity states it is fixed everywhere. GR does reduce to special relativity in regions of space-time which are flat (i.e., no gravity). In these instances GR may have a limitation on speed. The reason GR cannot have a general limitation on the speed of light is illustrated in this amusing example:
(Math Pages)
"The moon revolves round my head faster than light!
Stand up in a clear space and spin round. It is not too difficult to turn at one revolution each two seconds. Suppose the moon is on the horizon. How fast is it spinning round your head? It is about 385,000 km away so the answer is 1.21 million km/s, which is more than four times the speed of light! It sounds ridiculous to say that the moon is going round your head when really it is you who is turning, but according to general relativity all co-ordinate systems are equally valid including revolving ones. So isn't the moon going faster than the speed of light? This is quite difficult to account for.
What it comes down to, is the fact that velocities in different places cannot be directly compared in general relativity. Notice that the moon is not overtaking the light in its own locality. The velocity of the moon can only be compared to the velocity relative to other objects in its own local inertial frame. Indeed, the concept of velocity is not a very useful one in general relativity and this makes it difficult to define what "faster than light" means. Even the statement that "the speed of light is constant" is open to interpretation in general relativity. Einstein himself in his book "Relativity: the special and the general theory" said that the statement cannot claim unlimited validity (pg 76). When there is no absolute definition of time and distance it is not so clear how speeds should be determined.
Nevertheless, the modern interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general relativity and this statement is a tautology given that standard units of distance and time are related by the speed of light. The moon is given to be moving slower than light because it remains within the future light cone propagating from its position at any instant."
Now, we have demonstrated that GR can be used to make a reasonable case for a fixed earth at the center of a rotating universe. One may ask, 'what are the mechanisms that actually allow this to occur'? Misner, Wheeler and Thorne in Gravitation (pp. 1117-1119) modeled the general case of gyroscopic motion with gravitation in the post-Newtonian limit (which can be interpreted as a rotating universe as having gyroscopic stability). They conclude that the gyroscope (rotating universe) maintains the center of mass (the earth in geocentrism) from rotating or translating. This is much like a top. If a top is disturbed forces react to the disturbance to maintain the position of the center of mass. In the case of a geocentric universe, the universe will react to maintain its center. This means the entire power of the universe will be used to maintain earth at its center.
Many people ask 'what constitutes the earth'? Is it just the surface? Is it the solid ball? Does it include the atmosphere? Really the question is no different in geocentrism then it is in heliocentrism or acentrism. It really depends on what we are looking at. In terms of gyroscopic stabilization, the universe will try and stabilize its center. If the earth is at center, it will be stabilized. Though the center of mass is mathematically a point, the action of the entire universe will work to maintain this point stable (just like a top will wobble or precess against a disturbance). One can imagine various mechanisms which could act to stabilize the earth. If there is a huge volcanic eruption, and 0.001% of earth's mass is blown into the atmosphere and lands on the other side of the earth, how much would the universe have to rearrange itself to accomodate this? Undetectably.
Let us finish up by looking at more mechanistic explanations. These are more speculative, but interesting to consider. Usually, geocentrists (much like quantam mechanicists today) bring back the possibility of an aether to explain a geocentric universe. Many people believe aether was disproven, but, just like geocentrism, this is not true. As I have stated, in quantam mechanics, the aether is being brought back by many researchers. Also, the concept of dark matter and dark energy are an aether under different names. Note that though GR does not posit aether, and Einstein rejected it, this does not mean aether is incompatible with GR. Many researchers into Le Sagean gravity and graviton type models have shown that some relativistic effects (such as frame dragging) can be explained with aether type theories. See for instance the book Pushing Gravity, edited by Edward R. Matthews. Let us leave this at this.
The proposed substance of the aether is the Planck particle. This is the substance proposed by some quantam mechanicists. These particles have a diameter of 1.6x10^-35 m and a mass of 2.2x10^-8 kg. The density is a whopping 5x10^96 kg per cubic-centimeter (some quantam mechanicists refer to Planck particles as "micro-black holes")! Now if the stars, planets, etc. are rotating in this dense medium, then really, the relative motion between the stars, galaxies, etc., and the aether is very small (i.e., local motion). Within this rotating aether, planets can orbit stars, galaxies can rotate, etc. This is allowed because the de Broglie wavelength (i.e., particle-wave duality) of normal matter (baryonic matter) is 10's of orders of magnitude different than Planck particles (non-baryonic matter), and thus there is little or no direct interaction between them. Thus in the modern Tychonic system, the sun can revolve with the universe around the earth, and the planets orbit the sun with Keplerian type orbits.
The aether becomes a rotating frame of reference. Depending on the property of the aether, light and gravity can be transmitted through the aether. This can lead to a speed of light of "c' and almost instantaneous gravitational reaction over large distances (i.e., no "action at a distance" problem like Newtonian theory and relativity). Also, a Le Sagean corpuscular gravitational mechanism could be introduced.
This is the end of Part II. The next discussion will be regarding Church statements and Scripture in the case of geocentrism.
Mark Wyatt
August 3rd, 2005
Acknowledgements: The material presented here is a summary of research firstly based on the dialogues of Robert Sungenis, as well as correspondence with him. Also, the works of other geocentric researchers (esp. Gerardus Buow, Walter Van Der Kamp) were consulted. The details were discussed, debated, etc. with scientists in various forums. Additional research was carried out within scientific literature and on the internet to better understand the underlying physics. Robert Sungenis and Dr. Robert Bennett are writing the book, "Galileo was Wrong", due out this year (2005), which should provide far greater detail than this introduction.
----------------------------------------------------------
Review of Part I
In part I, we discussed the basic principles of geocentrism. We discussed coordinate systems, and briefly touched upon relative motions within the cosmos. Part I basically stated that one could perform a coordinate transformation to any point in space and as long as one had a map of relative motions and observations of heavenly bodies from the originating coordinate system, one could map out what those motions and observations would appear to be in a new coordinate system. For this reason one could simulate what the motions of the solar system looked like from the sun's perspective (this is called heliocentrism). One could also map out what those motions looked like from the earth (i.e., geocentrism). Of course one could choose Mars, a specific asteoid, etc. It was also pointed out that all the observations made by man up to the space age were basically equivalent to earth based observations. This means that the motions of the planets, moon(s), asteroids, comets were geocentric observations. This means that the phases of Jupiter's moons, phases of Venus, parallax, abberation, etc. were geocentric observations. It is in fact impossible to differentiate between geocentrism and any other proposed center (i.e, heliocentrism, acentrism) based on observations. George Ellis, a cosmologist in Cape Town, South Africa made this point in a Scientific American article:
“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,...For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”.
W. Wayt Gibbs, "Profile: George F. R. Ellis," Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55.
Finally, it was proposed that the real issue for geocentrists (and heliocentrists and acentrists, etc.) is to propose a physical model that accounts for the observations. It was put forth that Einstein's General Relativity states that there are no preferred reference frames in the universe. In other words, one can choose any point in space and consistently describe not only the motions and observations, but the actual forces in the universe from the chosen point. A series of quotations from Einstein and other scientists to this effect were presented in relation to geocentrism. It was not claimed that this proves geocentrism.
----------------------------------------------------------
First let us discuss briefly physical theories. Many physical theories are approximate and empirical. An example is Newtonian mechanics, especially Newtonian gravitation. With the example of gravitation in mind, it can be stated that Newtonian theory has no physical explanation for gravity. Yet it does tend to work, at least for most cases we have yet enountered . An example of a more descriptive physical theory for gravitation is Le Sage's corpuscular theories (and related theories, i.e., graviton theories, etc.) . While Newton relates the gravitational attraction of two objects to the masses and the inverse square of the distances, Le Sagean theory relates the attraction to a sea of proposed corpuscles moving at very high velocites through space. The corpuscles impinge upon objects equally on all sides, except where a second object blocks the first. Where the objects interfere, there is less corpuscular "pressure", thus the objects move towards one another. Interestingly, within reasonable limits, the equations for Le Sagean gravitation reduce to Newton's equations for gravity. I will call the less descriptive type of theory "empirical" and the more descriptive theories "mechanistic".
Probably the most used theory in general cosmology today is Einstein's General Relativty (GR). Though it is considered a very powerful theory, it is in fact empirical, especially in its treatment of gravity. GR's treatment of gravity can be viewed as geometric. In the geometric interpretation, gravity is imagined to be a distortion of an underlying grid. Space is represented as distorted by massive objects. The idea is that as other objects approach, they will "roll down the distortion". Of course there is still a force implied, otherwise why would an object feel the need to "roll down"? So this is just a way of representing gravity. Ultimately, in fairly static space-time (i.e., such as our solar system represented as heliocentric), the gravity in Einstein's General relativity will reduce to Newtonian gravity (much like in the case of Le Sage's gravity). Empirical theories are probably the most used today, because it is not necassary to elucidate all the details (of gravity for instance). As long as the theory is valid, and for practical problems this is acceptable.
Let us start by viewing geocentrism from the perspective of GR. After a general description within GR, we can see what explanations have been proposed for rotating universes. Then we can briefly discuss some more mechanistic possibilities.
One may ask 'if no one believes in geocentrism, why would they model a rotating universe with earth at the center?'. Well first some researchers may be open to geocentrism. Secondly, researchers want to validate the principles of GR. One of the principles is that there are "no preferred reference frames" in the universe. This means that we can pick any center, make a coordinate transformation to that center and describe the universe from that point. It means that the interactions of all the gravitational attractions and other forces in the universe will balance in such a way that the center we picked will physically act as the center. This means that if we pick a fixed earth (non-rotating, non-translating) then all the forces in the universe will act in such a way that when we solve the Einsteinian equations, we will find that there will be a balance of forces in the universe that will include the features of:
1. A rotating universe
2. An earth (or other chosen center) fixed in the center
3. Forces opposing the rotation of the center.
4. All observations in the universe will be consistent with observations from solutions at a different center.
I.e., if we chose earth as center, and we currently believe the earth is rotating, and we are able to describe the motions of geosynchronous satellites from the rotating earth perspective (or say from a fixed sun perspective), and we reformulated Einstein's equations on a fixed earth, there must exist analgous forces causing the same observations of geosynchronous satellites. If not, then GR is incorrect. This is one reason why relativists create models of rotating universes on a fixed earth. They want to demonstrate that GR produces forces analogous to what we observe in our presumed rotating earth universe. This principle is called the "strong" principle of relativity. Neither Newtonian theory nor Einstein's Special Relativity have the strong principle.
Let's start with a related example. Gron and Erikson gave an example of an observer seeing the earth from the surface of the moon. Now from this location, the earth appears to be rotating below the moon. It is just hanging in space and turning. Why does the moon not fall to the earth? They explain that the reason is because we had neglected to include the rest of the universe in the picture! They, and GR, are proposing the universe is Machian (after Ernst Mach of Mach Number fame). Mach proposed that every object in the universe is attracted to every other object. He proposed that inertia is due to resistance of movement of an object to all the other objects in the universe. Like Leibniz, he proposed that space was really not something, but rather just a relationship between objects in the universe.
But what is the relationship between the rest of the objects in the universe and our coordinate system (i.e., fixed moon)? Well the rest of the universe (cosmic mass) is rotating around this coordinate system (and thus around the earth and moon). Somehow this rotating universe is creating forces which [from our coordinate system's perspective] keep the earth from falling to the moon. Gron and Erikson (General Relativity and Gravitation) explain it in this quote:
"...we consider the Moon orbiting the Earth. As seen by an observer on the Moon, both the Moon and the Earth are at rest. If the observer solves Einstein’s field equations for the vacuum space-time outside the Earth, he might come up with the Schwarzchild solution and conclude that the Moon should fall toward the Earth, which it does not. So it seems impossible to consider the Moon at rest, which would imply that the strong principle of relativity is not valid.
This problem has the following solution. As observed from the Moon the cosmic mass rotates. The rotating cosmic mass has to be included when the Moon observer solves Einstein’s field equations. Doing this he finds that the rotating cosmic mass induces the rotational non-tidal gravitational field which is interpreted as the centrifugal field in Newtonian theory. This field explains to him why the Moon does not fall toward the Earth."
But, one objects, we know why the moon does not fall to the earth. It is because the moon is orbiting the earth and rotating... This is true from the perspective of a coordinate system fixed say on the north pole of the earth and allowing the earth to rotate around it. In this case the cosmic masses are not rotating, and their influence is less (but not zero, inertia still exists). This is the realm of Newtonian mechanics and Special relativity. This is the key to GR- it is Machian. One can pick any center and reformulate the entire universe from the perspective of this center and consistently describe the universe. In fact per GR there is no reality beyond a perspective. This is a philosophical position. Actually doing this (modelling the entire universe) is difficult, but this is the principle that GR is built upon. If it turned out that there actually were a center to the universe, then it is still possible that the GR solution to this center's perspective is valid. All other solutions (i.e., for other centers) would be considered hypothetical ones considering the other centers as candidate centers. If we found a portal to a known fixed reference outside the universe, and knew we could spend a limited amount of time there (I.e., if God granted us this), our best bet would be to solve Einstein's GR equations for a number of candidate centers. Then we could go to this observation post, and see which one most accurately describes the observed universe. Of course we cannot do this.
Let us look at an example dealing specifically with the earth. Rosser treats an observer (O') on earth with earth as the center (earth functions as a "roundabout"), and describes why there is no issue with the stars moving greater than the speed of light. He then points out that when the rotating roundabout (i.e., the rotating earth) is treated as being at rest (ie., fixed earth, also the "stationary roundabout"), the forces from the rotating cosmic masses become huge, and create the forces (which for instance keep geosynchronous satellites apparently hovering above the fixed earth) which hold the earth fixed against a rotating universe.
"Relative to the stationary roundabout [the Earth], the distant stars would have a velocity rw [radius x angular velocity] and for sufficiently large values of r, the stars would be moving relative to O' [the observer] with linear velocities exceeding 3 x 10^8 m/sec, the terrestrial value of the velocity of light. At first sight this appears to be a contradiction…that the velocities of all material bodies must be less than c [the speed of light]. However, the restriction u [less than] c = 3 x 10^8 m/sec is restricted to the theory of Special Relativity. According to the General theory, it is possible to choose local reference frames in which, over a limited volume of space, there is no gravitational field, and relative to such a reference frame the velocity of light is equal to c . However, this is not true when gravitational fields are present. In addition to the lengths of rods and the rates of clocks the velocity of light is affected by a gravitational field. If gravitational fields are present the velocities of either material bodies or of light can assume any numerical value depending on the strength of the gravitational field. If one considers the rotating roundabout as being at rest, the centrifugal gravitational field assumes enormous values at large distances, and it is consistent with the theory of General Relativity for the velocities of distant bodies to exceed 3 x 10^8 m/sec under these conditions." (An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity, W. G. V. Rosser, London, Butterworths, 1964, p. 460)
As an aside, I want to briefly touch on the issue of fixed light speed (3X10^8 m/s, or 300,000,000 m/s). GR does not have a specific limitation on the speed of light. Special Relativity states it is fixed everywhere. GR does reduce to special relativity in regions of space-time which are flat (i.e., no gravity). In these instances GR may have a limitation on speed. The reason GR cannot have a general limitation on the speed of light is illustrated in this amusing example:
(Math Pages)
"The moon revolves round my head faster than light!
Stand up in a clear space and spin round. It is not too difficult to turn at one revolution each two seconds. Suppose the moon is on the horizon. How fast is it spinning round your head? It is about 385,000 km away so the answer is 1.21 million km/s, which is more than four times the speed of light! It sounds ridiculous to say that the moon is going round your head when really it is you who is turning, but according to general relativity all co-ordinate systems are equally valid including revolving ones. So isn't the moon going faster than the speed of light? This is quite difficult to account for.
What it comes down to, is the fact that velocities in different places cannot be directly compared in general relativity. Notice that the moon is not overtaking the light in its own locality. The velocity of the moon can only be compared to the velocity relative to other objects in its own local inertial frame. Indeed, the concept of velocity is not a very useful one in general relativity and this makes it difficult to define what "faster than light" means. Even the statement that "the speed of light is constant" is open to interpretation in general relativity. Einstein himself in his book "Relativity: the special and the general theory" said that the statement cannot claim unlimited validity (pg 76). When there is no absolute definition of time and distance it is not so clear how speeds should be determined.
Nevertheless, the modern interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general relativity and this statement is a tautology given that standard units of distance and time are related by the speed of light. The moon is given to be moving slower than light because it remains within the future light cone propagating from its position at any instant."
Now, we have demonstrated that GR can be used to make a reasonable case for a fixed earth at the center of a rotating universe. One may ask, 'what are the mechanisms that actually allow this to occur'? Misner, Wheeler and Thorne in Gravitation (pp. 1117-1119) modeled the general case of gyroscopic motion with gravitation in the post-Newtonian limit (which can be interpreted as a rotating universe as having gyroscopic stability). They conclude that the gyroscope (rotating universe) maintains the center of mass (the earth in geocentrism) from rotating or translating. This is much like a top. If a top is disturbed forces react to the disturbance to maintain the position of the center of mass. In the case of a geocentric universe, the universe will react to maintain its center. This means the entire power of the universe will be used to maintain earth at its center.
Many people ask 'what constitutes the earth'? Is it just the surface? Is it the solid ball? Does it include the atmosphere? Really the question is no different in geocentrism then it is in heliocentrism or acentrism. It really depends on what we are looking at. In terms of gyroscopic stabilization, the universe will try and stabilize its center. If the earth is at center, it will be stabilized. Though the center of mass is mathematically a point, the action of the entire universe will work to maintain this point stable (just like a top will wobble or precess against a disturbance). One can imagine various mechanisms which could act to stabilize the earth. If there is a huge volcanic eruption, and 0.001% of earth's mass is blown into the atmosphere and lands on the other side of the earth, how much would the universe have to rearrange itself to accomodate this? Undetectably.
Let us finish up by looking at more mechanistic explanations. These are more speculative, but interesting to consider. Usually, geocentrists (much like quantam mechanicists today) bring back the possibility of an aether to explain a geocentric universe. Many people believe aether was disproven, but, just like geocentrism, this is not true. As I have stated, in quantam mechanics, the aether is being brought back by many researchers. Also, the concept of dark matter and dark energy are an aether under different names. Note that though GR does not posit aether, and Einstein rejected it, this does not mean aether is incompatible with GR. Many researchers into Le Sagean gravity and graviton type models have shown that some relativistic effects (such as frame dragging) can be explained with aether type theories. See for instance the book Pushing Gravity, edited by Edward R. Matthews. Let us leave this at this.
The proposed substance of the aether is the Planck particle. This is the substance proposed by some quantam mechanicists. These particles have a diameter of 1.6x10^-35 m and a mass of 2.2x10^-8 kg. The density is a whopping 5x10^96 kg per cubic-centimeter (some quantam mechanicists refer to Planck particles as "micro-black holes")! Now if the stars, planets, etc. are rotating in this dense medium, then really, the relative motion between the stars, galaxies, etc., and the aether is very small (i.e., local motion). Within this rotating aether, planets can orbit stars, galaxies can rotate, etc. This is allowed because the de Broglie wavelength (i.e., particle-wave duality) of normal matter (baryonic matter) is 10's of orders of magnitude different than Planck particles (non-baryonic matter), and thus there is little or no direct interaction between them. Thus in the modern Tychonic system, the sun can revolve with the universe around the earth, and the planets orbit the sun with Keplerian type orbits.
The aether becomes a rotating frame of reference. Depending on the property of the aether, light and gravity can be transmitted through the aether. This can lead to a speed of light of "c' and almost instantaneous gravitational reaction over large distances (i.e., no "action at a distance" problem like Newtonian theory and relativity). Also, a Le Sagean corpuscular gravitational mechanism could be introduced.
This is the end of Part II. The next discussion will be regarding Church statements and Scripture in the case of geocentrism.
posted by Mark Wyatt at Saturday, August 06, 2005
24 Comments:
I'm don't think your comment on Einstein's theory of relativity is correct. You state that if you, "Stand up in a clear space and spin round" at night, that the moon moves at, "1.21 million km/s." Much faster than the speed of light. I think you're misinterpreting the experiment and the concept of "sight". The expirement commonly cited (one man stands and looks at another man speeding past in a space ship) is a thought experiment and does not outline all the laws of his theory. Second, the concept of "human sight" and "sight" as defined in the expirement is completly different- although a person may turn around, the object has not rotated 180 degrees. You have to think about the two objects as cylinders, although one may rotate, the angle that one "looks" at another stays the same, because there is not one place on the object where and object can observe the other.
With that logic, then I can affirm that Mars is the center of the universe, or Jupiter, or whatever point you want, and the new CS will be still valid, and all the assumptions will be correct.
Many people say that The Earth moves around itself in 24 hours. Circumference of The Earth is around 40 000 km (on the equator).
So velocity of any point on The Earth's equator is cca 40 000 km/24 h, that is, around 1667 km/h(!) or 463 m/s(!).
Does the above velocity of The Earth make sense?
Ask yourself dear reader: can anyone stand still or walk on a running belt moving at speed of almost 500 m/s?!
Wouldn't everyone very well notice his standing or walking on a running belt moving at speed of 5 m/s, let alone 500 m/s or almost 1700 km/h (cca 5 times faster than the fastest racing car on The Earth)?! No one would be able even to stand let alone walk at such a speed.
The Earth is well approximated to a running belt because it looks plain due to its huge radius in comparison to man.
It is unbelievable how anyone with use of the reason could not understand such a simple proof against rotation of The Earth, believe in such a nonsense as the alleged rotation of The Earth is and consider himself rational. This claim that The Earth moves around itself, this is not a science, this is an unbelievably audacious and insane lie, false ideology and false religion.
No experiment can prove such a lie. Thus if they are interpreted as proofs that The Earth moves their interpretation is obviously false.
Thus what The Church, The Scripture, popes and Church Fathers has always taught turns out to be the truth and science. Also turns out that there is no conflict between The Church and science but only between The Church and false science (no science) and between science and false science (no science).
The argument above is flawed: in the case of ideal motion with constant speed there is no force no matter how big the speed is.
But since God and The Church cannot err there must be some true argument against rotation of The Earth around itself. Here it is: galileo-rout.blogspot.com.
Hello Sir,
I wish to inform that the Ancient Indians derived their Cosmic principles from their 27 Stellar covered Cosmos in the form of an Egg!Inside of the hallow space of the Egg-shaped sphere covered with the fixed and integrated for of the stellar all the other planets are positioned in the hallow space of the egg sphere between the stellar and the Earth which is found to be at the center of the Sphere! All the Planets having their movements along and parallel to the fixed and the integrated form of the Stellar due to their eccentric placement and the earth is kept at the center of the cosmos due to the energy released by the outer most layer of the Stellar in the Cosmos! This is in response to your blog basic Science! And for more details kindly log on www.swamycosmology.wordpress.com
With regards,
R.Swaminathan
I'm sorry... but all this is must be a joke, isn't it?
GEOCENTRISM IS BOMBAGE!!!! and jh no it's totally true. As a research student i've invested hours into this subject and came up with ideas that can only prove this phenomenon to be realistic and correct.
Until the recent times (from 16th/17th century onwards) vast majority of scientists and people in general rejected Heliocentrism as false.
Otherwise we wouldn't hear the men of recent times calling Heliocentrism of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton and others who followed them “a revolution in science”.
Note that Heliocentrism isn't a modern scientific discovery as many people wrongly think but an old theory well-known to scientists for more than 2000 years and was still rejected by them until the “revolution in science”.
Obviously, scientists wouldn't dare to reject something without indisputable proof against it.
So what could be the proof that led those scientists (especially astronomers) to reject Heliocentrism for more than 2000 years until the “revolution in science”?
(continued below)
The Earth is said to rotate around itself counterclockwise. The Moon orbits around The Earth in the same direction, counterclockwise.
Average velocity of The Moon in its orbit around The Earth is around 1022 m/s and due to it The Moon orbits The Earth in 27.3 days.
Velocity of supposed rotation of The Earth around itself at the equator must be approximately 463 m/s (approximately 40 000 km in 24 hours);
It is obvious that in case The Earth rotates around itself everyone at the equator* would see and measure almost 50% slower orbit of The Moon around The Earth than it is (average velocity of 559 m/s (1022 m/s - 463 m/s) instead of 1022 m/s).
Which would necessarily give almost twice longer period of The Moon's orbit around The Earth to be expected i.e. 49.9 days or more than 3 weeks(!) longer period than it is.
* - on different geographical latitudes (bigger and smaller parallel circles around The Earth) there would necessarily be different velocities due to The Earth's rotation around itself;
thus there would necessarily be seen and measured different visible average velocities of The Moon's orbit around The Earth and necessarily calculated different values(!) for expected period of The Moon's orbit around The Earth for different geographical latitudes
However, after 27.3 days everyone would see that The Moon has made full circle in the sky and around The Earth so that the calculation according to visible orbit of The Moon around The Earth is mathematically correct but doesn't correspond to the real orbit of The Moon around The Earth.
And that would be a clear proof that The Earth rotates around itself. But nothing like that happens in reality: the expected period of The Moon's orbit around The Earth is equal to the real period and it is equal on all geographical latitudes.
(continued below)
Thus (see above) it is proved that there is no rotation of The Earth around itself.
From this necessarily follows that then The Sun must orbit The Earth (please note that this is exactly what we see and thus is not an illusion (as we are told)!) as Geocentrism says.
And from this necessarily follows that The Earth doesn't orbit The Sun but is absolutely stationary.
Since all modern theories (heliocentrism, the center of mass (barycenter) i.e. acentrism etc.) are based on rotation of The Earth around itself (and around The Sun) it is clear that they are all resoundingly false, successful coordinate transformations notwithstanding.
No wonder that seeing something like the proof above virtually all scientists before 17th century rejected Heliocentrism.
How come that this proof hasn't been seen from 17th century onwards? Because from Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton on vast majority of men dealing with science are no scientists but revolutionaries and rebels at war with the truth and with science.
If there is an error in the above argument regarding The Moon's orbit around The Earth it must be demonstrable.
If anyone demonstrates it here then the argument proves nothing and I will apologize.
If no one demonstrates it here then Heliocentrism, Acentrism (the center of mass, Barycenter) etc. are all proven wrong and Geocentrism is proven right and those who support Heliocentrism have to apologize for insults (if committed them) towards all those who support Geocentrism.
Well said, John.
The argument against rotation of The Earth around itself is flawed.
I am in search for the proof explaining why "The geocentric model was nearly universally accepted until 1543" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_revolution#New_ideas) i.e. why for more than 2 000 years(!!) nearly all scientists rejected Heliocentrism.
I would like to know how annual seasons occur in a geocentric model. Thanks.
Louis
Louis, annual seasons change because The Sun moves up and down the ecliptic (reaches the highest point on 21st, 22nd of June and the lowest point on 21, 22nd of December) in addition to its daily motion around The Earth that is parallel to the Earth's equator.
So there are two real motions of The Sun. It is similar with The Moon and with the other planets.
Now everyone can see on galileo-rout.blogspot.com why Heliocentric construction of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and their followers is logically untenable and thus necessarily unreasonable and unscientific.
That could easily be the reason I was searching for why nearly all scientists (astronomers before all) before 16th, 17th century AD rejected Heliocentrism as certain falsity.
hey John
Have you ever been on a fast train and moved yourself forward and backward, the only time you really notice the speed is when the train is speeding up or slowing down. A constant velocity of 1667 KM/hr would not even be noticeable unless you had a reference point.
Things in space just move fast, that is just reality, enjoy the ride.
Instaed of a train let's consider an airplane, let make the model a Concorde. This particular airplane moved even faster then the rotation of earth and yet people could eat onboard, go to the toilet, read or whatever els they wanted.
Now if the plane all of a sudden came to a sudden halt, for example by hitting a brick wall, yet leaving the airplane intact I strongly doubt the passengers would be appriciative to come to this sudden stop. Even if in your point of view they are no longer moving. People would for example be far to busy, beeing cut in half by their seatbelts or trying to go through the seat in front of them, to go to the toilet or read a paper.
If you could try to attain video videofootage of you disproving this I belive the world would be a better place and I would no longer dispute your claims.
For the second part about the moon you have no concept of what you're talking about. The speed of the moon as seen from earth have no real relation to your absolute speed but rather you rotational velocity. It matters little if you're standing on the equator moving some 500m/s or at the north pole where you're not moving at all ... or that's not true, but I'll get to that later.
What matters here is your rotation in radians/sec or degrees/sec and this would be the same regardless of where on earth you're standing.
Earth rotates around its own axis once every 23 hours 56 minutes and 4.09 seconds. The hour is divided into 60 minutes and the minute into 60 seconds giving a rotation a total of 86164.09 seconds. A circle is made up of 360 degrees. If you rotate 360 degrees in 24 hours you will have a rotational speed of 360/86168.09 = 0.004178 degrees/sec.
So regardless if you're moving at the speed of 500m/s or 0m/s you rotate roughly 0.004 degrees per second, this figure is known as Diurnal motion and you can look it up if you wish. It's esential to take this into account when taking photos of stars or other distant objects that require a long exposure.
You said earlier that you belive earths rotation is causing us to move very fast. Well, consider this ...
I claim that the earth rotates around the sun, a distance of about 939.964.522km, once every year. This would give us a speed of roughly 29,78km/s and yet this is nothing.
I also claim that our solarsystem revolves around the milky way, at a distance of about 33.000 lightyears, once every 250 million years. This would casue us to move about 250km/s.
The milky way is part of a group of 54 other galaxies known as the local group. This group has a diameter of 10 million lightyears, but since we're fairly close to the gravitational center of this group (located somewhere between the Milky Way and Andromeda) we only move about 250km/s due to it's rotation.
The local group is in turn part of a larger group called the Virgo supercluster consisting of roughly 100 galaxy groups and have a diameter of 100-150 million lightyears. In relation to the center of this cluster the local group moves at a speed of about 450km/s.
To make matters even worse the Virgo supercluster is a part of something commonly refered to as the Pisces-Cetus filament which is about 1 billion lightyears across. The Virgo supercluster is located on the outskirts of this filament so it can only be assumed that it makes us move at a tremendous speed, but because of the tremendous distances involved and the relatively short time we've had to observe it (it was discovered in 1987) we're not sure of our relative speed compared to the center of this filament. However, I'm sure it's a few thousand km/s.
Now, if you didn't think this was bad enough it turns out the filament might be part of something named the Centaurus wall, thay'll know more in a thousand years when they've had a chance to study it a bit.
And in all this it is suggested that all of the universe have a common gravitational center ... wow this is spinning out of control.
Anyways, now add all these numbers together and see what kind of differance the 465.1m/s rotation matters in the grand scheme of things ... I don't really think you understand what you're debating about, but good luck with that god of yours and we'll see what good he does you in 7 billion years when the Andromeda galaxy comes crashing into the Milky Way.
For those talking about the "constant speed" of earth's rotation- this is an acceleration, not a constant velocity. A=V^2/R. Anything changing directions is accelerating, even if moving at constant angular speed. The argument for not feeling it is that R is very large.
See what God created at:
https://sites.google.com/
site/earthbiblical.
Read the attachments.
To see what God created, visit: https://sites.google.com/site/earthbiblical.
Be sure to read the attachments.
I have absolute proof that the solar system does not exist.
The following verse is Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
Are those words true? Do you believe them?
Then it is the men of so-called science that are wrong, and their solar system does not exist.
God created Heaven and Earth. He knows exactly how it came into existence. He described it to us richly in chapter one of Genesis and throughout the Bible.
God is right. The scientists are wrong. It's that simple.
To see what God created, visit: https://sites.google.com/site/earthbiblical.
Geocentrics: Ideas!
Heliocentrics: Science.
Geocentrics: God!
Heliocentrics: Hard Facts w/proof.
Geocentrics: Insults w/no proof!!!
Heliocentrics: Please open your mind.
Geocentrics: BIBLE!!!
Hi There, I just spent a little time reading through your posts. Please continue to write more because it’s unusual that someone has something interesting to say about this. Will be waiting for more!
Square and Stationary Earth Map
Post a Comment
<< Home